Proof of demand and acceptance triggers the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 20, Prevention of Corruption Act.

The appellant, a Malaria Inspector in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹500/- from PW4 (a dhaba owner) on 05.02.2003

The bribe was allegedly intended to prevent the prosecution of PW4 for maintaining unhygienic conditions at his establishment

Following a complaint (Ext. PW4/A), the CBI organized a trap where the appellant was apprehended after receiving chemically treated currency notes

The appellant's hand wash subsequently turned pink, and an audio recording of the transaction was obtained

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for three years

The appellant challenged this conviction, contending that there was no prior demand and that the shadow witness's testimony was inconsistent with the transcript

1. Whether the prosecution successfully established the foundational facts of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification to sustain a conviction under the PC Act

2. Whether the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act was attracted and if the appellant successfully rebutted said presumption

3. Whether the inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the defense evidence were sufficient to discredit the prosecution’s case

The court primarily applied Section 7 of the PC Act regarding public servants taking gratification other than legal remuneration and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) concerning criminal misconduct

It further relied on the mandatory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act, which stipulates that once the acceptance of gratification is proved, it shall be presumed—unless the contrary is proved—that the gratification was accepted as a motive or reward for an official act

The court also adhered to the appellate standards under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C.

The Court found that the testimony of the complainant (PW4), corroborated by the shadow witness (PW2) and the recovery witness (PW3), clearly established the demand and acceptance of the bribe

The scientific evidence from the CFSL (PW8) confirmed that the voice in the trap recording matched the appellant's specimen, further strengthening the prosecution's case

Regarding the defense's argument that the transcript (Ext. PW2/G) did not explicitly show a demand, the Court held that the oral testimonies and the circumstances of the trap were sufficient to prove the "foundational facts"

Once these facts were established, the burden shifted to the appellant under Section 20 of the PC Act to disprove the corrupt intent

The Court noted that the defense witnesses (DW1 and DW2), who claimed the complainant tried to extort money from the appellant post-trap, actually reinforced the fact that the interaction took place, thereby substantiating rather than rebutting the prosecution's narrative

Minor inconsistencies in testimonies were dismissed as immaterial to the core allegations

The Court found no infirmity in the Trial Court’s judgment and held that the appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court were upheld