IMPORTANT POINTWhen no explanation is given by accused about the patience phenolphthalein powder on his hand and the recovery of currency notes from the adjoining house when he had thrown them his conviction for a accepting illegal gratification account be disturbed.

JUDGMENT

AHMADI, J.:— Rup Singh, the appellant, was serving as a Revenu Patwari of village Balad Kalan. On 22nd December, 1980, PW 5 - Sukhdev Singh approached him in the Patwarikhana at Bhawanigarh and requested him to supply a copy of the Jamabandi concerning his land as he was desirous of installing an electric motor. The appellant demanded Rs. 300/ - by way of illegal gratification for preparing and supplying the copy of the Jamabandi. After some discussion the amount was settled. at Rs. 200/ -. PW 5, however, was not desirous of paying the said amount to the appellant. He, therefore, approached PW 8 -Gurdial Singh, Vigilance Inspector, and gave his complaint Exh. PJ. Thereafter, PW 5 handed over two currency notes of Rs. 100/- each, Exhs. P4 and P5, to PW 8. PW 8 treated the currency notes with phenolphthalein powder and noted their numbers in the Memo Exh. PK. He thereafter gave a demonstration of the working of the phenolphthalein powder to PW 5 and PWs 6 and 7 who had been called to witness the trap proposed to be laid. PW 5 was instructed to go to the Patwarikhana and pay the amount to the appellant on demand. PW 7 was directed to accompany PW 5 and to give the signal on the appellant accepting the bribe money. Accordingly, PWs 5 and 7 went to the Patwarikhana and met the appellant. On seeing PW 5, the appellant stepped out of the Chobara and enquired if he had brought the money. On PW 5 answering in the affirmative the appellant demanded the amount which was paid to him by PW 5. The appellant accepted the amount by his right hand. PW7 who witnessed the acceptance gave the pre-planned signal whereupon PW 8 and party arrived at the scene of occurrence. On seeing PW 8 and his companions, the appellant threw away the notes in the adjoining compound. The appellant was apprehended and his person was searched. Rs. 642/- were recovered. Thereafter, the appellants hand was placed in sodium carbonate mixed with water and it turned pink. The said solution was sealed in a bottle Exh. P3 under Memo Exh. PL. Thereafter, the raiding party went to the adjoining compound, picked up the two notes the numbers whereof tallied with the numbers noted in the Memo Exh. PK. The notes were sealed under the Memo Exh. PN. The bottle Exh. P3 was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory which reported by Exh. PF that the solution contained sodium carbonate and phenolphthalein powder. After obtaining the necessary sanction, Exh. PE, the appellant was prosecuted under S. 5(1)(d) read with S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 161, IPC.

2. The appellant in his examination under S.313 of the Criminal Procedure Code denied the prosecution allegations and contended that PW 5 was annoyed as he had refused to change the valuation of land left by his father while preparing the statement of death-duty on 8th December, 1980. His case, therefore, was that PW 5 had been instrumental in setting up a false case against him to take revenge.

3. The learned Special Judge, Sangrur, framed a charge for the commission of aforestated offences and on an appreciation of the prosecution evidence, particularly the evidence of PWs 5 to 8, came to the conclusion that the guilt was established beyond any manner of doubt. He rejected the defence contention. that PW 5 was actuated by ulterior motives in giving evidence against the appellant. He also rejected the appellants contention that PWs 6 and 7 were also giving false evidence at the behest of PW 5. The appellant on conviction was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five months under both the counts. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

4. The appellant preferred. an appeal before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana which was heard by a learned single Judge. The learned single Judge came to the conclusion that even if it is believed for the sake of argument that PW 5 was annoyed