Proof of demand and voluntary acceptance is sine qua non for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The State appealed an acquittal judgment dated 19.09.2013

The prosecution alleged that the accused, a Patwari, demanded a bribe of ₹3,000 from Nazakat Ali (PW-1) to enter a land mutation in favor of his mother, Jivnee

A trap was laid on 07.01.2012, during which the informant placed money on the accused's table

While the accused's hand-wash turned pink, demonstrating he handled the currency, the money was found on a file, not on his person

The accused contended that the mutation was already sanctioned on 23.12.2011—weeks before the alleged demand—and that he was asked by police to count the notes only after the trap, explaining the chemical reaction on his hands

1. Whether the prosecution proved the essential ingredients of "demand and acceptance" of illegal gratification beyond a reasonable doubt

2. Whether the findings of the Trial Court were perverse or based on a misreading of evidence justifying interference in an appeal against acquittal

3. Whether the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act can be triggered in the absence of proof of demand

Sections 7, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), 1988

Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) and P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P., which establish that the demand for a bribe is the sine qua non for an offence, and mere recovery of money is insufficient without proof of such demand

Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand and Tulasareddi v. State of Karnataka, holding that acquittal should not be disturbed if the Trial Court's view is "possible" and not "patently perverse"

Paritala Sudhakar v. State of Telangana, ruling that the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act does not apply if the foundational fact of "demand" is unproven

The Court observed that the informant (PW-1), shadow witness (PW-2), and recovery witnesses (PW-4 & PW-5) all turned hostile or admitted that the accused was not at his seat when the money was placed on the table

Crucially, revenue records (Ext. PW-13/J) revealed that the mutation work was already completed on 23.12.2011, establishing that no work was pending with the accused at the time of the alleged demand on 07.01.2012

Applying the principle from Suryabhan v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reasoned that a demand for a bribe for a task already performed is highly improbable

Furthermore, the witnesses consistently stated that the police directed the accused to count the recovered notes after the trap, which provided a logical explanation for his pink hand-wash

Consequently, the prosecution failed to establish the "demand" necessary to complete the chain of circumstances

It held that the Trial Court had taken a reasonable and possible view based on the evidence

It ruled that in the absence of a proven demand, the recovery of currency and the result of the chemical test were insufficient for conviction

The respondent was directed to furnish bail bonds under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.