Allahabad HC Affirms Lekhpal's Bribery Conviction After 41-Year-Old Appeal, Orders Surrender Within Four Weeks
Justice Sanjiv Kumar dismissed the criminal appeal of Lekhpal Mahesh Chand, upholding his conviction for accepting Rs. 300 as illegal gratification in a 1977 Vigilance trap case and directing him to surrender before the trial court within four weeks.
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has dismissed a criminal appeal filed in 1985, affirming the conviction of Mahesh Chand, who was working as a Lekhpal in the Consolidation Department, for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 300 from a land consolidation litigant in April 1977. Justice Sanjiv Kumar, sitting singly, found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through the consistent testimony of Vigilance officers, a public witness, and the son of the complainant. Mahesh Chand, who had been on bail throughout the pendency of the appeal, was directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks to serve the remaining part of his sentence.
The Dispute Before the High Court
The appeal arose from a judgment dated 9 October 1985 passed by Shri K.N. Ojha, the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur, in Special Trial No. 10 of 1981. The trial court convicted Mahesh Chand under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year on both counts, with sentences running concurrently.
The co-accused in the same trial, Kanoongo Chandra Sen, was acquitted by the trial court on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against him. Only Mahesh Chand appealed his conviction under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The background to the trap lay in a land consolidation dispute in village Bisoha, Tehsil Derapur, District Kanpur. Virendra Singh had been allotted Chak No. 193 during consolidation proceedings, while Smt. Asha Devi was allotted Chak No. 7. Smt. Asha Devi's appeal for a change of chak was pending before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Mr. Sirohi, with a hearing fixed for 31 March 1977 and a subsequent date of 5 April 1977.
On 1 April 1977, while travelling to Kanpur by bus, Virendra Singh boarded the same bus as Mahesh Chand and Kanoongo Chandra Sen. According to the prosecution, both accused demanded Rs. 400 as illegal gratification, promising that Smt. Asha Devi's appeal would be dismissed and Virendra Singh's chak would remain undisturbed. At Chunniganj Bus Stand, Virendra Singh paid Rs. 100 to Chandra Sen. He then proceeded to his son Jai Vijai Singh's office on Maal Road, Kanpur, and informed him of the demand for the remaining Rs. 300.
Jai Vijai Singh moved a written complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Department, Kanpur, Mr. D.K. Panda, the same day. Mr. Panda ordered Inspector R.B. Tiwari to constitute a trap party. Three currency notes of Rs. 100 each were arranged, sprinkled with phenolphthalein powder, and handed to Virendra Singh after their serial numbers were noted and initialled.
The Trap and the Recovery
The trap party, which included Inspector R.B. Tiwari, Sub-Inspector Surya Bhan Singh, constables, and public witnesses Shyamlal and Onkar Singh, assembled near Kaushik Park in the Civil Courts, Kanpur. Constable Gaya Prasad accompanied Virendra Singh to the court of the SOC to locate the accused.
According to the prosecution, when Virendra Singh offered the money to Chandra Sen inside the court premises, Chandra Sen directed him to hand it to Mahesh Chand instead. Virendra Singh and Mahesh Chand then proceeded to Chaurasiya Hotel near the court campus. At the hotel, Mahesh Chand asked Virendra Singh whether he had the money and told him he had been sent by Kanoongo Chandra Sen. Virendra Singh handed over the three currency notes of Rs. 100 each, which Mahesh Chand placed in the left pocket of his trousers, saying that the chak would not be disturbed.
Inspector Tiwari and the trap party, who were present at a nearby table, then moved in. A personal search of Mahesh Chand recovered the three currency notes from his trouser pocket. The serial numbers matched the fard baramadagi. When Mahesh Chand's hands were washed with sodium carbonate solution, the solution turned red, confirming contact with phenolphthalein powder. His trouser pocket, similarly washed, also turned red. Samples were sealed in bottles and the recovery memo was prepared at the spot.
