Holding

The prosecution proved the bribery beyond reasonable doubt and the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act stands, so the conviction is upheld.

Summary

Assistant Sub-Inspector Shambhu Dayal Nagar was trapped after agreeing to accept a bribe of Rs.3500 from complainant Badan Singh. The money, smeared with phenolphthalein powder, was recovered from the accused's upper right pocket of his uniform shirt and the powder transfer was demonstrated by a pink colour change in a sodium carbonate solution. The trial court convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; the High Court acquitted him, holding that the pocket was an abnormal place for bribe money and that the powder could have been transferred. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the totality of the evidence, corroborated by the complainant and two independent witnesses, established the bribery and that a presumption under Section 4(1) of the Act applied. The Court rejected the High Court's reasoning, restored the conviction, and refused any lenient view.

Issues considered

The recovery of bribe money from the accused's upper pocket, coupled with phenolphthalein test, establishes guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Whether a presumption of guilt under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act arises from the facts.
Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the evidence on the basis of pocket location and alleged powder transfer.
Whether the court should grant leniency in sentencing a public servant convicted of bribery.

Legislation cited

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 13(1)(d), s. 13(2), s. 4(1), s. 7

Subjects

briberyentrapmentphenolphthalein testpresumption of guiltPrevention of Corruption Actpublic servant corruptionevidence evaluationconviction upheld

Judgment

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH A
v.
SHAMBHU DAYAL NAGAR

NOVEMBER 2, 2006

[S.B. SINHA AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.]

Preveniion of Corruption Act, 1988-Sections 4(1), 7, 13 (l)(d) and 13
(2)-Bribery-Entrapment in presence of panch witnesses-Numbers of
currency notes used in trap recorded and phenolphthalein powder smeared on C::
both of their sides-Fingers of accused and pocket of his shirt where he kept
the notes when washed in solution of sodium carbonate, became pink-Trial
Court convicting and sentencing the accused-High Court acquitting him on
the grounds that upper right pocket of shirt is not normal place for keeping
currency notes taken in bribe and it cannot contain a number oflarge currency D
notes unless they were folded; perhaps currency notes were forced into pocket
of accused ; traces ofphenolphthalein powder can come in hands of resisting
accused-Correctness of-Held-On totality ofcircumstances, prosecution had
established its case on basis of evidence-Presumption under section 4(1) of
the Act could be drawn as recovery of currency notes from accused was fully
corroborated by complainant and independent witnesses-Plea that bribe E
money is not kepc in upper pocket of shirt was wholly untenable-At no stage
accused had alleged mala tides against complainant-Plea that a lenient
view may be taken rejected since corruption by public servants was a gigantic
problem and had pervasive impact on functioning of entire country.

Respondent is an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. According to F
prosecution, he was entrusted with investigation of a complaint consequent
to which he went to house of complainant, PWl, and told him that the
opposite party had filed a report against them and in that connection, his
rifle and that of his brother would be seized, and both of them arrested.
It was further alleged that he asked PWI that in case a bribe was paid to G 1

him, he would neither seize the rifiles nor arrest them and rather the
opposite party's persons will be arrested and sent to jail immediately • As
PWl was not ready to give the bribe.and wanted to get him nabbed, he
went to the office of Superintendent of Police arid submitted an application
Accordingly, a trap was laid for nabbing him while accepting the bribe. H·
319
320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A The numbers of currency notes to be used in the trap were recorded and
a thin layer of phenolphthalein powder smeared on both sides. After
making other necessary preparations, a trap team left for the appointed
place, a sweet shop. PWl and one panch witness, PW 3 were sent in the
said shop. Another panch witness, PW6 and other officials of the trap
B team, concealing their presence, took positions near the said shop.
Respondent was called to the sweet shop and he came there in his uniform,
spoke to PWl while sitting inside that shop and when he demanded the
amount of bribe, PWl gave it to him and he kept it in the right pocket of
his uniform's shirt. On passing the pre-decided signal by PWl, members
of trap party who were hiding entered the sweet shop and caught the
C respondent by his right and left hands respectively. PW 3 took out the
amount of bribe from the pocket of the shirt of uniform worn by the
respondent and their numbers were checked and found to match with the
numbers mentioned earlier recorded. The fingers of the respondent and
the right side pocket of the shirt worn by him when washed in solution of
D sodium carbonate, became pink. charges under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d)
read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were
framed against the respondent. He pleaded that he has been falsely
implicated. Trial Court, after considering the entire evidence and
documents, held that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the
E aforesaid charges, and sentenced the respondent under sections 13(1)(d)
read with section 13(2) of the Act.

