JASWINDER SINGH (DEAD THROUGH LRS.) v. STATE OF PUNJAB

2026 INSC 1031 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2137 OF 2014

JASWINDER SINGH …APPELLANT(S) (DEAD THROUGH LRS.)

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ....RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

UJJAL BHUYAN, J.

This appeal takes exception to the judgment and

order dated 28.11.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab and

Haryana at Chandigarh (briefly ‘the High Court’ hereinafter)

whereby the conviction and sentence of the appellant has been

affirmed. Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by IRAMNAZ Date: 2026.09.22 16:53:52 IST

2. It may be mentioned that appellant was prosecuted Reason:

under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the PC Act’ hereinafter). By the

judgment and order dated 25.02.2004 in Corruption Case No.

7 of 2002, learned Special Judge, Hoshiarpur convicted the

appellant under the aforesaid sections of the PC Act and

sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a

period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with a

default stipulation.

3. Appellant assailed his conviction and sentence before

the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. S-596-SB of 2004. By

the impugned judgment and order dated 28.11.2013, the High

Court dismissed the appeal by affirming the conviction and

sentence.

4. This Court by order dated 30.07.2014 had issued

notice on the related special leave petition as well as on the

application for bail. On 26.09.2014, leave was granted

whereafter considering the fact that appellant was in jail for

about 7 months, he was directed to be released on bail.

5. Subsequently, the appellant died. Vide order dated

12.10.2018 passed by the learned Chamber Judge, the

application for substitution of the deceased appellant was

allowed. Consequently, the legal representatives of the deceased

appellant have stepped into the shoes of the appellant to contest

the appeal.

6. Prosecution case may be briefly noted.

7. At the relevant time, Jaswinder Singh was serving as

a Patwari. Informant Kulwant Singh had met him for the

purpose of mutation of the property of his brother in favour of

his legal heirs. Allegation is that Jaswinder Singh had

demanded Rs. 10,000.00 as a bribe from the informant for

doing the needful. A deal was made as per which the informant

would pay Jaswinder Singh Rs. 9,500.00.

7.1. Appellant Jaswinder Singh had asked the informant

to visit his office on 19.04.2002 alongwith the bribe money.

Informant approached the office of the Vigilance Bureau.

Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) registered FIR on the

basis of the statement of the informant and organized a raid.

Informant handed over 19 currency notes in the denomination

of 500 each to the DSP who returned the same to the informant

after application of phenolphthalein powder. Informant was

directed to hand over the said currency notes to the appellant

on demand. One Onkar Singh was instructed to act as a shadow

witness and was directed to give signal to the raiding party when

the bribe money was accepted by the appellant on demand.

Harnandan Singh and Balkar Singh were joined as official

witnesses. Working of phenolphthalein powder was shown to the

witnesses whereafter the DSP alongwith the other members of

the raiding party left for the raid.

7.2. Informant and the shadow witness entered the office

of the appellant Jaswinder Singh. Informant handed over the

tainted currency notes to the appellant on demand. Appellant

kept the said currency notes in the pocket of his trouser. On

receipt of signal from the shadow witness, the DSP alongwith

the members of the raiding party entered into the office and

confronted the appellant and recovered the currency notes from

the pocket of his trousers. When the fingers of the appellant

Jaswinder Singh were dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate,

the colour of the solution turned pink. The said solution was

thereafter put and sealed in a parcel.

7.3. After completion of investigation and necessary

formalities, chargesheet was presented against the appellant

Jaswinder Singh for commission of offence punishable under

Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.

7.4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined

seven witnesses whereafter appellant was examined under

Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).

Appellant also examined one defence witness in support of his

plea of innocence.

7.5. Vide the judgment and order dated 25.02.2004, the

Court of Special Judge, Hoshiarpur convicted the appellant

under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the PC Act and sentenced him as

above.

7.6. As noticed supra, the appeal filed by the appellant

was dismissed by the High Court.

