Illegal gratification conviction upheld where independent witnesses and matched trap currency proved receipt of tainted money.

A statement made by the accused to a Magistrate after investigation had begun was treated as inadmissible unless recorded in the manner required by procedural law, so the Magistrate's evidence was excluded. The Court viewed police and Magistrate testimony with caution and relied instead on two independent witnesses and recovery of currency notes whose numbers matched the trap money. The accused's explanation for possession of the cash was found improbable, and the surrounding circumstances were held to prove receipt of tainted money as illegal gratification. The conviction for receiving illegal gratification was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction of the principal appellant for obtaining illegal gratification was sustainable in view of the admissibility of statements made during investigation and the evidentiary value of the trap, recovery, and witness testimony.

Analysis: The Court held that a statement made by the accused to a Magistrate assisting the investigation, after investigation had begun, could not be treated as admissible unless recorded in the manner required by the procedural law. The evidence of police officers and of the Magistrate who participated in the trap was viewed with caution and was not treated as sufficient by itself. The Court relied instead on two independent witnesses, whose testimony was accepted as credible, and on the recovery of currency notes whose numbers tallied with the notes supplied for the trap. The Court further held that the accused's explanation for possession of the money was improbable and that the circumstances established receipt of the tainted money as illegal gratification.

Conclusion: The conviction of the principal appellant for the offence of receiving illegal gratification was upheld, while the evidence of the investigating Magistrate was excluded from consideration.

---