Proof of demand is mandatory; inconsistent recovery and absence of motive entitle accused to acquittal.

The Appellants, V.K. Datta (A1, Assistant Engineer) and Dinesh Garg (A2, Junior Engineer) of the Flood Control Department, were convicted by the Special Judge, Delhi, for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).

The prosecution alleged that on 20.09.1991, the Appellants demanded and accepted ₹900/- each from PW1 (a power of attorney holder for a contractor) to facilitate the release of pending bills.

PW1 lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB), leading to a trap where the tainted money was allegedly recovered from A1’s desk drawer and A2’s shirt pocket.

The Appellants contended that the case was a malicious fabrication because A2 had previously reported PW1 for poor work quality and cement pilferage (Ext. PW8/DA).

They further argued that no bills were pending for payment at the time of the alleged demand.

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

2. Whether the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act can be invoked in the absence of proof regarding the demand for a bribe.

The court primarily applied Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act regarding the bribery of public servants and criminal misconduct.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023), which mandates that proof of demand is a sine qua non for conviction, and mere recovery of money is insufficient.

Furthermore, the court invoked Section 114, Illustration (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding the drawing of an adverse inference when the prosecution withholds material witnesses.

The Court found the prosecution's narrative riddled with irreconcilable contradictions.

First, while PW1 alleged a demand at 10:15 AM at the Shastri Nagar office, the defense produced muster rolls (Ext. D1 and D2) showing the Appellants were on-site for inspections at that time, a fact not successfully disputed by the prosecution.

Second, the timeline of the FIR (registered at 11:15 AM) was deemed "practically impossible" given the distance PW1 had to travel and the administrative procedures required at the CBI office.

Third, the testimony of the recovery witness (PW3) contradicted PW1 and the shadow witness (PW4) regarding the location of the accused during the raid and the sequence of recovery.

Crucially, the Executive Engineer (PW5) testified that no payments were actually due to the contractor at the time of the trap, and for one project, the contractor actually owed the department money (a "minus bill"), thereby negating any motive for a bribe.

Finally, the Court drew an adverse inference against the prosecution for failing to examine 14 witnesses, including the actual contractor (CW14) and the officers who physically apprehended the accused.

Finding that the evidence was unsatisfactory and the trial court’s reliance upon it was erroneous, the High Court allowed the appeals.

The conviction and sentence were set aside, and both Appellants were acquitted of all charges.