Bhim Singh Lakara vs C.B.I
2026 Latest Caselaw 1953 Del

Delhi High Court

Bhim Singh Lakara vs C.B.I on 4 April, 2026

                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                   %                         Judgment Reserved on: 01.04.2026
                                                            Judgment pronounced on: 04.04.2026

                          +    CRL.A. 455/2003
                               BHIM SINGH LAKARA                                      .....Appellant
                                                   Through:      Mr. Gulab Singh, Advocate (through
                                                                 VC).

                                                   versus

                               C.B.I.                                                .....Respondent
                                                   Through:      Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SPP, CBI with Mr.
                                                                 Changez Khan and Ms. Mishika
                                                                 Pandita, Advocates.

                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
                                                   JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. This appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the sole accused in

C.C.No. 228/1994 on the file of the Court of Special Judge, Delhi,

challenging the conviction entered and sentence passed against him

for the offences punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (the PC Act).

2. The prosecution case is that on 18.07.1986, the accused,

while working as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Slum

Department, Delhi Development Authority (the DDA), Jawalapur,

Delhi, demanded and accepted a sum of ₹100/- from PW2 as illegal

gratification for incorporating "No. IV Jawalapuri" on his

possession slip No. 007364 in respect of plot No. C-82, Block No

IV, Jawalapuri, Delhi and thereby, committed the offences

punishable under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with

Section 5(2) of the PC Act.

3. On 18.07.1986, PW2 lodged a complaint, that is, Ext.

PW2/B, with the S.P., CBI, New Delhi, based on which crime, RC

47/86-DLI, that is, Ext. PW4/A FIR was registered alleging

commission of the offence punishable under Section 161 IPC.

4. PW4, Inspector CBI, New Delhi, conducted

investigation into the crime and on completion of the same,

submitted the charge-sheet/ final report alleging commission of the

offences punishable under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d)

read with Section 5(2) of the PC Act.

5. Ext. PW1/A sanction order for prosecuting the accused

was accorded by PW1, the then Director, (Housing and General

Administration) Slum Wing, DDA.

6. When the accused on receipt of summons appeared

before the trial court, the trial court after complying with the

formality contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C, on 03.06.1988,

framed a charge against the accused for the offences punishable

under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the PC

Act, which was read over and explained to the accused to which he

pleaded not guilty

7. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW6 were

examined and Ext.PW1/A, Ext.PW2/A to E, Ext.PW3/A and

PW4/A to D were marked in support of the prosecution case.

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

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

incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence

of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and

maintained his innocence. The accused submitted that he has been

falsely implicated in this case. He neither demanded or accepted

any money from PW2. The money was never recovered from him

or his pant pocket rather, it was planted.

9. No oral or documentary evidence was advanced on

behalf of the accused.

10. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence

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

dated 30.06.2003, held the accused guilty of the offences

punishable under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with

5(2) of the PC Act. Vide order on sentence dated 02.07.2003, the

accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year along

with fine of ₹1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for two months. Aggrieved, the accused has

preferred the present appeal.

11. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted

that the latter has falsely been implicated in the case. There are

several contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

PW2 deposed that the tainted currency notes were taken by the

accused with both his hands. However, only his left hand wash

turned pink. As per the prosecution case, it was PW2 who was to

give the signal after the transaction had been completed. However,

PW3 deposed that he gave the signal. According to PW2, the

person who demanded money from him was a patwari and that the

name of the said person was not known to him. But in Ext. PW2/B,

the complaint, he has mentioned the name and designation of the

accused/appellant. It was further submitted that the accused was

neither entitled nor authorised to make any corrections in the

possession slip. Therefore, the appellant/accused is entitled to the

benefit of doubt, goes the argument.

12. Per Contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor

submitted that the foundational facts necessary to substantiate the

prosecution case stand duly proved. The prosecution case is proved

by the materials on record. There are only minor inconsistencies in

the testimony of the witnesses, which are not in any way material

and have in no way affected the prosecution case. It was submitted

that it is not necessary that the person demanding the bribe must be

in a position or authority to perform the act in question. It is

sufficient if the accused induces the complainant and accepts the

gratification. It was further contended that it was never the case of

the accused, either in his statement under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C.

or during trial, that he was not in a position to perform the said act.

