Sunil Kumar vs State

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment Reserved on: 11.05.2026

Judgment pronounced on: 14.05.2026

+ CRL.A. 179/2004 SUNIL KUMAR .....Appellant Through: Mr. K.N. Balgopal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Yash Bhushan Aggarwal, Mr. Athar Alam, Mrs. Sumbul Athar, Mr. Vilao Kense, Ms. Nitiya Nambiar and Mr. Lungnim A Shihak, Advocates.

Versus

STATE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State with SI Bheem Singh, P.S. A.C.B, GNCTD, Delhi.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, (the Cr.P.C.) the sole accused, in C.C.

No. 117/1994 on the file of the Special Judge, Delhi, assails the

judgment dated 09.02.2004 and order on sentence dated

13.02.2004 as per which he has been convicted and sentenced for

the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 1 of 47

Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the PC

Act).

2. The prosecution case is that on 29.11.1989, at about

01:50 P.M., at House no.349/5, Mangolpur Khurd, Delhi, the

accused, while working as, Inspector DESU (Delhi Electricity

Supply Undertaking), Zonal Office, Sector-III, Rohini, Delhi,

demanded, accepted and obtained ₹1500/- from PW4 for

installation of electricity meter at the aforementioned address, i.e.,

the residence of PW4. Accordingly, as per the charge-sheet/final

report dated 25.02.1992, the accused was alleged to have

committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2)

read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.

3. Sanction for prosecution was accorded by PW5, the

then General Manager (E), DESU, New Delhi, vide Ext. PW5/A

order, dated 12.01.1992.

4. Crime no. 43/1989, was registered on the basis of

PW4/A complaint of PW4. The case was initially entrusted to

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 2 of 47

PW13 and then subsequently was transferred to PW10 for

investigation. After completion of investigation by PW10, a

charge-sheet was filed against the accused alleging the commission

of the offences punishable under the aforementioned Sections.

5. When the accused was produced before the trial court,

all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to him as

contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides,

the trial court vide order dated 28.09.1993, framed a Charge under

Section 7 and Section 13 of the PC Act, which was read over and

explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 13 were

examined and Exhibits PW2/A-B, PW3/B-C, PW4/A-H, PW4/J-K,

PW5/A, PW7/A, PW8/A, PW10/A-E and PW13/A-B were marked

in support of the case.

7. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused

was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.PC. regarding the

incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 3 of 47

of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and

maintained his innocence. He submitted that he had neither

demanded nor had accepted any money from PW4. Electricity

meter could not have been installed at the residential premises of

PW4 as the premises fell within an unelectrified area. This can be

inferred from the testimony of PW4 who admitted that the

Executive Engineer had also mentioned that the meter could not be

installed in the said premises. He further submitted that even after

the trap proceedings, the meter was installed only at the house of

PW4’s uncle.

8. No documentary evidence was adduced in support of

the defence case.

9. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence

on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court vide the

impugned judgment dated 09.02.2004 held the accused guilty of

the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with

Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Vide order on sentence dated

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 4 of 47

13.02.2004, the accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of 18 months each along with fine of

₹5000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further

rigorous imprisonment for five months each for the offences

punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The

sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved, the

accused has preferred this appeal.

10. It was submitted by the learned Senior counsel for the

appellant/accused that the very substratum of the prosecution case

is intrinsically improbable and contrary to the materials on record.

It was urged that as per the Charge framed against the

appellant/accused, he is alleged to have demanded and accepted

illegal gratification for installation of an electricity meter at House

no. 349/5, i.e. the residence of PW4, while the latter himself has

admitted in his testimony that the meter could not be installed at

his residence as it is situated in an unelectrified area, which is

beyond the permissible limit of 100 feet from the main electric

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 5 of 47

pole and that the same had also been categorically informed to him

by the Executive Engineer. Attention of this Court was drawn to

certain documents forming part of the DESU record in order to

explain the official position regarding non-installation of

electricity connection at PW4’s premises. Admittedly the said

documents had not been formally exhibited or brought in evidence.

The learned Senior Counsel, however, submits that even dehors

the said documents, the testimony of PW4 itself remains

categorical and uncontroverted to the effect that both the

appellant/accused and the Executive Engineer had informed him

that the electricity meter could not be installed at House No.349/5

since the same was situated beyond the permissible distance of 100

feet from the main electric pole.Therefore, this establishes that no

electricity connection could be legally granted in the said premises

and hence, the very root of the prosecution case, namely, the very

basis of the demand becomes doubtful, goes the argument.

Reliance was placed on the dictum in Ved Prakash Maurya v.

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 6 of 47

State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 10660, wherein this

Court held that when the alleged work either stood already

completed or could not legally be processed by the accused, the

very motive or occasion for demand becomes inherently

improbable. Reliance was also placed on Har Swarup Verma v.

State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8628, wherein this

Court held that when the prosecution fails to demonstrate that the

accused was in a position to extend the alleged official favour, the

very premise of demand becomes doubtful.

