Supreme Court of India
MUKHTIAR SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB
- Citation
- 2016 INSC 498
- Decided
- 5 July 2016
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- JASTI CHELAMESWAR
Holding
The demand for and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification were proved beyond reasonable doubt, invoking the presumption under Section 20, and the conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, stands affirmed.
Summary
Mukhtiar Singh, a revenue patwari, demanded Rs.600 from a complainant for a copy of a land record and was caught red‑handed when a police‑laid trap involving phenolphthalein‑treated currency notes was executed. The trial court convicted him under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sentencing him to two years' rigorous imprisonment; the High Court affirmed the conviction but reduced the term to one year. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification were proved beyond reasonable doubt and whether the procedural aspects of the trap affected the evidentiary value. Relying on the testimony of the complainant, shadow witness and official witness, and on the presumption under Section 20, the Court held that the prosecution had established the demand, payment and acceptance of bribe. It further rejected the appellant's challenges to the phenolphthalein test and alleged personal grudge, finding no material discrepancy. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence.
Issues considered
- The demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, applies in the present facts.
- Whether the procedural irregularities alleged in the trap (phenolphthalein test, lack of chemical examination) vitiate the evidence.
- Whether the alleged personal grudge of the complainant affects the credibility of the prosecution's case.
Legislation cited
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 13(1)(d), s. 13(2), s. 20, s. 7
Subjects
Prevention of Corruption Actbriberydemand and acceptance of gratificationSection 20 presumptionpublic servanttrap operationphenolphthalein testcorruption conviction
Judgment
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 995
MUKHTIAR SINGH A
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No. 618of2012)
JULY05,2016 B
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.)
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
s. 7 r/w. ss. 13(l)(d) and 13(2), s.20 - Demand of illegal
gratification by public servant - Trap arranged - Accused caught c
red-handed - Phenolphthalein test positive - Conviction by trial
court and sentence of 2 years - High Court upheld the conviction
while reducing the sentence to 1 year - On appeal, held: Demand
and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification is proved by
evidence beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction upheld.
D
s.20 - Presumption under - For drawing the presumption, the
premise to be established is that there was demand, payment and
acceptance of gratification - Once this premise is established, the
inference to be drawn is that the gratification was accepted "as
motive or reward" for doing or forbearing to do any official act.
Words and Phrases - 'Gratification' - Meaning of in the con- E
text of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The complainant, in his deposition, narrated the
whole incident before the court. PW-5 completely corroborated F
with the statement of the complainant. No discrepancy was found
with respect to the material aspects of the matter such as
recovery of the incriminating currency notes, their identity or
the credibility of the witnesses. When witness is examined on
oath at length, it is quite possible for him to make some
discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making G
some discrepant details. [Para 12) (1005-C-D]
2. The objection that reliability of the trap was impaired as
the solution collected in the phial was not sent to the Chemical
Examiner is too puerile for acceptance. Phenolphthalein solo-
H
995
996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 4 S.C.R.
A tion is always used not because there is any such direction by the
statutory provision, but for the satisfaction of the officials that
the suspected public servant would have really handled the bribe
money [Para 12] [1005-F-G, H; 1006-A]
State of UP. v. Zakau/lah 1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 456 :
B (1998) 1 sec 557 - relied on.
3. It cannot be said that the hands of the appellant-accused
might have got in touch with the phenolphthalein powder when
he was caught hold by the investigating officer and, thus, finding
on conviction cannot be recorded on the basis of the phenol-
c phthalein sodium carbonate test. There is no evidence on record
to show that the investigating officer shook hands with the ap-
pellant-accused or caught his hands and, as such there was no
occasion for the 'phenolphthalein powder being transferred from
the hands of the investigating officer to those of the accused.
Even otherwise, the recovery of the tainted currency notes from
D the custody of the appellant-accused has been proved by direct
evidence. [Para 12] (1006-B-C)
4. The plea that the complainant nursed a grudge against
the appellant-accused for having supplied a copy of the Jamabandi
to adopted son of the complainant and the present case is the
E outcome of the said grudge, is misconceived. It was stated be-
fore the court that the matter between the complainant and his
adopted son was compromised and even otherwise no material
on record has been placed to show that a copy of the Jamabandi
was supplied to the adopted son of complainant by the appellant-
accused. Moreover, the said suit has no relevance at all with the
F
instant case as it was filed much later than the date of incident.
