Case: Mukhtiar Singh Vs. State Of Punjab

he appellant herein was posted as Revenue Patwari at Patiala at the relevant time. One Arjancomplainant approached the appellant herein in his office and requested for a copy of Jamabandi of his land for the yearAs per the prosecution, the appellant herein agreed to supply the copy provided he was paid Rs.The complainant was asked by the appellant herein to come along with the money on the next day.(b) The complainantwho was not willing to pay the bribe to the appellant herein, disclosed the entire incident before one Bakhshish Singhand requested for his help. On 06.09.1996, Bakhshish Singh and Arjan Singh lodged a written complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Patiala.(c) On the abovesaid complaint, a trap was laid and currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 500/and Rs. 100/smeared with phenolphthalein powder and after duly recording their numbers were handed over to the complainant. After following the due procedure, the raiding party along with Arjan Singhand Bakhshish Singhreached the spot. When the complainant went inside the office along with Bakhshish Singh, he found the appellant herein sitting on his chair and on seeing them; the appellant herein asked the complainant if he had brought the money. Arjan Singh responded in affirmative and handed over the currency notes to the appellant herein which was kept by thein his right hand side upper drawer of the table. Thehanded over the copy of the jamabandi after obtaining the signature of the complainant.(d) The shadowSingh came out of the office of theand signaled in a specific manner. Thereupon, the investigatingAmar Nath, DSP, Vigilance Bureau along with the raiding party and the official5) went inside the office of theThe money was recovered and the handwash of thewas taken which turned pink. After following the necessary formalities, a First Information Report (FIR), being No. 58 dated 06.09.1996 came to be registered under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short `the PC Act).(e) The Special Judge, Patiala, vide order dated 03.05.2002 in C.C. No. 20 T/2001/11.4.97 convicted theunder Section 13(1)(d) read with Sections 13(2) and 7 of the PC Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 2 (two) years each under Section 7 and Section 13(2) of the Act with the direction that sentences shall run concurrently.(f) Being aggrieved by the order dated 03.05.2002, thepreferred a Criminal Appeal being No.of 2002 before the High Court. The High Court, by order dated 28.07.2011, confirmed the order of conviction passed by the Special Judge while reducing the sentence of imprisonment from two years to one year for each of the two offences.(g) Being aggrieved by the order dated 28.07.2011, thepreferred this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

Reasoning:
11. There is no denying the fact that on 06.09.1996, a trap was laid on the complaint filed by the complainant and theded by the Vigilance Department, Patiala. Due procedure was followed while conducting the trap wherein Bakhshish Singhwas nominated as a shadow witness who accompanied the), who was handed over the currency notes of denomination of Rs. 500/and Rs. 100/duly smeared with phenolphthalein powder and after recording their numbers. When both of them went inside the office, thewho was sitting on a chair, on seeing them, asked the complainant if he had brought the money. Whenreplied positively, thetook from him six hundred rupees and put them in the right hand side upper drawer of his table and handed over to him the copy of Jamabandi after obtaining his signature on a Register where the complainant signed and put the date as 06.09.1996. The shadow witness came out of the office of the accused and signaled in a specific manner. Thereupon, DSP Amar Nath along with other members of the raiding party went inside the office of the accused. A glass of water was requisitioned and sodium carbonate was added to the water. When fingers of both the hands of the accused were made to be washed in the solution, the colour of the solution turned light pink and the numbers of the currency notes also tallied and they were taken into possession by investigating team. After carrying out necessary formalities, the accused wastrue witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. An objection was raised by learned counsel for thethat the copy of the Jamabandi stood prepared on 04.09.1996 and thus, there was no occasion for theto ask for the illegal gratification on 06.09.1996. The best piece of evidence to establish this point was the Ujrat Register wherein signatures of the complainant were obtained as a token of delivery of copy of Jamabandi but no attempt was made on behalf of theto get the said Register produced on record. The said entry bears the date as 04.09.1996 in the relevant column but signatures of the complainant regarding receipt thereof were obtained on the said entry by theat the time of trap, that is, on 06.09.1996. Even otherwise, the demand, acceptance and recovery of the incriminating currency notes from the accused have been sufficiently proved. 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 forthe case on hand, there is no evidence on record to show that the investigating officer shook hands with theor 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 thehas been proved by direct evidence.The premise to be established on the facts for drawing the presumption is that there was demand, payment and acceptance of gratification. Once the said premise is established, the inference to be drawn is that the said gratification was accepted "as motive or reward" for doing or forbearing to do any official act. So the word "gratification" need not be stretched to mean reward because reward is the outcome of the presumption which the court has to draw on the factual premise that there was payment of gratification. This will again be fortified by looking at the collocation of two expressions adjacent to each other like "gratification or any valuable thing". If acceptance of any valuable thing can help to draw the presumption that it was accepted as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act, the word "gratification" must be treated in the context to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to the public servant who received it. In the case on hand, from the facts on record, it is proved beyond doubt that theasked for the money to do a particular act and actually accepted the same. He was caughtand, therefore, we do not find any reason to disagree with the findings of the trial court and the High Court.It is a settled principle of law laid down by this Court in a number of decisions that once the demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification knowing it to be the bribe are proved by evidence then conviction must follow under Section 7 of the PC Act against the accused. Indeed, these twin requirements are sine qua non for proving the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. In the light of our ownof the evidence and keeping in view the abovesaid principle in mind, we have also come to a conclusion that twin requirements of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification were proved in the case on hand on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution against the appellant and hence the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Section 7 read with Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of the Act.On the face of the specific and positive evidence which cannot be said to be inherently improbable, the plea of thethat the prosecution case is fit to be rejected on the ground of improbability does not appeal to us. The courts below, in our opinion, have rightly rejected the defence evidence. Therefore, in our opinion, the prosecution in this case has proved the guilt of thebeyond all reasonable doubt.