In the case of State v. A. Parthiban, (2006) 11 SCC 473, the Supreme Court laid down the difference between S. 7 and S. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The SC held that every acceptance of illegal gratification, whether preceded by demand or not, would be covered under S.7 of the PC Act , but if the acceptance of an illegal gratification is in pursuance of demand by a public servant then it would also fall under S. 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. whereas, In the case of B.Jayaraj v. State of A.P, 2014 CrLJ 2433, the Supreme Court held that for convicting under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d), the SC held that proof of demand is sine qua non for the offence under S.7 and S.13(1)(d). From the Parthiban judgment, it can be inferred that only acceptance is required to be proved for conviction under Section 7, However, as per B.Jayaraj Judgment, both demand and acceptance is required to be proved. The first judgement is in contravention with the other judgement, however, the same has not been overruled. My query: Whether demand is mandatorily required to be proved for offence under Section 7, or conviction under S.7 can be sustained on mere acceptance of money. Responses will be appreciated.
