Case: Jai Narain Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

2. He was employed as a lekhpal in the Consolidation Department. In 1964 consolidation operations were initiated in village Nanka in the District of Saharanpur. A chak was allotted by the Consolidation Officer to one Kala Singh. Kala Singh complained to the consolidation authorities that his chak was less than the allotted area. One Om Prakash Kaushal, Kanungo, and the appellant measured its area. It appears that the area of the chak was found to be more than the allotted area.3. The prosecution case was that the appellant demanded Rs. 20/from Kala Singh for concealing from the Consolidation authorities the excess area in his chak. Kala Singh went to the Deputy Superintendent of Police and made a complaint to him against the appellant. A trap was laid and the appellant accepted initialled currency notes of Rs.The Deputy Superintendent of Police recovered the said notes from the pocket of the appellant.

Reasoning:
7. Counsel for the appellant has relied on Ram Prakash Arora v. State of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 498 . In this case the prosecution evidence consisted only of the witnesses who had participated in the trap. For one reason or the other, it was found that the evidence of four witnesses was not free from blemish. The appellant had denied recovery. This Court said that the evidence of the witnesses who have participated in the trap "should be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness" and "in a proper case the Court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person."In our view the facts of that case are entirely distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Here the recovery of notes from his pocket is not disputed by the appellant. He offered an explanation therefore but it has not been accepted by the Special Judge and the High Court. On account of the infirmities, already pointed out by us, his explanation was rightly disbelieved.8. Counsel for the appellant has prayed for reduction of sentence. We do not think that the sentence is severe. It does not call for any interference.