In appeal, High Court set aside the judgment of trial court. It
discarded the prosecution version on the ground tha~ (i) the upper right
pocket of the shirt is not the normal place for keeping currency notes taken
p in bribe and it cannot contain 35 currency notes of denomination of
Rs.100/- unless they were folded (ii) Perhaps PW 1 had forced his currency
notes in the pocket of the respondent (iii) the traces of phenolphthalein
powder can come in the hands of resisting respondents. Hence the present
appeal.

G · Appellant-State contended that the currency notes were recovered
in the presence of PWl and t1'is version has been fully supported by the
two independent witnesses.

.Respondent contended that (i) version of PWl ought not to be
H belie,·ed because he had harboured some grudge against him (ii) a lenient
view may be taken because sending him to jail after ten years would lead
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH''· SHAMBHU DAYAL NAGAR 321

to tremendous hardship. A
Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD 1.1. On consideration of the totality of the circumstances of
this case, the prosecution has been able to establish on the basis of evidence
on record that the respondent had received bribe and, therefore, he is B
guilty of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (331-C-D)

- 1.2. The respondent was convicted by the Special Judge on the basis
of overwhelming evidence on record. The High Court without appreciating
the facts of this case in proper perspective set~aside the judgment of the
Special Court. The reasoning given by the High Court for setting asiue
the judgment cannot stand the test of scrutiny for a moment and in this
C

view of the matter, the judgment and sentence awarded by the Special
Court one restored. (331-D-E)

2.1. A presumption under-section 4(1) of the Prevention of D
Corruption Act, can be drawn as the recovery of 35 notes of the
denomination of 100 is fully proved by PWl and two other independent
witnesses PW6 and PWl 1. [331-B-C)

Hazari Lal v. State (Delhi Administration), (1980) 2 SCC 390, relied E

-
on

2.2. The argument of the respondent that the prosecution version
does not inspire any confidence as bribe money is not kept in the upper
pocket, is also wholly untenable. (329-G)
2.3. At no stage, tjie respondent had alleged ma/a fides against the F
·appellant. There is no merit in this argument that PWl because of previous
enemity had falsely implicated the respondent in the instant case. The
respondent had placed no material to substantiate this argument.
(329-F; 330-B-C)
2.4. There is no merit in the statement that the guns were not seized. G '
According to the prosecution version, when the respondent demanded and
accepted the bribe of Rs. 3500, there was no question of seizing the guns.
(330-CJ
3. It is difficult to accept the prayer· of the respondent that a lenient
view be taken in this case. The corruption by public servants has become H
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A a gigantic problem. It has spread everywhere. No facet of public activity
has been left unaffected by the stink of corruption. It has deep and
pervasive impact on the functioning of the entire country. Large scale
corruption retards the national building activities and everyone has to
suffer on that count. [330-F-G)
B Swatantar Singh v. State of Haryana, [1997) 4 SCC 14, relied on.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 261

-
of 2004 .

. From the Fjnal Order and Judgment dated 30.1.2003 of the High Court
C of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Crl.A. No. 2/1999.

Vibha Datta Makhija for the Appellant.

S.K. Dubey, Lakhan Singh Chauhan and Dr. Kailash Chand for the
Respondent.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DALVEER BHANDARI, J. This appeal has been filed by the State of
Madhya Pradesh against the judgment of the Higp Court of Judicature of
Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Bench at Gwalior, dated 30.1.2003 passed in
E Criminal Appeal No.2 of 1999.

