Conviction of public servant for bribery upheld based on consistent testimony despite non-examination of primary complainant.

The appellant, a Lekhpal in the Consolidation Department, along with a Kanoongo, allegedly demanded a bribe of ₹400 from Virendra Singh to ensure a favorable outcome in a land dispute appeal pending before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation).

Virendra’s son, Jai Vijai Singh, reported the matter to the Vigilance Department, which organized a trap party.

On April 1, 1977, the appellant was caught red-handed at Chaurasiya Hotel accepting ₹300 in phenolphthalein-treated currency notes.

Following a chemical test of his hands and pocket, which turned pink, he was arrested.

The Trial Court (Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur) convicted the appellant on October 9, 1985, while acquitting the co-accused Kanoongo due to insufficient evidence.

The appellant challenged this conviction on grounds of non-examination of the primary complainant and lack of independent witnesses.

1. Whether the non-examination of the primary complainant (Virendra Singh) is fatal to the prosecution’s case given the availability of other eyewitnesses and trap evidence?

2. Whether the recovery of illegal gratification in a public place (hotel) without independent public witnesses renders the trap proceedings unreliable?

3. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant under the Prevention of Corruption Act beyond reasonable doubt?

Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which criminalizes public servants taking gratification other than legal remuneration.

Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, regarding criminal misconduct by a public servant.

The evidentiary standard applied was the "proof beyond reasonable doubt" principle in criminal jurisprudence.

The court also implicitly applied the principle that the non-examination of a material witness is not fatal if their absence is explained (e.g., medical incapacity) and other corroborative ocular and forensic evidence exists.

The Court rejected the appellant's contention regarding the non-examination of Virendra Singh, noting that P.W. 4 (his son) provided a valid medical explanation for his father's mental instability.

The court held that since the trap was witnessed by P.W. 1 (Inspector), P.W. 2 (Constable), and P.W. 3 (Public Witness), the absence of the primary complainant did not weaken the case.

Regarding the location of the trap, the court reasoned that the secrecy and planned nature of such operations are designed to prevent apprehension, and the appellant admitted his presence at the hotel.

The forensic evidence—the sodium carbonate solution turning red upon washing the appellant's hands—corroborated the testimony that he handled the marked notes.

The court found no evidence of enmity or motive for the police to falsely implicate the appellant.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence of one year of rigorous imprisonment under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The appellant’s bail was cancelled, and he was directed to surrender before the Trial Court within four weeks to undergo the remaining sentence.