In Brief
The appellant, a public servant, was convicted of accepting a bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act. She appealed, arguing the prosecution failed to prove the demand for gratification. The Court found that while circumstantial evidence can prove demand, the prosecution must still establish proof beyond reasonable doubt. The only witness to the alleged demand (PW-5) testified the appellant merely asked for documents and Rs.10,000 without explicitly stating this was a bribe. The complainant delayed registering the complaint by 8 days and failed to produce the original electricity meter application. The Court held these gaps made the prosecution's case doubtful and insufficient to establish the essential ingredient of demand for gratification. The conviction was set aside.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.