VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 417
809
contemporaneous evidence from which it could be proved or inferred
that the appellant was a victim of an organised false trap. The
Supreme Court held that the conviction under sec. 5 (2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Corresponding to sec. 13(2) of
P.C. Act, 1988) was well-based requiring no interference.
(417)
Trap — acceptance of bribe money by middleman
When the complainant paid the money to
middleman on the directions of accused public
servant, then it is as good as if the accused public
servant had taken the money and passed on to
middleman.
Virendranath vs. State of Maharashtra,
AIR 1996 SC 490
The Supreme Court examined the contention raised by A1,
Police Officer, that since the tainted money was found from A2, owner
of the restaurant, complicity of A1 is ruled out, and observed that the
fact that the tainted money in the hands of the complainant was meant
to be passed on to A1 as bribe is beyond dispute in view of the
consistent and cogent evidence of the members of the trap party.
P.W. 3 is an independent witness in that regard, being a witness to
the effect that it is at the asking of A1 that A2 took the tainted money
and that beforehand talk had ensued between A1 and the
complainant, the bribe money with the complainant was meant to
pass on to A1 at the restaurant of A2, the convenient place chosen
by him. When the complainant paid the money to A2 on the directions
of A1 then it was as good as if A1 had taken the money and passed
on to A2. Acceptance is thus established from the conduct of A1.
On this understanding of the situation, the Supreme Court
held that it is difficult to accept the contention of A1 that he was not
guilty of the crime. The Supreme Court rejected the contention
outright and confirmed the conviction of A1.