MUKHTIAR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS L.R. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2017] 8 S.C.R. 109 · Decided: 14-07-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 8 S.C.R. 109 
MUKHTIAR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS L.R. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1163 of 2017) 
JULY14,2017 
[ARUN MISHRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
B 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: ss. 7 and 13 - Proof of 
ingredients of ss. 7 and 13 - Demand of illegal gratification -
Conviction of Station House Officer of Police Station uls. 7 and 13 
C 
for taking bribe from the appellant - Upheld by the High Court. -
On appeal, held: Evidence with regard to the demand of illegal 
gratification as made on the day of trap operation wholly inadequate 
to comply with the pre-requisites to constitute the ingredients of the 
offence with which the original accused had been charged -
Prosecution failed to prove the charge levelled against the original D 
accused beyond all reasonable doubt - Courts below failed to 
analyse the factual and legal aspects as involved in their true 
perspectives - Thus, the order of the High Court affirming the 
conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court is set aside. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 It would be patent from the materials on record 
that the evidence with regard to the demand of illegal gratification 
either of Rs.3,000/- which had been paid or of Rs.2,000/- as made 
on the day of trap operation is wholly inadequate to comply with 
E 
the pre-requisites to constitute the ingredients of the offence 
F 
with which the original accused had been charged. Not only the 
date or time of first demand/payment is not forthcoming and the 
allegation to that effect is rather omnibus, vague and sweeping, 
even the person in whose presence Rs.3,000/- at the first instance 
is alleged to have been paid has neither been produced in the 
investigation nor at the trial. In other words, the bald allegation 
G 
of the complainant with regard to the demand and payment of 
Rs.3,000/- as well as the demand of Rs.2,000/- has remained 
uncorroborated. His statement to this effect lacks in material 
facts and particulars and per se cannot form the foundation .of a 
decisive conclusion that such demand in fact had been made by 
H 
109 
110 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 
A the original accused. Viewed in this perspective, the statement 
of the complainant and the Inspector S, the shadow witness, in 
isolation that the original accused had enquired as to whether 
money had been brought or not, can by no means constitute a 
demand as enjoined in law as an ingredient of the offence levelled 
8 
against the original accused. Such a stray query ipso facto in 
absence of any other cogent and persuasive evidence on record 
cannot amount to a demand to be a constituent of the offence 
under Section 7 or 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 
[Para 25] [119-F-H; 120-A-CJ 
1.2 Not only the prosecution version of demand and 
C 
acceptance of illegal gratification in the police station seems to 
be unusual, contradictions of the witnesses, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-
5 with regard to the location of the transaction relating to Rs.2,000/ 
- also renders it doubtful. It is also noticeably unusual that the 
currency notes when allegedly handed over by the complainant 
D to the original accused, the same instead of being keenly kept 
with him, were placed casually in the card board box placed on 
his table. Though the original accused, apart from imputing his 
false implication at the instance of Superintendent of Police said 
to be the relative of the complainant could not adduce. any 
evidence to consolidate the same, the fact remains that this officer 
E 
at the relevant point of time was indeed the Superintendent of 
Police and was the superior of PW5 who led the trap operation. 
[Para 26] (120-D-E] 
1.3 On an overall appreciation of evidence on record, in 
the context of the elucidation of law pertaining to proof of the 
F 
ingredients of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, the prosecution has 
failed to prove the charge levelled against the original accused 
beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial court as well as the High 
Court failed to analyse the factual and legal aspects as involved 
in their true perspectives and resultantly the determinations made 
G are not sustainable. The judgment and order of the High Court 
affirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court 
is set aside. [Para 27] (120-F-G[ 
P Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, 
State of Andhra Pradesh and Am: (2015) 10 SCC 152; 
H 
A. Subair v. State of Kera/a (2009) 6 SCC

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.