The brief fa~ts of this appeal, which are necessary to dispose of"this
appeal, in a nutshell, are as follows.

The respondent Shambhu Dayal Nagar, who was posted at the Police
p Station, Malanpur on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector was convicted under
Sections 7 and 13(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988.

According to the version of the prosecution, on 9.8.1996 complainant
Badan Singh's sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Bitl1ola Devi, a resident of village Tukera
G was beaten by Jagmohan, Mahavi; etc. who belonged to the same village. A
report of the said incident was made by Bithola Devi at the Police Station
Malanpur. The investigation of this matter was entrusted to the respondent
Shambhu Dayal, Assistant Sub-Inspector. Consequently, he went to the village
Tukera at the house of complainant Badan Singh and told him that the opposite
party i.e. Mahavir etc. had filed a report against them and in that connection,
H
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. SHAMBHU DAYAL NAGAR [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.] 323

the rifle of the complainant and Mouser Rifle of Ram Prakash, brother of the A
complainant would be seized and both, the complainant and his brother would
also be arrested. The respondent asked the complainant, Badan Singh, that in
case Rs.5000/- was paid to him, he would neither seize the rifles nor arrest
them and rath~r the opposite party's persons will be arrested and sent to jail
immediately.

On 21.8.1996, Badan Singh, the complainant told the respondent
Shambhu Dayal that he would not be able to arrange Rs.5000/- and he
requested the respondent to settle the amount at Rs.3500/-. The respondent
agreed to accept Rs.3500/- (bribe money) on the condition that the said
amount had to be arranged by the same evening. The complainant was not C
ready to give the bribe to the respondent and wanted to get the respondent
nabbed. Therefore, on 21.8.1996, he went to the office of Shri Pradeep Runwal,
Superintendent of Police, Office of the Public Commissioner, Gwalior with
cash of Rs.3500/- and submitted a written application (Ex.PI) on the above-
mentioned subject.

The Superintendent of Police directed his subordinates to lay a trap for
nabbing the respondent while accepting the bribe. For this purpose, Aditya
Chobey, the then Manager, Industrial Development Centre, Gwalior was called
with a vehicle. On 21.8. I 996, after the arrival of the above-named pan ch
witness Aditya Chobey, PW6 and another Panch witness Srikrishan Chauhan, E'
PW3 at the Special Police Station (Office of the Public Commissioner,
Gwalior), the formal application made by the complainant, Badan Singh, was
given to Aditya Chobey. The application was read over to Badan Singh. On
the said application, Aditya Chobey gave his remarks and confirmed the
contents and submission of the application by the complainant and appended
his signatures. Thereafter, the complainant gave 35 currency notes of the F
denomination of Rs. I 00/- for giving them as a bribe to the respondent. The
numbers of all these currency notes were recorded. Inspector Surender Rai
Sharma, PWl l, of the abovementioned establishment got a thin layer of
phenolphthalein powder smeared on both sides of these notes by Ram Roop
Singh Ojha, Sub-Inspector. The head constable searched Badan Singh, PWI
and Surender Rai Sharma, PWI I and nothing was left in his pocket. The G
currency notes, smeared with phenolphthalein powder, were kept in the right
side pocket of the pant worn by Badan Singh and it was explained to him not
to touch these notes before giving to the respondent. Badan Singh was given
instructions not to shake hands with the respondent before and after giving
those currency notes to him. The complainant after reaching Vijay Mishthan H
324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A Bhandar asked Srikrishan Chauhan PW3 to proceed and request the respondent
to come at the appointed place i.e. at Vijay Mishthan Bhandar. The respondent
immediately came to the appointed place ..'As already agreed, the complainant
had given Rs.3500/- to the respondent and the same were accepted by the
resondent. Srikrislian Chauhan PW3, panch witness, was directed to accompany
B the complainant to witness the proceedings of raid and hear the conversation
between the complainant and the respondent. Thereafter, at the abovementioned
office, the solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in a clean glass through
constable Aparval Singh, which was colourless and the fingers of both hands
of Sub-Inspector Ram Roop Singh were washed in the said solution. Thereafter,
the colour of the solution became pink. It was packed in a clean small bottle
C as per rules and sealed and after marking the bottle, signatures of the panchas
were taken on it. It was also explained to the complainant and the witnesses
that on receiving the currency notes smeared with phenolphthalein powder,
this powder w.ould be on the hands of the respondent and after washing his
hands in the 9blourless solution of sodium carbonate, the same would change
into a pink coloured solution as mentioned above.
D
In the said office, packets of two samples each of the phenolphthalein
and sodium carbonate were prepared and these were kept in separate envelopes
and the saine were marked and sealed. Besides Surender Rai Sharma, Aditya
Chobey, Manager, AKVN, Gwalior, DSP, LB. Srivastava, Dy. Superintendent
E of Police and Amar Singh Bhadoriya, Kashi Ram Mijohnia, Inspector, Head
Constable Bhagwati Prasad Sharma, Veer Singli and constables Aparval Singh
and Srikrishan Chauhan were a part of the trapping team. Ram Roop Ojha,
who had smeared the powder on the currency notes, was not included in the
trap team. All the members of the trap team were made to wash their hands
with clean water at the office and the colour of solution did not change when
F their hands were washed with sodium carbonate.

