Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. The learned counsel for the appellant advanced a contention that though the evidence of PWs 1, 7 and 8 is consistent that when the corner of M.O.1 series were dipped in the solution the solution turned pink, at the time when the evidence was taken M.O.5 solution was colourless. That is not at all a reason to reject the prosecution case as such because the very case of PWs.1, 7 and 8 is that only a corner of M.O.1 was dipped. So the presence of Phenolphthalein powder in M.O.5 is very minimum on the upper layer of the solution. If the solution is shaken the pink colour might spread and disappear. Phenolphthalein is an organic compound of the phthalein family. It is widely employed as an acid-base indicator. It is colourless below PH 8 and attains deep red hue above PH 10. When the corner of the currency notes is dipped in the surface, PH value in the surface solution would exceed PH8 and would become pink. When shaken the average PH value would go down and the colour would disappear. In other way, Phenolphthalein is colurless in acidic solution and pink in basic solution. In strong basic solutions its pink colour undergoes a rather slow fading and would become colourless again. Therefore, the possibility for fading the colour by course of time also cannot be ruled out. That shall never be a reason to disbelieve the prosecution because Phenolphthalein test is only a procedure adopted by the trap officer to detect the crime. That procedure is not a mandate of the PC Act or any statute. Mainly it is depended to establish the manner of acceptance of bribe. It is not always relied on as a proof of demand or acceptance, though some times, it may be evidence for acceptance also. Suppose the public servant accepts the bribe money with hand, the stain on hand would be a piece of evidence to establish that it was accepted by hand. There may be clever bribe takers. They may ask the bribe giver to put it in the drawer of the table or place it on the table or even over any file or paper. In such cases, if the trap is made soon after so doing, there may not be any stain on hand. Therefore, in such circumstances, what is more relevant is the credibility of other evidence, whether it is believable or not. If believable, even if there is no Phenolphthalein test conviction would lie. The appellant has no case that M.O.1 series were not recovered from the drawer of the table or that the corner of M.O.1 series was not dipped in the solution. Even otherwise, regarding the identity of M.O.1 series Ext.P13 which is not at all disputed stares at the appellant. The serial numbers of the notes are noted in Ext.P13. M.O.1 series also bear the initials of PW.8. Verification and assertion of identity after recovery deposed by PW.7 and 8 remains unassailed. So, identity of M.O.1 series can no way be disputed. In the above circumstances, especially taking into account the nature of the defence advanced, even though M.O.5 solution was found colourless at the time of evidence, it is not at all a sufficient reason to reject the prosecution case as such. Adding to that in Ext.P14 what had transpired after the giving of bribe is specifically narrated. It is a contemporaneous document prepared on the spot under the signature of PWs 7, 8 and other independent witnesses. In Ext. P14, there is clear narration of Phenolphthalein test and the result. Adding to the above, there is the unimpeached evidence of PWs 7 and 8 that when the right hand of the appellant was dipped in calcium solution, the hand as well as the solution turned pink. Ext.P14 would corroborate with PW.7 and 8. That evidence would show that appellant accepted M.O.1 series with right hand and put into the drawer. Voluntary acceptance is evident. The story that PW.1 put M.O.1 series into the drawer of the table is devoid of merit and reflects the fact that appellant has no consistent case. Therefore, the fact that M.O.5 solution, in which a corner of M.O.1 series was dipped, was found colourless at the time of evidence would not enure to the defence.