Man took Rs 300 bribe in 1977, Allahabad High Court upholds 1 year jail sentence after 40 years

Justice Kumar stated that I conclude that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It has been established that the appellant, Mahesh Chand, while posted as a Lekhpal in the Consolidation Department, demanded a bribe from Virendra Singh to extend an undue favour to him in the consolidation proceedings.

The order continued that in this regard, Virendra Singh’s son Jai Vijay Singh moved an application before S.P. Vigilance raising a complaint, and thereupon S.P. Vigilance ordered to lay a trap, forming a trap party led by Inspector Tiwari, who, as per plan, reached at the Chaurasiya Hotel, where, the appellant Mahesh Chand was caught red handed taking bribe of Rs 300 from Virendra Singh.

1977 bribe case and conviction

The man was convicted by the trial court in 1985 in a bribery case. He was convicted of an offence punishable under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year on both counts.

Justice Sanjiv Kumar reserved the judgment on April 6.

The case stemmed from a corruption allegation in 1977 involving Mahesh Chand, a Lekhpal in the Consolidation Department, who, along with Kanoongo Chandra Sen, allegedly demanded Rs 400 as a bribe from a man to ensure that his land allotment (Chak No. 193) remained unchanged in pending consolidation proceedings.

After the man informed his son, he approached the Vigilance Department, which organised a trap. Mahesh Chand was allegedly caught red-handed accepting Rs 300 treated with phenolphthalein powder at Chaurasiya Hotel near the Kanpur civil courts. The trial court convicted Mahesh Chand but acquitted co-accused Chandra Sen, prompting Mahesh Chand’s appeal before the high court.

No reason for false deposition: Order

• All the witnesses have supported and proved the prosecution’s case.
• There is no evidence that there was any enmity between these witnesses and the appellant, and there is no reason why they would depose falsely against him.
• It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that no public witness has been examined by the prosecution, which has an adverse effect on the prosecution’s case.
• I do not agree with this submission also because the appellant was trapped after the team of police officers was formed and public witnesses were collected.

• There are two public witnesses of the alleged recovery, besides Jai Vijai Singh and his father Virendra Singh, so if no other person present at Chaurasiya Hotel was made a witness, then it would have no adverse effect on the prosecution case.
• The appellant has admitted that Virendra Singh came to the office and took him to Chaurasiya Hotel to have a cup of tea, so he admits that he was present at the place of occurrence along with Virendra Singh.