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