Judgment

Thomas, J.-On the death of the sole appellant normaily this appeal would have got abated. But appellant’s widow Smt. Krishna Bai applied for resuscitation of the appeal presumably because she was not in­clined to bear the stigma fastened on her late husband with the find­ing of the High Court that he was guilty of corruption charge. Hence, she availed herself of the remedy envisaged in the proviso to Section 394(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and applied for leave to continue the appeal. Leave was granted after condoning the delay involved in making the aforesaid application.

2. Appellant was accused in a case tried by a Special Judge for the offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He was acquitted of the said charge by the trial Court but was con­victed by the High Court on an appeal filed by the State in reversal of the finding of the trial Court. He was sentenced to rigorous im­prisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500/-. He preferred the present appeal by special leave.

3. Appellant was a Revenue Inspector. The nub of the case against him was that he wangled a bribe of Rs. 50/- from one Sewa Ram (P.W. 1) for performing an official act, but appellant was caught red-handed in a trap laid by the police.

4. More details of the case are these : P.W. 1-Sewa Ram got a sale-deed in respect of 50 acres of land. He approached the appellant for certification of the said sale-deed for facilitating mutation proceed­ings. Appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 100/- as remuneration for doing the said official act. After some haggling the amount was settled at Rs. 50/- P.W. 3 (Ishwari Prasad Shukla) and P.W. 4 - Jagdish Prasad (who was the local Patwari) were also present when the amount was settled at Rs. 50/-. P.W. 1 was to pay the amount on the next day. But he, instead of going to the appellant with the money, first went to the Vigilance Office and lodged a written complaint (Ex. P1) with P.W. 10 - Jagdev Ram Bharkuria (Deputy Superintendent of Police - Vigilance Wing). He prepared a trap for catching the appellant when bribery would be collected in hand. On 1.12.1979, P.W. 1 handed over the marked currency notes to the appellant and the latter kept them on the table beneath his bag. Abruptly, the Vigilance Officer dashed in and caught him red-handed. Phenolphthalein test was conducted on the fingers of the appellant which showed positive result.

5. Appellant, in his defence during trial, denied having made the demand or received the amount and he alleged that P.W. 4 Jagdish Prasad Shukla was entertaining grouse towards him as he was superseded by the appellant in the Revenue Service in which both were serving, and he was behind foisting this false case against him.

6. Learned Special Judge, in his judgment, pointed out certain discrepancies as between the evidence of P.W-1. P.W-3 and P.W-4 and declined to believe the case that appellant received the bribe money. The High Court, however, did not give much weight to those discrepancies as, they according to it, had not material bearing on the hub of the case and observed that the only possible conclusion which could be reached from the evidence is that appellant had received the bribed amount from P.W.-1. Accordingly the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellant.

7. Appellant did not dispute the following facts:

(1) That P.W.-1 was in need of getting his sale deed certified for effecting mutation proceedings. (2) That appellant as Revenue Inspec­tor during the relevant time was to officiate the said certification proceedings. (3) That P.W.-1 Sewa Ram lodged a complaint against him with the vigilance wing and the currency notes were marked by P.W.-10 Dy. S.P. in advance and the same notes were collected from the table of the appellant on 1.12.1979. (4) When the fingers of the appellant were examined by P.W.-12 by conducting phenolphthalein test the result was positive.

8. In view of the above broad features in evidence the dispu