VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

150 DECISION -
to the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, and the High Court
of Madras held that it is not a rule that an independent witness should
accompany the complainant in a trap. The Supreme Court held that
it is not necessary that the passing of money should be proved by
direct evidence, that it can be proved by circumstantial evidence,
that recovery of money coupled with other circumstances can lead
to the conclusion that the accused received gratification and further
that once the trap amount is found in the possession of the accused,
the burden shifts on him to explain the circumstances to prove his
innocence and that once prosecution establishes that gratification
has been paid or accepted by a public servant, the court is under
legal compulsion to draw the presumption laid down under law.
10. The High Court of Allahabad held that offence under
sec. 165A of Indian Penal Code (corresponding to sec. 12 of P.C.
Act, 1988) is committed as soon as there is instigation to a public
servant to commit the offence under sec. 161 of the Penal Code
(corresponding to sec. 7 of P.C. Act, 1988) irrespective of the fact
that the public servant did not accept or even consent to accept,
money.
11. The Digest has dealt with a case of trap laid by an entity
other than a police officer and a case of prosecution of a bribe-giver
under sec. 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988. Cases of successful prosecution
which stood the test of scrutiny by the Supreme Court are highlighted
including cases where witnesses turned hostile, cases where
complainant and accompanying witness both turned hostile and a
case where the complainant died before the commencement of the
trial, as illustrative examples of appreciation of evidence The High
Court of Bombay, while allowing appeal against acquittal in a trap
case, observed that the accused Sub-Inspector adopted a skilful
device in accepting the bribe amount by getting the currency notes
exchanged through a Constable; and the Supreme Court, in its turn,
upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal. In another case,
the Supreme Court brushed aside the defence contention of foisting,