Conviction Upheld for Factory Inspector in Bribery Case; Evidence Deemed Credible, Appeal Dismissed, Sentence to Be Served.

The SC upheld the conviction of the appellant, a Factory Inspector, under Section 161, IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for demanding and accepting bribes. The court found the evidence, including witness testimony and the presence of phenolphthalein powder, credible and sufficient to prove the charges. The appellant's defenses were rejected, including claims of evidence tampering and unreliable witnesses. The presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was deemed valid. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's bail bond was canceled, requiring him to serve his sentence.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 161, IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. Validity of evidence from the complainant who was deceased at the time of trial.
3. Reliability of witnesses (motbirs) involved in the case.
4. Presence of phenolphthalein powder on the hands of the accused.
5. Demand and acceptance of bribe.
6. Presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 161, IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947:
The appellant, serving as a Factory Inspector, was convicted by the Special Judge for demanding and accepting bribes, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year, and fined Rs. 200/-. The High Court upheld this conviction, leading to the appellant filing an appeal by special leave to the Supreme Court.

2. Validity of evidence from the complainant who was deceased at the time of trial:
The complainant, Rajendra Dutt, was deceased by the time the trial commenced. His written complaint (Ext. P-12) was admitted in evidence but could not be used as substantive evidence. The court noted that the complaint could only explain subsequent actions taken by the Dy. SP but not provide direct testimony against the appellant.

3. Reliability of witnesses (motbirs) involved in the case:
The defense argued that the two motbirs, Ram Babu and Keshar Mal, were unreliable as they were petty clerks and possibly under police influence. The court rejected this argument, stating that truth is not the monopoly of affluent or highly placed persons. The court found no reason to disbelieve their testimony solely based on their occupational status.

4. Presence of phenolphthalein powder on the hands of the accused:
The defense suggested that the phenolphthalein powder could have been transmitted to the appellant's hands by the raiding party members. The court found this explanation implausible, as the evidence showed that no other member of the raiding party touched the phenolphthalein powder during the demonstration. This corroborated the prosecution's case that the appellant accepted the marked currency notes.

5. Demand and acceptance of bribe:
The court examined the evidence and circumstances, including the testimony of the motbirs and the sequence of events leading to the trap. The court found that the demand for the bribe on November 20, 1974, and the subsequent acceptance of the bribe on November 22, 1974, were sufficiently proven. The absence of the appellant's name in the initial complaint was deemed insignificant, as the complainant referred to the appellant by his official designation.

6. Presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947:
The court held that the presumption under Section 4(1) was rightly raised, as the facts showed a demand and voluntary acceptance of the bribe. The appellant's defense that the money was planted was rejected, and the court found no circumstances to impinge upon the prosecution's case.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence, dismissing the appeal. The court found that the prosecution had proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the appellant's defense was not plausible. The bail bond of the appellant was canceled, and he was required to surrender to serve out the sentence.

---