Citation: Jaswinder Singh (Dead through LRs.) v. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 2137 of 2014, 2026 INSC 1031. Decided on September 22, 2026, by a Bench: Supreme Court of India Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Arun Palli.
A criminal appeal filed against the concurrent decisions of the lower courts convicting a government official (a Patwari) under the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe for property mutation. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction because the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of the bribe, as the independent and official witnesses admitted that the money was neither paid nor recovered in their presence. The ratio: proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non (an absolute necessity) to establishl guilt under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of tainted money from a public servant, in the absence of direct proof of a prior demand and voluntary acceptance, is insufficient to sustain a conviction.
The case began when a man named Kulwant Singh wanted to update property records (mutation) in favor of his deceased brother’s legal heirs through a government official, a Patwari named Jaswinder Singh.
The informant alleged that the Patwari demanded a bribe of Rs. 10,000 (later negotiated to Rs. 9,500) to complete the official paperwork. Unwilling to pay, the informant reported the matter to the Vigilance Bureau, which set up a trap using chemical-coated (phenolphthalein) currency notes. During the subsequent raid on April 19, 2002, the raiding party entered the Patwari’s office, claimed to find the money in his pocket, and tested his hands, which turned pink in a chemical solution.
The trial court convicted the Patwari under the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to two years of rigorous imprisonment, a decision that was later upheld by the High Court. Following the appellant’s death while his appeal was pending in the Supreme Court, his legal representatives continued the legal battle.
Upon reviewing the evidence, the Supreme Court noted significant flaws, as the designated shadow witness and official witnesses admitted during cross-examination that they did not actually see the money being handed over to the accused or recovered from him in their presence. Because the core elements of demand and acceptance were missing, the Supreme Court cleared the charges and set aside the conviction.
