MUKHTIAR SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2016] 4 S.C.R. 995 · Decided: 05-07-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 4 S.C.R. 995 
MUKHTIAR SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No. 618of2012) 
JULY05,2016 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.) 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 
s. 7 r/w. ss. 13(l)(d) and 13(2), s.20 - Demand of illegal 
gratification by public servant - Trap arranged - Accused caught 
red-handed - Phenolphthalein test positive - Conviction by trial 
court and sentence of 2 years - High Court upheld the conviction 
while reducing the sentence to 1 year - On appeal, held: Demand 
and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification is proved by 
evidence beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction upheld. 
s.20 - Presumption under - For drawing the presumption, the 
premise to be established is that there was demand, payment and 
acceptance of gratification - Once this premise is established, the 
inference to be drawn is that the gratification was accepted "as 
motive or reward" for doing or forbearing to do any official act. 
Words and Phrases - 'Gratification' - Meaning of in the con-
text of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The complainant, in his deposition, narrated the 
whole incident before the court. PW-5 completely corroborated 
with the statement of the complainant. No discrepancy was found 
with respect to the material aspects of the matter such as 
recovery of the incriminating currency notes, their identity or 
the credibility of the witnesses. When witness is examined on 
oath at length, it is quite possible for him to make some 
discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making 
some discrepant details. [Para 12) (1005-C-D] 
2. The objection that reliability of the trap was impaired as 
the solution collected in the phial was not sent to the Chemical 
Examiner is too puerile for acceptance. Phenolphthalein solo-
995 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
996 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 4 S.C.R. 
tion is always used not because there is any such direction by the 
statutory provision, but for the satisfaction of the officials that 
the suspected public servant would have really handled the bribe 
money [Para 12] [1005-F-G, H; 1006-A] 
State of UP. v. Zakau/lah 1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 456 : 
(1998) 1 sec 557 - relied on. 
3. It cannot be said that the hands of the appellant-accused 
might have got in touch with the phenolphthalein powder when 
he was caught hold by the investigating officer and, thus, finding 
on conviction cannot be recorded on the basis of the phenol-
phthalein sodium carbonate test. There is no evidence on record 
to show that the investigating officer shook hands with the ap-
pellant-accused or caught his hands and, as such there was no 
occasion for the 'phenolphthalein powder being transferred from 
the hands of the investigating officer to those of the accused. 
Even otherwise, the recovery of the tainted currency notes from 
the custody of the appellant-accused has been proved by direct 
evidence. [Para 12] (1006-B-C) 
4. The plea that the complainant nursed a grudge against 
the appellant-accused for having supplied a copy of the Jamabandi 
to adopted son of the complainant and the present case is the 
outcome of the said grudge, is misconceived. It was stated be-
fore the court that the matter between the complainant and his 
adopted son was compromised and even otherwise no material 
on record has been placed to show that a copy of the Jamabandi 
was supplied to the adopted son of complainant by the appellant-
accused. Moreover, the said suit has no relevance at all with the 
instant case as it was filed much later than the date of incident. 
[Para 13) [1006-D-E] 
5. PW-1 has categorically stated in his deposition that the 
sealed nip of hand-wash of the appellant-accused was also depos-
ited with him on 06.09.1996 along with other case properties and 
he made the entry thereof in the relevant register. Though he 
was not cross-examined on this aspect, it was he who made the 
entry and he should have been confronted with the said entry if 
the appellant-accused thought that there was some discrepancy 
in it and if the appellant-accused wanted to take benefit thereof. 
In fact, there was no such discfepancy as deposit of sealed nip of 
MUKHTIAR SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
hand-wash of the appellant-accused has been mentioned in the 
register. [Para 14) [1006-F -G) 
6. The premise to be established on the facts for drawing 
the presumption is that there was demand, payment and accep-
tance of gratificati

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