VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

752 DECISION - 375
Referring to intelligence of the complainant and questioning
him about the witness did suggest that at that time Accused No.1
might have sensed the possibility of a trap by the Anti-Corruption
Bureau and thought it necessary, by way of abundant precaution, to
get the notes brought by P.W.1 changed. P.W.1 therefore, going
with accused No.2 for changing the notes, was at the dictate of
Accused No.1. It has established his nexus with the demand and it
renders corroboration to the version of P.W.1. The subsequent events
were the hectic effort made by Accused No.2 to get the notes changed.
The argument that accused No.2 merely rendered service to the
complainant is totally unbelievable and needs to be rejected. The
amount of efforts undertaken by Accused No.2 in getting the notes
changed definitely indicates that he was not on a charitable mission.
The mission was with a definite design. The gesture of annoyance
by Accused No.2 when P.W.1 hesitated to hand over the notes to
P.W.4 in the wine shop when directed by him (Accused No.2)
completely negatives the claim that he was on a charitable mission
to help P.W. 1 and it definitely suggests Accused No.2 was in league
with Accused No.1 and he was carrying the mission very scrupulously
under the instructions of Accused No.1.
The High Court observed that Accused No.1 adopted a very
skilful device in accepting the bribe amount by getting the notes
exchanged. Crystally it is clear that the hectic efforts of Accused
No.2 for getting the notes changed was a sequester to the transaction
which occurred in the Police Station. The device as adopted for
accepting the bribe is novel and also ingenious. As such there could
not be direct evidence of panch witness to render the corroboration
to the testimony. However, the circumstances as appeared and which
are fully established render not only corroboration but substantiate
the claim of P.W.1 that Accused No.1 reiterated his demand on 24-1-
89 and accepted the same by the device of directing Accused No.2
to get the notes changed. In pursuance of the acceptance, the notes
after substitution would have reached to Accused No.1 but for the