Photo: Subhashish Panigrahi via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Judgment Intelligence
Conviction Set AsideJaswinder 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).
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).
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).
