The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of a Punjab public servant, holding that recovery of tainted currency cannot replace proof that the accused demanded or knowingly accepted an illegal payment.
In Jaswinder Singh v State of Punjab, 2026 INSC 1031, the court found that no witness had seen or heard the alleged demand or acceptance. The prosecution established recovery, but not the essential transaction required under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The ruling reinforces the distinction between possession and culpable receipt. A statutory presumption may assist the prosecution only after foundational facts are proved. Because that evidentiary threshold was not met, the conviction and sentence were set aside.