The preliminary panchnama (Ex.P2) dated 21.8. I 996 was prepared by
the Inspector Surender Rai Sharma (PWI 1) in respect of all the
abovementioned proceedings at the office of the Public Commissioner, Gwalior
and it was signed by both the panch witnesses Aditya Chobey and Srikrishan
0::-.Chauhan and the complainant.
·'
After the above proceedings, the trap team left for Malanpur in the
official vehicle. After reaching Vijay Mishthan Bhandar near Malanpur Police
Station, the complainant Badan Singh and panch witness Srikrishan Chauhan
H were sent in. the said shop. Aditya Chobey, PW6 and other officers and
STATEOF MADHYA PRADESH v. SHAMBHU DAYAL NAGAR [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.) 325

officials of the trap team, concealing their presence, took positions near the A
said shop. Narender Singh Chauhan, nephew of the complainant, was sent to
the police station to call the respondent to Vijay Mishthan Bhandar. At about
7 p.m., the respondent came to Vijay Mishthan Bhandar in his uniform on a
motor cycle and spoke to the complainant while sitting inside Vijay Mishthan
Bhandar and when the respondent demanded the amount of bribe, the
complainant gave Rs.3500/- after taking out the same from his pocket and the B
respondent kept the same in the right pocket of his uniform's shirt. On

.. passing the pre-decided signal by the complainant, Badan Singh, the constable
Aparval Singh and Bhagwati Prasad, who were hiding there, entered Vijay
Mishthan Bhandar and caught the respondent by his right and left hands
respectively. The other members of the trap team and panch witness Aditya C
Chobey also entered the said Mishthan Bhandar within minutes and gave
their introduction to the respondent.

The fingers of the respondent were washed in the solution of sodium
carbonate at the spot, in the presence of the panch witnesses, and the colour
of solution became pink. The solution was kept in a small bottle as a sample D
for its chemical examination and this bottle was sealed as per rules. Thereafter,
the fingers of panch witness Aditya Chobey were washed separately in the
solution of sodium carbonate, in a clean ghss, but its colour did not change.
This solution was also packed in a clean small bottle and sealed as per rules.
The panch witness Aditya Chobey took out the amount of bribe from- the E
right side pocket of the shirt of uniform w@rn by the respondent and their

- numbers were checked and found to match with the numbers mentioned in
the preliminary panchnama. These notes were seized and its seizure memo
(Ex.PS) was prepared at the spot by the Inspector Surender Rai Sharma.
Thereafter, the shirt of the uniform, which the respondent was wearing at that
time, was removed from his body and its right side pocket was washed in the F
solution of sodium carbonate, after which the solution became pink. This
solution was packed in a small bottle for examination and it was sealed as per
rules. The above-mentioned shirt of the respondent was seized vide seizure
memo (Ex.P4) by Surender Rai Sharma and the notes recovered from the
pocket of the respondent were kept in an envelope through the panch witness G
Aditya Chobey and the envelope was also sealed as per rules. Thereafter, the
fingers of Aditya Chobey were made to be washed in the solution of sodium
carbonate and the colour of solution changed. This solution was packed in a
small bottle and sealed as per rules. Signatures of the panch witnesses,
complainant and the respondent were taken on these bottles and the signatures
H
326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S..C.R.