10.1. It was further argued that, even going by the testimony

of PW4, at the time of the alleged transaction, the meter could not

be installed at his house, but at the residence of his uncle, situated

nearby. The learned Senior counsel emphasised that this admission

demolishes the prosecution case as the alleged bribe was

purportedly demanded for installation of meter at House no. 349/5.

It was argued that PW4 kept changing his stand by first alleging

that the meter was to be installed in his own house and later stating

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 7 of 47

that the same was to be installed in his uncle’s premises and that

such vacillating testimony renders PW4 to be an unreliable

witness. To augment his contention the learned Senior counsel

relied on the dictum in Rajesh Gupta v. State, (2022) 20 SCC

793, wherein the Apex Court held that the sole testimony of the

complainant, being that of an interested witness, cannot ordinarily

be relied upon in the absence of corroboration from independent

evidence. Reliance was also placed on the dictum in State of

Punjab v. Madan Mohan Lal Verma, (2013) 14 SCC 153,

wherein the Apex Court held that the complainant in a trap case is

an interested and partisan witness and his testimony must be

scrutinized with caution and, in an appropriate case, independent

corroboration should be insisted upon.

10.2. It was further contended that the prosecution has failed

to prove the necessary element of “demand”, which is sine qua non

for conviction under Section 7 and 13 of the PC Act. The learned

Senior counsel pointed out that there are material inconsistencies

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 8 of 47

in the testimonies of PW4, PW6 and PW9 regarding the alleged

demand, acceptance and recovery of the tainted currency notes. It

was urged that PW6, the panch witness did not fully support the

prosecution case and also as per the prosecution itself, the recovery

of tainted money and the apprehension of the accused took place in

another premises, which has been stated to be PW4’s uncle’s

house. It was further submitted that mere recovery of tainted

currency notes or positive hand-wash/pocket-wash tests are

insufficient in law unless demand and voluntary acceptance are

first proved beyond reasonable doubt. Reliance was placed on the

dictum in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55, wherein

the Apex Court held that mere recovery of currency notes, without

proof of demand, cannot constitute an offence under Sections 7

and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of

Delhi), (2023) 18 SCC 251, wherein the Constitutional Bench

reiterated that mere possession or recovery of tainted money is

insufficient unless demand and acceptance are proved beyond

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 9 of 47

reasonable doubt. Further, it was contended that the proof of offer

by the bribe giver and demand by the public servant are

foundational facts, which must first be established before

conviction can follow by relying on the dictum in Rajinder

Kumar v. CBI, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1421.

10.3. It was next contended that there was no sufficient

verification of PW4’s allegations prior to the laying of the trap and

the entire pre-raid exercise appears to have been conducted

mechanically and in undue haste. It was submitted that as per the

testimony of PW9, PW4 arrived at the A.C. Branch around 9:00

A.M. and within a very short span of time the complaint was

recorded and the pre-raid proceedings were completed and the

raiding party departed. It was also pointed out that the prosecution

failed to examine Head Constable Balbir Singh, who, according to

PW9, had conducted the demonstration during the pre-raid

proceedings. It was argued that non-examination of such a material

witness creates a serious dent in the prosecution case. Reliance

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 10 of 47

was placed on the dictum in Ram Prashad v. State (NCT of

Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1899, wherein this Court held that

absence of proper verification of the complaint and deficiencies in

the investigation and contemporaneous record cast doubt on the

prosecution case and that suspicion, however strong, cannot take

the place of proof.

10.4. The Learned Senior Counsel submitted that there are

material contradictions regarding the place of apprehension of the

appellant, the manner in which the tainted money was allegedly

recovered and the sequence in which the post-raid proceedings

were conducted. It was urged that while one witness stated that the

tainted money was thrown on the ground by the appellant upon

seeing the raiding party, another witness gave a materially

different version regarding recovery of the said amount. It was also

submitted that no independent witness from the locality or from

the alleged premises was joined by the prosecution despite the

alleged proceedings taking place in a residential area. The learned

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 11 of 47

Senior counsel contended that the inconsistencies regarding the

manner and place of recovery cast a serious doubt upon the

genuineness of the trap proceedings. Reliance was placed on the

dictum in Ved Prakash Maurya (supra), wherein this Court held

that material inconsistencies in the prosecution version regarding

trap proceedings, timing, post-raid formalities and wash

proceedings render the prosecution case doubtful and entitle the

accused to benefit of doubt.

10.5. It was lastly argued that the prosecution has failed to

establish the foundational facts necessary for drawing the statutory

presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act by placing reliance on

the dictum in State of Punjab v. Madan Mohan Lal Verma,

(2013) 14 SCC 153, wherein the Apex Court held that before the

burden shifts to the accused under Section 20 of the PC Act, the

prosecution must first establish the foundational facts regarding

demand and acceptance. Reliance was also placed on the dictum in

Neeraj Dutta (supra) and B. Jayaraj (supra), to contend that in

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 12 of 47

the absence of proof of demand, the statutory presumption under

Section 20 cannot be invoked. Reliance was again placed on the

dictum in Har Swarup Verma (supra), wherein this Court

reiterated that where the chain of demand, acceptance and recovery

is not established through credible and consistent evidence, the

accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. It was, therefore, submitted

that the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence

are unsustainable in law and deserve to be set aside.

11. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

submitted that the prosecution has successfully established the

demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant

through the testimonies of PW4, PW6 and PW9 coupled with the

recovery of tainted currency notes and the positive hand-wash and

pocket-wash proceedings. It was submitted that the contention of

the appellant that the electricity meter could not legally be installed

at PW4’s premises is wholly immaterial in view of the settled legal

position that the offence under the PC Act stands attracted upon

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 13 of 47

proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification irrespective

of whether the public servant was actually capable of extending the

alleged official favour and placed reliance on the dictum in Trilok

Chand Jain v. State of Delhi, (1975) 4 SCC 761, wherein the

Apex Court held that the question whether the accused was

actually in a position to show favour to the complainant is not of

significance once illegal gratification is demanded and accepted,

which has been reiterated by the High Court of Kerala in Dr. V.

Sebastian v. City Hospital (P) Ltd., (1985) 57 Comp Cas 453.

11.1. It was further submitted that merely because the alleged

conversation regarding demand was not overheard by the trap

laying officer (TLO) or the panch witness would not by itself

render the prosecution case doubtful by placing reliance on the

dictum in State of U.P. v. Zakaullah, 1998 SCC (Cri) 456,

wherein it was categorically held that non-hearing of the

conversation between the complainant and the accused by other

witnesses is no ground to reject the prosecution case once recovery

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 14 of 47

of tainted money from the accused stands established. It was

argued that in the present case, the presence of the appellant at the

relevant premises, the recovery of tainted currency notes and the

positive wash proceedings sufficiently corroborate the prosecution

version regarding demand and acceptance of bribe.

11.2. The learned prosecutor further submitted that the

conduct of the appellant in throwing the tainted currency notes

upon seeing the raiding party constitutes a strong incriminating

circumstance against him by relying on the dictum in Hazari Lal

v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1980 SC 873, wherein the

Apex Court held that an attempt by the accused to throw away the

tainted money upon arrival of the raiding party constitutes a

relevant incriminating circumstance supporting the prosecution

case. It was submitted that the said conduct of the appellant lends

assurance to the prosecution version regarding conscious

possession and acceptance of illegal gratification.

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 15 of 47

11.3. It was further pointed out by the learned prosecutor that

the defence has failed to legally establish the alleged

contradictions sought to be elicited from the prosecution witnesses.

The learned prosecutor submitted that the procedure prescribed

under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (the Evidence

Act) for proving contradictions was not duly followed by the

defence during trial and placed reliance on the dictum in

Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 1012, to contend

that unless contradictions are duly proved in accordance with law,

the same cannot be read in evidence or relied upon by the defence.

It is submitted that the alleged inconsistencies sought to be pointed

out by the appellant, therefore, cannot materially discredit the

prosecution case.

11.4. The learned prosecutor lastly submitted that the

prosecution has duly established the foundational facts necessary

for invoking the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act. It

was submitted that the recovery of tainted currency notes from the

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 16 of 47

appellant, coupled with the positive hand-wash and pocket-wash

proceedings conducted at the spot, clearly establish conscious

acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant. It was further

contended that the defence has failed to furnish any plausible

explanation regarding possession of the tainted currency notes and,

therefore, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC

Act operates against the appellant.

12. Heard both sides and perused records.

13. The only point that arises for consideration in the

present appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the impugned

judgement calling for an interference by this court.

14. I shall first briefly refer to the materials on record relied

on by the prosecution in support of the case. PW4 submitted a

written complaint, i.e., Exhibit PW4/A dated 29.11.1989 in the

office of the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) in which he has stated

thus: - He is a resident of House No. 349/5, Village Mangolpur

Khurd, where he resides along with his wife and children. His

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 17 of 47

house does not have electricity. In an effort to secure electricity

connection, he met Shri Sunil Kumar, Inspector, DESU, Sector

No. III, Rohini, Delhi (the accused), about a month back, at which

time, Inspector Sunil Kumar (the accused) proposed conducting a

site inspection. After inspecting the aforementioned house, the

accused instructed him to pay the security deposit and obtain a

letter from the Chairman, DESU of his area and demanded a bribe

of ₹2,000/-, asserting that the meter would be installed only upon

receipt of the said payment (2000 पये मुझे बतौर र त दो जब मीट लगेगा).