[Para 13) [1006-D-E]
5. PW-1 has categorically stated in his deposition that the
sealed nip of hand-wash of the appellant-accused was also depos-
ited with him on 06.09.1996 along with other case properties and
G
he made the entry thereof in the relevant register. Though he
was not cross-examined on this aspect, it was he who made the
entry and he should have been confronted with the said entry if
the appellant-accused thought that there was some discrepancy
in it and if the appellant-accused wanted to take benefit thereof.
H In fact, there was no such discfepancy as deposit of sealed nip of
MUKHTIAR SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 997
hand-wash of the appellant-accused has been mentioned in the A
register. [Para 14) [1006-F -G)
6. The premise to be established on the facts for drawing
the presumption is that there was demand, payment and accep-
tance of gratification. Once the said premise is established, the
inference to be drawn is that the said gratification was accepted B
"as motive or reward" for doing or forbearing to do any official
act. So the word "gratification" need not be stretched to mean
., reward because reward is the outcome of the presumption which
the court has to draw on the factual premise that there was pay-
ment of gratification. ' This will again be fortified by looking at the
collocation of two expressions adjacent to each other like "grati- c
fication or any valuable thing". If acceptance of any valuable thing
can help to draw the presumption that it was accepted as motive
or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act, the word
"gratification" must be treated in the context to mean any pay-
ment for giving satisfaction to the public servant who received it. D
In the present case, it is proved beyond doubt that the appellant-
accused asked for the money to do a particular act and actually
accepted the same. He was caught red-handed and, therefore,
there is no reason to disagree with the findings of the trial court.
and the High Court. [Para 15) [1006-H; 1007-A-C]
E
7. Once the demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal grati-
fication knowing it to be the bribe are proved by evidence then
conviction must follow under Section 7 of the PC Act against the
accused. Indeed, these twin requirements are sine qua non for
proving the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. The twin
requirements of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification F
were proved in the present case on the basis of evidence ad-
duced by the prosecution against the appellant and hence the
appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced for the offences
punishable under Section 7 read with Section 13(1)(<1) and Sec-
tion 13(2) of the Act. [Para 18) [1008-E-G] G
State of Punjab v. Madan Mohan Lal Verma 2013 (7)
SCR 1130 : (2013) 14 SCC 153; C.M Sharma v. State
ofA.P. 2010 (13) SCR 1105 : (2010) 15 SCC 1 - relied
on.
H
998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] 4 S.C.R.
A Case Law Reference
1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 456 relied on Para 12
2013 (7) SCR 1130 relied on Para 16
2010 (13) SCR 1105 relied on Para 17
B
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 618 of2012.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.07.2011 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appeal No. 852-SB of
c 2002.
A. S. Pundir, Arijeet Singh, Advs. for the Appellant.
V. Madhukar, AAG, Ms. Anvita Gurshish, Moh it Nain, Kuldip Singh,
Advs. for the Respondent.
D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R.K. AGRAWAL, J. I. This appeal has been filed against the
judgment and order dated 28.07.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 852-SB of 2002
whereby the High Court disposed of the appeal filed by the appellant
E herein against the judgment and order dated 03.05.2002 passed by the
Special Judge, Patiala in C.C. No. 20 T/2001/11.4.97 by affirming the
conviction while reducing the sentence.
2. Brief facts:
(a) Mukhtiar Singh-the appellant herein was posted as Revenue
F Patwari at Patiala at the relevant time. One Arjan Singh-the complainant
approached the appellant herein in his office and requested for a copy of
Jamabandi of his land forthe year 1992-93. As per the prosecution, the
appellant herein agreed to supply the copy provided he was paid Rs.
600/-. The complainant was asked by the appellant herein to come along
G with the money on the next day.