A of panch witnesses and the respondent were taken on the envelope containing
currency notes of bribe, seizure memos of the shirt and notes. The panchnama
(Ex.P3) was prepared at the spot by the Inspector Surender Rai Sharma in
respect of all the above-mentioned proceedings. This panchnama was signed
by the panch witnesses and the complainant.

B On 21.8.1996, The Investigating Officer, Surender Rai Sharma, prepared
the sketch map (Ex.P6) of the place of occurrence i.e. Vijay Mishthan Bhandar
at Malanpur. On the same date, the Rajdoot Motor Cycle No.MP 06 9315 of
the respondent was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P7).

On 27.9.1996, carbon copy of the written report given to the respondent
C by Maniram and Mahavir bearing acknowledgement of receipt by the
respondent was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PIO) on its production by
Jagmohan. The FIR (Ex.P23) was lodged by Surender Rai Sharma at Gwalior,
which was later sent to the Police Station Bhopal for the registration of the
case, where a Case No. 69196 was registered on 23 .8.1996 vide report Ex.P24.
D The small bottles related to the proceedings of the said case and other seized
items were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar for their examination.
The written permission (Ex.Pl6) duly signed by Shri N.K. Barya, Additional
Secretary of Legal Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh regarding
prosecution of the respondent was received on 16.1.1997 and after the formal
E investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before this Court on 7.2.1997.

Charges under Sections 7 and 13(1 )(d) read with section 13(2) of the
P.C. Act, 1988 [in the alternate, under section 5(I)(d) read with section 5(2)
of the P.C. Act, 1947] were framed against the respondent. The respondent
did not plead guilty to the charges and stated in his defence that he has been
F falsely implicated in this case. ·

In support of its case, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses -
PWl Badan Singh, the complaTnant, PW2 Bhagwati Prasad Sharma, PW3 Sri
Krishan, PW4 Jagmohan, PW5 Ram Roop Singh, Sub Inspector, PW6 Aditya
Chobey, Manager, District Industrial Development Centre, Gwalior, PW7
G Vijay Kumar Mudgal, Inspector, PW8 K.N. Sharma, PW9 R.K. Gupta, PWIO
Daiei Singh, PWl I Surender Rai Sharma and PWl2 Shiv Pratap Singh,
Inspector.

In his statement, the complainant, Badan Singh, PWI stated that the
respondent had told him that there was a complaint against him and
H consequently his rifle and the rifle of his brother have to be seized. The
STATEOFMADHYAPRADESHv. SHAMBHUDAYALNAGAR [DALVEERBHANDARI,J.J 327

respondent told him that if he was paid Rs.5000/-, he would neither seize the A
guns nor would he arrest them. Badan Singh, PWl stated that he touched the.
feet of the respondent and mentioned to him that they are ready to pay
Rs.3500/-. There was a settlement at a figure of Rs.3500/- on the condition.
that this amount had to be delivered to the respondent at the Vijay Mish~n
Bhandar on the same evening. Badan Singh, PWl stated that he had decided B
to get the respondent apprehended and consequently went to the Superintendent ·
of Police for that purpose.

