1. Conviction under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act following recovery of currency notes during a trap operation. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1422
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B.Pattanaik : M.B.Shah
Ram Ishwar Choudhary
Versus
State Of Bihar
Case No. : 1242 of 1997
Date of Decision : 12/2/99
A witness who is not concerned with the success of a trap is an independent witness, and their testimony regarding the recovery of incriminating evidence is sufficient to prove a corruption charge beyond reasonable doubt, even if other independent witnesses do not support the prosecution.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) - Conviction and sentence for corruption - Reliance on testimony of a witness to search and seizure - Witness who is not concerned with the success of the trap can be held to be an independent witness - Evidence of recovery of currency notes from the pocket of the accused is sufficient to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine. While independent witnesses did not support the prosecution, the courts relied on the testimony of a witness who observed the search and seizure of currency notes from the appellant's pocket. The conviction and sentence were upheld by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the witness who testified to the recovery of currency notes was an independent witness as he had no interest in the success of the trap. Consequently, the prosecution's case was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: Whether the testimony of a witness who arrived after the accused was caught, but witnessed the recovery of currency notes, could be relied upon as independent evidence when other independent witnesses did not support the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: A witness is considered independent if they are in no way concerned with the success of the trap laid by the raiding party. Their unequivocal evidence regarding the recovery of incriminating currency notes is sufficient to justify a conviction.
Result: Appeal fails and is dismissed.
Act Referred
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether testimony of a government official is unreliable as independent evidence when other independent witnesses fail to support the prosecution. (Para 4 )
3. A government official is an independent witness if they have no personal interest in the success of the trap operation. (Para 4 )
4. Testimony of a witness not concerned with the success of a trap operation is admissible as independent evidence to prove recovery of currency notes. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal dismissed; conviction under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act affirmed. (Para 5 )
6. Can a government official be treated as an independent witness in a corruption trap case?
Yes, a government official can be considered an independent witness provided they were in no way concerned with the success of the trap laid by the raiding party. (Para 4 )
7. Does the failure of other independent witnesses to support the prosecution necessarily invalidate the testimony of a government official?
No, the prosecution case can be proved beyond reasonable doubt if the testimony of a government official, acting as an independent witness, unequivocally establishes the recovery of currency notes. (Para 4 )
(1) THE appellant has been convicted under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs 250 and in default rigorous imprisonment for a further three months. The said conviction and sentence have been upheld by the High Court in appeal, but the sentence for the period undergone has been reduced.
(2) TO substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined a large number of witnesses, but the independent witnesses did not support the prosecution. The courts, however, relied upon the evidence of the Consolidation Officer who was a witness to the search and seizure of the appellant-accused and the recovery of the currency notes from his pocket.
(3) RELYING upon the said testimony, both the courts below have held that the offence has been fully established beyond reasonable doubt as against the appellant-accused.
(4) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that true independent witnesses not having supported the prosecution, no reliance ought to have been placed on the testimony of the Consolidation Officer, more so, when he stated in his evidence that the man had already been caught by the time he reached the place of occurrence. We do not find any substance in the said submission as, in our opinion, the Consolidation Officer must also be held to be an independent witness inasmuch as he was in no way concerned with the success of the trap that was laid by the raiding party. His evidence unequivocally indicates that on searching the body of the appellant, the currency notes were recovered from his pocket. The courts below, therefore, are fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt relying upon the aforesaid testimony of the Consolidation Officer.
(5) IN the circumstances, we see no infirmity with the impugned judgment of the High Court affirming the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.
