IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.306 OF 2002

Sheo Kumar Shrivastava      ...Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Bihar      ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The appellant was convicted by the trial Court under Section 161 Indian  Penal Code, Section 5(2) read with Section 5(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption  

Act, 1947, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year  and to pay fine of Rupees one thousand; in default, to undergo further imprisonment  

for a period of six months.  On appeal being preferred, the High Court upheld the  conviction but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone  

as it was stated that the appellant had remained in custody for a period of about one  month.  The  allegation  against  the  appellant  was  that  while  working  as  Head  

Assistant in the office of Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization,  Boring Canal Road, Patna, he demanded rupees nine hundred from the complainant,  

namely, Braj Bihari Mishra (PW-14) as consideration for getting his name registered  as contractor.  Thereupon, PW-14 lodged a complaint with the D.I.G., Vigilance and a  

trap was laid leading to the recovery of rupees nine hundred from the pocket  of  the  appellant’s  shirt.  However, the trap party

....2/-

- 2 -

headed by Shri Arvind Prasad, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance (PW-7)  did not treat the notes handed over to the complainant, which are said to have been  

given to the appellant by way of illegal gratification,  with phenolphthalein powder  and as a result of that, no test was conducted to prove the recovery of tainted notes  

from the pocket of the shirt of the appellant.  During trial, the complainant and the  only  independent  witness,  namely,  Javed  Ahmed  (PW-15)  did  not  support  the  

prosecution case and they were declared hostile.  Notwithstanding these lacunas in the  prosecution case, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant and the High  

Court upheld his conviction.  In our view, the trial Court and High Court committed  serious error by ignoring the fact that no explanation was given by the prosecution  

for not applying phenolphthalein powder on the notes given to the complainant and  that the complainant and the only independent witness had turned hostile.  

For the reasons stated above,  the appeal  is  allowed and conviction and  sentence of the appellant are set aside and is acquitted of the charges.

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, May 05, 2009.