SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- G.B. Pattanaik and M.B. Shah, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. 1242 of 1997. D/d. 2.12.1999.

Ram Ishwar Choudhary - Appellant

Versus

State of Bihar - Respondent

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Sections 5(2) and 5(1)(d) - Trap witnesses - Consolidation Officer who was a witness to the search and seizure and recovery of currency notes in a trap was an independent witness inasmuch as he was in no way concerned with the success of the trap laid by the raiding party - Even though other witnesses did not support prosecution case, the Consolidation Officer having unequivocally indicated that on searching the body of the appellant, currency notes were recovered from his pocket - Courts below justified in coming to the conclusion by relying on his evidence that the prosecution case was proved beyond reasonable doubt relying upon the testimony of Consolidation Officer - Conviction and sentence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) upheld.

[Paras 4 and 5]

ORDER

G.B. Pattanaik, J. - The appellant has been convicted under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs 250 and in default rigorous imprisonment for a further three months. The said conviction and sentence have been upheld by the High Court in appeal, but the sentence for the period undergone has been reduced.

2. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined a large number of witnesses, but the independent witnesses did not support the prosecution. The courts, however, relied upon the evidence of the Consolidation Officer who was a witness to the search and seizure of the appellant-accused and the recovery of the currency notes from his pocket.

3. Relying upon the said testimony, both the courts below have held that the offence has been fully established beyond reasonable doubt as against the appellant-accused.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that true independent witnesses not having supported the prosecution, no reliance ought to have been placed on the testimony of the Consolidation Officer, more so, when he stated in his evidence that the man had already been caught by the time he reached the place of occurrence. We do not find any substance in the said submission as, in our opinion, the Consolidation Officer must also be held to be an independent witness inasmuch as he was in no way concerned with the success of the trap that was laid by the raiding party. His evidence unequivocally indicates that on searching the body of the appellant, the currency notes were recovered from his pocket. The courts below, therefore, are fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt relying upon the aforesaid testimony of the Consolidation Officer.

5. In the circumstances, we see no infirmity with the impugned judgment of the High Court affirming the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

6. This appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.