Proof of demand and acceptance under the Prevention of Corruption Act may be established through circumstantial evidence.

The Appellant, a Junior Clerk at Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB), was accused of demanding a bribe of ₹1,000 (later reduced to ₹500) from the complainant, Abdul Hamid, a retired Head Constable, for issuing a No Objection Certificate (NOC)

On December 23, 1998, a trap was organized by the Anti-Corruption Branch. The Appellant led the complainant to a fourth-floor terrace and instructed him to place the tainted currency notes inside an old register

While the notes were not recovered from the Appellant’s person, they were found in the register, and scientific tests (phenolphthalein) confirmed the transaction

The Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988

The Appellant challenged the conviction, citing lack of direct recovery and questioning the proof of demand

1. Whether the prosecution established the foundational facts of "demand" and "acceptance" of illegal gratification to sustain a conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act

2. Whether the recovery of tainted money from a third location (a register on a terrace) at the instance of the accused constitutes "constructive possession" and "obtainment"

3. Whether the Appellant's lack of official authority to issue the NOC absolves him of liability under the PC Act

The court applied Sections 7, 13(1)(d), and 20 of the PC Act, 1988.

It emphasized the principle from Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) that while demand and acceptance are sine qua non for conviction, they can be proved via circumstantial evidence even in the absence of direct oral evidence

It further relied on Sita Soren v. Union of India (2024) to clarify that the offence of bribery is complete upon the agreement or acceptance of the undue advantage, regardless of whether the public servant actually performs the official act or has the authority to do so

The court also distinguished the requirements of "possession," noting that physical recovery from the person is not mandatory if "constructive possession" is established

The Court found that although the Appellant did not physically touch the money, his conduct provided a conclusive chain of circumstances. He specifically asked the panch (independent) witness to stay behind and took the complainant to a secluded terrace where no official business was conducted

This tactical separation and the immediate recovery of treated notes from the exact spot where the Appellant directed the complainant to place them established "obtainment" through "constructive possession"

The Court rejected the defense that the Appellant could not issue the NOC, noting that Explanation 2 to Section 7 covers public servants who use their influence or position to solicit bribes for duties performed by any public servant

The Court found the complainant’s testimony consistent and noted the lack of any motive for false implication, thereby satisfying the "demand" requirement despite the Appellant's strategic attempts to avoid physical contact with the bribe

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction. The Court affirmed the sentences: 2 years RI and ₹5,000 fine under Section 7, and 3 years RI and ₹7,000 fine under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d), to run concurrently. The Appellant was ordered to surrender immediately to undergo the remaining sentence