New Delhi: Hearing an appeal pending with it for nearly 13 years, the Supreme Court acquitted a 65-year-old man convicted by a lower court in Punjab in 2005 for accepting a bribe of Rs 300, saying “illegal gratification”. (demand of bribe) was not proved in his case.
Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal on Thursday held that Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 constitute evidence of demand as well as acceptance. Illegal gratification required by a public servant to convict him of an offence.
In 2003, Jagtar Singh, who worked as a cleaner in a government office in Faridkot, Punjab, was accused of accepting a bribe of Rs. 300 for the supply of a copy of the death certificate. He was convicted by a trial court in 2005 and. in 2010, The Punjab and Haryana High Court also upheld his conviction, following which he moved the apex court.,
Singh’s lawyer Gagan Gupta told ThePrint that 65-year-old Jagtar Singh spent 38 days in jail and has been out on bail since 2008. He said that he had retired from service in 2016.
To acquit the man, the Supreme Court referred to its last week’s Constitution Bench judgment in Neeraj Dutta v. NCT of Delhi, where it held that acceptance of illegal gratification without proviso to Section 7 or Section 13 shall not be an offense under (1)(d), (i) and (ii) of the Act. The court had said that the offer of bribe as well as the demand by the public servant must be proved as a matter of fact.
Highlighting that the case of Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab was not one in which “demanded [of illegal gratification] was repeated when the money was allegedly paid to him”, the Division Bench said, adding that the HC passed the judgment only on the assumption that since the money was recovered from him, there must have been a demand for the same.
The top court said that there was not even circumstantial evidence to prove such a demand.
No evidence to prove demand
As per the judgment, Jagtar Singh allegedly took Rs. 300 for supply of a copy of the death certificate of one Magahar Singh who was killed in 2003. Maghar Singh’s nephew, came in contact with Jit Singh Jagtar, who allegedly demanded Rs. 500 for providing the certificate, however, they both settled at Rs. 300 for the work.
However, Jeet later consulted Chamkaur Singh, a former member of the panchayat, who advised him to approach the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) of the Faridkot vigilance office, following which the FIR was lodged.
A plan was hatched to nab the accused for which Chamkaur was made a shadow witness and the DSP handed over three phenolphthalein-coated Rs 100 notes to Jeet Singh, noting their serial numbers in the memo. It is alleged that while taking the money, the accused was caught by dodging.
A shadow witness accompanies the complainant in plain clothes to the public servant demanding the bribe, to witness the taking of the bribe.
However, the court noted that during the trial, Jeet and Chamkaur turned hostile.
The man’s counsel argued that he was working as a cleaner in the office and had no authority at the time of preparing or delivering the death certificate.
On the other hand, the counsel for the State submitted that from the recovery of phenolphthalein-coated currency notes with identical serial numbers, “it can be inferred that there was demand and therefore he accepted illegal gratification”.
However, Jagtar’s counsel argued that while the recovery itself was “seriously suspicious”, there was no evidence of such illegal gratification being demanded, drawing the attention of the SC in the Neeraj Dutta case.
The court noted that Jagtar was working as a cleaner, but was also deputed to discharge other duties in “emergency”. However, it said that the death certificate in question was prepared on 17 October 2003, while the sweeper was deputed with that work three days later, on 20 October 2003, which means that the death certificate was issued to him for that work. It was prepared before being handed over.
The court also took note of the statement of Gurjinder Singh, District Social Security Officer, Faridkot, that the same phenolphthalein coated notes were recovered from Jagtar Singh.
However, noting that there was “no circumstantial evidence to prove the demand for illegal gratification” and relying on a Constitution Bench judgment in the Neeraj Dutta case, the Supreme Court held that the conviction of the individual was not legally sustainable. Can be kept and he is later acquitted of the charges. 18 years.
(Editing by Anumeha Saxena)