(b) The complainant (PW-6), who was not willing to pay the bribe
to the appellant herein, disclosed the entire incident before one Bakhshish
Singh (PW-8) and requested for his help. On 06.09.1996, Bakhshish
Singh and Arjan Singh lodged a written complaint to the Deputy
H
MUKHTIAR SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 999
[R.K. AGRAWAL, J.]
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Patiala. A
( c) On the abovesaid complaint, a trttp was lai<,l and currency notes
in the denomination of Rs. 500/- and Rs. I 00/- smeared with
phenolphthalein powder and after duly recording their numbers were
handed over to the complainant. After following the due procedure, the
raiding party along with Arjan Singh (PW-6) and Bakhshish Singh (PW- B
8) reached the spot. When the complainant went inside the office along
with Bakhshish Singh, he found the appellant herein sitting on his chair
,.
and on seeing them; the appellant herein asked the complainant ifhe had
brought the money. Arjan Singh responded in affirmative and handed
over the currency notes to the appellant herein which was kept by the
appellant-accused in his right hand side upper drawer of the table. The
c
appellant-accused handed over the copy of the jamabandi after obtaining
the signature of the complainant.
(d) The shadow witness-Bakhshish Singh came out of the office of
the appellant-accused and signaled in a specific manner. Thereupon, the
investigating officer-Shri Amar Nath, DSP, Vigilance Bureau along with D
the raiding party and the official witness-Kewal Krishan (PW-5) went
inside the office of the appellant-accused. The money was recovered
and the handwash of the appellant-accused was taken which turned
pink. After following the necessary formalities, a First Information Report
(FIR), being No. 58 dated 06.09.1996 came to be registered under E
Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short
'the PC Act').
(e) The Special Judge, Patiala, vide order dated 03.05.2002 in C.C.
No. 20T/2001/11.4.97 convicted the appellant-accused under Section
13(1 )(d) read with Sections 13(2) and 7 of the PC Act and was sentenced F
to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 2 (two) years each under
Section 7 and Section 13(2) of the Act with the direction that sentences
shall run concurrently.
(f) Being aggrieved by the order dated 03.05.2002, the appellant-
accused preferred a Criminal Appeal being No. 852-SB of2002 before G
the High Court. The High Court, by order dated 28.07.2011, confirmed
the order of conviction passed by the Special Judge while reducing the
sentence of imprisonment from two years to one year for each of tl1e
two offences.
(g) Being aggrieved by the order dated 28.07.2011, the appellant-
H
1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.
A accused preferred th is appeal by way of special leave before th is Court.
3. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
Rival submissions:
B 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused contended before
this Court that the High Court ought to have appreciated that the copy of
the Jamabandi of the land of the complainant was prepared on 04.09.1996
and there was no occasion for the appellant-accused to have demanded
the money from the complainant to pay the amount of illegal gratification.
It is further submitted that the complainant did not collect the copy of the
c Jamabandi on 04.09.1996 but later on he connived with the police
personnel (vigilance) and came to his office on 06.09.1996 i1: order to
frame the appellant in a fabricated case. Learned counsel further
contended that the complainant was annoyed with the appellant because
he had supplied a copy of the Jamabandi of the land of the complainant
D to his adopted son-Nirmal Singh to whom the complainant did not wish
to give anything out of his property.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused further submitted that
the alleged recovery of money and the hand wash of the appellant-
accused are all made up stories. Gurbhej Singh (DW-1 ), Head Constable,
E in his deposition stated before the Court that there was no entry to show
the d~posit of the nip containing hand wash solution of the appellant-
accuseo on 06.09.1996 in Register No. 19 as well as there was no entry
in the field register to show that the solution was sent for chemical
examination. Learned counsel further contended that the manner in
which the raid was conducted and the recovery was made is also very
F doubtful. He also pointed out yarious discrepancies in the manner of
recovery stating that the money was taken from the drawer of the table
by the investigation officer (JO) whereas Rajwant Singh (PW-9) stated
to have taken out the same from the drawer by the appellant-accused.
