Proof of Demand and Acceptance is Sine Qua Non for Conviction Under the Prevention of Corruption Act

The Accused, a Police Constable at Songadh Police Station, was alleged to have demanded ₹1,000 (settled at ₹800) from the complainant, Manjibhai Savjibhai Rehwar, as illegal gratification for "petrol expenses" related to a criminal case involving the complainant's father

On 12.09.2005, a trap was arranged by the ACB; the complainant handed over tainted currency notes to the Accused at a tea stall in Shihor

The amount was recovered from the Accused at a Government Rest House

The Trial Court acquitted the respondent on 31.03.2010, citing a lack of evidence regarding the "demand" and accepting the defense's explanation that the money was a repayment of a loan

The State appealed this acquittal.

1. Whether the prosecution proved the foundational facts of "demand" and "acceptance" of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt

2. Whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was perverse or based on a misreading of material evidence, warranting interference by the Appellate Court

The court primarily applied Sections 7, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which require proof of demand and acceptance as a sine qua non for conviction

It relied on the principles from Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) regarding the necessity of proving foundational facts before invoking the presumption under Section 20 of the Act

Further, the court followed Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka and P. Somaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which establish that in appeals against acquittal, the "double presumption" of innocence must be respected, and if two reasonable views are possible, the view favoring the accused should prevail

The High Court observed that the prosecution failed to provide details of the underlying criminal case that purportedly motivated the bribe

Crucially, the complainant's father—the primary target of the initial demand—was not examined

Regarding the trap, the shadow witness could not hear the phone conversation between the complainant and the Accused, failing to corroborate the "demand"

Additionally, the court noted the defense's plausible explanation supported by a medical certificate: the complainant’s mother was hospitalized during the period the Accused allegedly lent money to the family

As the foundational fact of "demand" remained unproven, the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act could not be triggered

The High Court found the Trial Court's view to be a "possible and reasonable" interpretation of the evidence

It held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of demand and voluntary acceptance beyond reasonable doubt, and the defense had successfully offered a probable explanation through the "loan repayment" theory

The bail bond of the Accused was cancelled