The Allahabad High Court has upheld the conviction of former Lekhpal Mahesh Chand in a corruption case dating back to 1977, holding that the prosecution successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that he accepted illegal gratification during consolidation proceedings. The Court dismissed his criminal appeal, affirmed the trial court's judgment, and directed him to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence.
Background of the Case
The case arose from consolidation proceedings involving agricultural land in Kanpur district. According to the prosecution, Virendra Singh was contesting an appeal filed by Asha Devi regarding the allotment of agricultural plots. It was alleged that Mahesh Chand, then serving as a Lekhpal, along with Kanoongo Chandra Sen, demanded ₹400 as illegal gratification to ensure that Virendra Singh's land allotment remained undisturbed.
The prosecution claimed that Virendra Singh initially paid ₹100 to Chandra Sen and later approached his son, Jai Vijay Singh, for the remaining ₹300. Instead of arranging the payment quietly, Jai Vijay Singh contacted the Vigilance Department, which organized a trap. During the operation, Mahesh Chand was allegedly caught accepting ₹300 marked with phenolphthalein powder at Chaurasiya Hotel near the court premises. The tainted currency notes were recovered from his possession, and the chemical test reportedly confirmed contact with the treated notes.
Arguments Before the High Court
Counsel for Mahesh Chand challenged the conviction on several grounds. It was argued that there were significant contradictions in the prosecution evidence and that the principal complainant, Virendra Singh, had not been examined during the trial. The defence also questioned the credibility of the alleged trap, contending that it was improbable for a public servant to accept illegal gratification in a crowded public place such as a hotel.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
The State opposed the appeal, submitting that the trap proceedings were properly conducted and supported by official witnesses as well as independent public witnesses. It argued that the recovery of the tainted money and the evidence of the trap team established the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt.
Court's Observations
Justice Sanjiv Kumar examined the evidence recorded during the trial and found no material inconsistency affecting the prosecution case. The Court noted that the testimony of the vigilance officers, the public witness, and Jai Vijay Singh remained consistent regarding the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
Rejecting the defence's objection over the non-examination of Virendra Singh, the Court accepted the prosecution's explanation that he was suffering from a mental illness and was not in a position to testify. The bench observed that the absence of his testimony did not weaken the prosecution because the alleged acceptance of the bribe had been witnessed by other reliable witnesses.
The Court also rejected the argument that acceptance of a bribe at a public place made the prosecution story doubtful.
“Such kind of trap are laid in secrecy and the information is kept secret between the members of raiding party and the place is arranged in such a manner that the accused would not have any apprehension of his being caught red handed,”
the Court observed.
The High Court further noted that Mahesh Chand himself admitted being present with Virendra Singh at Chaurasiya Hotel on the relevant day. It found his explanation that he had been falsely implicated as part of a conspiracy to be unsupported by evidence.
The Court also observed that there was no material suggesting that the vigilance officials or independent witnesses had any motive to falsely implicate the appellant.
Decision
After reviewing the evidence, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully established that Mahesh Chand demanded and accepted ₹300 as illegal gratification while serving as a Lekhpal. It held that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence and rightly convicted him under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the criminal appeal, affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, cancelled the appellant's bail bonds, and directed him to surrender before the trial court within four weeks to undergo the remaining sentence. It further directed that coercive steps be taken if he failed to surrender within the stipulated period
Case Details:
Case Title: Mahesh Chand vs State of U.P.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2870 of 1985
Judge: Justice Sanjiv Kumar
Decision Date: 03 July 2026
