The judgment emphasized the need for in-depth scrutiny of evidence and the benefit of reasonable doubt in corruption cases, highlighting the importance of corroboration and the distinction between witness statements and contemporaneous records.

The Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam, convicted and sentenced the appellant under S. 161, IPC and under S. 5(2) read with S. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to rigorous imprisonment for two years each with an additional sentence of Rs. 5,000/- fine for the latter with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for 3 months, with permission to suffer the substantive terms concurrently.

2. Appellant was the Administrative Officer in the Head Office of F.A.C.T. in charge of purchase. PW. 1 was the Divisional Manager of a Company by name "Logic Systems Pvt. Limited" with which the F.A.C.T. placed orders for purchase of electric typewriters. The charge is that misusing his official position the appellant demanded and received Rs. 2,000/- as illicit gratification from PW. 1.

3. Defence is that there was no demand or receipt and PW. 1 was only arranging an illegitimate trap to save his employment from which he was facing dismissal and the money was actually thrust into the pant pocket of the appellant without his knowledge or consent.

4. There are certain undisputed facts which throw considerable shadows of doubt in the prosecution story and evidence. Pursuant to tender notification from the F.A.C.T., the Logic Systems submitted tenders on 8-12-1983 for supply of electric typewriters at the rate of Rs. 32,700/- as seen from folio 158 of Ext. P26. There was negotiation by which the amount was reduced to Rs. 27,370/- and made in conformity with the D.G.S. & D rates. This rate was accepted and orders placed by the appellant with the concurrence of the finance for supply of three numbers. Two were supplied in February 1984 and one on 23-8-1984 and payments were made. Transactions were thus finally closed.

5. As per rules repeat orders could be placed without fresh tender notification within six months at the same rates. When fresh supply became necessary the appellant placed orders for supply of two more numbers, one in March and the other in April, 1984. Though the order was placed after the expiry of six months and 5 days it was with the approval of the finance as admitted by P.W. 3. In March, 1985 supply of one number was had and payment was also made. The finance Director then passed orders keeping the supply of April, 1985 in abeyance pending further directions. PW. 3 informed the appellant by Ext. P11 dt. 15-3-1985 and appellant in turn informed PW. 1 by Ext. P12 dt. 18-3-1985. At no point of time till the entire supplies and payments were over and up to 9-5-1985 the appellant made any demand for any illicit gratification or create any difficulties. PW. 1 was aware of these facts and that supply was suspended only by the orders of the Finance Director and the appellant had no hand in it. This was admitted by PWs. 1, 2 and 5 and PW. 3 gave evidence that even if appellant wanted he was not in a position to create any difficulties by himself.

6. The prosecution case as spoken to by PW. 1 and detailed in Ext. P4 first information is that on 9-5-1985 PW. 1 approached the appellant to persuade him to have the purchase, but he wanted illicit gratification of Rs. 4,000/-, out of which Rs. 2,000/- was for the supply made in March, 1985 for which payment was also made without any demand for illicit gratification and Rs. 2,000/- for the purchase to be made in April. Finally the amount reduced from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 2,000/- but appellant wanted payment that day (9-5-1985) itself. PW. 1 promised to make the payment, but went and gave Ext. P4 information to PW. 10, Inspector of C.B.I. He arranged the trap. PWs. 2 and 9 are the trap witnesses. PW. 2 alone went with PW. 1 to the appellant and PW. 9 waited outside. PWs. 4 and 7 are employees having seat in the room of the appellant. The initial version was that PWs. 4 and 7 were also in the room and they heard PW. 2 being introduced by PW. 1 to the appellant as a typewriter mechanic though in fact he is an employee of the Export Inspection Agency. But in the box PW. 2 dis