The Supreme Court on September 22, 2026, set aside the conviction of Jaswinder Singh in a corruption case, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential elements of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. A Bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Arun Palli allowed the appeal and cleared Singh of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The judgment arose from Criminal Appeal No. 2137 of 2014, challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision which had earlier affirmed Singh’s conviction and sentence.
Background
Jaswinder Singh had been prosecuted in connection with an allegation that he demanded ₹10,000 from Kulwant Singh for carrying out a property mutation-related official act. Following negotiations, the alleged amount was reduced to ₹9,500.
The Vigilance Bureau subsequently organised a trap. Nineteen currency notes of ₹500 each were treated with phenolphthalein powder and handed to the informant. A shadow witness, Onkar Singh, was asked to accompany him and signal the raiding team after the money was allegedly accepted.
According to the prosecution, Kulwant Singh handed the treated currency to Jaswinder Singh, following which the raiding team entered the office and recovered the notes. The chemical test conducted on Singh’s fingers also produced a pink colour reaction.
The Special Judge, Hoshiarpur convicted Singh in 2004 and sentenced him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹10,000. The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed his appeal in 2013 and affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Singh later died during the pendency of the proceedings, and his legal representatives were permitted to continue the appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court referred to its earlier decisions concerning the requirement of proving demand and acceptance of illegal gratification in corruption cases.
The Court noted that proof of demand is a central requirement under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Mere recovery of allegedly tainted money, without establishing the circumstances in which it was demanded and accepted, cannot by itself sustain the conviction.
Referring to the Constitution Bench ruling in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), the Court observed:
"Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant."
The Court further noted that demand and acceptance may be established through direct evidence or, where appropriate, through circumstantial evidence.
The Supreme Court closely examined the evidence of the informant and the witnesses who participated in the trap.
While Kulwant Singh stated that the money was handed over to Singh on demand, the evidence of shadow witness Onkar Singh created a significant difficulty. Onkar Singh admitted that he had left the office when the money was allegedly handed over. He therefore did not witness the payment or the alleged demand.
The Court also noted a discrepancy concerning the place from which the money was allegedly recovered. While the informant stated that the currency was kept in the trouser pocket, Onkar Singh referred to information that it had been recovered from the shirt pocket.
Official witness Harnandan Singh likewise stated that the alleged payment was not made in his presence.
The Bench found the absence of direct evidence regarding the alleged demand and acceptance significant. It observed:
"None from the raiding party saw any demand nor acceptance of the bribe money."
The Court held that, in the circumstances of the case, neither the demand nor acceptance of the alleged bribe had been proved. It found that no witness had seen Singh making the alleged demand, nor had anyone from the raiding party seen the informant handing over the money to him or witnessed its acceptance.
The Supreme Court held that the case was covered by its earlier decisions in P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P., Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and Aman Bhatia v. State.
The Supreme Court concluded that the conviction and sentence could not be sustained. It set aside the Special Judge’s judgment dated February 25, 2004, as well as the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s judgment dated November 28, 2013.
The Court declared that the charges framed against Jaswinder Singh under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act had not been proved and cleared him of those charges.
The appeal was accordingly allowed.
Case Details
- Case Title: Jaswinder Singh (Dead Through LRs.) v. State of Punjab
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2137 of 2014
- Judge: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Arun Palli
- Decision Date: September 22, 2026