The complainant, Badan ~ingh, PWl gave Rs.3500/- in the office of
Superintendent of Police. One police officer applied powder on the currency
notes and Badan Singh, PWI was asked not to touch the currency notes. A C
trap was organized to nab the respondent. The respondent came to Vijay
Mishthan Bhandar on motorcycle in the evening as decided on the appointed
place to collect his bribe money of Rs.3500/-. PWl gave Rs.3500/- to the
respondent which he kept in the right hand pocket of his shirt and immediately
thereafter on the complainant's moving his head, the respondent was caught D
by the members of the trap party while accepting the bribe money. The
vigilance people got a solution of one powder prepared. Aditya Chaubey,
PW6 took out money from the right pocket of the respondent. Thereafter,
Aditya Chobey had washed his hands in the solution. The colour of the water
turned pink. Thereafter, that water was sealed in a bottle and the signature of
PWl was obtained. °The currency notes were sealed in an envelope and PWl E
had appended his signature on them. The motorcycle of the respondent was
also seiz.ed. PWI withstood the cross examination and remained unshaken.
Aditya Chobey, who was posted at the Industrial Development Centre, Gwalior
also fully supported the case of the prosecution. He also withstood the lengthy
cross-examination.
F
Surender Rai Shanna, PWI I who was posted in the office of the Special
Police Establishment also fully supported the case of the prosecution.

Bhagwati Prasad Shanna, PW2 also supported the prosecution version.
Srikrishna, PW3, of course, did not support the prosecution version. Jagmohan, G
PW4 also supported the prosecution version. Other fonnal witnesses also
supported the basic case of the prosecution. The Special Judge also considered
the entire evidence, documents and a number of judgments of this Court and
the High Courts and came to a definite conclusion that the prosecution has
~., succeeded in establishing its case and found the respondent guilty of offence
punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1 )(d) read with Section 13(2) of the H .
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced the respondent with
punishment of one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500 under
Section 13(1 )(d) read with Section 13(2) of the said Act. Under Section 7 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act also the respondent was sentenced to one
year rigorous imprisonment. The Court directed both the sentences to run
B concurrently and in case of non-payment of fine, the respondent was directed
to further undergo imprisonment of two months.

The respondent aggrieved by the said judgment of the Special Judge
preferred an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madhya Pradesh,
Jabalpur at Gwalior Bench.
c The High Court again re-evaluated the evidence and set-aside the
judgment of the Special Court on the following grounds:

(I) That the Special Court wrongly placed reliance on the testimony
of Badan Singh, PW l. The High Court discarded his testimony
D on the ground that the upper right pocket of the shirt is not the
normal place for keeping the currency notes;
(2) The High Court discarded the prosecution version because
according to the High Court the upper right pocket of the shirt
cannot contain 35 currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100/-
E unless they. are folded;
(3) The High Court also discarded the testimony of Badan Singh,
PWI on the ground that perhaps he had forced his currency
notes in the pocket of the respondent; and
(4) The High Court also found substance in the argumentthat the
F traces of phenolphthalein powder can come in the hands of
resisting respondent.

The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and set-
aside the judgment of the Special Court. The State of Madhya Pradesh being
aggrieved by the said judgment has filed this appeal on the ground that the
G High Court was clearly in error in setting aside the well reasoned judgment
of the trial court on totally erroneous and untenable findings.

According to the appellant - State of Madhya Pradesh, the finding of
the High Court that-

H (A) Badan Singh, PWI hid forced his currency notes in the pocket
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. SHAMBHU DAYAL NAGAR [DAL VEER BHANDARI, J.] 329

of the respondent is wholly untenable; A
(B) The currency notes of Rs.3500/- were recovered in the presence
of Badan Singh PWI. The version has been fully supported by '
the two independent witnesses;
(C) Sadan Singh PWI had fully supported the prosecution version.
'
Independent witnesses Aditya Chobey, PW6 and Surender Rai B
'' Sharma, PWI I also supported prosecution story. The High Court
seriously erred in rejecting the prosecution version; and

(D) The High Court erroneously rejected the prosecution version on
the ground that the bribe amount is not kept in the upper pocket
of the shirt. C
The State of Madya Pradesh filed special leave petition against the
impugned judgment.

