Proof of demand is sine qua non for conviction; mere recovery of money is insufficient.

The Complainant, Michael Masih, an Electrical Fitter, alleged that the Appellant (since deceased), while posted as Personnel Manager at West Chirimiri Colliery, demanded an illegal gratification of ₹5,000 to process a Provident Fund (PF) advance application of ₹2,50,000

Following a complaint to the CBI, a trap was organized on February 27, 2004, where the Appellant was apprehended after allegedly accepting the tainted currency

The Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act)

The Appellant’s defense maintained that the Complainant had thrust the money upon him, which he threw to the floor, and that no PF application was officially pending before him for processing

1. Whether the prosecution proved the "demand" of illegal gratification, a sine qua non for offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act

2. Whether the recovery of tainted currency notes, in the absence of proof of demand and voluntary acceptance, is sufficient to sustain a conviction

Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, asserting that the demand for illegal gratification is a mandatory prerequisite for conviction

The Court relied on the Supreme Court precedents in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. and P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P., which held that mere recovery of currency notes without proof of demand does not establish an offence

The principle from P. Somaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025) and N. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, stating that the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act can only be drawn after the prosecution proves both the demand and voluntary acceptance of the bribe

The Court found the prosecution's case regarding the "demand" of the bribe to be unsubstantiated by reliable evidence

It noted that the original PF application, which formed the basis of the alleged demand, was missing from official records; only a photocopy (Ex. P-8) was produced, and its official movement through the dispatch section was not verified

Testimony from the Senior Clerk (PW-4), dealing clerk (PW-7), and Mines Superintendent (PW-8) established that the application had never reached the Appellant's desk through the prescribed administrative channels

PW-8 testified that the mandatory endorsement required on such applications was absent on Ex. P-8

The Court observed that the Complainant’s testimony lacked independent corroboration and that the defense version—that the money was forced upon the Appellant—was plausible given the procedural discrepancies

Consequently, the Court held that since the demand was not proved, the recovery of money was insufficient to trigger the legal presumption of guilt

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The deceased Appellant was acquitted of all charges