Corruption trap evidence and statutory presumption upheld where marked notes, witness testimony, and chemical test confirmed acceptance of gratification.

Voluntary acceptance of marked currency notes in a corruption trap, corroborated by reliable trap witnesses and scientific evidence, was treated as sufficient to sustain conviction and trigger the statutory presumption of illegal gratification. The deceased complainant's complaint was not substantive evidence, but it remained relevant to explain the trap proceedings, and the absence of the appellant's name in that complaint was held immaterial. Recovery of the notes, the positive sodium carbonate test, and the credibility of the motbirs together supported the finding that the appellant's explanation did not displace the presumption.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for demanding and accepting illegal gratification was sustainable on the evidence of the trap witnesses and surrounding circumstances, despite the complainant's death and the absence of direct testimony of the initial demand.

Analysis: The complaint lodged by the deceased complainant was not substantive evidence, but it could be used to explain the subsequent trap proceedings. The Court held that the absence of the appellant's name in the complaint was of no significance, and that the surrounding circumstances, including the complainant's immediate complaint to the Anti-Corruption Department, the pre-arranged trap, the recovery of marked currency notes from beneath the pillow, and the positive sodium carbonate test on the appellant's hands, furnished strong corroboration. The two motbirs were accepted as independent and reliable witnesses, and their testimony was not discredited by their service background or by minor omissions and inconsistencies. The Court further held that once voluntary acceptance of gratification was proved, the statutory presumption under the corruption law was attracted and the appellant's explanation did not create a plausible defence.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were upheld; the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a corruption trap case, voluntary acceptance of marked currency notes, supported by reliable witness testimony and corroborative scientific evidence, is sufficient to sustain conviction and attract the statutory presumption of illegal gratification.

---