There is no infirmity calling for an interference by this Court.

Reliance has been placed on the dictum in M. Narsinga Rao v.

State of A.P., (2001) 1 SCC 691.

13. Heard both sides and perused the materials on record.

14. The only point that arises for consideration in the

present appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the impugned

judgment calling for an interference by this Court.

15. I shall first briefly refer to the evidence on record relied

on by the prosecution in support of the case. PW2, in Ext. PW2/B

complaint dated 18.07.1986, based on which the crime was

registered, has stated thus:- "...On 16.07.1986, I went to the DTC

office at Red Fort to get a concessional pass made. There, I

submitted the application form number 99072 dated 16.07.1986.

Then the DTC people saw my DDA possession slip No. 7364 dated

20.01.1976, and said that get "Jwalapuri No. IV" written on it from

the DDA office, then the pass will be made. I went to the DDA

office in Jwalapuri and met Clerk Bhim Singh Lakra. I asked him to

write "Jwalapuri No. IV" on my possession slip No. 7364. He

demanded a bribe of ₹100/- rupees to write "Jwalapuri No. 4" on

the possession slip..."

15.1. PW2 when examined before the trial court, stood

by his case in Ext. PW2/B complaint. PW3 deposed that on

18.7.1986, he went to the CBI office at Lodhi Road at about 01:00 -

01:30 PM and submitted a written complaint to the Superintendent

of Police, CBI. He also spoke of the pre-trap formalities undertaken

by the CBI. He was instructed to hand over the money to the

accused only on demand made by the latter, and that if currency

notes were accepted as bribe, to give a signal by scratching his

head. A person named Sharma (PW3) was directed to accompany

him and observe the transaction. At about 03:00 - 03:30 PM, he

along with the witnesses and the CBI team proceeded to the DDA

office and reached there by 04:00 PM. He, along with Sharma

(PW3), went inside the office while the others remained outside the

office. They met the accused, who asked if he had brought the

money. He requested that the entry be made first, but the accused

insisted on payment first. He then handed over the money, which

the accused took in his left hand, examined with his right hand, and

placed in the left front pocket of his pant. Thereafter, the accused

made the required entry on the possession slip and initialled it.

Then he came out of the office along with the possession slip and

gave the signal. The CBI officials entered the room and caught hold

of each wrist of the accused. When the Inspector CBI challanged

the accused as to whether he had accepted the bribe, the latter

remained/kept mum. The personal search of the accused was

conducted by Sharma (PW3) and another person. The currency

notes were recovered from the pant pocket of the accused. Hand

washes of both hands of the accused were taken. The colour of the

left-hand wash turned pink. However, the colour of the right-hand

wash of the accused did not turn pink. The pant pocket wash also

turned pink. The solutions were preserved and sealed. PW2 also

deposed that his personal search was also conducted by Sharma

(PW3) and others, and the possession slip and a DTC form

recovered. PW2 more or less stood by his case during cross

examination also.

16. PW3, the shadow witness, and PW5, the recovery

witness, fully supported the prosecution case.

17. PW4, the Investigating Officer, deposed regarding the

various steps taken during investigation.

18. The prosecution case rests on the testimony of PW2,

PW3 the shadow witness and PW5 the recovery witness, coupled

with the documents prepared contemporaneously during the pre-

trap and post-trap proceedings. It is true that there are certain

inconsistencies in the testimony of PW2. However, his testimony

on the core aspects of demand, acceptance and recovery remains

consistent and inspires confidence. PW3 and PW5 also fully

support the prosecution case on all material particulars.

19. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the

appellant/accused, certain discrepancies are noticeable in the

testimony of PW3. PW3 deposed that he had given the signal,

whereas PW2 claimed that he himself had given the signal. PW3

was also unable to recall whether the personal search of PW2 had

been conducted or regarding the documents prepared during pre-

raid proceedings. These inconsistencies, though present, pertain to

the procedural aspects.

