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.

The State, represented by the prosecution, countered that the case had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It emphasized that the testimony of the vigilance officers and independent public witnesses who observed the recovery was consistent, reliable and trustworthy. The prosecution further argued that the non‑examination of the complainant did not undermine the credibility of the trap evidence.

Justice Sanjiv Kumar, writing for the Bench, began by noting that the appellant had produced medical evidence through Singh’s son (P.W.4) establishing that the complainant suffered from unstable mental health and was unfit to depose. The Judge held that even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the complainant had been deliberately withheld by the prosecution, this circumstance would not adversely affect the prosecution’s case. He observed that the alleged taking of illegal gratification had occurred not only in the presence of Jai Vijai Singh, the son of Virendra Singh, but also before the Inspector of the Vigilance Department, under whose leadership the raid party was constituted, and before a public witness who had been examined in court. Consequently, the argument that the appeal should be allowed on the ground of the complainant’s non‑examination was deemed without force.

Regarding the contention that a bribe was unlikely to be accepted in a crowded public place such as a hotel, the Bench rejected it outright. The Court explained that trap operations are deliberately conducted in secrecy, with the details of the raid known only to the members of the vigilance team and the place arranged so that the accused would not suspect the operation. Hence, the public nature of the location did not detract from the reliability of the evidence.

Having considered the rival submissions, the Bench concluded that the prosecution had established the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed, the conviction under Sections 161 IPC and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was affirmed, and the appellant was directed to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining period of his sentence.