Thereafter on 09.10.1989, PW4 deposited the security deposit of

₹525/- vide receipt no. 462182 at the office of DESU in Rohini. He

further stated that despite the payment of the security deposit, he

had been making frequent visits to the office of DESU only to be

harassed by Inspector Sunil Kumar (the accused), who continued

to insist that the meter would not be installed until ₹2,000/- bribe

was paid. (और जब से DESU ऑिफस के च र लगा रहा ँ मगर ी सुनील कुमार

इं ै र DESU मुझे बड़ा परे शान कर रहा है और कहता है िक जब ही मीटर लगेगा जब 2000

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 18 of 47

पये दोगे). In the afternoon of 28.11.1989, when he met Inspector

Sunil Kumar (the accused) again to plead for the installation of the

meter, the latter responded by saying, "How many times do I have

to tell you? Give ₹2,000/- and get the meter installed, otherwise I

will reject the meter application.” (िकतने बार बतलाना पड़े गा 2000 पये दो

और मीटर लगालो वरना मीटर को Reject कर दू ं गा) On this, when he responded,

"Sunil Kumar Sahib, I am a poor man” (सुनील कुमार साहब म तो गरीब

आदमी ँ ), the accused reduced his demand and responded by saying,

"Fine, give ₹1,500/- by tomorrow afternoon, i.e., 29.11.1989, and I

will come to your house and install the meter" (ठीक है कल िदनां क

29.11.1989 को दोपहर तक 1500 पये दे दे ना और घर पर आकर मीटर लगवा दू ं गा) and

hence, out of sheer compulsion, he agreed to the same, though he

is against giving of bribe. (जो मने मजबूरी समझकर हाँ भर ली वरना म र त लेने दे ने

के खलाफ ँ ). PW4 further stated that that Shri Sunil Kumar (the

accused) was scheduled to arrive at his house on the afternoon of

29.11.1989, to collect the ₹1,500/- bribe for the said installation.

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 19 of 47

14.1. PW4, when examined before the trial court, more or

less stood by his case in Ext. PW4/A and deposed that after his

initial meeting with the accused, someone came to his house and

inspected it in his absence. Thereafter, when he again met the

accused, the latter told him that a meter could not be installed in

his house, but could instead be installed at a distance of about 100

feet in the lane. Subsequently, when PW4 met the zonal Executive

Engineer, he also confirmed that the meter could only be installed

at a distance of 100 feet in the lane and advised him to apply for

the meter and thereafter meet the accused. Thereafter, when PW4

met the accused, the latter stated that he could sanction a meter,

provided that the former pays some money for "KHARCHA

PAANI”. PW4 further deposed that on 27.11.1989, he met the

accused again and that the accused again insisted that the former

would have to pay ₹2,000/- as a bribe to the latter; otherwise, he

would cancel the meter thereby forfeiting the security deposit

made by PW4, upon which the former requested the latter to grant

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 20 of 47

him three days’ time. PW4 further deposed that though the accused

initially demanded ₹2,000/- to be paid by 22.11.1989 11:00 A.M.,

he requested the accused to accept ₹1,500/- initially as he would

not be able to arrange the whole amount. PW4 further deposed that

on 29.11.1989, he went to the A.C. branch and lodged Ext. PW4/A

complaint, in the presence of PW6, the panch witness. Thereafter,

he provided ₹1,500/- in the denomination of ₹100/-, i.e., fifteen

currency notes of ₹100/- each. PW4 further deposed in detail

regarding the pre-trap proceedings which has been recorded vide

Ext. PW4/B. PW4 further deposed that he was instructed to stay

close to PW6, the panch witness and to speak with the accused in a

manner that would allow the panch witness to overhear their

conversation and witness the transaction and that PW6 was

instructed to give a signal once he was satisfied that the money had

been accepted as bribe by the accused.

14.2. PW4 further deposed that he, along with the entire trap

team left for his house in a government vehicle, which was parked

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 21 of 47

near a service station about 300 yards away. He along with the

panch witness sat inside the house while the remaining members

of the raiding party took positions near the boundary wall. By

around 01:40 P.M., the accused arrived and entered the house and

when he offered the latter tea, he refused and demanded the money

by stating that he had other commitments. Thereafter, he took the

money from his pocket to give it to the accused, he asked the latter

as to where the electric meter would be installed. The accused took

the money in his right hand and placed it in the right-side pocket of

his pants and informed him that the meter would be installed in his

uncle's house situated nearby and not in the lane. PW4 further

deposed that the panch witness gave the pre-arranged signal by

moving his hand over his head and upon reaching his uncle's

house, officers from the ACB arrived there. He further deposed

that the accused, on seeing the officials, took the money from his

pocket and threw it on the ground. PW9, the TLO, disclosed his

identity and challenged the accused, who became nervous and

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 22 of 47

attempted to flee, however, he was successfully secured. PW4

further deposed that the panch witness was asked to pick up the

currency notes and compare the serial numbers in the same with

the numbers recorded in the pre-raid report. On comparison, the

numbers tallied.

14.3. PW4 further deposed that the right hand of the accused

was washed in a solution which turned pink. The right-side pocket

of the pants of the accused was also washed in a freshly prepared

solution, which also turned pink. PW4 further deposed that the two

bottles of hand wash i.e., P16 and P17, and pant wash, i.e. P18 and

P19 were labelled, sealed in front of him and seized vide Ext.

PW4/D memo and Ext. PW4/E memo respectively and that he had

affixed his signatures on the labels. He also deposed that the pants

of the accused was seized vide Ext. PW4/F memo and the currency

notes P1 to P15 were seized vide Ext. PW4/C seizure memo. At

this juncture, the prosecutor sought permission of the trial court to

put leading questions to the witness on the ground that he had

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 23 of 47

deviated from his statement made before the police on the aspect

of the initial demand. The request was allowed. On further

examination by the prosecutor, PW4 deposed that he had been

meeting the accused for about 15 days and that the conversation

regarding the amount of ₹1,500/- had taken place on 27.11.1989

and 28.11.1989.