The respondent in pursuance to the show-cause notice of this Court
filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that the High Court has carefully re- D
appreciated and re-evaluated the evidence of the prosecution and conclusion
arrived at by the High Court is based on correct appraisal of the evidence on
record, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court as the appeal '
does not raise any substantial question of law for consideration of this Court
in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.
E
The respondent also mentioned that Sadan Singh PWI, the complainant
supported the story of prosecution. His version ought not to have been bdieved
by this Court because he had harboured some grudge against the respondent,
particularly when his own cousin Sri Krishna PW3 did not support the
prosecution version. At no stage, the respondent had alleged malafides against F
the appellant. We find no merit in this argument of the respondent.

According to the respondent, the prosecution version does not inspire
any confidence because according to the prosecution story, the bribe amount
was recovered from the upper pocket of the shirt. Usually, bribe money is not
kept in the upper pocket. This argument of the respondent is also wholly G
untenable.

It was urged by the respondent that the entire story of the prosecution
is fabricated and no reliance should be placed on it by the Court. The learned
counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that a lenient view may be
H
330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

· A taken because sending the respondent to jail after ten years would lead to
tremendous hardship. ·

We have carefully considered the rival contentions. The fact ofrecovery
ofRs.3500/- from the respondent has been fully corroborated by Badan Singh,
PWI and also by two independent witnesses, Aditya Chobey PW6 and
B Surender Rai Sharma PWI I.

We do not find any merit in the submission that Badan Singh PWI
because of previous enemity had falsely implicated the respondent in the
instant case. The resondent had placed no material to substantiate this _argument.

C We also do not find any merit in the statement that the guns were not
seized. According to the prosecution version, when the respondent demanded
and accepted the bribe of Rs.3500/-, there was no question of seizing the
guns.

D On careful examination of the prosecution evidence and the documents
on record, we too come to the definite conclusion that the respondent is
clearly guilty of the offence and the Special Judge was fully justified in
convicting the respondent under Section·s 7 and 13(l)(d) read with Section
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court erroneously
set aside the well reasoned judgment of the Special Judge.
E
In view of the evidence and documents on record, it is difficult to
uphold the impugned judgment and consequently, the impugned judgment of
the High Court is set aside and the judgment of the Special Judge is restored.

It is difficult to· accept the prayer of the respondent that a lenient view
F be taken in this case. The corruption by public servants has become a gigantic
problem. It has spread everywhere. No facet of public activity has been left
unaffected by the stink of corruption. It has deep and pervasive impact on the
functioning of the entire country. Large scale corruption retards the national
building activities and everyone has to suffer on that count. As has been aptly
observed in Swatantar Singh v. State of Haryana reported in (1997) 4 SCC
G 14, corruption is corroding like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the
body politics, social fabric of efficiency in the public service and demoralizing
the honest officers. The efficiency in public service would improve only
when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does the duty
diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the
H performance of the duties of his post, The reputation of corrupt would gather
STATE OF MAD HYA PRADESH i·. SHAMBHU DAYAL NAGAR [DAL VEER BHANDARI, J.J 33 J

thick and unchaseably clouds around the conduct of the officer and gain A
notoriety much faster than the smoke.

This Court in Hazari Lal v. State (Delhi Administration) reported in ,
(1980) 2 SCC 390, observed that where the recovery of money coupled with
other circumstances lead to the conclusion that the respondent received
gratification from some person, the Court would certainly draw a presumption ' B
under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the instant case,
the recovery of35 notes of the denomination of 100 is fully proved by Badan
Singh PWI and two other independent witnesses Aditya Chobey PW6 and
Surender Rai Shanna PWl 1.

On consideration of the totality of the circumstances of this case, the
c
prosecution has been able to establish on the basis of evidence on record that
the respondent had received bribe and, therefore, he is guilty of the offence
under Sections 7 and 13(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
b
The respondent was convicted by the Special Judge on the basis of
overwhelming evidence on record. The High Court without appreciating the
facts of this case in proper perspective set-asi~e the judgment of the Special
Court. The reasoning given by the High Court for setting aside the judgment
cannot stand the test of scrutiny for a moment and in this view of the matter. E
Consequently, the judgment and sentence awarded by the Special Court is
restored. The appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh deserves to be
allowed. It is directed accordingly.

v.s. Appeal allowed.