Independent trap evidence can prove illegal gratification even when a linked conspiracy charge against another public servant fails.

Independent proof of demand, acceptance, recovery of marked notes, and corroborative trap evidence can sustain a corruption conviction even where an alleged conspiracy with another public servant is not established. The evidence did not show any meeting of minds or reliable demand by the assessing officer, so the conspiracy charge failed and his acquittal was confirmed. By contrast, the complainant's testimony, supported by the trap laying officer, independent witnesses, recovery of tainted currency, and a positive sodium carbonate test on the inspector's hands and clothing, proved demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The inspector's conviction was restored, with the sentence reduced.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the charge of criminal conspiracy and the alleged demand of bribe on behalf of the assessing officer were proved. (ii) Whether the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the inspector were proved so as to sustain conviction under the anti-corruption law.

Issue (i): Whether the charge of criminal conspiracy and the alleged demand of bribe on behalf of the assessing officer were proved.

Analysis: The evidence did not establish any meeting of minds between the two public servants. There was no reliable proof that the assessing officer demanded any bribe, and no convincing material showed that the inspector made the demand in the presence of the assessing officer. The prosecution case, so far as it linked the assessing officer to a conspiracy, remained unsupported by proof of direct demand or participation.

Conclusion: The charge of criminal conspiracy was not proved and the assessing officer's acquittal stood confirmed.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the inspector were proved so as to sustain conviction under the anti-corruption law.

Analysis: The complainant's testimony as to the demand made by the inspector on the relevant date was supported by the trap laying officer and substantial parts of the independent witnesses' evidence. The pre-trap formalities, recovery of the marked notes from the inspector, and the positive sodium carbonate test on his hands and clothing corroborated acceptance. The absence of reliable evidence against the assessing officer did not dilute the separate case against the inspector, and the recoveries and conduct of the inspector provided sufficient proof of the offence.

Conclusion: The inspector's conviction for the offence of accepting illegal gratification was restored, while the conspiracy charge remained unproved.

Final Conclusion: The judgment preserves the acquittal of the assessing officer, but reinstates the inspector's conviction for corrupt acceptance of gratification, with a reduced sentence.

Ratio Decidendi: A public servant can be convicted for acceptance of illegal gratification on independent proof of demand, acceptance, recovery, and corroborative trap evidence even when the alleged conspiracy with another accused is not established.

---