14.4. PW4, in his cross-examination, admitted that the meter

was not installed based on his initial application. He had sent a

lawyer notice, pursuant to which the accused called him and

obtained a fresh application in the name of his son.The meter was

ultimately issued in the name of his son. PW4 denied the

suggestion that his first application was rejected because his house

was situated in an unelectrified area. PW4 further deposed that he

had met the Executive Engineer, who told him that the connection

would not be granted in his name as he had caused the accused

(Sunil Kumar) to be arrested. PW4 deposed that he was never

informed that a meter could not be provided on the ground that his

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 24 of 47

house was situated in an unelectrified area. PW4 further deposed

that he had met the accused about 10 to 15 times before the date of

the latter’s arrest. He further deposed that he had borrowed

₹1,500/- from his brother-in-law, namely, Baljit Singh. According

to PW4, 28.11.1989 was his weekly rest day and that no departure

entry is made on the said day. PW4 further deposed that the

accused had raised alarm when he was apprehended; however, no

one came to the spot on hearing the cries of the latter as his house

is situated away from the village and the area is not populated. The

accused was apprehended inside a room in house no. 349/4. The

currency notes were picked up from inside the said room. When

the accused tried to run away, he was apprehended by PW9 and

Head Constable Balbir Singh. PW4 further deposed that the hand

wash and the pocket wash of the accused was taken by Head

Constable Balbir Singh.

15. PW6 (the panch witness), U.DC, ITI, Malvia Nagar,

Delhi, deposed that either on 29.11.1989 or 30.11.1989, he was

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 25 of 47

present on duty at the A.C. Branch as a panch witness. On the said

day, PW4 had come to the ACB, and the latter’s statement was

recorded in his presence. He also testified regarding the pre-raid

formalities done in the Office of the ACB, which according to him

was recorded in Ext. PW4/B report in which he had signed. After

completing the formalities, they proceeded to the house of PW4

situated in a village. He and PW4 went inside the house, while the

other members of the raiding team took positions outside the

house. Shortly thereafter, the accused arrived. PW4 offered the

accused tea, which the latter declined. PW4 then took the money

and gave it to the accused. The accused took the money in his

hand. Then the accused and PW4 proceeded to the place where the

connection was to be given, at which time, he gave the pre-

arranged signal. The raid team came and proceeded to the place

where the accused and PW4 had gone. However, he remained at

PW4’s house. PW6 further deposed that he was thereafter taken to

the place where PW4 and the accused had gone and was shown the

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 26 of 47

currency notes which had been recovered from the accused, which

were checked and tallied. When the hand wash of the accused was

taken at the ACB, the colour of the water turned pink. The pocket

wash of the accused's pants also turned pink.

15.1. The prosecutor sought the permission of the trial court

to “cross-examine” PW6 on the ground that he was resiling from

his earlier statement made to the police. The request was allowed.

On further examination by the prosecutor, PW6 deposed that the

accused may have accepted the money in his right hand. However,

he could not recall the same precisely. He further deposed that the

house where the connection was to be given is situated opposite

PW4’s house, where he had gone along with PW4. PW6 denied

having accompanied the raiding team to the house where PW4 and

the accused had gone. He denied having stated to the police that

the accused had kept the money in the right pocket of his pant. He

denied having stated to the police that when the Inspector

disclosed his identity, the accused had taken out the money from

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 27 of 47

his pocket and thrown the same on the ground or that the accused

had become nervous and had attempted to run away. He denied

seeing the Inspector picking up the currency notes from the

ground. However, PW6 admitted that the Inspector had handed

over the currency notes and asked him to tally their numbers with

the pre-raid report. He had tallied their numbers and found them to

be the same. PW6 was unable to recall if the hand wash of the

accused had been taken at the spot. However, he admitted that the

hand wash and the pocket wash of the accused which turned pink

had been transferred into two glass bottles, which were sealed and

labelled and that he had affixed his signatures on the labels. PW6

admitted his signature on Ex. P20 pants. He also admitted that

Exts. P1 to P15 are the currency notes recovered from the spot.

PW6 further admitted his signature in Ext. PW4/G raid

proceedings; Ext. PW4/C, Ext. PW4/D, Ext. PW4/E and Ext.

PW4/F seizure memos. He also admitted that Ext. PW4/G had

been prepared in his presence and that he had read the same. PW6

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 28 of 47

also admitted his signature in Ext. PW4/J seizure memo prepared

relating to the scooter in which the accused had arrived at the spot.

However, he deposed that he does not know whether the scooter

had been seized on the same day. But he admitted that Ext. PW4/J

was prepared in his presence and that he had read the same and

thereafter signed it. PW6, in his cross-examination, denied the

suggestion that the accused had not accepted the money and that

no hand wash or pocket wash had been taken in his presence. PW6

also denied the suggestion that he had testified the incriminating

parts at the instance of the police.

16. PW9, the TLO, broadly supported the prosecution case.

He deposed that Ext. PW4/A complaint of PW4 was recorded in

the presence of PW6, the panch witness, who was present in the

ACB. PW4 and PW6, the panch witness, after being briefed, were

sent ahead to proceed with the transaction with the accused.

