Supreme Court Sets Aside Patwari’s Corruption Conviction, Says Demand and Acceptance of Bribe Must Be Proved - Mere recovery of tainted currency is not enough; Court finds prosecution failed to prove that the accused demanded or accepted illegal gratification in a mutation case.
The Supreme Court of India has overturned the conviction of a Punjab Patwari in a corruption trap case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Arun Palli allowed the appeal filed by the legal representatives of Jaswinder Singh, who had been convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court set aside the judgments of the Special Judge, Hoshiarpur, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and acquitted the accused of the corruption charges.
The case arose from allegations that Jaswinder Singh, then serving as a Patwari, had demanded Rs. 10,000 from complainant Kulwant Singh for mutation of property in favour of the legal heirs of his deceased brother. The amount was allegedly settled at Rs. 9,500. A trap was laid by the Vigilance Bureau, phenolphthalein powder was applied to the notes, and the complainant was instructed to hand over the money on demand.
However, the Supreme Court found serious weaknesses in the prosecution evidence. While the complainant supported the case, the shadow witness, Onkar Singh, stated that he was not present when the money was allegedly handed over and that he had come out of the office at the relevant time. The official witness, Harnandan Singh, also admitted in cross-examination that the money was not handed over in his presence. There was also a contradiction regarding whether the currency notes were recovered from the trouser pocket or shirt pocket of the accused.
Referring to earlier rulings in P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P., Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), and Aman Bhatia v. State, the Court reiterated that proof of demand of bribe is the gravamen of offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Mere recovery of tainted money, without proof of demand and voluntary acceptance, cannot sustain a conviction.
The Court observed that in the present case, no witness had actually seen the appellant demanding the bribe, nor had anyone seen the complainant handing over the money or the accused accepting it. In such circumstances, the foundational facts necessary to prove the offence were missing.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the conviction and sentence could not be sustained and declared that the charge against Jaswinder Singh had not been proved. The appeal was allowed.
Bottom Line: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to sustain conviction - Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is sine qua non - Where shadow witness and official witness did not witness payment or recovery in presence and prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance, conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) of PC Act is liable to be set aside.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Jaswinder Singh (Dead through LRs.) v. State of Punjab, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2983276
