Proof of demand and consistent recovery evidence are essential prerequisites for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The appellant, a bailiff at the SDM office in Seelampur, was accused of demanding a ₹100 bribe from the complainant, Saleem Khan, to process an OBC certificate application filed in February 1998.

On May 8, 1998, a trap was laid by the Anti-Corruption Branch following a formal complaint.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant accepted the marked currency note at the complainant's residence and was subsequently apprehended with the money in his shirt pocket.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment.

The appellant challenged this on grounds of material inconsistencies and lack of proof regarding the demand and recovery.

1. Whether the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant were proven beyond reasonable doubt

2. Whether the recovery of the tainted currency note from the appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt

The court applied Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which criminalize the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by public servants.

It relied on the principle that proof of "demand" is the sine qua non for a conviction under these sections; recovery of money alone is insufficient without proving the initial demand.

The court cited State of Lokayuktha Police v. C.B. Nagaraj (2025) and Paritala Sudhakar v. State of Telangana (2025) to emphasize that the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act does not apply if the foundational fact of a demand is not established.

The court found the prosecution’s case regarding the "demand" to be highly suspect. Official records (Ex. PW-5/C) established that the complainant's application was only assigned to the appellant on the day of the raid, contradicting the complainant's claim of a long-standing demand.

The Court noted that the complainant made significant improvements in his testimony, such as alleging a negotiated bribe amount not mentioned in the original FIR.

Regarding recovery, the court identified a "material contradiction" between the witnesses: the complainant and the seizure memo stated the panch witness recovered the note, while the panch witness and the Raid Officer (PW-11) testified that the Raid Officer performed the recovery.

The court highlighted that PW-11’s oral testimony even contradicted the seizure memo he personally prepared.

The court noted that when the initial demand is suspicious, the legal chain for conviction is broken regardless of recovery.

Consequently, the court set aside the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, acquitting the appellant of all charges and discharging his surety.