The Division Bench of Justice Sanjiv Kumar recently disposed of a 41‑year‑old criminal appeal, affirming the 1985 conviction of Mahesh Chand, who was serving as a Consolidation Lekhpal in Kanpur at the time of the offence. The appellant was found guilty under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs 300 from a villager, Virendra Singh, on 1 April 1977. The trial court had awarded him one year of rigorous imprisonment, a sentence that the High Court upheld and directed him to surrender before the trial court within four weeks to serve the remainder of the term.
The factual matrix, as recorded by the trial court and reiterated by the High Court, shows that Virendra Singh had a pending civil dispute concerning the allocation of agricultural chaks. On the morning of the alleged offence, Singh was approached by the appellant and his co‑accused, Kanoongo Chandra Sen, while travelling on a bus. They demanded a bribe of Rs 400, promising to influence the outcome of the appeal pending before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Singh paid Rs 100 to the Kanoongo on the spot and later consulted his son in Kanpur. Together they approached the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Kanpur, lodged a formal complaint and participated in a trap operation.
For the trap, three currency notes of Rs 100 denomination were marked with phenolphthalein powder. Later that afternoon, Singh handed the marked notes to Mahesh Chand at a hotel. The appellant placed the notes in his pants pocket and assured Singh that his chak would not be disturbed. Vigilance officers, who had been monitoring the transaction, intervened immediately, conducted a personal search of the appellant and recovered the three marked notes together with a wrist watch. When the notes and the appellant’s hands were washed with a sodium carbonate solution, the liquid turned red, confirming contact with the marked currency.
The trial court acquitted the co‑accused Kanoongo but convicted Mahesh Chand in October 1985. After securing bail, Chand filed an appeal before the Allahabad High Court, which remained pending for over forty years. In the appeal, the appellant’s counsel raised two principal arguments. First, it was contended that the prosecution’s case was fatally flawed because the primary complainant, Virendra Singh, was never examined in court. Second, it was submitted that the alleged place of recovery—a hotel—being a public venue made it implausible for the appellant to accept illegal gratification there.