1. Conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Alleged demand and acceptance of illegal gratification for issuing a death certificate. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 262
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
Jagtar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2136 of 2010
Decided on : 23-03-2023
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Illegal gratification – Conviction and sentence cannot be based on mere assumption.
Illegal gratification – Conviction and sentence cannot be based on mere assumption.
Subject
Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act
Act Referred
Headnote
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 7 – Illegal gratification – Conviction and sentence – Complainant as well as shadow witness have turned hostile – Trial Court had specifically held that there is no evidence produced on record to prove demand of illegal gratification – It is not the case in which demand was reiterated when money was allegedly paid to him – High Court has passed its judgment on assumption that money having been recovered from appellant, there was demand of illegal gratification – This is not a case where there was circumstantial evidence to prove demand – Conviction and sentence of appellant cannot be legally sustained – Appellant acquitted. (Paras 11, 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Appellant has challenged his conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was convicted by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 5.8.2005. His conviction was upheld by High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide judgment dated March 2, 2010.
Findings of Court:
Impugned order passed by the High Court and that of the Trial Court are set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charges and his bail bond stands discharged.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Abhinav Bajaj, Adv. Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR Mr. Mayank Dahiya, Adv. Ms. Sugandh Rathor, Adv. Ms. Priyanka C., Adv. Ms. Bhupinder, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Abhinav Bajaj, Adv. Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR Mr. Mayank Dahiya, Adv. Ms. Sugandh Rathor, Adv. Ms. Priyanka C., Adv. Ms. Bhupinder, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Whether recovery of currency notes alone suffices to prove demand of illegal gratification in the absence of direct evidence from the complainant. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Recovery of coated currency notes without evidence of demand or supporting circumstantial evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction under the Act. (Para 11 )
4. Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (Para 9 , 10 )
5. Appeal allowed — Convictions set aside — Appellant acquitted. (Para 13 )
6. What is the essential requirement for establishing guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
The prosecution must prove both the demand and the subsequent acceptance of illegal gratification as a fact in issue. This can be established through direct oral or documentary evidence, or in their absence, through circumstantial evidence. (Para 9 )
7. Can a conviction be sustained if the complainant turns hostile during the trial?
Yes, the trial does not abate. Demand can be proved through other witnesses providing oral or documentary evidence, or through a presumption based on circumstantial evidence. (Para 9 , 10 )
8. Does the mere recovery of coated currency notes prove the demand for illegal gratification?
No, mere acceptance or receipt of illegal gratification without proof of a prior demand from the public servant or an offer from the bribe giver is insufficient to constitute an offence. (Para 9 , 11 )
JUDGMENT :
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. The appellant has challenged his conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’). He was convicted by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 5.8.2005. His conviction was upheld by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide judgment dated March 2, 2010.
2. The facts, as are evident from the paper book, are that a demand of Rs. 500/-was made as illegal gratification and the appellant accepted a sum of Rs. 300/-for supplying copy of death certificate of Maghar Singh (deceased).
3. In the complaint, it was alleged that for getting the death certificate of Maghar Singh S/o. Hari Singh, who expired on 6.3.2003, Ranjit Singh, his son, requested his cousin Jit Singh to collect the same. On 17.10.2003, Jit Singh/complainant met the appellant in connection with supply of death certificate, who demanded Rs. 500/-as illegal gratification. Final settlement was for payment of Rs. 300/-. As Ajit Singh was reluctant to pay the illegal gratification, he contacted Chamkaur Singh, Ex-Member Panchayat and on his suggestion went to the Office of DSP, Vigilance, Faridkot and got his statement recorded, on the basis of which FIR was registered. The complainant handed over three currency notes of Rs. 100/-each to the DSP, Vigilance, who after coating the same with phenolphthalein powder recorded their numbers in the memo and handed over the same again to Jit Singh. Chamkaur Singh was made the shadow witness. It was alleged that the appellant was arrested red-handed while accepting the illegal gratification.
4. During the course of trial, Jit Singh, Complainant (PW-1) and Chamkaur Singh (PW-2) did not support the prosecution version. They were declared hostile. Usha Kumari, a computer operator in the office of Civil Surgeon (PW-3) deposed that the appellant was working in the office as cleaner. However, in emergency he could be deputed for discharging other duties also. The death certificate bearing no. 1241787 pertaining to late Maghar Singh was prepared in the handwriting of Class IV, Basant Singh. It had been signed by the Additional District Registrar, Birth and Deaths, Faridkot. She also stated that sometimes the certificates are dispatched to the applicants and sometimes these are given by hand. The death certificate in question was prepared on 17.10.2003. The appellant was deputed to prepare the death certificates on 20.10.2003. Meaning thereby the death certificate had been prepared prior to the date on which the appellant was assigned the duty to prepare the death certificate. He otherwise was not responsible for that job as he was merely working as cleaner in the office.
5. HC Kirpal Singh (PW-4), HC Parsan Singh (PW-6) and C. Surinderjit Singh (PW-7) were the formal witnesses whereas Harbans Kaur, Clerk of Civil Surgeon, Faridkot (PW-5) proved certain official record and sanction of prosecution in the case of the appellant. Gurjinder Singh, (PW-8), District Social Security Officer, Faridkot stated about recovery of Rs. 300/-from the appellant. These were the same currency notes which were coated with phenolphthalein powder. In his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the case.
6. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, relying upon the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2022) SCC Online SC 1724, is that the demand and recovery both must be proved to sustain conviction under the Act. In the case in hand, at the most, it can be said that recovery has been proved though that is also seriously doubtful. There is no evidence of demand of illegal gratification. He further submitted that the appellant was merely working as cleaner in the office, and he was not having any authority either to prepare or deliver the death certificates. Admittedly, he was assigned the duty to prepare the death certificates on 20.10.2003 and in the case in hand the death ce
