The Allahabad High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a former Lekhpal, upholding his conviction and one-year rigorous imprisonment for accepting a bribe. Justice Sanjiv Kumar ruled that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, dismissing the defense’s argument that the non-examination of the primary complainant was fatal to the case.
Background of the Case
The matter stems from an incident in April 1977 involving Mahesh Chand, who was then posted as a Lekhpal in the Consolidation Department in Kanpur. A land dispute regarding the allotment of specific plots, known as Chaks, was pending before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) between a local resident, Virendra Singh, and another party.
According to the prosecution, Mahesh Chand and a co-accused Kanoongo demanded illegal gratification from Virendra Singh, promising to ensure his allotted plot remained undisturbed. Upon learning of the demand, Singh’s son, Jai Vijai Singh, alerted the Kanpur Vigilance Department. A police trap was subsequently laid at Chaurasiya Hotel near the court premises. Mahesh Chand was caught red-handed accepting Rs. 300 in phenolphthalein-treated currency notes. Following a trial, a Kanpur Sessions Court convicted him in 1985.
Arguments of the Parties
During the appeal, the defense argued that the prosecution’s case was inherently doubtful because Virendra Singh—the man from whom the bribe was allegedly demanded—was never examined as a witness in court. The appellant also contended that it was highly improbable for a public servant to openly accept a bribe in a busy public place like a hotel. Additionally, the defense claimed Mahesh Chand was falsely implicated due to pressure from the complainant during an ongoing anti-bribery drive by the Vigilance Department.
In response, the State maintained that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution highlighted that the testimonies of the police trap team and independent public witnesses were consistent, reliable, and firmly established that the accused was caught red-handed.
The Court’s Analysis
The Court systematically rejected the appellant’s defenses, beginning with the absence of Virendra Singh’s testimony. The judgment noted that Singh’s son had provided medical records demonstrating his father was undergoing treatment for an unstable mental condition, explaining his absence. Crucially, the Court noted that the actual exchange of the bribe occurred in the presence of Singh’s son, Vigilance Inspectors, and public witnesses, making the original complainant’s absence immaterial.
Dismissing the argument that a public hotel was an unlikely venue for accepting a bribe, the Court noted that trap operations are deliberately designed with secrecy in mind to ensure the accused has no apprehension of being caught. The Court also found no evidence to support the claim of a broader conspiracy or collusion between Vigilance officials and the complainant to falsely frame the Lekhpal.
Concluding the analysis of the evidence, the Court observed, “…the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and it is proved that appellant Mahesh Chand, while being posted as Lekhpal in the Consolidation Department, demanded bribe from Virendra Singh to do undue favour to him in Consolidation proceedings…“
The Court firmly validated the lower court’s findings, stating, “…the Trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record correctly and reached at the right conclusion of guilt of the appellant.“
The Decision
Finding that the appeal lacked merit, the High Court dismissed the petition and affirmed both the conviction and the sentence. The Court cancelled Mahesh Chand’s bail bonds and directed him to surrender before the trial court within four weeks to serve the remainder of his sentence, failing which coercive measures would be adopted to secure his presence.
Case Title: Mahesh Chand Versus State of U.P.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2870 of 1985
Bench: Justice Sanjiv Kumar
Date: July 03, 2026