8. Before we examine the evidence tendered by the

relevant witnesses, it would be useful to refer to Sections 7 and

13 of the PC Act. Section 7 as it stood at the relevant point of

time dealt with public servant taking gratification other than

legal remuneration in respect of an official act. Section 7, as it

stood then, is extracted hereunder:

7. Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act.- Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanations. – (a) ‘Expecting to be a public servant’. If a person not expecting to be in office obtains a gratification by deceiving others into a belief that he is about to be in office, and that he will then serve them, he may be guilty of cheating, but he is not guilty of the offence defined in this section.

(b) ‘Gratification’. The word “gratification” is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications estimable in money.

(c) ‘Legal remuneration’. The words “legal remuneration” are not restricted to remuneration which a public servant can lawfully demand, but include all remuneration which he is permitted by the Government or the organization, which he serves, to accept.

(d) ‘A motive or reward for doing’. A person who receives a gratification as a motive or reward for doing what he does not intend or is not in a position to do, or has not done, comes within this expression.

(e) Where a public servant induces a person erroneously to believe that his influence with the Government has obtained a title for that person and thus induces that person to give the public servant, money or any other gratification as a reward for this service, the public servant has committed an offence under this section.

9. Section 13 of the PC Act deals with criminal

misconduct by a public servant. Section 13 as it stood at the

relevant time reads as under:

13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant. – (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, -

(a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7; or

(b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned; or

(c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any

property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or

(d) if he, -

(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or

(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income.

Explanation- For the purposes of this section, ‘known sources of income’ means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the

provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant.

(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

10. As per Section 7, whoever being or expecting to be a

public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or

attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other

person, any gratification other than legal remuneration as a

motive or reward for doing or not doing any official act or for

showing or not showing in the exercise of his official function(s)

favour or disfavour to any person etc. with the Central

Government or State Government or any authority mentioned

in the said section or with any public servant, shall be

punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than

three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also

be liable to fine.

10.1. There are five explanations to Section 7. As per

Explanation (a), the expression ‘expecting to be a public servant’

refers to and is in respect of a person not expecting to be in

office, who obtains a gratification by deceiving others into

believing that he is about to be in office and that he would then

serve them, may be guilty of the offence of cheating but would

not be guilty of the offence defined in Section 7. Explanation (b)

clarifies that ‘gratification’ is not restricted to pecuniary

gratification or a gratification which is estimable in terms of

money. Explanation (c) clarifies that the words ‘legal

remuneration’ are not restricted to remuneration which a public

servant can lawfully demand but will include all remuneration

which a public servant is permitted to accept. The expression ‘a

motive or reward for doing’ has been explained in Explanation

(d). It says that a person who receives a gratification as a motive

or reward for doing what he does not intend or is not in a

position to do or has not done, comes within the ambit of this

expression. In terms of Explanation (e), where a public servant

induces a person erroneously to believe that his influence with

the Government has obtained the title for that person and thus

induces that person to give the public servant, money or other

gratification as a reward for this service, the public servant has

committed an offence under this section.

11. Sub-section (1) of Section 13, as it stood at the

relevant point of time, declared that a public servant would

commit the offence of criminal misconduct if he habitually

accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from

any person for himself or for any other person any gratification

other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward

as mentioned in Section 7. This would include any valuable

thing without consideration or for a consideration which is

inadequate in terms of the official transaction and would also

include dishonest or fraudulent misappropriation of property.

11.1. In terms of sub-section (2), any public servant who

commits criminal misconduct shall be punished with

imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year

(four years w.e.f. 16.01.2014) but which may extend to seven

years (ten years w.e.f. 16.01.2014) and shall also be liable to

fine.

12. ‘Public servant’ is a defined expression under the PC

Act. As per Section 2(c), ‘public servant’ means and includes

any person in the service or pay of the Government or

recommended by the Government by fees or commission for the

performance of any public duty; any person in the service or pay

of a local authority etc.