6. Learned counsel forthe appellant-accused finally ::•)ntended that
G the complainant and Bakhshish Singh (PW-8) are highly interested persons
and their testimony as to demand as well as acceptance of the bribe
money is highly doubtful. The discrepancies inherent in the prosecution
case are not s~fficient to bring home the guilt of the appellant-accused.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State while replying the above
H
MUKHTIAR SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 1001
[R.K. AGRAWAL, J.]
contentions submitted that the demand and acceptance by and recovery A
from the accused of the bribe money have been proved beyond any
manner of doubt and even otherwise the incriminating currency notes
having been proved to have been recovered from the custody of the
accused in terms of Section 20( 1) of the PC Act which were accepted
by him as a motive or reward for issuance of copy of the jamabandi. He
B
further submitted that it was not proved by the appellant-accused that
the copy of the Jamabandi was delivered to the complainant on 04.09.1996.
In fact, the register wherein the signature of the appel !ant was obtained
as token of delivery of copy of the Jamabandi is the relevant piece of
evidence for that purpose.
8. With regard to the claim that the complainant nursed a grudge
c
against the appellant-accused for having supplied a copy to his adopted
son-N irmal Singh, it was submitted that the matter between N irmal Singh
and the complainant has already been compromised and also nothing on
record was brought by learned counsel forthe appellant-accused to show
that the copy of the Jamabandi was actually supplied to the N irmal Singh D
by him.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent-State further submitted with
regard to the contention that no entry was made to show the deposit of
hand wash solution that the test of phenolphthalein sodium carbonate is
not the requirement of law and any discrepancy pertaining to the same E
is of no consequence. It was also submitted that the recovery of the
tainted currency notes from the custody of the appellant-accused has
been proved by direct evidence. Learned counsel for the respondent-
State finally submitted that the courts below have rightly convicted the
appellant-accused under the provisions of the PC Act and there is no
scope of interference by this Court. F
Discussion:
10. For appreciating the rival submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties, it is relevant to quote the relevant provisions of the PC
Act which are as under:- G
"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
H
1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.
A 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
B
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.
c Explanations. -(a) "Expecting to be a public servant". !fa 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.
D (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
E 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.
F
(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.
G
13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant. - (I) 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
H
MUKHTIAR SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 1003
[R.K. AGRAWAL, J.]
or reward such as is mentioned in section 7; or A
(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 B
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
(c) ifhe 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) ifhe,- D
(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 E
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person
any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public
interest; or
( e) ifhe or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any
F
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
G
such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions
of any Jaw, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public
servant.
(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be
H
1004 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] 4 S.C.R.
A punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less
than four years but which may extend to ten years and shall also
be liable to fine.
20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification
other than legal remuneration.--( I) Where, in any trial of an
B offence punishable under section 7 or section 11 or clause (a) or
clause (b) of sub-section (I) of section 13 it is proved that an
accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept
or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any
gratification( other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing
from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved,
c that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to
obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, asthe case may be,
as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7 or, as the
case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which
he knows to be inadequate."
D 11. There is no denying the fact that on 06.09.1996, a trap was
laid on the complaint filed by the complainant and the appellant-accused
was caught red-handed by the Vigilance Department, Patiala. Due
procedure was followed while conducting the trap wherein Bakhshish
Singh (PW-8) was nominated as a shadow witness who accompanied
E the complainant-Arjan Singh (PW-6), who was handed over the currency
notes of denomination of Rs. 500/- and Rs. I 00/- duly smeared with
phenolphthalein powder and after recording their numbers. When both
of them went inside the office, the appellant-accused, who was sitting
on a chair, on seeing them, asked the complainant ifhe had brought the
money. When PW-6 replied positively, the appellant-accused took from
F him six hu11dred rupees and put them in the right hand side upper drawer
of his table and handed over to him the copy of Jamabandi after obtaining
his signature on a Register where the complainant signed and put the
date as 06.09.1996. The shadow witness came out of the office of the
accused and signaled in a specific manner. Thereupon, DSP Amar Nath
G along with other members of the raiding party went inside the office of
the accused. A glass of water was requisitioned and sodium carbonate
was added to the water. When fingers of both the hands of the accused
were made to be washed in the solution, the colour of the solution turned
light pink and the numbers of the currency notes also tallied and they
were taken into possession by investigating team. After carrying out
H
MUKHTIAR SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 1005
[R.K. AGRAWAL, J.]
necessary formalities,. the accused was arrested. A.
