Conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act sustained despite witness delay and absence of physical currency notes during trial.

The Appellant, an Excise Constable, allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 500/- from the complainant (PW-1) on 16.06.1990 to avoid filing a liquor contraband case against him

Following a complaint to the Vigilance Department, a trap was organized on 19.06.1990 at a restaurant in Khatima

Tainted currency notes were recovered from the Appellant, and his hands turned pink when washed in a sodium carbonate solution

The Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C. Act), sentencing him to one year and two years of rigorous imprisonment respectively

The High Court of Uttarakhand sustained the conviction in 2012

The Appellant challenged the conviction before the Supreme Court on grounds of personal enmity, contradictions in witness testimonies, and the non-production of tainted notes

Whether the prosecution successfully proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification despite alleged contradictions in witness statements and the non-production of currency notes

Whether the non-examination of the accused as a defense witness under Section 21 of the P.C. Act or the alleged "interested" nature of the shadow witness (PW-2) invalidated the conviction

Whether the sentence imposed warrants modification considering the Appellant’s advanced age and the passage of time

The Court applied Section 7 of the P.C. Act (Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration) and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) (Criminal misconduct by a public servant)

It relied on the principle that a witness is not "interested" merely due to prior acquaintance with the complainant unless specific hostility is proven

Section 21 of the P.C. Act provides an accused the competency to be a witness, but failure to exercise this option does not automatically shift the burden of proof, though it leaves the prosecution’s reliable evidence unrebutted

The Court found the oral testimonies of PW-1 (complainant) and PW-2 (shadow witness) to be consistent regarding the pre-trap, trap, and post-trap proceedings

It rejected the "interested witness" argument against PW-2, noting that mere acquaintance does not prove hostility

The Court upheld the High Court’s reasoning that the defense witness (restaurant owner) was likely influenced by local pressures to deny the incident

Regarding the non-production of currency notes, the Court noted this was a fresh oral argument never raised in lower courts and was insufficient to displace the synchronized evidence of the recovery memo and phenolphthalein test

All essential elements of demand and acceptance were found to be proved beyond reasonable doubt

However, citing the Appellant’s age (75 years) and the long pendency of the case, the Court modified the sentence to the statutory minimums: 6 months of rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 and 1 year of rigorous imprisonment under Section 13(2)

The appeal was disposed of with the modified sentence