Supreme Court Acquits Engineer in 1985 Bribe Trap; Notes Not Treated With Phenolphthalein and Defence Probable

The appellant, an Assistant Electrical Engineer in Bihar, was accused of demanding Rs 500 to give the complainant an electric connection (para 4). After a watcher reported a Rs 100 payment on 25 June 1985, a vigilance team laid a trap on 28 June 1985 and recovered Rs 150 from the pocket of his shirt at his house (para 4). His defence was false implication because he had booked the complainant for electricity theft, and that the connection had already been given on 22 June 1985 (para 5). The Special Judge convicted him under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the High Court dismissed his appeal (paras 1, 6-7).

The Court summarised the principles: it does not interfere with concurrent findings save in exceptional circumstances, but may do so where the courts below acted perversely or improperly, where the evidence falls short of reliability and acceptability, or where findings are vitiated by errors of law or misreading of evidence (para 11). It left the sanction question open (para 14). The courts below erred in discarding the casual-leave application and a departmental officer's evidence that the appellant was away on 25 June 1985 (para 19). The investigating officer admitted the watcher had told him the appellant came out in vest and lungi and put on the shirt hanging in the room, and the notes were not treated with phenolphthalein; the defence of planting was probable (paras 20, 22). Vigilance officers in trap cases must secure "really independent and respectable witnesses" (para 21). The documents also showed the connection had been given on 22 June 1985 (para 24).