Page 1 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 618 OF 2012

Mukhtiar Singh .... Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Punjab .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

R.K. Agrawal, J.

1)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 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.

1

Page 2 2)Brief facts:

(a)Mukhtiar Singh-the appellant herein was posted as

Revenue 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 for

the 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 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 Superintendent of Police,

Vigilance Bureau, Patiala.

(c)On the abovesaid complaint, a trap was laid and

currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 500/- and Rs.

100/- smeared with phenolphthalein powder and after duly

recording their numbers were handed over to the complainant.

2

Page 3 After following the due procedure, the raiding party along with

Arjan Singh (PW-6) and Bakhshish Singh (PW-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 if he 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 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 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

3

Page 4 to be registered under 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. 20 T/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 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 of 2002 before 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 the two

offences.

(g)Being aggrieved by the order dated 28.07.2011, the

appellant-accused preferred this appeal by way of special leave

before this Court.

4

Page 5 3)Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for

the parties and perused the records.

Rival submissions:

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 Jamabandi on 04.09.1996 but later

on he connived with the police personnel (vigilance) and came

to his office on 06.09.1996 in 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 to his adopted son-Nirmal Singh to whom the

complainant did not wish to give anything out of his property.

5

Page 6 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, in his deposition

stated before the Court that there was no entry to show the

deposit of the nip containing hand wash solution of the

appellant-accused 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 doubtful.

He also pointed out various discrepancies in the manner of

recovery stating that the money was taken from the drawer of

the table by the investigation officer (IO) whereas Rajwant

Singh (PW-9) stated to have taken out the same from the

drawer by the appellant-accused.

6)Learned counsel for the appellant-accused finally

contended that 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

6

Page 7 doubtful. The discrepancies inherent in the prosecution case

are not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the

appellant-accused.

7)Learned counsel for the respondent-State while replying

the above contentions submitted that the demand and

acceptance by and recovery 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 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 appellant 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 against the appellant-accused for having supplied a

copy to his adopted son-Nirmal Singh, it was submitted that

7

Page 8 the matter between Nirmal Singh and the complainant has

already been compromised and also nothing on record was

brought by learned counsel for the appellant-accused to show

that the copy of the Jamabandi was actually supplied to the

Nirmal Singh 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 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.

8

Page 9 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:-

“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.

9

Page 10 (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.

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

10

Page 11 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 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.— (1) Where,

in any trial of an offence punishable under section 7 or

section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) 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,

that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or

attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing,

as the 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.”

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 the

complainant-Arjan Singh (PW-6), who was handed over the

currency notes of denomination of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 100/-

duly smeared with phenolphthalein powder and after

11

Page 12 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 if he had brought the

money. When PW-6 replied positively, the appellant-accused

took from him six hundred 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 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 necessary formalities, the accused was

arrested.

12

Page 13 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 appellant-accused was

working under him and he used to receive writings of the

accused. On this basis, he identified the writing and 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 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 raised by learned counsel for the

13

Page 14 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 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 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. Zakaullah (1998) 1 SCC 557

wherein it was held as under:-

14

Page 15 “13…..We have not come across any 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 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 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

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 that the

complainant-Arjan Singh nursed a grudge against the

appellant-accused for having supplied a copy of the

15

Page 16 Jamabandi to Nirmal Singh- adopted son of the complainant

and the present case is the outcome of the said grudge only.

In view of the above, it was stated before the court 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 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-1) has categorically stated in his

deposition that the sealed 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 if learned counsel for

the appellant-accused thought that there was some

16

Page 17 discrepancy in it and if the 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 presumption is that there was demand, payment and

acceptance of gratification. Once the said premise is

established, the inference to be 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 looking at the collocation of two

expressions adjacent to each other like “gratification 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

payment for giving satisfaction to the public servant who

17

Page 18 received it. In the case on hand, from the 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 of Punjab vs. Madan

Mohan 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 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

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 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 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

18

Page 19 case, the court may look for independent corroboration

before convicting the accused person. (Vide Ram Prakash

Arora v. State of Punjab, T. Subramanian v. State of T.N.,

State of Kerala v. C.P. Rao and Mukut Bihari v. State of

Rajasthan.)”

17) On the same lines, in C.M. Sharma vs. State of A.P.

(2010) 15 SCC 1, this Court has held as under:-

“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. 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 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

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

19

Page 20 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 13(1)(d)

and Section 13(2) of the Act.

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 improbability does not appeal to us.

The courts below, in our opinion, have rightly rejected the

defence evidence. Therefore, in our opinion, the prosecution 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.

..…………….………………………J.

(J. CHELAMESWAR)

.…....…………………………………J.

(R.K. AGRAWAL)

NEW DELHI;

JULY 5, 2016.

20