The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of a Patwari under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential elements of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
The bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Arun Palli found that none of the witnesses had actually seen the alleged demand, payment or acceptance of the bribe, and that the evidence regarding recovery of the tainted currency was materially inconsistent.
Buy Now: Supreme Court Judgments E-Magazine – 5 Month Combo (2026) (1st February – 30th June 2026)
At the relevant time, the appellant was serving as a Patwari. According to the prosecution, Kulwant Singh had approached him for mutation of property belonging to his deceased brother in favour of the legal heirs. The allegation was that the appellant demanded ₹10,000 as illegal gratification for carrying out the mutation, following which the amount was negotiated to ₹9,500.
The informant thereafter approached the Vigilance Bureau. A trap was organised on April 19, 2002. Nineteen currency notes of ₹500 denomination, totalling ₹9,500, were treated with phenolphthalein powder and handed back to the informant. Onkar Singh was appointed as a shadow witness and was instructed to signal the raiding party after the alleged payment of the bribe.
According to the prosecution version, the informant entered the appellant’s office and handed over the tainted currency notes to him on demand. The appellant allegedly kept the money in his trouser pocket. Following the signal, the raiding party entered the office and recovered the currency notes. The appellant’s fingers were also dipped in sodium carbonate solution, which turned pink.
After investigation, a chargesheet was filed against Jaswinder Singh under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution examined seven witnesses, while the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the CrPC and also produced a defence witness.
The Special Judge, Hoshiarpur, by judgment dated February 25, 2004, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000, with a default stipulation. The Punjab and Haryana High Court subsequently dismissed his appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence.
The Supreme Court had granted leave in 2014. The appellant was released on bail after having spent approximately seven months in custody. During the pendency of the proceedings, he died, following which his legal representatives were permitted to contest the appeal.
The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction could be sustained when the prosecution evidence did not establish, through direct or sufficiently reliable circumstantial evidence, that the public servant had demanded and accepted illegal gratification.
The Court referred to its earlier decision in P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P., where it had held that proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Mere recovery of money, without proof of the demand, is not by itself sufficient to sustain conviction.
The Court also considered the Constitution Bench judgment in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi). The Constitution Bench had held that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant is a sine qua non for establishing guilt under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It further clarified that demand and acceptance may be established through direct evidence or, where appropriate, circumstantial evidence.
The judgment explained an important distinction drawn in Neeraj Dutta. Where the bribe-giver offers money without a prior demand from the public servant and the public servant accepts it, the prosecution must prove the offer and acceptance. Where the public servant himself makes a demand and subsequently receives the money, the prosecution must establish that prior demand and the subsequent receipt. In either situation, mere possession or recovery of money is not sufficient on its own.
The Supreme Court also referred to its two-Judge Bench decision in Aman Bhatia v. State, concerning conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
In that case, the Court had reiterated that mere recovery of tainted money, by itself, is insufficient to establish the charge. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the public servant voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe, with proof of demand being central to the offence under Section 7.
The Court further noted the principle that mere possession and recovery of tainted currency, in the absence of proof of demand, cannot establish that the public servant used corrupt or illegal means or abused his position to obtain a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.
Applying these principles to the case, the Supreme Court closely examined the evidence of the informant and the trap witnesses.
The informant, Kulwant Singh, supported the prosecution case and stated that the appellant had demanded the bribe for carrying out the mutation. He also stated that he had handed over the treated currency notes to the appellant on demand and that the notes were subsequently recovered from him.
However, the testimony of the shadow witness, Onkar Singh, materially weakened the prosecution case.
Onkar Singh stated that he had accompanied the informant to the appellant’s office but had subsequently come out because the appellant was busy. He therefore was not present when the money was allegedly handed over. He further stated that he did not witness the recovery of the money from the appellant.
The Supreme Court also noticed a contradiction concerning the place from which the currency notes were allegedly recovered. While the informant’s version was that the money had been kept in the appellant’s trouser pocket, the shadow witness stated that he had been informed that the currency had been recovered from the appellant’s shirt pocket.
The official witness, Harnandan Singh, also stated that the informant and the appellant’s alleged exchange of money had not taken place in his presence. Although he stated that the currency notes were recovered from the front pocket of the appellant’s shirt, he admitted that he had not seen the informant hand over the money to the appellant.
The Supreme Court considered the evidence of PW-2 and PW-4 particularly significant. Both witnesses stated that neither the payment of ₹9,500 by the informant to the appellant nor the recovery of the money from the appellant took place in their presence.
The Court observed that, according to PW-2, he had left the office at the relevant time and returned only after receiving the signal. Consequently, no member of the raiding party had actually witnessed the alleged demand or acceptance of the bribe.
The Court therefore concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove either the demand or acceptance of illegal gratification. It held that the facts of the case were squarely covered by the principles laid down in P. Satyanarayana Murthy, Neeraj Dutta and Aman Bhatia.
In view of the failure to establish the essential ingredients of the offences, the Supreme Court held that the conviction and sentence could not be sustained.
The Court consequently set aside the Special Judge’s February 25, 2004 judgment and the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s November 28, 2013 judgment. It declared that the charges framed against Jaswinder Singh under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act had not been proved and cleared him of those charges. The appeal was accordingly allowed.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