12. In order to prove the manner of investigation and various aspects
relating to the prosecution one Kewal Krishan was examined as PW-5.
PW-5 is the official witness and was associated with the raid. Balbir
Singh Kanungo (PW-3), a clerk of the office of the Deputy Commissioner,
Patiala deposed before the court that the appel !ant-accused was ~orking 8
under him and he used to receive writings of the accused. On this basis,
he identified the writing arid signature of the accused on the copy of the
Jamabandi. The complainant, in his deposition, narrated the whole incident ·
before the court. PW-5 completely corroborated with the statement of
the complainant-Arjan Singh (PW-6). Though learned counsel for the
appellant-accused pointed out the flaws in the process, no discrepancy C
was found with respect to the material aspects of the matter such as
recovery of the incriminating currency notes, their identity or the credibility
of the witnesses. When witness is examined on oath at length, it is quite
possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can
possibly escape from making some discrepant details. An objection was D
raised by learned counsel for the appellant-accused that the copy of the
Jamabandi stood prepared on 04.09.1996 and thus, there was no occasion
for the appellant-accused to ask for the illegal gratification on 06.09.1996.
The best piece of evidence to establish this point was the Ujrat Register
wherein signatures of the complainant were obtained as a token of
delivery of copy of Jamabandi but no attempt was made on behalf of the E
appellant-accused to get the said Register produced on record. The .· -
said entry bears the date as 04.09.1996 in the relevant column. but
signatures of the complainant regarding receipt thereof were obtained
on the said entry by the appellant-accused at the time of trap, that is, on
06.09.1996. Even otherwise, the demand, acceptance and recovery of F
the incriminating currency notes from the accused have been sufficiently
proved. The objection that reliability of the trap was impaired as the
solution collected in the phial was not sent to the Chemical Examiner is
too puerile for acceptance. This point was considered by this Court in
State of U.P. vs. Zakaul/a/1 (1998) l SCC 557 wherein it was held as
under:- G
"13 ..... We have not come across imy case where a trap was
conducted by the police in which the phenolphthalein solution was
sent to the Chemical Examiner. We know that the said solution is
always used not because there is any such direction by the statutory
H
1006 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.
A provision, but for the satisfaction of the officials that the suspected
public servant would have really handled the bribe money ..... "
Further, it was asserted that the hands of the appellant-accused
might have got in touch with the phenolphthalein powder when he was
caught hold by the investigating officer and, thus, finding on conviction
B cannot be recorded on the basis of the phenolphthalein sodium carbonate
test. In the case on hand, there is no evidence on record to show that
the investigating officer shook hands with the appellant-accused or caught
his hands and, as such there was no occasion for the phenolphthalein
powder being transferred from the hands of the investigating officer to
those of the accused. Even otherwise, the recovery of the tainted
c currency notes from the custody of the appellant-accused has been proved
by direct evidence.
13. It was also brought to the notice of the court thatthe complainant-
Arjan Singh nursed a grudge against the appellant-accused for having
supplied a copy of the Jamabandi to Nirmal Singh- adopted son of the
D complainant and the present case is the outcome of the said grudge only.
In view of the above, it was stated before the couit by learned counsel
for the respondent-State that the matter between the aforesaid Nirmal
Singh and the complainant was compromised and even otherwise no
material on record has been placed to show that a copy of the Jamabandi
was supplied to Nirmal Singh by the appellant-accused. The contention
E
is misconceived. Moreover, the said suit has no relevance at all with the
instant case as it was filed on 16.01.1997, i.e., much later than the date
of incident of 06.09 .1996.
14. It may also be mentioned here that Head Constable Gurcharan
Singh (PW- I) has categorically stated in his deposition that the sealed
F
nip of hand-wash of the appellant-accused was also deposited with him
on 06.09.1996 along with other case properties and he made the entry
thereof in the relevant register. Though he was not cross-examined on
this aspect, it was he who made the entry and he should have been
confronted with the said entry iflearned counsel forthe appellant-accused
G thought that there was some discrepancy in it and ifthe appellant-accused
wanted to take benefit thereof. In fact, there was no such discrepancy
as deposit of sealed nip of hand-wash of the appellant-accused has been
mentioned in the register.
