Supreme Court Acquits Punjab Police Officer in Bribery Case Due to Lack of Evidence

The case of Mukhtiar Singh (Through Legal Representative) vs. State of Punjab revolves around allegations of corruption against a Punjab Police officer. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, ruling that the prosecution had failed to prove the demand and acceptance of a bribe beyond reasonable doubt.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Mukhtiar Singh (now deceased), was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for allegedly accepting a bribe of Rs. 2,000 while serving as the Station House Officer (SHO) of Ajnala Police Station, Punjab. The complainant, Sarabjit Singh, accused the officer of demanding money in exchange for filing a favorable report in a domestic dispute case lodged by his wife under Sections 406 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The trial court found the accused guilty and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment of one year under Section 7 and two years under Section 13(2), along with a fine. The conviction was upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The accused, before his death, filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, which was later pursued by his legal heir.

Key Issues Considered by the Court

• Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused demanded and accepted the bribe.
• Whether the evidence provided by the prosecution was consistent and reliable.
• Whether the absence of direct demand for a bribe could lead to conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Petitioner’s (Appellant’s) Arguments

The legal representative of the deceased appellant argued:

• The prosecution failed to establish the demand for a bribe, which is a necessary ingredient for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
• The shadow witness did not hear any explicit demand for money from the accused.
• The alleged bribe money was placed in a cardboard box and not found in the accused’s possession, indicating no direct receipt.
• The complainant had a motive to falsely implicate the accused due to a pre-existing dispute.

Respondent’s (State of Punjab) Arguments

The prosecution contended:

• The complainant clearly stated that the accused had demanded and accepted the bribe.
• The presence of tainted currency notes in the accused’s office and the forensic report confirming phenolphthalein traces on his hands proved the acceptance of the bribe.
• The accused was caught in a trap operation, and there was no reason for the police to falsely implicate him.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment

The Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Justices Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy, examined the legal requirements for proving corruption charges and found significant inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.

1. Demand for a Bribe Must Be Proved

The Court reiterated that mere possession of tainted currency notes is insufficient to convict a person under the Prevention of Corruption Act:

“The proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. In the absence thereof, the charge must fail.”

2. Lack of Direct Evidence of Demand

The shadow witness, who was supposed to confirm the demand for the bribe, did not hear the accused directly asking for money:

“There was no direct demand of illegal gratification by the original accused in the presence of the shadow witness at the police station.”

3. Placement of Money in a Cardboard Box

The prosecution claimed that the tainted money was found in a box on the accused’s table, not in his possession. The Court ruled that this was insufficient to establish that the accused voluntarily accepted the bribe:

“The recovery of money from a box on the accused’s table does not, in itself, prove conscious acceptance of the bribe.”

4. Contradictions in Witness Testimonies

The Supreme Court pointed out inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, including:

• Discrepancies in whether the accused was in his office or his residence at the time of the alleged bribe.
• Failure to establish why the complainant did not report an earlier alleged payment of Rs. 3,000.
• Different locations mentioned for where the alleged transaction took place.

5. Absence of Independent Corroboration

The Court ruled that the absence of independent corroboration of the demand for a bribe made the conviction unsustainable:

“The prosecution has failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt.”

Final Orders

• The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
• The appeal was allowed, and the legal representative of the deceased accused was granted relief.

Legal Implications

1. Importance of Proving Bribe Demand

The ruling reaffirms that demand for a bribe is a crucial element in corruption cases, and its absence is fatal to the prosecution.

2. Mere Possession of Money Is Not Sufficient

Even if tainted money is found in an accused’s vicinity, it must be proved that it was accepted voluntarily as a bribe.

3. Protection Against False Implication

The judgment protects public servants from being falsely implicated in corruption cases without clear evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Mukhtiar Singh (Through L.R.) vs. State of Punjab reinforces the legal principle that corruption charges must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The ruling ensures that mere possession of money is not enough to convict an accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act. By setting aside the conviction, the Court upheld the fundamental requirement of proving a demand for a bribe, protecting individuals from wrongful prosecution.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Mukhtiar Singh (Thro vs State of Punjab Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 14-07-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Extortion and Blackmail
See all petitions in Money Laundering Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Arun Mishra
See all petitions in Judgment by Amitava Roy
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category