(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 evi