Arguments Raised on Appeal
Counsel for the appellant, Shri Aushim Luthra, advanced several grounds in support of the appeal. He contended that major contradictions existed in the statements of prosecution witnesses. He argued that Virendra Singh — the person from whom the bribe was allegedly demanded — had not been examined by the prosecution, which he submitted cast serious doubt on the case. He further argued that Chaurasiya Hotel was a public place and it was improbable that the accused would accept a bribe in such a setting. He also submitted that no independent public witness from outside the police party had been examined to corroborate the trap proceedings.
Separately, counsel argued that there was no independent evidence that any litigation between Virendra Singh and Smt. Asha Devi was actually pending before the SOC at the relevant time, and that the appellant had been falsely implicated during an anti-bribery drive of the Vigilance Department, at the behest of Jai Vijai Singh.
The Additional Government Advocate for the State submitted that the prosecution witnesses were consistent, reliable, and trustworthy, that no motive existed for any of them to depose falsely, and that the appellant had been caught red-handed after a properly constituted and documented trap.
How the Bench Reasoned
Justice Sanjiv Kumar addressed each submission in turn and rejected all grounds raised by the appellant.
On the non-examination of Virendra Singh, the court accepted the explanation offered by P.W. 4 Jai Vijai Singh that his father's mental condition was unstable and his treatment was ongoing at the Mental Hospital, Gwalior, under Dr. Mrs. Mehrotra. The court held that even if the prosecution had deliberately withheld Virendra Singh, it would have no adverse effect on the case, because the handover of money was witnessed by Jai Vijai Singh, by Inspector Tiwari's trap party, and by public witness Mewa Lal — all of whom were examined and cross-examined.
On the absence of independent public witnesses, the court noted that public witnesses Shyamlal and Onkar Singh had been arranged as part of the trap formalities, and P.W. 3 Mewa Lal, a public witness present at Chaurasiya Hotel, had deposed to seeing the transaction. The court found no adverse inference warranted simply because no additional bystander was enrolled.
On the argument that a public hotel was an unlikely venue for accepting a bribe, the court observed that traps are laid in secrecy and the location is arranged so that the accused has no apprehension of being caught. The court further noted that the appellant himself, in his Section 313 statement, admitted going to Chaurasiya Hotel with Virendra Singh, admitted that Inspector Tiwari was present there, and admitted signing the fard baramadagi, though he attributed the signing to a different location. That admission, the court held, undermined the entire denial.
On the defence theory of false implication — that Jai Vijai Singh had contrived the trap to ensure the SOC's file would be confiscated and any adverse oral judgment could not be reduced to writing — the court found no evidence that any file was actually confiscated or that Mr. Sirohi had delivered an oral judgment on 31 March 1977 that was subsequently suppressed. The court said the motive assigned by the appellant had no force.
On the pending litigation, the court pointed out that the appellant himself, in his written statement under Section 313, had admitted that the dispute between Virendra Singh and Smt. Asha Devi over Chak No. 193 and Chak No. 7 was indeed pending before the SOC at the relevant time. That concession, the court noted, removed any factual foundation for the submission that there was no such case before the SOC.
The court also noted that because Mahesh Chand was a temporary employee who had been removed from service, no prior sanction was required to prosecute him under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Sanction under Section 6(1)(c) of the Act was sought and granted by the District Magistrate only in respect of the co-accused Kanoongo Chandra Sen.
P.W. 1 Inspector Ram Bahadur Tiwari, P.W. 2 Constable Gaya Prasad, P.W. 3 Mewa Lal, and P.W. 4 Jai Vijai Singh all withstood cross-examination without material contradiction, and the court found their testimony consistent and trustworthy. The court observed that there was no evidence of any enmity between these witnesses and the appellant, and no plausible reason for them to depose falsely.
Outcome
Justice Sanjiv Kumar concluded that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence, and that the conviction and sentence of Mahesh Chand under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were rightly imposed. Criminal Appeal No. 2870 of 1985 was dismissed on 3 July 2026.
Since the appellant had been on bail during the entire pendency of the appeal, the court cancelled his personal bonds and bail bonds and discharged the sureties. Mahesh Chand was directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks to undergo the remaining part of his sentence. The trial court was directed to adopt coercive measures if the appellant failed to surrender within that period.
The court further directed that a copy of its order be forwarded to the concerned trial court along with the trial court record for information and necessary compliance.