Recovery of tainted currency cannot substitute for proof of demand for illegal gratification.

The appellant, a Record Keeper/UDC in the Sub-Registrar’s office, was accused of demanding ₹1,500 from Jagdish Prasad for supplying a certified copy of a property record.

After Prasad complained to the Anti-Corruption Branch, a trap was conducted; three treated ₹500 notes were recovered from the appellant, and his hand-wash tested positive for phenolphthalein.

Prasad died before giving evidence at trial.

The panch witness, PW-5, supported the pre-trap and recovery proceedings but testified that he could not hear the conversation or say whether a demand was made.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; he appealed, principally challenging proof of demand.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the foundational fact of demand of illegal gratification, despite the complainant’s death and the panch witness’s inability to confirm that a demand was made?

Whether recovery of the treated currency and the positive hand-wash, without proof of demand, could sustain the convictions or trigger the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act?

Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act require proof of the essential ingredients of the charged offences, including demand of illegal gratification; recovery of tainted currency or chemical evidence of contact cannot, by itself, replace proof of demand.

Under Section 20, the statutory presumption cannot supply the foundational fact of demand and arises only in accordance with the statutory requirements.

Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731, establishes that demand may be proved by circumstantial evidence where direct evidence is unavailable, provided the circumstances establish it beyond reasonable doubt.

P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, (2015) 10 SCC 152, holds that proof of demand is indispensable and mere acceptance or recovery, without such proof, is insufficient to sustain conviction.

A hostile witness’s testimony is not erased and may be relied upon to the extent credible and corroborated, but a prior statement to police is not substantive evidence merely because the witness admits making it.

The Court accepted that the matching currency notes were recovered from the appellant and that the positive hand-wash supported his contact with the treated money.

However, those circumstances established possession and handling, not the purpose for which the money was received.

The complainant’s complaint established that an allegation had been made, but, without his substantive testimony, did not prove the truth of its contents.

PW-5 could not confirm a demand, and the Raid Officer was not present during the conversation.

The unverified property-record application and discrepancy in its date added uncertainty, though neither was independently decisive.

Consequently, the evidence did not establish demand beyond reasonable doubt, and Section 20 could not cure that deficiency.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, and acquitted Om Prakash Chopra of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.

Bail bonds were discharged, and any deposited fine was to be dealt with in accordance with law.