In a unique case, the Supreme Court acquitted a convict in a 20-year-old case citing a constitution bench judgement. A cleaner was convicted on this basis that Rs. 300 rupees were recovered from him on the charge of taking bribe. The Division bench of the Supreme Court said in its verdict that the recent decision of the constitutional bench said that the both demand for bribe and recovery should be proved.

A bench of Justices Abhay Singh Oka and Rajesh Bindal said that Constitution bench had recently said that both demand and recovery should be proved in case of taking bribe. Overruling the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the bench acquitted the cleaner in a 20-year-old case.

In the present case, the trial court had specifically observed that the demand for bribe was not proved. The judgment of the High Court was based on the presumption that since the money had been recovered from the appellant, the demand must have been made. The State contended that the fact remains that phenolphthalein coated currency notes having identical serial numbers were recovered from the appellant in the presence of independent witnesses, were recovered. From this it can be concluded that bribe was demanded.

However, the Supreme Court said that there was no evidence of demand of bribe. The court observed, "If the evidence produced by the prosecution is examined in the light of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT Delhi) SCC Online SC 1724, the appellant's conviction and sentence cannot be . It should be legally upheld." Therefore both the demand and the recovery have to be proved to sustain the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Case details:-

Criminal Appeal No. 2136 of 2010
Jagtar Singh
Versus
State of Punjab

Read the Complete judgment on this link/tab