Recovery Of Tainted Money Without Proof Of Bribe Demand Insufficient To Convict Under PC Act : Supreme Court

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Arun Palli set aside the concurrent findings of the Special Judge, Hoshiarpur and the Punjab and Haryana High Court, both of which had convicted the appellant, sentencing him to two years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs 10,000.

The appellant was accused of demanding Rs 10,000 as bribe from the complainant for mutating the property of his deceased brother in favour of the legal heirs. The amount was later negotiated to Rs 9,500. Upon complaint, the Vigilance Bureau laid a trap in which tainted currency notes were allegedly handed over to and recovered from the appellant.

The Special Judge convicted the appellant in 2004, and the High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence in 2013. During the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court, the appellant passed away, and his legal representatives were substituted to continue the proceedings.

The Supreme Court examined the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and noted that while the complainant (PW 1) claimed to have handed over the bribe money to the appellant, the shadow witness (PW 2) and an official witness (PW 4) categorically stated that neither the payment nor the recovery of money took place in their presence.

“PW-2 categorically stated that the money allegedly paid by Kulwant Singh, the informant, to the accused-appellant was not in his presence because at that point of time, he had come out of the office. According to him, none from the raiding party saw any demand nor acceptance of the bribe money,” the bench recorded.

The bench also pointed out a contradiction regarding the very location of recovery, observing that while the complainant stated the money was recovered from the appellant's trouser pocket, the shadow witness stated he was informed that it was recovered from the shirt pocket. Based on this, the bench held, “under such circumstances, it is evident that neither the demand nor acceptance of the bribe can be said to have been proved. As a matter of fact, no one saw the appellant making the demand for bribe and no one saw PW-1 handing over the bribe money to the appellant nor acceptance of the same by the appellant.”

Relying on P Satyanarayana Murthy v State of AP, the bench reiterated that proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii), and mere recovery would not be sufficient for conviction without proof of demand.

The Court also relied on Neeraj Dutta v State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), which held that proof of demand and acceptance is a sine qua non for establishing guilt, and that both the offer by the bribe-giver and the demand by the public servant must be independently proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue.

Reiterating Aman Bhatia v State, the bench observed as follows:

“It is well-settled that mere recovery of tainted money, by itself, is insufficient to establish the charges against an accused under the PC Act. To sustain conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act respectively, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the public servant voluntarily accepted the money, knowing it to be a bribe. The courts have consistently reiterated that the demand for a bribe is sine qua non for establishing an offence underSection 7 of the PC Act.”

Applying the settled position to the case, the Court found that the case was squarely covered by the discussed precedents and held that both the demand and acceptance of bribe stood unproved.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the judgment of the Special Judge and the High Court, acquitting the deceased Patwari of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the PC Act.

“Accordingly and in the light of the above, the impugned judgment and order of the learned Special Judge, Hoshiarpur dated 25.02.2004 in Corruption Case No. 7 of 2002 as affirmed by the High Court vide the judgment and order dated28.11.2013 are hereby set aside. It is declared that the charge framed against Jaswinder Singh under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the PC Act could not be proved. Jaswinder Singh is thus cleared of the said charges,” the Supreme Court held.

Case: Jaswinder Singh (Dead Through LRs) v State of Punjab

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 975

Appearance:

For Appellant: Ms. Kheyali Singh, AOR; Mr. Najreena Sheikh, Adv.; Mr. RK Kapoor, Adv.; Mr. Rajat Kapoor, Adv.; Mr. Najreena Sheikh, Adv.; Ms. Shivangi Chaturvedi, Adv.; Ms. Rekha Giri, Adv.

For Respondent: Ms. Abha Sharma, AOR