on his right hand fingers. Unaware of this, he went ahead
in the office and touched two registers, a pen and the
token. Due to this, the articles he touched with his
right hand would also get some anthracene powder on them.
To establish this, the Investigation Officer ought to
have seen these articles under ultra violet rays, but
this was not done. Only right hand of the appellant and
his pant pocket were examined under ultra violet rays and
anthracene powder was found on them. In order to
establish the above mentioned facts, the Investigation
Officer ought to have examined the articles which the
appellant touched after receiving the tainted currency
note. The presence of anthracene powder on these
articles, would have supported the evidence of PW 1 and 2
that after receipt of the amount the appellant put it in
his pocket and thereafter he went ahead to touch the
articles etc.As against this, the appellant suggested
that the tainted currency note was thrust inside his back
pant pocket and he also suggested that since this was
suddenly done, he put his right hand in the pocket and
retrieved the articles which were put in the back pant
pocket taking currency note in his hand. This action,
according to him, allowed anthracene powder on his right
hand fingers. Indeed, there was a little lapse on the
part of the Investigation Officer in not examining the
articles which came in contact with appellant’s hands,
but I am not inclined to hold that this would be fatal to
the prosecution case. The prosecution witnesses did not
