Must an offer by the bribe-giver and a demand by the public servant both be proved to convict under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s.7 — s.13(1)(d) — s.13(2) — Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification — Public servant — Criminal misconduct — Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s.7, s.13(1)(d) — Demand of illegal gratification — Gravamen of the offence — Held: An offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 requires proof of the demand of illegal gratification as its gravamen. In its absence the charge would fail, and recovery of tainted money alone does not sustain a conviction. (¶13) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s.7, s.13(1)(d) — Offer and demand — Constitution Bench test — Held further: An offer by the bribe-giver and a demand by the public servant are both facts in issue. Each must be proved by the prosecution before a conviction can follow under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (¶14) Criminal Appeal — Conviction and sentence — Demand and acceptance not proved — On facts, held: Neither the demand for, nor the acceptance of, the bribe was proved by any witness present at the alleged transaction between the appellant and the informant. The conviction and sentence under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 could not be sustained and the appeal was allowed. (¶20, 21, 22, 23)