13. This Court in P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. State of

A.P.1 held 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 PC Act; in absence thereof, the charge would fail. Mere

acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal

gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand,

ipso facto would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge

under the aforesaid two sections of the PC Act. Therefore, failure

of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification

would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person

accused of the offence under Sections 7 or 13 of the PC Act

would not entail his conviction thereunder. This Court held

thus:

23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder.

14. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Neeraj Dutta

Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)2 considered the following

question for determination:

Whether, in the absence of evidence of complainant/direct or primary evidence of demand of illegal gratification, is it not permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with

(2023) 4 SCC 731)

Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution?

14.1. After analyzing various decisions of this Court as well

as provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the PC Act,

the conclusions have been summarized as under:

88.1. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

88.2. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.

88.3. (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.

88.4. (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:

(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe- giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.

(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe-giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe-giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii), respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe-giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when

accepted by the bribe-giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

14.2. Thus among other things what the Constitution

Bench declared was that proof of demand and acceptance of

illegal gratification by a public servant is the sine qua non to

establish the guilt of the public servant under Sections 7 and

13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the PC Act. An offer by the bribe giver and

the demand by the public servant have to be proved by the

prosecution as a fact in issue for conviction under Sections 7

and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act.

14.3. Following the discussions and the conclusions

arrived at, the Constitution Bench answered the question

framed in the following manner:

In the absence of evidence of the complainant (direct /primary, oral/documentary evidence) it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution.

15. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Aman Bhatia Vs.

State3 was considering challenge to the conviction of a stamp

vendor under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of

the PC Act. After holding that stamp vendor is a public servant

within the meaning of the PC Act, the Bench examined the

legality and validity of his conviction under the aforesaid

provisions of the PC Act. In that context, the Bench held that

mere recovery of tainted money, by itself, is insufficient to

establish the charges against an accused under the PC Act. To

sustain a conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act,

it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the public

servant voluntarily accepted the money, knowing it to be a

bribe. The demand for a bribe is sine qua non for establishing

an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. It has been held as

under:

52. 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 a conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act respectively, it must be proved beyond reasonable

3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1013

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 under Section 7 of the PC Act.

15.1. The Bench also referred to the five-Judge Bench

decision of this Court in Neeraj Dutta which has categorically

held that an offer by a bribe-giver and the demand by the public

servant have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue

for conviction under Sections 7 and 13((1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC

Act. Mere acceptance of illegal gratification without proof of offer

by the bribe-giver and demand by the public servant would not

make an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the

PC Act.

15.2. After a thorough analysis of the legal position, the

Bench held as follows:

55. From the above exposition of law, it may be safely concluded that mere possession and recovery of tainted currency notes from a public servant, in the absence of proof of demand, is not sufficient to establish an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act respectively. Consequently, without evidence of

demand for illegal gratification, it cannot be said that the public servant used corrupt or illegal means, or abused his position, to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage in terms of Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.

16. Coming to the facts of this case, informant Kulwant

Singh deposed as PW-1. His deposition was more or less on the

lines of the complaint. In his examination-in-chief, he has

stated that Satwinder Kaur, widow of his brother Chain Singh,

had approached the Naib Tehsildar i.e. the appellant for

mutating the land of her deceased husband in the name of his

legal heirs. She moved the application on 13.03.2002 which was

marked to the appellant who in turn demanded bribe for doing

the needful. After negotiations, the bribe amount was fixed at

16.1. PW-1 met his friend Onkar Singh at the village bus

stop and narrated to him about the demand for bribe by the

appellant. On his advice, both of them went to the office of the

Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Vigilance Bureau, where

he lodged the complaint.

16.2. He deposed that 19 currency notes of the

denomination of Rs. 500.00 were handed over by him to the

DSP which were powdered with the chemical whereafter those

were handed back to him. Thereafter, a raid was arranged on

19.04.2002. PW-1 stated that as planned he had handed over

the tainted currency notes to the appellant on demand. When

PW-2 Onkar Singh gave the signal, the raiding party led by the

DSP entered into the office of the appellant and apprehended

him. The currency notes were recovered from the pocket of his

trousers and when dipped in the solution, the colour of the

solution turned pink.

