Proof of demand is sine qua non for conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of PC Act.

The Appellant, a Police Constable (Naib-Court) at Tis Hazari Courts, was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹150 from PW4 on 26.07.1991 to return insurance papers and destroy traffic challan records belonging to PW10

A trap was laid by the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB), and the money was recovered from a register on the Appellant’s desk

The Trial Court convicted the Appellant on 30.10.2001 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988, sentencing him to one year of rigorous imprisonment

The Appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of lack of proof of demand, procedural illegalities in the raid, and non-application of mind in granting sanction

1. Whether the prosecution established the "demand" of illegal gratification, which is a sine qua non for an offence under the PC Act

2. Whether the sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the PC Act was validly granted

3. Whether the procedural conduct of the raid—conducted inside a courtroom during active proceedings without permission—vitiated the prosecution's case

The Court applied Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act regarding the bribery and criminal misconduct of public servants

the Constitution Bench decision in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023), establishing that proof of demand and acceptance is mandatory

Jayaraj v. State of A.P. (2014) and C. Sukumaran v. State of Kerala (2015) to affirm that demand is the sine qua non for conviction

the requirement of "application of mind" for valid sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act and the mandatory maintenance of Case Diaries under Section 172 of the Cr.P.C.

The Court found the testimony of the complainant (PW4) unreliable, as he shifted the blame for the initial demand to an unidentified third person in court, a detail missing from his original complaint

The panch witness (PW5) failed to corroborate any specific demand made at the time of the trap

the physical impossibility of a bribe being transacted "under the nose of the Magistrate" during active court proceedings without the Magistrate noticing or giving permission for the raid

Significant discrepancies were discovered in the Case Diary (CD) and FIR regarding the timing of the complaint and arrival at the scene (17:15 hrs vs 14:15 hrs), indicating potential fabrication

The Sanction Order (Ext. PW3/A) was found to be a mere photocopy of a "draft" with the word "draft" manually erased, signifying a total lack of independent application of mind by the Sanctioning Authority

It further held the sanction for prosecution to be invalid due to non-application of mind

the appeal was allowed, the judgment dated 30.10.2001 was set aside, and the Appellant was acquitted of all charges