Jaswinder Singh (Dead through LRs.) v. State of Punjab – Criminal Appeal No. 2137 of 2014 – 2026 INSC 1031 – September 22, 2026 – Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Palli
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2013/39943/39943_2013_15_1501_56250_Judgement_22-Sep-2026.pdf
A revenue official was prosecuted for demanding and accepting illegal gratification to sanction a land mutation entry, leading to a trap where tainted currency notes were allegedly recovered from him. While the prosecution relied on the trap proceedings and chemical test results, crucial independent and shadow witnesses admitted during trial that they did not witness either the demand or the actual payment. Reaffirming that proof of demand and acceptance is an indispensable condition to sustain a corruption charge, the apex court ruled that mere recovery of money cannot establish guilt. Consequently, the conviction was held unsustainable and set aside, exonerating the deceased official represented by legal heirs.
Appellant and impugned order challenged
The appeal challenged the final judgment and order dated 28.11.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. S-596-SB of 2004. Through the impugned judgment, the High Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.02.2004 rendered by the Special Judge, Hoshiarpur in Corruption Case No. 7 of 2002. The original appellant, a revenue official, was convicted under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years along with a fine of Rs. 10,000. Following the demise of the original appellant during the pendency of proceedings, his legal representatives were substituted to contest the appeal. (Paras 1, 2, 3, and 5)
Factual matrix
The prosecution alleged that the appellant, while functioning as a Patwari, demanded a bribe of Rs. 10,000 from the informant to execute a mutation of land belonging to the informant’s late brother in favour of legal heirs, which was settled at Rs. 9,500 after negotiation. On a complaint lodged by the informant, the Vigilance Bureau organized a trap on 19.04.2002 using nineteen phenolphthalein-treated currency notes of five-hundred-rupee denomination, accompanied by a shadow witness and official witnesses. The raiding party intercepted the appellant in his office, recovered the tainted currency notes, and noted a positive pink colour reaction when his fingers were dipped in a sodium carbonate solution. Upon completion of the investigation, the appellant faced trial, where the prosecution examined seven witnesses while the defence examined one witness to substantiate his plea of innocence. (Paras 7 to 7.4)
Other courts verdicts
By the judgment and order dated 25.02.2004 in Corruption Case No. 7 of 2002, the Special Judge, Hoshiarpur convicted the appellant under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced him to two years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000. By the impugned judgment and order dated 28.11.2013 in Criminal Appeal No. S-596-SB of 2004, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction as well as the sentence. (Paras 2 and 3)
Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent
The appellant contended that the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification were completely unproven, as the shadow witness and the official witness specifically conceded that they were not present when the bribe was allegedly demanded or paid, and severe contradictions existed regarding whether the notes were recovered from his shirt pocket or trousers. Conversely, the respondent State maintained that the testimony of the informant, paired with the successful trap, the recovery of marked currency notes, and the positive phenolphthalein test, established a complete chain of guilt under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act. (Paras 16 to 21)
Ratio Decidendi
Proof of demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification is the indispensable sine qua non for establishing offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and in the absence of cogent evidence establishing demand and acceptance, the charges inevitably fail. Mere possession or recovery of tainted currency notes from an accused public servant, independent of proof of demand, is wholly insufficient to infer corrupt means or abuse of official position. Consequently, where neither the shadow witness nor the official trap witnesses witnessed any demand or acceptance of money by the public servant, the conviction cannot be sustained solely on the footing of recovery. (Paras 13, 14.1, 15, 15.2, 20, and 21)
Directions issued
None
Important Paragraphs
Discrepancy and Lack of Independent Eye-Witnesses to Demand, Payment, and Recovery
20. Though as noticed above, there are discrepancies in the evidence tendered, what is however most relevant and significant is that both PW-2 and PW-4 had deposed that the money was neither paid by the informant to the appellant nor recovered from the possession of the appellant in their presence. In fact, PW-2 categorically stated that the money allegedly paid by Kulwant Singh, the informant, to the accused-appellant was not in his presence because at that point of time, he had come out of the office. According to him, none from the raiding party saw any demand nor acceptance of the bribe money.
Failure to Prove Crucial Elements of Demand and Acceptance of Bribe
21. Under such circumstances, it is evident that neither the demand nor acceptance of the bribe can be said to have been proved. As a matter of fact, no one saw the appellant making the demand for bribe and no one saw PW-1 handing over the bribe money to the appellant nor acceptance of the same by the appellant. The fact situation of this case, thus, is squarely covered by the judgments of this Court in Satyanarayana Murthy, Neeraj Dutta and in Aman Bhatia.
Setting Aside of Conviction and Exoneration of the Accused
22. That being the position, the conviction and sentence of the appellant Jaswinder Singh cannot be sustained. Accordingly and in the light of the above, the impugned judgment and order of the learned Special Judge, Hoshiarpur dated 25.02.2004 in Corruption Case No. 7 of 2002 as affirmed by the High Court vide the judgment and order dated 28.11.2013 are hereby set aside. It is declared that the charge framed against Jaswinder Singh under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the PC Act could not be proved. Jaswinder Singh is thus cleared of the said charges.
Resources
Judgments Cited
- P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P., (2015) 10 SCC 152: Proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, and mere recovery without proof of demand is insufficient for conviction.
- Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731: Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non to establish guilt, though inferential deduction can be drawn from other evidence if primary evidence is unavailable.
- Aman Bhatia v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1013: Mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to sustain a conviction unless it is proved that the public servant voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe pursuant to a demand.
Acts and Sections Involved
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- Section 2(c) – Definition of “Public servant”
- Section 7 – Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act
- Section 13 – Criminal misconduct by a public servant
- Section 13(1)(d) – Obtaining valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position
- Section 13(2) – Punishment for criminal misconduct
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 161 – Examination of witnesses by police
- Section 313 – Power to examine the accused
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Provisions relating to proof of facts in issue and circumstantial evidence
