Proof of demand is indispensable for conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

On January 5, 1995, Central Excise officials, including respondents A.K. Gaba and Alok Gupta, inspected M/s Amoli Ceraplast Ltd. and seized records without acknowledgment

The complainant alleged that the Superintendent, R.K. Srivastava, demanded a bribe of ₹80,000 for the return of these documents

A CBI trap was conducted on January 14, 1995, leading to the recovery of ₹60,000 from Srivastava’s bedroom and ₹20,000 from his brother’s jacket

The Trial Court convicted the respondents under Section 120-B of the IPC read with Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption (P.C.) Act, 1988

The High Court subsequently acquitted the respondents on May 27, 2019, citing a lack of evidence regarding demand and conspiracy

The State appealed this acquittal to the Supreme Court

1. Whether the prosecution proved the foundational requirements of "demand" and "acceptance" of illegal gratification against the respondents to sustain a conviction under the P.C. Act

2. Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the IPC among the respondents and the principal accused

3. Whether the High Court’s order of acquittal warranted interference under the limited scope of Article 136 of the Constitution

The Court applied Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988, alongside Section 120-B of the IPC

It relied on the principle that "demand" for a bribe is a sine qua non for conviction, as established in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. and P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police

The Court invoked Section 20 of the P.C. Act, noting that the presumption of guilt only arises after the proof of demand

Regarding conspiracy, it applied the "meeting of minds" doctrine from State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu and Esher Singh v. State of A.P.

Furthermore, it applied Section 114 Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act to draw an adverse inference for withholding material evidence, citing Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P.

it followed the criteria for reversing acquittals set in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka

The Supreme Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish the indispensable element of "demand" against the respondents, as material witnesses, including the complainant, turned hostile

The Court noted that mere recovery of money is insufficient for conviction if divorced from proof of demand

On the charge of conspiracy, the Court found no evidence of a prior agreement or "meeting of minds"; the mere presence of the respondents at the scene was insufficient to prove they were part of a criminal partnership with the main accused, R.K. Srivastava

The Court further criticized the prosecution for withholding a tape recorder allegedly containing the bribe demand, justifying an adverse inference against the State's case

Since the Trial Court's conviction was based on "presumptions and conjectures" rather than cogent evidence, the High Court’s decision to grant the benefit of doubt was deemed a plausible and reasonable view

It reaffirmed that an appellate court should not disturb an acquittal unless the findings are perverse or result in a miscarriage of justice

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s judgment was meticulous and did not warrant interference under Article 136

The appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh were dismissed