15. The premise to be established on the facts for drawing the
H presumption is that there was demand, payment and acceptance of
MUKHTIAR SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 1007
[R.K. AGRAWAL, J.]
gratification. Once the said premise is established, the inference to be A
drawn is that the said gratification was accepted "as motive or reward"
for doing or forbearing to do any official act. So the word "gratification"
need not be stretched to mean reward because reward is the outcome
of the presumption which the court has to draw on the factual premise
that there was payment of gratification. This will again be fortified by
B
looking at the collocation of two expressions adjacent to each other like
"gratification or any valuable thing". lfacceptance of any valuable thing
can help to draw the presumption that it was accepted as motive or
reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act, the word "gratification"
must be treated in the context to mean any payment for giving satisfaction
to the public servant who received it. In the case on hand, from the c
facts on record, it is proved beyond doubt that the appellant-accused
asked for the money to do a particular act and actually accepted the
same. He was caught red-handed and, therefore, we do not find any
reason to disagree with the findings of the trial court and the High Court.
16. In a decision of this Court in State ofPunjab vs. Madan Moltan D
Lal Verma (2013) 14 SCC 153 it was held as under:-
"11. The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal
gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the
1988 Act. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to
convict the accused when substantive evidence in the case is not E
reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to
show that the money was taken voluntarily as a bribe. Mere receipt
of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in
the. absence of any evidence with regard to demand and
acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. Hence, the burden
rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised F
under Section 20 of the 1988 Act, by bringing on record evidence,
either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable
probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a
motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of the 1988 Act.
While invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is G
required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if
any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and
not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt.
However, before the accused is called upon to explain how the
amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational
H
1008 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.
A facts must be established by the prosecution. The complainant is
an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of
the trap and his evidence must be tested in the same way as that
of any other interested witness. In a proper case, the court may
look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused
person. (Vide Ram Prakash Arora v. State of Punjab, T.
B
Subramanian v. State of T.N, State of Kera/av. C.P. Rao and
Mukut Bihari v. State of Rajasthan.)"
17. On the same lines, in C.M. Sliarnu1 vs. State ofA.P. (2010) I 5
SCC 1, this Court has held as under:-
c "23. We do not have the slightest hesitation in accepting the broad
submission of Mr Rai that demand of illegal gratification is a sine
qua non to constitute the offence under the Act. Further mere
recovery of currency notes itself does not constitute the offence
under the Act, unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that .
the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe.
D In the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that both
the ingredients to bring the Act within the mischief of Sections 7
and 13(1 )(d)(ii) of the Act are satisfied."
18. It is a settled principle of law laid down by this Court in a
number of decisions that once the demand and voluntary acceptance of
E · illegal gratification knowing it to be the bribe are proved by evidence
then conviction must follow under Section 7 of the PC Act against the
accused. Indeed, these twin requirements are sine qua non for proving
the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. In the light of our own re-
appraisal of the evidence and keeping in view the abovesaid principle in
F mind, we have also come to a conclusion that twin requirements of demand
and acceptance of illegal gratification were proved in the case on hand
on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution against the appellant
and hence the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced for the
offences punishable under Section 7 read with Section t3(l)(d) and
Section 13(2) of the Act.
G
Conclusion:
19. On the face of the specific and positive evidence which cannot
be said to be inherently improbable, the plea of the appellant-accused
that the prosecution case is fit to be rejected on the ground of improbab ii ity
does not appeal to us. The courts below, in our opinion, have rightly
H
MUKHTIAR SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 1009
[R.K. AGRAWAL, J.]
rejected the defence evidence. Therefore, in our opinion, the prosecution A
in this case has proved the guilt of the appellant-accused beyond all
reasonable doubt.
20. For the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and the same is
dismissed.
Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal dismissed.
B
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Prevention of Corruption Act"Sign in to search