Man convicted by trial court for taking ₹300 bribe acquitted by Supreme Court after 18 years

A man who was held guilty for accepting a bribe of ₹300 was acquitted by the Supreme Court on Thursday 18 years after he was convicted by the trial court in 2005 [Jagtar Singh vs State of Punjab]..A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal said there was no proof of demand for illegal gratification, which is a necessary component along with acceptance of the same for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. "The High Court has passed its judgment on the assumption that the money having been recovered from the appellant, there was demand of illegal gratification. This is not a case where there was circumstantial evidence to prove the demand," the bench observed. The top court relied on its recent Constitution bench decision in Neeraj Dutta, wherein it was held that,"The offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. Mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii).".The appellant had moved the Supreme Court challenging a 2010 Punjab and Haryana High Court order that upheld a 2005 trial court verdict holding him guilty under the Prevention of Corruption Act.The incident dates to 2003 when he had allegedly taken the money to prepare a death certificate for the father of the brother of the original complainant.A vigilance team had coated the currency notes with phenolphthalein powder and the accused was allegedly caught red-handed.The trial court convicted the accused by a judgment dated August 5, 2005. The conviction was upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on March 2, 2010 leading to the appeal before the top court. .The counsel for the appellant argued that even the recovery of the bribe money in the case was doubtful, and there was no evidence of demand for the same. The appellant was working as cleaner in the office and did not have any authority at the time to prepare or deliver death certificates, the counsel added. The counsel for the Punjab government argued that an inference for the demand of a bribe can be drawn in the matter.The top court noted that shadow witness in the case had turned hostile and even the trial court had conceded that there was no proof of the accused demanding the bribe. Further, it had not been a case in which the demand was reiterated when the money was allegedly paid. Therefore, the appeal was allowed and the conviction was set aside. .Advocate Gagan Gupta appeared for the appellant. Advocates Abhinav Bajaj, Ajay Pal, Mayank Dahiya, Sugandh Rathor, Priyanka C, and Bhupinder appeared for the respondent-State.[Read Judgment]