According to PW9, at about 11:45 A.M., the accused arrived on

Scooter No: DBI 4868, and after parking the scooter outside the

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 29 of 47

house, he entered PW4’s house, i.e. House No. 349/5. At about

01:50 P.M., PW6 gave the pre-arranged signal by moving his hand

over his head and upon receiving the signal, he along with all the

members of the raiding party reached the spot. He apprehended the

accused with the assistance of Head Constable (HC) Bir Singh,

disclosed his identity and challenged the accused. On seeing the

raiding party, the accused threw the money on the ground. The

notes were picked up from the ground by PW6, the panch witness

and they were seized vide Ext. PW4/C memo. PW9 further

deposed in detail regarding the post trap formalities.

16.1. PW9, in his cross examination, deposed that PW4 had

arrived at the office of the ACB at about 09:00A.M. PW6, the

panch witness, was present when the complaint of PW4 was

recorded. According to PW9, he had applied phenolphthalein

powder on the currency notes during the pre-raid formalities and

that it was HC Balbir Singh who had given the demonstration. It

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 30 of 47

was HC Balbir Singh who had taken the hand wash of the accused.

But the same has not been mentioned in the post-raid report.

17. PW5, the Sanction Officer, deposed that he had gone

through the police file and the judicial file of the case and after

considering the allegations against the accused and the

circumstances, granted sanction order vide Ext. PW5/A Sanction

Order.

18. PW13, Inspector deposed that on 29.11.1989, he had

accompanied the raiding party headed by PW9 TLO. He did not

participate in the raid proceedings. He was standing away from the

place. After the raid, he was entrusted with the investigation of the

case at around 02:00 P.M., when PW9 handed over the accused,

the case property and the documents prepared. He prepared

Ext.PW13/A site plan at the instance of PW4 and PW6. After

completing the formalities, including the recording of statements,

deposited the case property in the malkhana, that is, bottles marked

A1 and B1 along with pant pullandas and the scooter. Thereafter,

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 31 of 47

he went to the office of ACP, K.P. Singh, ACB, Police Station and

entrusted bottles numbered B2 and A2 along with the sample seal,

who kept it locked in his office almirah and sealed it. The ACP,

retained the key of the almirah and handed back the seal to him.

On 30.11.1989, he went to the office of the ACP on which day,

K.P. Singh checked the almirah in his presence, which was found

intact. The seal was broken open, the almirah unlocked and the

bottles marked A2 and B2 handed back to him. He deposited the

said samples in the office of the CFSL. As long as the case

property remained in his possession, the same was not tampered

with.

18.1. PW13, in his cross-examination, admitted that the

office of ACP is not a notified malkhana.

19. The appellant/accused has found guilty of the offences

punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section

13(2) of the PC Act. It is now well settled that, to bring home an

offence under Section 7 of the Act, the prosecution must establish:

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 32 of 47

(i) that the accused was a public servant; (ii) that there was a

demand of illegal gratification; and (iii) that such gratification was

voluntarily accepted by the accused as a motive or reward for

doing or forbearing to do any official act. Similarly, for an offence

under Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2), the

prosecution is required to prove that the public servant, by corrupt

or illegal means or by abusing his position, obtained for himself or

for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.

Crucially, the foundational requirement for both provisions is the

proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

20. The learned senior counsel for the appellant/accused

drew the attention of this Court to the charge framed by the trial

court, which reads thus:- “FIRSTLY that on 29-11-89 at about 1-50 P.M.

you while working as Inspector DESU, Zonal Office Sector-III, Rohini,

Delhi - a public servant in discharge of your official duties, by corrupt and

illegal means or otherwise abusing your official position, demanded,

accepted and obtained Rs. 1500/- at House No. 349/5, Mangolpur Khurd,

Delhi as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration from Shri

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 33 of 47

Jagwinder Singh s/o, Om Parkash, r/o. H. No. 349/5, Mangolpur Khurd,

Delhi, in consideration for installation of electricity meter at his

abovementioned residence and thereby committed an offence punishable

under Section 7 of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988 and within my

cognizance”.

(Emphasis Supplied)

21. Referring to the Charge, the argument advanced was

that the materials on record show that the house bearing number

impossible for the appellant/accused to have acceded to the

demand of PW4 for installing an electric meter at the aforesaid

residence. In this regard, reliance was particularly placed upon an

internal communication purportedly issued by the Executive

Engineer stating that the premises was situated beyond the

permissible distance from the existing electric mains and that steps

were being taken to cancel the case and refund the security

amount. However, the said documents were never formally proved

or exhibited or even marked during the course of trial through any

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 34 of 47

competent witness. It is a settled law that a document is required to

be produced and proved according to law to be called evidence.

Whether such evidence is relevant, irrelevant, admissible or

inadmissible, is a matter of trial (See Hardeep Singh vs. State of

Punjab, 2014 (3) SCC 92). In the absence of formal exhibition

and proof of the said documents, this Court cannot read the

contents thereof as substantive evidence. Significantly, during the

course of arguments, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant

also fairly confined his submissions primarily to the oral testimony

of PW4 and did not seriously dispute that the said departmental

documents had not been duly proved during trial. Consequently,

no substantive benefit is lent to the appellant on the basis of such

unproved DESU record.

