Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal against the conviction of a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant, Jaswinder Singh, was convicted for demanding a bribe of Rs. 9,500 for processing a property mutation. The High Court affirmed the conviction, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court. The prosecution's case relied on the testimony of the informant and shadow witnesses, who claimed that the appellant demanded and accepted the bribe. However, during the trial, discrepancies emerged in witness testimonies regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe. The Supreme Court emphasized that proof of demand for illegal gratification is a sine qua non for establishing guilt under the relevant sections of the Act. The Court found that no witness had directly observed the appellant demanding or accepting the bribe, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to meet its burden of proof. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the lower court's judgment, acquitting the appellant of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Proof of Demand - Demand for illegal gratification is essential to establish guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Mere recovery of tainted money without proof of demand is insufficient for conviction - Held that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe, leading to acquittal (Paras 21-22).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of all charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Law Points
- Proof of demand for bribe
- Acceptance of illegal gratification
- Public servant definition
- Criminal misconduct
- Burden of proof in corruption cases
