The Allahabad High Court has upheld the 1985 bribery conviction of a former land records official, ending a legal battle over a 300-rupee bribe that began nearly five decades ago.
Justice Sanjiv Kumar dismissed the appeal filed by Mahesh Chand, a former Lekhpal in the Consolidation Department, who was sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment. In a ruling delivered on July 3, the High Court ordered Chand to surrender before the trial court within four weeks, noting that coercive measures would be taken if he fails to comply.
The case originated in 1977 when Chand and a land revenue official, Kanoongo Chandra Sen, allegedly demanded a 400-rupee bribe from a resident named Virendra Singh. The money was demanded to ensure that Singh’s land allotment remained unchanged during pending consolidation proceedings.
Instead of paying, Singh’s son, Jai Vijay Singh, filed a complaint with the Vigilance Department. Investigators subsequently organized a sting operation led by Inspector Tiwari. Chand was caught red-handed at the Chaurasiya Hotel near the Kanpur civil courts while accepting 300 rupees in chemical-treated currency from Virendra Singh.
A trial court subsequently convicted Chand in 1985 under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, sentencing him to one year of rigorous imprisonment on both counts. While Chand was convicted, his co-accused, Chandra Sen, was acquitted, leading Chand to appeal his conviction to the High Court.
Court Rejects Framing Conspiracy Theory
During the appeal proceedings, Chand argued that Jai Vijay Singh had fabricated the bribery allegations as part of a conspiracy to have official files confiscated and prevent a judgment from being dictated.
Justice Kumar rejected this defense, describing the conspiracy claim as unconvincing. The court concluded that the prosecution had successfully proved its corruption case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Witness Testimony Declared Reliable
The High Court also dismissed arguments raised by Chand’s counsel regarding the lack of independent public witnesses from the hotel. The judge pointed out that the prosecution had secured two public witnesses to the recovery of the bribe, in addition to the complainant and his father.
Justice Kumar noted that all witnesses supported the prosecution’s case and that there was no evidence of personal enmity that would cause them to testify falsely against the former official. Furthermore, the court highlighted Chand’s own admission that he had gone to the hotel to have tea with Virendra Singh, placing him at the scene of the offense.