22. Be that as it may, PW4 in his chief-examination

admitted that the accused had informed him that the meter could

not be installed in his house and that the same could be installed at

a distance of about 100 feet in the lane. PW4 also admitted that he

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 35 of 47

had met the Executive Engineer of the zone, who also had

informed him that the meter could be installed at a distance of 100

feet in the lane. The accused, when questioned under Section

313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. submitted that even after the raid, the meter was

installed at the house of PW4’s uncle. This aspect is not disputed

by PW4. Even if no electric meter could be installed at house

number 349/5, that alone would not automatically result in

throwing out the entire prosecution case because the other

materials on record also needs to be looked into, which I proceed

to consider.

23. I have already referred to the testimony of PW4 in

detail. PW4 stood by his version when cross-examined. Nothing

was brought out in his cross-examination to disbelieve his

testimony. It has not been shown that PW4 has an axe to grind

implicate the accused or that there is any reason(s) for him to

falsely against the accused. It is true that PW6, the panch witness,

is partially hostile to the prosecution case. However, PW6

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 36 of 47

supported the prosecution case in all material particulars except to

the extent that he was not present when PW9 apprehended the

appellant/accused, at which time the accused is stated to have

thrown the currency notes on the floor. But PW6 admits all the

other aspects of the prosecution case. He admitted that he along

with the raiding team and PW4 had proceeded to the house of

PW4, to which place the accused had also come. PW6 also

admitted that when the accused arrived at the house of PW4, the

latter had offered him tea which the appellant/accused declined,

and thereafter PW4 had taken the money and handed it over to the

accused. It is true that PW6 deposed that he had not accompanied

PW4 and the accused to the house situated opposite the house of

PW4 for the purpose of installation of the electric meter. He also

deposed that he had not seen the accused being apprehended by

PW9 or the accused, on seeing the raiding party, throwing the

currency notes on the floor. However, PW6 admitted that he was

later taken to the said house and that on the instructions of PW9,

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 37 of 47

he had checked the serial numbers of the currency notes handed

over to him and that the same had tallied with the ones recorded in

the pre-raid report. He also admitted his signatures in the

documents prepared by PW9 contemporaneously.

24. Another pertinent aspect to be noticed is that PW6 in

his cross-examination denied the suggestions put to him by the

defence counsel that the accused had not accepted the money and

that no hand wash or pocket wash had been taken in his presence.

This testimony of PW6 has to be read along with the testimony of

PW4 and PW9. The accused has no explanation as to why he went

to the house of PW4 on the said day. If it was impossible for the

electric meter to have been installed at the house of the accused,

and if he had already informed PW4 about the same, the question

that arises is as to why he went to the house of PW4 on the said

day. The accused has no explanation whatsoever for the same.

Merely because PW6 partially turned hostile is no reason to

disbelieve his entire testimony. It is well settled law that the

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 38 of 47

testimony of a witness is not liable to be discredited in toto merely

because he does not support the prosecution case on certain

aspects. The portion of his testimony which inspires confidence

and finds corroboration from other relatable evidence can be

always relied on. [See State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra

and Anr., (1996) 10 SCC 360]. The testimony of PW6 has to be

read along with the testimony of PW4 and PW9.

25. It is true that no independent witnesses were examined

to establish the prosecution case. However, no materials/evidence

has come on record to show that any independent witnesses were

present in and around the place of occurrence. According to PW4

the accused, on being apprehended by PW9, had raised alarm, but

nobody came as the place of occurrence is situated away from the

village and not in a thickly populated area.

26. The contention of the appellant that the conversation

regarding the demand was not overheard by PW6 or the other

members of the raiding party also does not persuade this Court to

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 39 of 47

discard the prosecution case. As held in Zakaullah (supra),

merely because the conversation between the complainant and the

accused was not overheard by independent witnesses would not be

a ground to reject the prosecution case once recovery of tainted

money from the accused is established.

27. The non-examination of HC Balbir Singh is also of no

consequence in this case as evidence has to be weighed and not

counted. The complainant in a case of this nature is not an

accomplice and the question to be considered is whether his

testimony can be relied on or believed to substantiate the

prosecution case of demand of the bribe. It is not always necessary

that his testimony has to be corroborated by independent evidence.

The hand wash and pocket wash proceedings stood duly proved

through PW4, PW6 and PW9. The relevant bottles and exhibits

were produced before the trial court and identified by the

witnesses. Merely because one member of the raiding team was

not examined would not ipso facto render the entire prosecution

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 40 of 47

case doubtful when the material aspects of the trap proceedings

otherwise stand established through cogent evidence.

