MUKHTIAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB - PC Act
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Crl.), 618 of 2012, Judgment Date: Jul 05, 2016
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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) 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 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 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.
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.
(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 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 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) 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 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:-
“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 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 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 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 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 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.
For the Latest Updates
Join Now