The Supreme Court has held that the recovery of marked currency notes, by itself, cannot justify a conviction for bribery when the prosecution fails to establish that a bribe was actually demanded and accepted.
A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Arun Palli reached the conclusion while dealing with an appeal filed by Jaswinder Singh, a Patwari who had been convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Singh died while his appeal was pending before the Supreme Court, following which his legal representatives continued the proceedings.
The case arose from an allegation that Singh had demanded ₹10,000 from a complainant for carrying out mutation of property belonging to the complainant’s deceased brother in favour of his legal heirs. The alleged bribe was subsequently reduced to ₹9,500.
Following the complaint, the Vigilance Bureau arranged a trap. Marked currency was allegedly handed over to Singh and later recovered from him.
A Special Judge in Hoshiarpur convicted Singh in 2004 and imposed two years of rigorous imprisonment along with a ₹10,000 fine. The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the conviction in 2013.
The Supreme Court, however, found significant gaps in the prosecution evidence.
The complainant claimed that he had handed the money to Singh, but the shadow witness and another official witness said they had not witnessed either the alleged payment or the recovery. The shadow witness also stated that he had left the office at the relevant time and that no member of the raiding team had seen Singh demand or accept the alleged bribe.
The Court also noticed an inconsistency over where the money was supposedly recovered. While the complainant said the cash was found in Singh’s trouser pocket, the shadow witness said he had been told that it was recovered from the shirt pocket.
These discrepancies assumed importance because the prosecution had to establish the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification rather than merely demonstrate that marked currency had been recovered.
The bench relied on the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in P Satyanarayana Murthy v State of Andhra Pradesh, reiterating that proof of demand is central to an offence under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Recovery of money cannot, in the absence of evidence establishing the demand, independently sustain a conviction.
The Court also referred to Neeraj Dutta v State (Government of NCT of Delhi), which emphasised that demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential elements that must be proved by the prosecution. The judgment further recognised that the prosecution must establish the relevant facts through legally acceptable evidence.
Another precedent, Aman Bhatia v State, was cited for the principle that merely recovering tainted money does not establish guilt. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the public servant voluntarily accepted the money with knowledge that it was being offered as a bribe.
Applying those principles, the bench concluded that the evidence in Singh’s case did not establish either the alleged demand or acceptance.
The Supreme Court therefore set aside the judgments of the Special Judge, Hoshiarpur and the Punjab and Haryana High Court. It held that the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act had not been proved and cleared Singh of the charges.
