Honble THOMAS, J. – This is a Government appeal assailing the acquittal of a government servant from graft charge. Respondent government servant was convicted by the trial court under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and also Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and was sentenced to substantive terms of imprisonment and fine but he was acquitted by a single Judge of the Allahabad High Court when he appealed against the conviction and sentence.

(2). Respondent was working as Revenue Inspector (Wasil Baki Nawis) in a Sub-Tehsil in Nainital District. The nub of the case against him is that he received Rs. 400/- as bribe from PW 5 Satpal Singh for doing an official act and he was caught red- handed with the bribed amount by the Anti-corruption officials, After obtainingsanction from the government, respondent was challaned. In his defence, he disputed the entire incident and contended that it was a concocted case against him.

(3). More details about the case : A person by name Naubat was in occupation of a certain land situate in the sub-Tehsil Kaladhungi (Nainital District). Since the occupation was illegal proceedings have been afoot for evicting him. PW-5 Satpal Singh purchased the right of Naubat and approached the respondent for regularisation of occupancy. Initially, respondent demanded a sum of Rs. 500/- by way of gratification but after some haggling the amount was settled at Rs. 400/-. However, PW 5-Satpal Singh, before handing over the money, secretly met the officials of Anti-Corruption Bureau and they arranged a trap. In accordance with their scheme, currency notes amounting to Rs. 400/- were handed over to the respondent on 23.5.1981, but the bribe-taker was soon intercepted by the Anti-Corruption squad with the tainted cash. The currency notes were seized from him and phenolphthalein test conducted showed a positive result.

(4). Apart from the evidence of the complainant, PW5 (Satpal Singh) and PW-4 - Harendra Singh Sirohi (DSP of Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nainital), prosecution examined two other witnesses who were present when the delinquent officer was caught red-handed. They are PW 6-Lokesh Pal Singh and PW 7 - Khem Singh (who was driver of the vehicle in which the Anti-Corruption officials travelled). The Special Judge, who tried the case found the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses reliable, but learned single Judge of the High Court took a contrary view.

(5). Following are the reasons which learned single Judge advanced for interfering with the conviction and sentence (1) PW-5 (Satpal Singh) had a motive to falsely implicate the respondent because papers have already been forwardedfor eviction of Naubat from the illegal occupancy (2) Evidence of PW 5 - Satpal Singh was not corroborated by independent witnesses. (3) There is material contradiction between the evidence of PW 4 and PW 6 regarding preparation of recovery-memo. (4) The solution (used for conducting phenolphthalein test) collected in a phial after washing the tainted fingers of the respondent was not sent to the Chemical Examiner. (5) Nobody over-heard the demand made by the delinquent officer for bribe. (6) The fact that currency notes were recovered from left pocket of the respondent verges the story on improbability because it was not suggested anywhere that respondent was a left-handed person.

(6). Complainants evidence was jettisoned on the mere ground that since he had a grouse against the delinquent public servant he might falsely have implicated the latter. Such a premise is fraught with the consequence that no bribe giver can get away from such stigma in any graft case. No doubt PW 5 would have been aggrieved by the conduct of the respondent. The very fact that he lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau is reflective of his grievance. Such a handicap in his evidence may require the court to scrutinise it with greater care, but it does not call for outright rejection of his evidence at the threshold. A pedantic appr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document