# Supreme Court Acquits Deceased Revenue Officer of Corruption Charges Due to Lack of Proof

- Link: https://section1.in/supreme-court-acquits-deceased-revenue-officer-of-corruption-charges-due-to-lack-of-proof/
- Published: 2026-10-30T08:56:25+00:00
- Author: Ramprakash Rajagopal

Contents

 * [Appellant and impugned order challenged](https://section1.in/supreme-court-acquits-deceased-revenue-officer-of-corruption-charges-due-to-lack-of-proof/#appellant-and-impugned-order-challenged)
 * [Factual matrix](https://section1.in/supreme-court-acquits-deceased-revenue-officer-of-corruption-charges-due-to-lack-of-proof/#factual-matrix)
 * [Other courts verdicts](https://section1.in/supreme-court-acquits-deceased-revenue-officer-of-corruption-charges-due-to-lack-of-proof/#other-courts-verdicts)
 * [Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent](https://section1.in/supreme-court-acquits-deceased-revenue-officer-of-corruption-charges-due-to-lack-of-proof/#core-legal-arguments-of-appellant-vs-respondent)
 * [Ratio Decidendi](https://section1.in/supreme-court-acquits-deceased-revenue-officer-of-corruption-charges-due-to-lack-of-proof/#ratio-decidendi)
 * [Directions issued](https://section1.in/supreme-court-acquits-deceased-revenue-officer-of-corruption-charges-due-to-lack-of-proof/#directions-issued)
 * [Important Paragraphs](https://section1.in/supreme-court-acquits-deceased-revenue-officer-of-corruption-charges-due-to-lack-of-proof/#important-paragraphs)
 * [Discrepancy and Lack of Independent Eye-Witnesses to Demand, Payment, and Recovery](https://section1.in/supreme-court-acquits-deceased-revenue-officer-of-corruption-charges-due-to-lack-of-proof/#discrepancy-and-lack-of-independent-eyewitnesses-to-demand-payment-and-recovery)
 * [Failure to Prove Crucial Elements of Demand and Acceptance of Bribe](https://section1.in/supreme-court-acquits-deceased-revenue-officer-of-corruption-charges-due-to-lack-of-proof/#failure-to-prove-crucial-elements-of-demand-and-acceptance-of-bribe)
 * [Setting Aside of Conviction and Exoneration of the Accused](https://section1.in/supreme-court-acquits-deceased-revenue-officer-of-corruption-charges-due-to-lack-of-proof/#setting-aside-of-conviction-and-exoneration-of-the-accused)
 * [Resources](https://section1.in/supreme-court-acquits-deceased-revenue-officer-of-corruption-charges-due-to-lack-of-proof/#resources)

**Jaswinder Singh (Dead through LRs.) v. State of Punjab – Criminal [Appeal](https://section1.in/joint-appeal-an-appeal-followed-by-the-appeal-are-same-within-the-meaning-of-the-sections-392-374-and-378-cr-p-c-as-if-any-proceeding-followed-b/)
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](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](https://section1.in/sanction-manufacturing-or-fabrication-of-public-documents-and-records-cannot-be-a-part-of-the-official-duty-of-a-public-servant-hence-sanction-not-required/)
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](https://section1.in/denovo-trial-unusual-recording-of-confession-statements-based-on-judicial-directions-and-the-doubt-of-subsequent-insertion-of-statutory-warning-in-the-confession-creates-serious-doubts/)
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](https://section1.in/if-the-magistrate-cannot-direct-the-i-o-to-file-a-particular-opinion-charge-sheet-then-the-s-p-has-no-power-to-direct-the-same/),
the apex court ruled that mere recovery of money cannot establish guilt. Consequently,
the [conviction was held unsustainable and set aside](https://section1.in/digitization-of-records-records-not-available-in-the-appeal-conviction-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](https://section1.in/reversal-of-acquittal-appellate-court-cannot-reverse-the-acquittal-on-fresh-appreciation-of-evidence-and-without-recording-any-illegality-error-of-law-or-of-fact-in-the-trial-court-judgment/)
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](https://section1.in/section-362-cr-p-c-section-362-cr-p-c-would-not-prohibit-the-court-to-modify-the-bail-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](https://section1.in/terrorist-act-bail-is-a-fundamental-right-under-article-21-of-the-constitution-even-for-unlawful-activities-prevention-act-1967-shoma-kanti-sen/),
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](https://section1.in/official-witnesses-can-nay-be-discarded-simply-because-independent-witnesses-were-not-examined/)
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](https://section1.in/section-193-bnss-directions-issued-on-strict-adherence-to-timelines-for-investigation-and-filing-of-final-report/),
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](https://section1.in/prevention-of-corruption-once-the-undue-advantage-if-proved-court-is-entitled-to-raise-the-presumption-under-this-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](https://section1.in/oral-hearing-is-non-negotiable-non-cooperation-by-defence-counsel-requires-amicus-appointment-not-ex-parte-verdict/)󠁿 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](https://section1.in/dowry-death-since-witnesses-stating-the-dowry-demand-only-before-the-court-significant-omission-would-not-establish-section-304b-ipc/)
7 and 13(2) of the Act. (Paras 16 to 21)

