The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for conclusive evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in corruption cases, highlighting the importance of independent witnesses and the absence of contradictory evidence.

1. The sole appellant has been convicted under Sec. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. He has been further convicted under Sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 . In default of payment of fine he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, arises on the basis of the written report dated 11-6-1986(Ext. 7) of the informant Sheochandra Sahu lodged before the S. P. (Vigilance), Ranchi coupled with the verification report dated 12-6-1986 (Ext. 3) of Shri Bhagwan Singh, Inspector of Police (Vigilance), Ranchi is that he was doing the work on contract since the year 1979 in the office of the Executive Engineer, Rural Electrification Division, Ranchi, Kusai Colony , Ranchi. It is alleged that the payment of Rs. 14,000.00 was made to him on 4-6-1986 vide Cheque No. 35/100-393563 by the said office. It is alleged that the accused had demanded a cum of Rs. 420.00 at the rate of 3% in respect of the said amount Rs. 14,000.00 and the informant had assured him that he shall be paid in respect thereof after the said cheque is encashed. It is alleged that he could not make payment of Rs. 420.00 to the appellant after the encashment of the cheque due to his inability. It is alleged that the informant went to the appellant in his office on 10-6-1986 regarding for the payment of his other bills and the appellant demanded Rs. 420.00 aforesaid and on his expressing his inability in making the payment in respect thereof, the appellant used unparliamentary language against the appellant and told him in clear words that his another bills for payment cannot be issued until a sum of Rs. 420.00 is paid to the accused-appellant by him. It is also alleged that the bill for payment in respect of Rs. 22,000.00 or Rs. 23,000.00 was still pending in the said office of the Executive Engineer, Rural Electrification Division, Kusai Colony, Ranchi. It was requested that the proper step be taken in the matter. As per allegation disclosed in the written report dated 11-6-1986 of the informant, the S. P. (Vigilance) as per his written order (Ext. 1/b) thereon, Inspector Shri Bhagwan Singh was directed to verify the allegations contained in the written report (Ext. 7) of the informant and submit his report in respect thereof. In the verification report dated 12-6-1986 (Ext. 3), the Police Inspector (Vigilance) Shri Bhagwan Singh has stated that he went with the informant to the office of the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation, Division, Kusai Colony, Ranchi on 12-6-86 at 11.30 and heard the talk between the informant and the appellant and the informant told the appellant that "you please do my work of licence and I will finally settle your account on Tuesday i.e. 17-6-1986." It has been further stated in the verification report that the appellant is willing to accept the bribe for doing the work of the informant. On receipt of the verification report, the case against the appellant was lodged before the Vigilance Department, Patna on 13-6-1986 against the appellant. Thereafter a memorandum of G. C. notes consisting of four G. C. note each of Rs. 100.00 denomination and one G. C. Note of Rs. 20.00 denomination was prepared by the Dy. S. P. (Vigilance), Ranchi Shri Budhram Kindo in present of Shri Maheshwar Prasad Mishra, Special Magistrate, Vigilance, Patna and Dy. S. P. (v) Biglal Orson and Parmeshwar Ravidas and also Shri Bhaghwan Singh, Inspector of Police (V) and they put their signatures thereon and a raiding party was also constituted for the said purpose and the said G. C. notes were handed over to the informant to be paid to the appellant, if demanded as bribe. The further case of the prosecution is that the raiding party with the informant went the office of the appellant. It is also a