Supreme Court Sets Aside Bribery Conviction Over Failure To Prove Demand

Jaswinder Singh (Dead through LRs) vs. State of Punjab 2026 INSC 1031 Decided 22 September 2026

Published: 24 September 2026 · NyayVidhan · 2 min read

The Supreme Court has set aside a Patwari's conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, holding that recovery of tainted currency alone cannot establish bribery without proof of an actual demand. Two prosecution witnesses admitted they saw neither the demand nor the money being handed over, applying the settled rule that demand is the sine qua non of the offence.

Supreme Court Sets Aside Bribery Conviction Over Failure To Prove Demand

File photo: Supreme Court of India, New Delhi Photo: Subhashish Panigrahi Source: Wikimedia Commons Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0

Judgment Intelligence

Conviction Set Aside

Jaswinder Singh (Dead through LRs) vs. State of Punjab

2026 INSC 1031

Criminal Appeal No. 2137 of 2014

Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision: 22 September 2026
Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Justice Arun Palli
Relevant Acts & Sections: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), 13(2)

Final Outcome

The appeal was allowed; the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were set aside, and he was cleared of the charges (paras 22-23).

Source Supreme Court of India, decided 22 September 2026

View PDF View Full Judgment Text

Reading is free. Downloading the PDF of a judgment published more than 7 days ago needs a free account. Register or sign in to download

Key holdings

Proof of demand for illegal gratification is the sine qua non of an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)/(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, following Satyanarayana Murthy, Neeraj Dutta and Aman Bhatia (paras 13-15).
Mere recovery or acceptance of tainted currency, without proof that a demand was actually made, is not sufficient to sustain a conviction under the PC Act (para 21).
Both the shadow witness and the official witness admitted they saw neither the demand nor the handing over of the bribe money, undermining the prosecution's case (paras 17-20).
A contradiction between witnesses over which pocket the tainted currency was recovered from added to the doubt over the prosecution's version of events (para 18).
The conviction and sentence of the appellant, who died during the pendency of the appeal, were set aside and his legal representatives were cleared of the charges (paras 22-23).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

Jaswinder Singh, a Patwari in Punjab, allegedly demanded Rs. 10,000 from informant Kulwant Singh to mutate his late brother's property for the legal heirs, settling for Rs. 9,500. The Vigilance Bureau laid a trap on 19.04.2002 using phenolphthalein-treated currency notes. The Special Judge, Hoshiarpur, convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, sentencing him to two years' rigorous imprisonment; the High Court affirmed. He died during the appeal, and his legal representatives continued it.

Court's Findings

The Court noted that under Satyanarayana Murthy, Neeraj Dutta and Aman Bhatia, proof of demand for illegal gratification, not mere recovery or acceptance, is the sine qua non of an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act (paras 13-15). Examining the evidence, it found PW-1 the informant alone claimed to have witnessed the demand and handover, while PW-2, the shadow witness, and PW-4, an official witness, both admitted they saw neither event: PW-2 had stepped out of the office when the money was allegedly paid, and learned of the recovery only afterwards from the raiding party (paras 17-20). The Court also noted a contradiction over whether the currency was recovered from the appellant's trouser or shirt pocket (para 18). Since no witness actually saw the demand or its acceptance, the case fell squarely within this line of authority (paras 20-21).

Legal Principle

Proof of demand for illegal gratification, and its acceptance, is the sine qua non of an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)/(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Mere recovery of tainted currency, without evidence that a demand was actually made and accepted, cannot sustain a conviction (paras 13-15, 21).

Precedents Relied Upon

P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2015) 10 SCC 152
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 13, 21
Proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii); mere acceptance or recovery, dehors proof of demand, does not entail conviction.
Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 14, 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 15.1, 21
Constitution Bench: proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as a fact in issue is a sine qua non; in the absence of the complainant's evidence, guilt may be inferred from other evidence, including circumstantial evidence.
Aman Bhatia v. State 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1013
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 15, 15.1, 15.2, 21
Mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient; it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the public servant voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe, and demand is a sine qua non.