Demand and Acceptance Compared

Both must be proved, and they are not the same thing. Demand is the public servant's solicitation of an undue advantage; acceptance is his receipt of it. A demand without acceptance is an attempt, which Section 7 punishes in terms. An acceptance without a demand is equivocal, because money may be thrust upon a person or paid for another reason, and it does not by itself establish the offence. The statutory presumption in Section 20 attaches to acceptance, so a prosecution that proves neither loses both its primary case and the presumption.

1. The Comparison

Basis	Demand	Acceptance
What it is	The solicitation of an undue advantage by the public servant	The receipt of the advantage, or of an attempt to obtain it
Where it appears in the section	Not in terms; it is implied in obtains and in attempts to obtain, and the courts have treated it as an ingredient	Expressly, in the words obtains, accepts and attempts to obtain
Proof	By the complainant, by the shadow witness, by a verification recording, or by circumstantial evidence	By the recovery, the washes, the panch witnesses and the conduct of the accused
If proved alone	An attempt to obtain, which is itself an offence under Section 7	Equivocal; no offence is established without the connection to improper performance
Relation to the presumption	Not the foundational fact, but without it acceptance is rarely established	The foundational fact; once acceptance is proved, Section 20 operates
Typical attack	That the shadow witness could not hear, and that the complainant is unreliable	That the money was thrust on the accused, or paid for a lawful reason

2. Why Demand Is Treated as Indispensable

The reason is evidentiary rather than textual. A public servant may come into possession of money in many ways, most of them innocent, so proof of possession tells the court nothing about why he had it. A demand, by contrast, is unambiguous: a public servant who asks for money in connection with his official work has done the very thing the section is directed at. The courts have accordingly insisted on proof of demand, and have held that in its absence the presumption in Section 20 cannot be pressed into service, because the presumption presupposes an acceptance which itself must be established.

⚠ What Neeraj Dutta decided, and what it did not

It decided that demand and acceptance are facts in issue which must be proved, and that they may be proved by direct evidence or, where that is unavailable because the complainant is dead, unavailable or hostile, by circumstantial evidence. It did not decide that demand is dispensable, and it did not decide that recovery is sufficient. The change it made is about the species of evidence by which the fact may be established, not about whether the fact is required. An answer that cites the decision for the proposition that a conviction may rest on recovery alone misstates it.

3. The Four Situations

Demand proved, acceptance proved. The complete case. The presumption arises and the accused must rebut it on the preponderance of probabilities.
Demand proved, acceptance not proved. An attempt to obtain, which Section 7 covers in terms. This is the position where the officer demands and then declines to take the money, or where the trap fails.
Acceptance proved, demand not proved. The weakest case for the prosecution. Recovery and a positive wash establish that the accused handled the money, and the court must ask whether the remaining material excludes the innocent explanations. After Neeraj Dutta the inference of demand may be drawn from circumstances, but only where it is the only reasonable one.
Neither proved. Acquittal, whatever the recovery, because the foundational facts for the offence and for the presumption are absent.

4. Proving Each

Demand is proved by the complainant's evidence of the initial demand, by the shadow witness who overheard its repetition, by a recording made during verification, by the pending file or application which supplied the occasion, and by the conduct of the accused at the trap.
Acceptance is proved by the recovery, by the comparison of the numbers of the notes, by the hand and pocket washes, by the place from which the money was taken, and by the accused's conduct, including any attempt to conceal or dispose of the notes.
Both are strengthened by the same material, namely a contemporaneous record made before the trap, which is why the verification stage matters more than any other.

5. Related Topics and Provisions

Topic or provision	Connection
Section 7: Public Servant Being Bribed	The offence and its ingredients
Demand, Offer, Acceptance and Obtaining	The four conduct elements analysed
Trap Cases: A Practical Note	How each fact is established in practice
The Statutory Presumption: Section 20	What follows once acceptance is proved
Sections 7 and 20, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988	The provisions applied