Does an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 require proof of demand of illegal gratification as its gravamen?

Paragraph 13This Court in P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. State of A.P.[^1] held that proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act; in absence thereof, the charge would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under the aforesaid two sections of the PC Act. Therefore, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Sections 7 or 13 of the PC Act would not entail his conviction thereunder. This Court held thus: 23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder.