The Supreme Court examined the evidentiary threshold required to prove bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It emphasised that demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be established through reliable evidence, and recovery of tainted money alone cannot sustain a conviction.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Title of Case: Jaswinder Singh (Dead Through LRs.) v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2026 INSC 1031
Coram: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Arun Palli
Date of Judgment: 22 September 2026
Facts of the Case
The appellant, Jaswinder Singh, was serving as a Patwari. The prosecution case originated from a complaint made by Kulwant Singh concerning the mutation of property belonging to his deceased brother in favour of the legal heirs.
According to the prosecution, Jaswinder Singh demanded ₹10,000 as illegal gratification for carrying out the mutation. After negotiations, the amount was allegedly settled at ₹9,500. The appellant asked the complainant to visit his office on 19 April 2002 with the money.
Kulwant Singh approached the Vigilance Bureau and made a complaint. A trap was thereafter arranged by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP). Nineteen currency notes of ₹500 each were treated with phenolphthalein powder and handed back to Kulwant Singh. Onkar Singh was associated with the trap as a shadow witness, while Harnandan Singh and Balkar Singh were joined as official witnesses.
The prosecution alleged that Kulwant Singh entered the appellant’s office and handed over the tainted currency notes to him on demand. Following the predetermined signal, the raiding party entered the office. The currency notes were allegedly recovered from the appellant, and his hand-wash in sodium carbonate solution turned pink.
After investigation, Jaswinder Singh was prosecuted under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Procedural History
The Special Judge, Hoshiarpur, by judgment dated 25 February 2004, convicted Jaswinder Singh under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of ₹10,000.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed his criminal appeal on 28 November 2013 and affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Jaswinder Singh thereafter approached the Supreme Court. Leave was granted on 26 September 2014 and, considering that he had already undergone about seven months of imprisonment, he was released on bail.
During the pendency of the appeal, Jaswinder Singh died. His legal representatives were subsequently substituted and continued the proceedings.
Issue
Whether the prosecution had proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt so as to sustain the appellant’s conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Observations of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reiterated that proof of the essential ingredients of the corruption offence cannot be substituted merely by showing recovery of tainted currency notes.
Referring to P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P., the Court noted that proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Mere acceptance or recovery of money, without proof of demand, would not by itself establish the offence.
The Court also relied upon the Constitution Bench decision in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi). It noted that demand and acceptance are facts in issue and may be established either by direct oral or documentary evidence or, in an appropriate case, by circumstantial evidence.
The absence of direct evidence from the complainant is therefore not necessarily fatal. An inference regarding culpability can be drawn from other evidence. However, there must be sufficient evidence from which the essential facts of demand and acceptance can legitimately be established.
The Court further referred to Aman Bhatia v. State, reiterating that mere possession and recovery of tainted currency notes from a public servant, in the absence of proof of demand, is insufficient to establish an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d).
Appreciation of Evidence
The Supreme Court closely examined the evidence of PW-1 Kulwant Singh, PW-2 Onkar Singh and PW-4 Harnandan Singh.
PW-1, the complainant, maintained that the appellant had demanded the bribe and that he handed over ₹9,500 to the appellant during the trap. He claimed that the appellant kept the tainted currency notes in the pocket of his trousers and that the notes were subsequently recovered from there.
However, the evidence of PW-2 Onkar Singh, who was the shadow witness, did not corroborate the actual demand and acceptance.
PW-2 stated that he initially entered the appellant’s office with Kulwant Singh but subsequently came outside because the appellant appeared to be busy. He went back inside only after Kulwant Singh gave him a signal indicating that the money had already been paid.
Thus, PW-2 categorically admitted that the payment of ₹9,500 by Kulwant Singh to the appellant had not taken place in his presence.
His evidence regarding recovery also created doubt. PW-2 stated that he was standing behind the members of the vigilance party and could not see the proceedings being conducted. Though the hand-wash solution turned pink, he admitted that the money was not recovered from the appellant in his presence.
There was also a discrepancy regarding the pocket from which the tainted money was allegedly recovered. While PW-1 stated that the appellant had kept the money in his trouser pocket, PW-2’s version indicated that he had been informed by the vigilance officials that the money was recovered from the appellant’s shirt pocket.
The testimony of PW-4 Harnandan Singh, an official witness, further highlighted the discrepancy. He stated that the DSP recovered nineteen currency notes from the front pocket of the appellant’s shirt. In cross-examination, however, he admitted that the money had not been handed over by the complainant to the appellant in his presence.
Therefore, neither PW-2 nor PW-4 had actually witnessed the alleged payment of the bribe.
Findings of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered these deficiencies material. The Court noted that both PW-2 and PW-4 had deposed that the money was not paid by the informant to the appellant in their presence. PW-2 had specifically stated that he was outside the office when the alleged payment took place.
The Court also noted that none of the members of the raiding party witnessed the alleged demand or acceptance of the bribe money.
It accordingly observed:
“Under such circumstances, it is evident that neither the demand nor acceptance of the bribe can be said to have been proved.”
The Court found that no witness had seen the appellant making the alleged demand at the relevant time, nor had any witness seen PW-1 handing over the money to the appellant and the appellant accepting it.
In these circumstances, the Court held that the case was squarely covered by the principles laid down in P. Satyanarayana Murthy, Neeraj Dutta and Aman Bhatia.
Decision
The Supreme Court held that the conviction and sentence of Jaswinder Singh could not be sustained. Accordingly, it set aside the judgment dated 25 February 2004 passed by the Special Judge, Hoshiarpur in Corruption Case No. 7 of 2002 as well as the judgment dated 28 November 2013 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court affirming the conviction.
The Court declared that the charges against Jaswinder Singh under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act had not been proved and consequently cleared him of the charges.
The appeal was allowed.
Key Takeaway
The Supreme Court set aside the corruption conviction because the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The shadow and official witnesses had not witnessed the alleged payment, and there were material inconsistencies concerning the recovery of the tainted currency notes. Consequently, recovery and the positive chemical test were insufficient to sustain the conviction.