The Supreme Court has held that Bribe Demand Proof is essential for sustaining a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mere recovery of tainted currency cannot establish guilt when the prosecution fails to prove demand and acceptance. The Court therefore set aside the conviction of a Patwari.
A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Arun Palli overturned the concurrent findings of the Special Judge, Hoshiarpur, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Special Judge had sentenced the appellant to two years’ rigorous imprisonment. The court had also imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000.
Alleged Bribe for Property Mutation
The prosecution accused the appellant of demanding Rs. 10,000 from the complainant. The alleged demand related to the mutation of property belonging to the complainant’s deceased brother. The mutation was to be made in favour of the legal heirs.
According to the prosecution, the parties later negotiated the amount to Rs. 9,500. The complainant then approached the Vigilance Bureau. Officials arranged a trap based on his complaint.
The prosecution claimed that the complainant handed tainted currency notes to the appellant during the trap. Officials later recovered the money from him.
The Special Judge, Hoshiarpur, convicted the appellant in 2004. The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the conviction and sentence in 2013.
The appellant died while his appeal remained pending before the Supreme Court. His legal representatives subsequently entered the proceedings and continued the appeal.
Witnesses Did Not See Demand or Acceptance
The Supreme Court closely examined the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. It found significant inconsistencies in their accounts of the alleged transaction.
The complainant, examined as PW 1, claimed that he had handed the bribe money to the appellant. However, the shadow witness (PW 2) and an official witness (PW 4) gave a different account.
PW 2 stated that he had left the office when the alleged payment occurred. He also said that no member of the raiding party saw the appellant demand or accept the bribe.
The Bench recorded that PW 2 had categorically stated that the alleged payment did not take place in his presence. According to him, no member of the raiding party witnessed either the demand or the acceptance of the money.
Contradiction Over Recovery of Money
The Supreme Court also noticed a contradiction regarding the place of recovery.
PW 1 claimed that officials recovered the tainted currency from the appellant’s trouser pocket. In contrast, PW 2 stated that he had been informed that officials found the money in the appellant’s shirt pocket.
The Court found these inconsistencies significant. It concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish either demand or acceptance.
The Bench noted that no witness saw the appellant demand the alleged bribe. Similarly, no witness saw PW 1 hand over the money or the appellant accept it.
Mere Recovery Cannot Establish Guilt
The Supreme Court relied on P Satyanarayana Murthy v State of AP. It reiterated that proof of demand for illegal gratification forms the core requirement for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act.
The Court made it clear that recovery of tainted money alone cannot sustain a conviction. The prosecution must establish the demand for illegal gratification.
The Bench also relied on Neeraj Dutta v State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi). That decision held that proof of demand and acceptance constitutes a sine qua non for establishing guilt. The prosecution must independently establish both the offer by the bribe-giver and the demand by the public servant as facts in issue.
The Court further referred to Aman Bhatia v State. It reiterated that recovery of tainted currency, by itself, does not prove an offence under the PC Act.
For conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the public servant voluntarily accepted the money while knowing that it constituted a bribe.
Thus, Bribe Demand Proof remained a crucial requirement in the case. The Court found that the prosecution had established neither the alleged demand nor the acceptance.
Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction
Applying these principles, the Supreme Court held that the case fell within the principles laid down in the precedents discussed above.
The Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. It consequently set aside the conviction.
The Supreme Court overturned the judgment of the Special Judge, Hoshiarpur dated February 25, 2004, in Corruption Case No. 7 of 2002. It also set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment dated November 28, 2013, which had affirmed the trial court’s decision.
The Court declared that the prosecution could not prove the charges against Jaswinder Singh under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It accordingly cleared him of the charges.
