Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 503 OF 2014 [Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.9336 of 2013]

BALDEV SINGH                                .…..APPELLANT

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB   …..RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

VIKRAMAJIT SEN,J.   

1 Leave granted.

2 The Appellant has filed the present Special Leave Petition (now  

Appeal)  in an endeavour to  set  aside  the  concurrent  findings of  the  

Courts below with regard to his conviction and sentence under Section  

13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter ‘the P.C.  

Act’). The Special Judge had convicted the Appellant, which came to be  

sustained by the High Court in terms of its impugned judgment dated  

8.7.2013.   Accordingly, the Courts below have concurrently found the  

1

Page 2

Appellant guilty,  and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment  

for a period of three years and to payment of a fine of Rs.5000/-, and in  

default thereof, to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period  

of six months.

3 According to  the  Prosecution,  a  complaint  was  received  from  

Nishan Singh, an agriculturist who along with his family owned farm  

land in village Golewala, which, however, was at two separate places,  

but was being irrigated at the same time.   Since this was obviously  

fraught with inconvenience, the Complainant wanted to have an earlier  

and separate allocation of canal water for the said two parcels of land.  

It  was  in  regard  to  this  request  that  the  Appellant  had  demanded  

Rs.2000/-  from  the  Complainant,  and  the  matter  was  eventually  

“settled” at Rs.1000/-.   The Complainant paid the said amount to the  

Appellant  in  his  house,  as  demanded  by him,  but  after  alerting  the  

Vigilance Authorities.   These currency notes aggregating to  Rs.1000/-  

were applied with Phenolphthalein Powder and were handed over to the  

Appellant in the presence of official/shadow witness, Jaskaran Singh,  

who  was  examined  as  PW4.    Two  other  official  witnesses  also  

constituted the raid party.

4 We have perused the order of the Special Judge dated 11.8.2003,  

as well as the impugned order of the High Court dated 8.7.2013, both of  

2

Page 3

which have gone into the minute details of the case, which exercise we  

do not consider  necessary to replicate.     Suffice it to say that the  

evidence  establishes  that  the  Complainant  had  handed  over  to  the  

Appellant a sum of Rs.1000/- which was subsequently recovered from  

beneath the files.   The formality of tallying the numbers on the currency  

notes  was  complied  with,  including  the  washing  of  the  Appellant’s  

hands  in  Sodium  Carbonate  solution,  leading  to  his  unassailable  

implication.    The  Courts  below  have  disbelieved  the  Appellant’s  

version, inter alia, that the currency notes had been kept under the files  

by the Complainant on his own volition without any demand being made  

in that regard by the Appellant.   The Courts below have also rightly  

noted that the Complainant would have had no occasion to go to the  

house of the Appellant unless he had been specifically called; and it was  

improbable for the Complainant to be called to the home and not to the  

office, unless there was some ulterior motive, such as claim and receipt  

of the subject bribe.    It also appears that the Complainant’s turn to  

receive water would not have occurred before 1.10.2000, whereas, in  

fact, water was received much in advance of the previous practice on  

28.6.2000.    The  Appellant  has  not  succeeded  in  showing  any  

contradiction or inconsistency in the statement of the Complainant, who  

appeared as PW3    In this conspectus, we find no error in the impugned  

3

Page 4

Judgment, which in turn affirms the Order of the Special Judge.

5 We are  also  not  persuaded  by the  submissions  of  the  learned  

Counsel for the Appellant that the decision of this Court in Banarsi Dass  

vs State of Haryana (2010) 4 SCC 450, is of any succour to him.   The  

prosecution  in  that  case  failed  to  establish  that  the  accused  had  

demanded illegal gratification and contrary to what has been proved in  

the case in hand, the recovered money was found lying on the table,  

apparently on the  unilateral  volition of  the  complainant.    Similarly,  

C.M. Girish Babu vs CBI ,  Cochin, High Court of Kerala,  (2009) 3  

SCC 779, is also of no assistance to the Appellant because  the Court  

had concluded that the sum of Rs.1500/- was accepted by the Accused  

in that case believing it to be repayment of a loan taken from him by  

PW2, and it further held that prosecution failed to establish any demand  

of  bribe/illegal  gratification  made  by  the  Accused  to  the  PW10,  as  

PW10 did not support the story of the prosecution.  This Court found  

the evidence of PW2 about the demand of bribe amount by the accused  

as inadmissible since the same was hearsay.     A. Subair vs State of  

Kerala  (2009)  6  SCC  587,  has  enunciated  that  the  prosecution  is  

required to prove that the accused in this genre of cases had demanded  

and accepted illegal gratification.  In A. Subair, the complainant was not  

examined rendering the factum of demand unproved.   Interestingly, the  

4

Page 5

entire case was based solely on the evidence of PW10, whose evidence  

was  found to be  lacking in quality,  and ,  therefore,  unreliable.    In  

contrast, both the constituents of demand and acceptance stand proved  

beyond reasonable doubt in the case in hand.   As early as in M.K.  

Harshan vs State of Kerala (1996) 11 SCC 720, this Court has opined  

that  to  bring  home  charges  of  bribery,  the  twin  concomitants  of  

‘demand’ and ‘acceptance’  must be substantiated.   In the afore-noted  

case, owing to conflicting versions and suspicious feature in the story of  

prosecution, the version of the Accused that the money was put in the  

drawer in his office without his knowledge was found probable.   The  

Appellant Accused, therefore, was given benefit of doubt and thereby  

acquitted.    It seems to us to be irrefutable that culpability or innocence  

is always regulated by the evidence that has been brought on record,  

therefore,  multiplying previous decisions  of  this  Court  will  be  of  no  

advantage  to  the  Appellant.    Discussing each of  them will  lead  to  

making this judgment avoidably prolix.   

6 In the particular circumstances of the case, we have noted that the  

Appellant  is  62  years  of  age,  and has  already retired.    As already  

mentioned, he has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment  

for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default  

thereof, to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six  

5

Page 6

months.    Keeping in perspective the age of the Appellant and that he is  

no longer in service and, therefore, cannot indulge in corrupt practices,  

we  are  inclined  to  reduce  the  sentence  to  two  years  Rigorous  

Imprisonment, but increase the fine to Rs.10,000/-, and on  failure to  

pay the said amount, to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for an  

enhanced period of nine months.

7 The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.   

                  ............................................J.         [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN]  

                    ............................................J.

       [VIKRAMAJIT SEN] New Delhi February 26,  2014.

6