Constructive receipt in corruption cases can sustain conviction where a common demand and corroborated trap evidence are proved.

Trap evidence sustained the conviction of the second accused because the tainted currency was recovered from him, the phenolphthalein test was positive, and his explanation that he acted only for the first accused did not negate his participation in the bribery transaction. The conviction of the first accused was also upheld because the evidence showed a common demand, corroboration from trap circumstances and conduct, and constructive receipt through the intermediary second accused, even though the money was taken in the first accused's absence. The Court accepted the complainant's evidence as materially corroborated in the corruption prosecution and left both convictions and sentences undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction of the second accused for accepting illegal gratification and related offences was sustainable on the trap evidence and surrounding circumstances; (ii) Whether the conviction of the first accused could be sustained even though the tainted money was received by the second accused in his absence, on the basis of corroborative evidence and constructive receipt.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction of the second accused for accepting illegal gratification and related offences was sustainable on the trap evidence and surrounding circumstances.

Analysis: The second accused was trapped with the tainted currency, the phenolphthalein test turned positive, and the receipt of money was admitted. His explanation that he collected the amount only on behalf of the first accused did not negate his own participation in the bribery transaction. In a trap case, once receipt of the tainted amount and the surrounding incriminating circumstances are proved, a bare denial does not displace the prosecution case.

Conclusion: The conviction of the second accused was rightly sustained and was in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction of the first accused could be sustained even though the tainted money was received by the second accused in his absence, on the basis of corroborative evidence and constructive receipt.

Analysis: The first accused was found to have issued the second notice without the required approval, and the evidence showed a common demand made by both accused. The complainant's version was corroborated by the trap evidence, the conduct of the accused, and the circumstances indicating that the second accused received part of the money for himself and part on behalf of the first accused. The Court treated the complainant as a trap witness whose testimony did not require rejection merely because it was used in a corruption prosecution, and accepted constructive receipt where the evidence showed a conjoint bribe demand and receipt through an intermediary.

Conclusion: The conviction of the first accused was also sustainable and was in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The findings of guilt against both accused were affirmed, and the appeals failed, leaving the convictions and sentences undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a corruption prosecution, a common bribe demand and receipt through an intermediary can sustain conviction of the absent superior officer where the complainant's evidence is materially corroborated by trap circumstances and the surrounding conduct of the accused.

---