20. PW5 has provided a detailed account of the pre-trap

proceedings. He deposed that PW2 produced two currency notes of

the denomination of ₹50/- on which Phenolphthalein powder was

applied, and a demonstration conducted wherein the solution had

turned pink. Instructions were given PW2 to give a signal by

moving his hand over his head. PW5 further deposed that upon

reaching the spot, PW2 and PW3 had proceeded to the office of the

accused and thereafter, on receipt of signal, the raiding party

entered and apprehended the accused. PW5 has specifically stated

that the tainted notes were recovered from the left pocket of the

accused and that the numbers of the currency notes tallied with

those noted earlier in the memo. With respect to the chemical test,

PW5 deposed that the right-hand wash of the accused did not

change colour, whereas the left-hand wash and the pant pocket

wash turned pink. The solutions were thereafter sealed and

preserved.

21. It is true that PW5 deposed that he had recovered the

tainted notes, whereas PW3 stated that a CBI official effected the

recovery. This inconsistency, however, does not affect the factum

of recovery itself, which stands consistently proved. The

discrepancies relating to who gave the signal, who recovered the

money, and minor variations in pre-trap details are not of such a

nature as to discredit the prosecution case in its entirety. These

minor inconsistencies do not go to the root of the prosecution case.

On a total appreciation of the evidence, it is evident that the

prosecution has successfully established that the accused demanded

and accepted illegal gratification from PW2. The recovery of

tainted money from the possession of the accused has been proved

beyond doubt.

22. Once the acceptance of money is established, the

presumption under Section 4 of the PC Act comes into operation.

Section 4 says that that where, in a trial for offences under Section

161 IPC or Section 5 of the PC Act, it is proved that a public

servant has accepted or obtained any gratification other than legal

remuneration, the Court shall presume that such gratification was

accepted as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an

official act, unless the accused proves the contrary. In the present

case, the accused has merely denied the allegations and has taken a

plea of false implication. No materials have been brought on record

to rebut the statutory presumption. Furthermore, the accused

remained mum as per PW2 when he was apprehended. It is well

settled that when tainted currency notes are recovered from the

possession of the accused and no plausible explanation is offered

for their presence, such recovery constitutes a strong incriminating

circumstance supporting the prosecution case regarding demand

and acceptance of illegal gratification [See M. Narsinga Rao v.

State of A.P., 2001 SCC (Cri) 258].

23. The contention of the defence that the accused was not

competent to make the entry in the possession slip is also without

merit. However, even if the accused was not legally competent to

perform the act, the offence is made out if he demanded and

accepted illegal gratification. Thus, the essential ingredients of the

offence under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with

Section 5(2) of the PC Act, 1947 stand fully satisfied.

24. Now, coming to the point of the sentence. The trial court

has imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year

along with a fine of ₹1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to

rigorous imprisonment for two months. No arguments were

advanced on the quantum of sentence. Section 5(2) of the old PC

Act prescribed imprisonment for a term not less than one year but

which may extend to seven years along with fine. However, as per

the first proviso to the Section, the Court may for any special

reason, impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than one year.

25. The offence proved against the appellant pertains to the

demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant,

which is a serious offence affecting the integrity of public servant

and cannot be viewed lightly. However, certain mitigating

circumstances cannot be overlooked. The incident is of the year

1986, and the appellant has faced criminal trial for a considerable

length of time. The amount involved is ₹100/-, and there is no

material to indicate that the appellant is a habitual offender or has

been involved in similar offences. In view of the aforesaid, this

Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met by

modifying the sentence. Accordingly, while maintaining the

conviction of the appellant, the substantive sentence of rigorous

imprisonment for one year is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for

six months.

26. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed to the extent of

modification of the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for a period

of six months.

27. Application(s), if any, pending shall stand closed.

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA (JUDGE)

APRIL 04, 2026 p'ma