Trap case evidence remains reliable despite minor discrepancies where demand, acceptance, and recovery are otherwise proved.

In a trap prosecution, a complainant's prior grievance against a public servant does not by itself render his evidence unreliable; it requires cautious scrutiny, not automatic rejection. Independent corroboration is not a rigid requirement, and a witness acquainted with police officials is not therefore disqualified as an independent witness. Minor discrepancies in trap evidence, recovery memo details, or the absence of chemical examination of the wash solution were treated as insufficient to discredit the core evidence of demand, acceptance, and recovery of tainted currency. The High Court's reasons were found untenable, and the conviction was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused on the grounds of alleged bias of the complainant, absence of independent corroboration, minor discrepancies in trap evidence, and non-sending of the wash solution for chemical examination, despite the prosecution evidence of demand, acceptance, and recovery of tainted currency.

Analysis: The complainant's grievance against the public servant did not justify outright rejection of his evidence at the threshold; rather, it called for cautious scrutiny. The requirement of an independent witness in a trap case is not a rigid rule that makes every witness acquainted with the police unreliable. Mere acquaintance with the police, or participation as a driver or a witness in other cases, does not by itself destroy independence. The evidence of the trap-arranging officer was found trustworthy and could sustain the prosecution case even without corroboration. The alleged omissions and contradictions regarding the recovery memo and the chemical examiner's report were treated as minor and incapable of discrediting the core prosecution version. The reasons adopted by the High Court were held to be untenable and based on misdirection in appreciation of evidence.

Conclusion: The High Court's acquittal was set aside, the trial court's conviction was restored, and the prosecution case under the charged offences was accepted as proved.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was reinstated and the accused was subjected to the modified sentence imposed by the Supreme Court.

Ratio Decidendi: In a trap case, a complainant's prior grievance and a witness's acquaintance with police officials do not, by themselves, render their evidence unreliable; where the prosecution evidence of demand, acceptance, and recovery is trustworthy, minor discrepancies or absence of formal corroboration will not dislodge the conviction.

---