Demand Of Illegal Gratification Must be Proved in Bribe Case – Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin

In a recent ruling on March 23, 2023, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in the case of Jagtar Singh vs. State of Punjab. The accused had been charged with illegal gratification, but the Court acquitted him on the grounds that the prosecution had failed to prove the alleged demand for a bribe.

The appellant has been convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, with the Trial Court’s judgment in 2005 and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana upholding the conviction in 2010. The case involves a demand of ₹500 as illegal gratification and the appellant accepting ₹300 for providing a copy of a death certificate. The complainant met the appellant, who demanded the bribe, and later reported the incident to the DSP, Vigilance, who arranged a sting operation using phenolphthalein powder-coated currency notes. The appellant was allegedly caught red-handed. During the trial, two witnesses turned hostile, while others provided limited information. The appellant claimed to be falsely implicated and was not responsible for preparing death certificates, as he worked as a cleaner in the office.

Arguments

The appellant’s counsel argued that both demand and recovery must be proven for conviction under the Act, as per the Constitution Bench judgment in Neeraj Dutta v. State. In this case, there is no evidence of demand and the appellant was not responsible for preparing or delivering death certificates. The State’s counsel argued that recovery of phenolphthalein-coated currency notes from the appellant implies demand and illegal gratification acceptance.

Observed and Held

Supreme Court examined the case of the appellant against the State and found that key witnesses in the case had turned hostile, and no evidence of illegal gratification demand. However, the High Court had based its judgment on the assumption that the recovery of money indicated demand.

In a careful analysis, the Supreme Court evaluated the circumstantial evidence presented and determined that there was no conclusive proof of the alleged demand for a bribe. In accordance with the precedent set in the Neeraj Dutta v. State case, the Court held that the appellant's conviction and sentence could not be legally sustained. As a result, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside both the High Court and Trial Court's orders, leading to the appellant's acquittal.

Jagtar Singh vs. State of Punjab