16.3. PW-1 reiterated the same thing in his cross-

examination. He admitted that Onkar Singh, PW-2, and

Harnandan Singh, PW-4, were two of the witnesses. He also

stated that PW-2, Onkar Singh, had gone out to give the signal

to the raiding party when the money was handed over by him

to the accused (appellant).

17. However, it is the evidence of PW-2, Onkar Singh and

PW-4, Harnandan Singh, which are relevant. In his deposition

PW-2 stated that informant Kulwant Singh was known to him

and that he had met him at the village bus stop where he

narrated about the appellant demanding bribe for recording

mutation entry of the names of the legal heirs against the estate

of his late brother. He stated that it was on his insistence that

Kulwant Singh reported the matter to the DSP. According to

him, the DSP called two official witnesses, one of them being

Harnandan Singh, PW-4. PW-2 was also made a member of the

raiding party and he was told by the DSP to accompany the

informant Kulwant Singh to the office of the appellant.

17.1. In his examination-in-chief, PW-2 stated that he and

Kulwant Singh went to the office of the accused-appellant and

sat in his office for some time. After a while, PW-2 came out of

the office because the accused was showing that he was busy.

According to him, he had told the vigilance party headed by the

DSP waiting outside the office that it would take some time. He

went inside when Kulwant Singh, PW-1, gave him the signal

that he had given the money. He clarified that the money was

not paid by Kulwant Singh to the accused-appellant in his

presence because at that time he had come out of the office for

some time.

17.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that it would be

wrong to suggest that the amount of Rs. 9,500.00 was given by

Kulwant Singh, PW-1 to the accused-appellant in his presence.

Elaborating further, he stated that the entire vigilance party had

entered the office of the appellant after the money was given by

the informant to the appellant. The DSP held the appellant by

both his arms whereafter search of the appellant was carried

out. The entire proceedings were done by the vigilance party by

themselves. PW-2 was standing behind them. So, he could not

see what proceedings were conducted. Though the colour of the

solution turned pink when the hands of the appellant were

dipped therein, he admitted that the money was not recovered

from the possession of the appellant in his presence.

18. This evidence of PW-2 matched his statement made

before the police under Section 161 CrPC where it was recorded

that he was informed by the vigilance party that recovery of the

amount was from the shirt pocket of the accused while he was

standing behind other members of the vigilance party; in his

cross-examination, he asserted that the recovery was not made

in his presence. There is a contradiction in as much as PW-1 in

his complaint and evidence stated that appellant had kept the

bribe money in the pocket of his trousers from where it was

recovered and seized. But according to PW-2, he was informed

by the vigilance party that the money was seized from the shirt

pocket of the appellant.

19. PW-4, Harnandan Singh, was an official witness,

deputed to be a part of the raiding party under orders of the

Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur. In his evidence-in-chief, he

stated that Kulwant Singh and Onkar Singh went inside the

office of the accused-appellant. When Onkar Singh, PW-2, gave

the signal then all of them (raiding party) went inside the office.

The accused was apprehended whereafter the DSP recovered 19

numbers of currency notes from the front pocket of the shirt of

the appellant. Particulars of the currency notes tallied with the

particulars already prepared.

19.1. In his cross-examination, he stated that the money

was not handed over by the informant to the appellant in his

presence.

20. Though as noticed above, there are discrepancies in

the evidence tendered, what is however most relevant and

significant is that both PW-2 and PW-4 had deposed that the

money was neither paid by the informant to the appellant nor

recovered from the possession of the appellant in their presence.

In fact, 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.

21. 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. The fact situation of this case, thus, is

squarely covered by the judgments of this Court in

Satyanarayana Murthy, Neeraj Dutta and in Aman Bhatia.

22. That being the position, the conviction and sentence

of the appellant Jaswinder Singh cannot be sustained.

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 dated

28.11.2013 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.

23. Consequently, the appeal is allowed.

…………………………J. [UJJAL BHUYAN]

….………………………J. [ARUN PALLI]

NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 22, 2026.