Conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires proof of demand and acceptance; recovery alone is insufficient.

Jaswinder Singh, a Patwari, was alleged to have demanded ₹10,000 from Kulwant Singh for mutating property in favour of the legal heirs of Kulwant Singh’s deceased brother. The amount was allegedly settled at ₹9,500.

On the informant’s complaint, the Vigilance Bureau organised a trap using 19 phenolphthalein-treated currency notes of ₹500 each. The prosecution alleged that the informant paid the tainted money to the appellant on demand, after which the money was recovered and the appellant’s hand-wash turned pink.

The Special Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000. The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

During the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court, the appellant died and his legal representatives were substituted.

At trial, the informant claimed that the appellant demanded and accepted the money; however, the shadow witness, Onkar Singh, had left the room when the payment allegedly occurred and did not witness either the payment or recovery. The official witness, Harnandan Singh, also did not see the payment, and the witnesses gave inconsistent accounts regarding whether the money was recovered from the appellant’s shirt or trouser pocket.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the appellant’s demand for illegal gratification, which is a necessary ingredient of offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Whether the alleged acceptance and recovery of tainted currency, in the absence of reliable evidence of demand and acceptance, could sustain the appellant’s conviction

The Court applied Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as applicable at the relevant time, concerning acceptance or obtainment of illegal gratification by a public servant and punishment for criminal misconduct.

Relying on P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P., the Court held that proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offence and that mere recovery of tainted money, without proof of demand, is insufficient for conviction.

The Constitution Bench decision in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) established that proof of demand and acceptance is a sine qua non for conviction, although those facts may be proved through direct, documentary, or circumstantial evidence; mere acceptance or receipt, without proof of the bribe-giver’s offer or the public servant’s demand, does not by itself establish the offence.

The Court also relied on Aman Bhatia v. State, which reiterated that possession or recovery of tainted currency, absent proof of demand, is insufficient to establish offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act.

Although the informant, PW-1, testified that the appellant had demanded and accepted ₹9,500, his account was not corroborated by the other material witnesses.

The shadow witness, PW-2, expressly stated that he had left the room when the alleged payment occurred and that neither the payment nor the recovery took place in his presence. He further stated that no member of the raiding party had seen the demand or acceptance. PW-4 likewise did not witness the payment.

The evidence also contained a material inconsistency regarding whether the currency was recovered from the appellant’s shirt pocket or trouser pocket.

Applying the principles in Satyanarayana Murthy, Neeraj Dutta and Aman Bhatia, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish, either directly or circumstantially, the foundational facts of demand and acceptance. The phenolphthalein reaction and alleged recovery could not independently cure that evidentiary failure.

The judgments of the Special Judge dated 25 February 2004 and the High Court dated 28 November 2013 were set aside. The charge against Jaswinder Singh under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was held not proved, and the appeal was allowed.