Recovery of tainted currency alone cannot sustain a corruption conviction without proof of demand and acceptance.

The appellant, the de facto complainant, alleged that Accused No. 1, the secretary of a village panchayat, demanded ₹10,000 to provide service-related documents concerning the complainant’s wife.

The prosecution alleged that, following the initial payment of ₹2,000, the complainant paid the remaining ₹8,000 to Accused No. 2 on Accused No. 1’s instructions; the police conducted a trap and recovered the money from Accused No. 2

The trial court acquitted Accused No. 1 of offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), read with Section 13(2), of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Accused No. 2 of an offence under Section 8, read with Section 13(2)

The complainant appealed against the acquittal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

1. Whether the prosecution proved that Accused No. 1 demanded and accepted illegal gratification in connection with the requested documents

2. Whether the trial court’s acquittal should be set aside in light of the evidence concerning the alleged payment and recovery

The charges arose under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), read with Section 13(2), and Section 8, read with Section 13(2), of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

The court’s reasoning proceeded on the requirement that the prosecution prove the alleged demand and acceptance of illegal gratification; proof of recovery alone did not establish those elements in this case

No precedent or separate statutory presumption was discussed in the judgment.

The court found that PW-1 testified to the alleged demand, but PW-2, the shadow witness, could not properly hear the conversation and did not see the alleged payment to Accused No. 2

Although independent evidence established recovery of the money from Accused No. 2 and the currency serial numbers matched those in the pre-trap record, the court held that this did not cure the failure to prove demand and acceptance

It therefore considered the acquittal proper and found it unnecessary to discuss the remaining witnesses

The criminal appeal was dismissed