##### **󠀁[Ratio Decidendi](https://section1.in/ratio-decidendi-failing-to-inform-the-accused-of-the-grounds-of-arrest-denying-the-opportunity-to-defend-through-counsel-and-failing-to-provide-information-about-the-proposed-remand-is-unconstituti/)󠁿**

Proof of demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification is the indispensable
sine qua non for establishing [offences](https://section1.in/even-in-a-case-where-the-final-report-of-the-police-under-section-173-is-accepted-and-the-accused-persons-are-discharged-the-magistrate-has-the-power-to-take-cognizance-of-the-offence-on-a-complaint/)
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](https://section1.in/if-the-accused-resides-outside-the-jurisdiction-there-need-not-be-a-separate-inquiry-or-investigation-under-section-202-crpc-for-complaints-filed-by-public-servants/),
independent of proof of demand, is wholly insufficient to infer corrupt means or
abuse of official position. Consequently, where neither the shadow [witness](https://section1.in/witness-did-not-name-any-person-from-the-locality-who-had-seen-the-incident-and-not-a-single-witness-from-the-locality-was-examined-who-had-seen-the-incident/)
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](https://section1.in/reason-is-necessary-while-recording-direction-to-pay-the-interim-compensation-u-s143a1-n-i-act/)󠁿**

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](https://section1.in/section-313-cr-p-c-rape-case-the-stand-taken-by-the-accused-that-they-have-paid-money-for-sexual-intercourse-was-not-put-in-the-cross-examination-of-victim/)
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](https://section1.in/defence-of-omission-to-produce-the-currency-notes-in-the-court-was-not-raised-before-the-trial-court-or-in-the-appellate-court-but-only-in-the-slp/)
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](https://section1.in/judgment-court-cannot-convict-one-accused-and-acquit-the-other-for-the-similar-or-identical-evidence-in-a-case/)
in Satyanarayana Murthy, Neeraj Dutta and in Aman Bhatia.

##### 󠀁[**Setting Aside of Conviction and Exoneration of the Accused**](https://section1.in/whether-after-the-trial-is-over-if-accused-found-to-be-juvenile-the-court-would-set-aside-the-sentence-or-shall-sent-to-juvenile-justice-board/)󠁿

22. That being the position, the conviction and [sentence of the appellant](https://section1.in/section-389-cr-p-c-condition-for-suspension-of-sentence-appellate-court-should-confirm-that-the-condition-does-not-make-it-difficult-or-impossible-for-the-accused-to-comply/)
Jaswinder Singh cannot be sustained. Accordingly and in the light of the above, 
the impugned [judgment and order of the learned Special Judge](https://section1.in/section-3891-cr-p-c-allowing-a-convicted-parliamentarian-to-attend-parliamentary-proceedings-majority-view-two-judges-suspended-the-conviction-minority-view-single-judge-judgment-is-denied-t/),
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](https://section1.in/habeas-corpus-unexplained-delay-in-disposing-the-representation-made-by-the-detenu-is-sufficient-to-set-aside-the-order-of-detention/).
It is declared that the [charge framed against Jaswinder Singh under Sections](https://section1.in/section-91-cr-p-c-accused-has-no-right-to-summon-call-at-the-stage-of-charge-framing/)
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](https://section1.in/pmla-pc-act-prosecuting-the-person-accused-of-an-offence-under-section-131e-of-the-pc-act-as-well-as-for-an-offence-under-section-3-of-pmla-would-not-amount-to-double-jeopardy/),
   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](https://section1.in/constitution-bench-on-p-c-act-question-of-law-on-absence-of-evidence-of-complainant-direct-or-primary-evidence/)
   evidence is unavailable.
 * _Aman Bhatia v. State_, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1013: [Mere recovery of tainted money](https://section1.in/mere-recovery-of-money-alone-does-not-constitute-conviction/)
   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](https://section1.in/pc-act-sections-7-131di-and-ii-presumption-can-also-be-drawn-for-smaller-bribe-amounts-further-accused-has-not-proved-that-rs-2000-bribe-amount-was-a-legal-fee-or-repayment-of-loan/)
Involved**

 * **Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988**
    - Section 2(c) – Definition of [“Public servant”](https://section1.in/records-maintained-by-the-private-school-is-public-documents-and-the-head-master-principal-is-not-public-servant/)
    - Section 7 – Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration
      in respect of an official act
    - Section 13 – [Criminal misconduct](https://section1.in/p-c-act-criminal-misconduct-preliminary-inquiry-and-its-procedures/)
      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](https://section1.in/bail-ability-of-section-3513-of-the-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-2023-do-colonial-era-notifications-survive-the-new-criminal-procedure-code/),
   1973**
    - Section 161 – Examination of witnesses by police
    - [Section 313](https://section1.in/appellant-made-total-denial-in-his-s-313-cr-p-c-statement-which-is-contrary-to-he-fact-that-he-has-been-admitted-in-care-hospital-and-no-explanation-to-this-denial-lead-to-possession-of-poision/)–
      Power to examine the accused
 * **[Indian Evidence Act](https://section1.in/in-npds-cases-confession-is-hit-under-section-25-indian-evidence-act/),
   1872**
    - Provisions relating to proof of facts in issue and [circumstantial evidence](https://section1.in/rape-case-santosh-gurung-vs-state-of-sikkim-s-c-quashes-life-sentence-based-on-broken-circumstantial-evidence/)

### Further Study

 No Related Posts Found.