28. The reliance placed by the appellant on the dicta in B.

Jayaraj (supra), Neeraj Dutta (supra), Madan Mohan Lal

Verma (supra), and Rajesh Gupta (supra) also does not advance

the appellant’s case in the peculiar facts of the present matter. As

held in Neeraj Dutta (supra) the Court has the discretion to

presume facts on a case-to-case basis when the foundational facts

are established. There can be no quarrel with the proposition laid

down in the aforesaid decisions that proof of demand is sine qua

non for conviction under the PC Act and that mere recovery of

tainted money is not sufficient in the absence of proof of demand

and acceptance. However, unlike the cases relied upon by the

appellant, in the case on hand, there exists direct evidence of

demand through the testimony of PW4, which receives substantial

corroboration from the surrounding circumstances, recovery of

tainted money, positive wash proceedings and the testimony of

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 41 of 47

PW9. Therefore, the foundational facts regarding demand and

acceptance stand duly established. Similarly, the reliance placed by

the appellant on the judgments in Ved Prakash Maurya (supra)

and Har Swarup Verma (supra) is distinguishable on facts. In the

said cases, the prosecution evidence regarding demand itself was

found to be doubtful and there were serious deficiencies regarding

the authority of the accused to process the alleged work coupled

with material inconsistencies in the prosecution case. In the case

on hand, however, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing

through reliable oral and documentary evidence that the appellant

had demanded and accepted illegal gratification from PW4 in

connection with the installation of the electricity connection. The

mere fact that there existed certain technical or procedural issues

regarding the exact place of installation would not efface the

evidence regarding demand and acceptance.

29. Here it is also apposite to note that PW9, when

examined before the trial court, deposed that Ext. P16 to P19

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 42 of 47

bottles contain white liquid and the court also observed the same.

As held in Ram Naresh Pandey v. State, 2013 SCC OnLine Del

2751, that fading or disappearance of pink colour over a period of

time is a natural phenomenon and does not in any manner discredit

the prosecution case and that phenolphthalein, being an acid-base

indicator, turns pink only in an alkaline medium when the pH

value exceeds 8, and may subsequently become colourless if the

pH level falls below 8 due to passage of time or change in

chemical composition of the solution. Mere absence of pink colour

at a later stage does not negate the fact that the solution had turned

pink at the time of trap, particularly when contemporaneous

evidence and Ext. PW8/A CFSL report clearly establish the same.

30. At this stage, it also becomes relevant to notice that the

appellant, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC.,

merely denied the prosecution allegations and raised the defence

that the meter could not have been installed at PW4’s house as it

fell within an unelectrified area. Though the burden upon the

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 43 of 47

accused to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the

PC Act is not as onerous as that cast upon the prosecution, the

accused is nevertheless required to place on record some material

to probabilise his defence. In the present case, except for bare

denial, no convincing explanation has been furnished by the

appellant regarding his presence at the scene of occurrence; the

recovery of tainted currency notes and the hand wash and pocket

wash turning pink.

31. The learned Senior counsel’s attempt to point out

contradiction(s) in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses

regarding the manner of recovery, throwing of the currency notes,

etc., can also not succeed as the contradictions were never duly

proved as per the procedure contemplated in Section 145 of the

Evidence Act. [See Tahsildar Singh (supra); Satpal v. Delhi

Administration, 1976 (1) SCC 727 and Delhi Administration. v.

Lakshman Kumar 1985 KHC 741: (1985) 4 SCC 476).

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 44 of 47

32. Yet another argument advanced is regarding the

discrepancy relating to the time at which the accused reached the

scene of occurrence. According to PW4, the accused arrived at his

house by 01:40 P.M. However, PW9 deposed that the accused

arrived at about 11:45 A.M. This was pointed out as another major

defect in the prosecution case. It is true that such a discrepancy is

seen. However, PW9 also deposed thatPW6 had given the signal at

01:50 P.M., pursuant to which the accused was apprehended and

remaining formalities completed. In the facts and circumstances of

the case on hand, this discrepancy regarding the time alone cannot

be a ground to throw out the entire prosecution case in the light of

the testimony of PW4, PW6 and PW9, whom I find no reasons to

disbelieve.

33. It was also pointed out by the learned Senior counsel

for the appellant/accused that no verification seems to have been

done on the complaint of PW4 and that PW9 and team had acted in

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 45 of 47

haste even without conducting any preliminary enquiries regarding

the genuineness of the complaint.

34. PW9 deposed that PW4 had reached the office of ACB

at 09:00 A.M. The exact time at which the formalities were

completed or the exact or approximate time at which PW4 and

PW6 along with raiding team left the office of the ACB is not

borne out from the materials on record. Therefore, I do not find

any materials on record to conclude that the formalities were

completed in haste.

35. Once the prosecution proves the foundational facts

regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the

statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act stands

attracted against the appellant/accused. The appellant herein has

failed to rebut the said presumption either through cross-

examination of prosecution witnesses or through independent

defence evidence. Consequently, this Court finds no reason(s) to

disbelieve the prosecution version. In view of the aforesaid

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 46 of 47

discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial

Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and has

rightly recorded the conviction of the appellant. The findings do

not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference

in appellate jurisdiction.

36. In the result, the appeal, sans merit, is dismissed.

37. Applications, if any, pending, shall stand closed.

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

(JUDGE)

MAY 14, 2026

p’ma/mj

Signature Not Verified CRL.A.179/2004 Page 47 of 47