IMPORTANT POINT
Presumption arising under Section 4 of Prevention of Corruption Act is rebuttable and is not available to prosecution for proving charge under Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Act.

ORDER

The appellant, at the relevant time, was serving as an overseer with Nedumangad Municipality. PW-2 Sasidharan Nair was a contractor with the Municipality. According to the prosecution case, the appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 200/- as bribe from PW-2 for refunding earnest money and security deposit amounting to Rs. 500/-, which had been deposited at the time of submission of tender for maintenance work of Poovathoor road, which work was completed by the contractor, PW-2 by 12.7.1984. PW-2 submitted a bill for Rs.10,000/-. He was, however, paid Rs. 8706.12 only after measurements were taken. On 28th August, 1984, PW-2 applied for release of earnest money and security deposit. His application was referred to the appellant for report. It is at the point of time on 18th October, 1984 that, it is alleged, appellant demanded Rs. 200 as bribe from PW-2 for processing his refund application. It is further alleged by the prosecution that on 19th October, 1984, PW-2 paid Rs.50/- to the appellant and left after promising to pay the balance amount of Rs. 150/-. PW-2, then made a complaint (Ext. P-6) at the headquarter of Vigilance Wing. The complaint was recorded by Dy. S.P., A. Thankappan Pillai, PW-5. A trap was thereafter organised for 21st November, 1984 . PW-1, Sivadasan, working in the Local Fund Accounts Office was joined as a panch witness. PW-2, contractor was given instructions regarding giving of signal after appellant received the bribe. The three currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 50/- each were produced by PW-2. Those notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and after recording their particulars were handed back to PW-2, who was instructed to give a pre-arranged signal in case bribe was demanded/accepted by the appellant.

2. On 21st November, 1984, the raiding party went to the office of the appellant PW-2 went ahead and in the verandah of his office, he handed over the tainted currency notes to the appellant who received the same and put them in his shirt pocket. On receipt of a prearranged signal, the raiding party rushed to the Municipal Office compound. The Dy. S.P., PW-5 disclosed his identity to the appellant and searched him. The tainted amount was recovered from the pocket of the shirt of the appellant . The appellant was asked to dip his hands in a solution of sodium bicarbonate . The solution turned pink. After tallying the numbers of the currency notes recovered from the shirt pocket of the appellant, the same were seized and the seizure memo was prepared at the spot. The appellant was taken into custody and after completion of investigation was sent up for trial for offences under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 161 IPC.

3. The prosecution led evidence, after appreciation of which, the trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. No separate sentence was awarded while convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 161 IPC. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the appellant filed an appeal in the High Court which was dismissed vide order dated 22nd December, 1994. His conviction and sentence were sustained. By special leave, the appellant is before us.

4. From a careful perusal of the evidence on record, we are satisfied that the three currency notes of the denomination of Rs.50/- each were recovered from the shirt pocket of the appellant and those currency notes were the same which PW-2 had presented before the Investigating Officer, PW-5 on the previous day and had been treated with phenolphthalein powder. The appellant also, in his statement, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has admitted that the seized currency notes had been receiv