[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Ved Prakash vs State on 16 April, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 07.04.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 16.04.2026
+ CRL.A. 270/2017
VED PRAKASH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Mann with Mr. Shashank
Bajpai, Advocates.
versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with
SI Naresh Kumar, A.C.B.
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. 05/2015 on the file of the Court of the Special
Judge-07 (Central), (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD), Delhi
challenging the conviction entered and sentence passed against
him for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section
13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (the PC Act).
2. The prosecution case is that on 18.02.2014 at about
02:00 PM, the accused, while working as Assistant Engineer
(AE) at GTB Hospital, Shahdara, being a public servant,
demanded a bribe of ₹60,000/- from PW3 by threatening to allot
the work order 13/2013 to someone else if the amount was not
paid, and called him to his office on 20.02.2014 for payment. It
is further alleged that on 20.02.2014 at about 03:30 PM, the
accused accepted ₹50,000/- as illegal gratification from the
complainant in his office, thereby abusing his position as a
public servant. Accordingly, the accused was chargesheeted for
having committed the offences punishable under Section 7 and
Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.
3. On 20.02.2014, PW3 lodged a complaint, that is, Ext.
PW3/A, with the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB), CBI, New
Delhi, based on which pre-raid proceedings were drawn and the
raid was conducted after which Crime no. 20/2014 was
registered alleging commission of the offences punishable under
Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act.
4. PW11, Inspector, ACB, CBI, New Delhi, conducted
investigation into the crime and on completion of the same,
submitted the chargesheet/ final report alleging commission of
the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act.
5. Ext. PW5/A Sanction Order for prosecuting the accused
was accorded by PW5, Director General, Central Public Works
Department (CPWD), Nirman Bhawan, Delhi.
6. When the accused appeared before the trial court, the
court after complying with the formality contemplated under
Section 207 Cr.P.C, on 05.10.2002, framed a charge against the
accused for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section
13(1)(d) read with Section 13(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 PW12 were
examined and Ext.PW1/AC, Ext.PW2/AJ, PW3/AH, PW4/A,
PW5/A, PW6/A, PW7/AF, PW9/A, PW10/A, PW12/AB, Mark
DX, DY, PX and Mark X 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 PW3 had falsely implicated him because he had
refused to forward his case for payment at market rates for the
extra work allotted to him. This caused significant losses to
PW3, amounting to ₹3,00,000/- to ₹4,00,000/- and hence the
accused got him falsely implicated in the case with the
connivance of the Investigating Officer (IO) and the raiding
officer.
8.1. The accused filed a written reply in terms of Section
313(5) Cr.P.C. According to him, PW3, proprietor of M/s Avtar
Builder, was assigned the work of renovation of the girls' hostel
bathroom in the residential campus of GTB Hospital, Shahdara,
Delhi. The contract was executed by the authorised signatory,
the Executive Engineer (EE), Public Works Department (PWD),
GTB Hospital, and the accused had no role in the award of the
said work. The functioning of the PWD is governed by the
General Conditions of Contract for Central PWD Works (the
Contract). As per Clause 12 of the Contract, the Engineer-in-
Charge has the authority to make alterations, additions, or
substitutions to the original specifications, drawings, and
designs. The extra work assigned to PW3 was also under the
authority of the EE as per Clause 12 of the Contract and was to
be paid strictly as per the contractual rates, not at market rates. It
was further submitted that PW3 requested the accused to
forward his case for payment of extra work at market rates.
However, the accused refused to do so as it was contrary to the
terms of the contract. Due to this refusal, PW3 became
aggrieved. PW3 himself admitted during cross-examination that
he suffered a loss of ₹3,00,000/- to ₹4,00,000/- due to the non-
approval of payment at market rates. Owing to this grievance, he
lodged a false complaint claiming demand of bribe, resulting in
the raid conducted by the ACB. The accused further submitted
that on 20.02.2014, he had gone for inspection of work along
with the EE and was not present in his office. Upon his return,
he found PW3 and one unknown person sitting in his office.
Immediately thereafter, the unknown person left, and within a
short time, 5 to 6 persons entered the office, one of whom
introduced himself as Inspector, ACB. The Inspector alleged that
he had accepted bribe from PW3 and had kept the money in the
drawer of his table. The accused denied the allegation, stating
that he had neither demanded nor accepted any bribe. He further
submitted that upon opening the drawer, he found a bundle of
currency notes, which he immediately took out and threw on the
table, asserting that the money had been planted in his absence.
The bundle was then seized by the Inspector, and he was
arrested. Thereafter, he was taken to the ACB office, where his
signature was obtained on certain documents. PW3 had already
been paid an amount of ₹12,42,719/- for part of the work as per
the contract, and at no point before such payment had he alleged
any demand for bribe. The accused reiterated that he had no
authority to cancel or modify the contract, as under clause 3 of
the Contract, only the EE was empowered to do so. He further
stated that, being an employee of CPWD (Central Government),
the ACB had no jurisdiction to conduct the raid, arrest, or
prosecute him. He had never demanded or accepted any bribe
from PW3 at any point of time and asserted that he was
innocent.
9. On behalf of the accused, DW1 and DW2 were
examined and Exts. DW1/A to DW1/P were marked on his
behalf.
10. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence
on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the
impugned judgment dated 22.12.2016, held the accused guilty of
the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d)
read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Vide order on sentence
dated 06.01.2017, the accused has been sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for three years along with fine of ₹20,000/-, and in
default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for
one month and to rigorous imprisonment for four years along
with fine of ₹20,000/- for the aforesaid offences and in default of
payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
Aggrieved, the accused has preferred the present appeal.
11. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant/accused that the testimony of prosecution witnesses is
inconsistent, as both PW3 and PW9 made improvements in their
version and has also contradicted each other. It was submitted
that no demand for illegal gratification was ever made by the
appellant. PW9 did not witness any actual demand or acceptance
and therefore, his testimony does not prove the same. The
prosecution case indicates that payment had already been
released to PW3 on 03.02.2014, and the work had been
completed. There was no pending favour or benefit to be
granted. Moreover, under Clause 3 of the Contract, only the EE
had the authority to cancel or alter the contract, not the AE.
Therefore, there was no occasion or motive for the appellant to
demand any bribe.
11.1. It was further submitted that the appellant/accused was
not present in the office when PW3 and PW9 arrived and
remained there for about one and a half hours. This creates a
strong possibility that the bribe money was planted in the drawer
in his absence. The accused's immediate reaction of throwing the
money upon seeing it further shows that the accused had no
knowledge of it.
11.2. It was also submitted that PW3 suffered a loss of
₹3,00,000 to 4,00,000, as stated by him in his examination-in-
chief, and sought higher payment at market rates, which the
appellant declined, adhering to the contractual terms. This
refusal led to the filing of a false complaint. It is an admitted fact
that the accused was not the competent authority to grant or alter
contractual benefits, thereby eliminating any reason for
demanding a bribe. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to the
benefit of doubt, goes the argument.
12. It was submitted by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor that the demand of illegal gratification stands proved
through the testimony of PW3. The acceptance of the treated
currency notes is proved through the testimony of PW3 as well
as PW9, the panch witness and recovery through the testimony
of PW3, PW9, and PW10, the Trap Laying Officer (TLO). It was
pointed out that the testimony of PW4 proves the presence of
phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate in the right-hand wash of
the accused as well as in the wash of the micrometre cloth
recovered from the drawer. PW9 turned hostile only about the
aspect of demand, however, his testimony otherwise supports the
prosecution case on acceptance and recovery, and thus, his
evidence cannot be discarded in toto. Therefore, there is no
infirmity in the judgment calling for an interference by this
Court.
13. Heard both sides and perused the 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 refer to the evidence on record relied on by
the prosecution in support of the case. The gist of Ext. PW3/A
complaint of PW3 dated 20.02.2014, based on which the crime
was registered, is:- He works as a Government Contractor for
C.P.W.D./P.W.D. His work regarding the maintenance of a girls'
hostel is ongoing at the Regional Campus, Shahdara. The work
order was received in November 2013, the total value of which
was approximately ₹43,00,000/-. However, he got it for
₹27,00,000/-. While performing this work, the payment for the
first running bill of ₹12,00,000/ has already been received. Now,
Assistant Engineer (AE) Ved Prakash is demanding 5% of
₹12,00,000/, which is ₹60,000/-, as bribe. He is threatening that
if the bribe is not paid, he will stop the remaining work and get it
done by someone else. He has already completed a significant
part of the work. He is against giving bribe. On the afternoon of
18.05.2014, at approximately 02:00 PM, the AE called him to
his office and asked for ₹60,000/- as bribe for the past work and
for the continuation of future work. As he is against giving bribe,
he has brought ₹50,000/- (50 notes of 1000 denomination). He
has no prior enmity with Ved Prakash. However, legal action
should be taken against him for demanding bribe.
16. PW3, when examined before the trial court, reiterated
his case in Ext. PW3/A complaint. When he went to the office of
ACB on 20.02.2014, he was asked to meet Inspector Meghraj
(PW10), to whom he gave the complaint, at which time the
panch witness (PW9) was also present. The panch witness
(PW9) also read his complaint. He handed over 50 currency
notes of the denomination of ₹1000/- each to PW10, who noted
down their serial numbers and applied a powder-like substance
on them. PW9 was asked to touch the notes with his right hand,
after which his hand wash turned pink. The currency notes were
then returned to him, which he kept in the front pocket of his
shirt. He was instructed to hand over the money to the accused
only upon demand and in the presence of PW9. Thereafter, at
about 01:30 PM, he, along with PW9 and the raiding team,
proceeded to GTB Hospital and reached near the office of the
accused at about 02:15 PM. The vehicles were parked at a
distance, and he, along with PW9, went to the office of the
accused. The accused was not present there, and so they waited
for him. At about 03:45 PM, the accused arrived and took his
seat. He and PW9 occupied seats in front of the accused. The
accused demanded ₹60,000/- to which he replied that he had
only ₹50,000/- and would pay the remaining ₹10,000/- later. The
accused accepted ₹50,000/- with his right hand and kept it in the
drawer of his table. On seeing or hearing the transaction, PW9
gave a signal to the raiding team. PW10 entered the office,
disclosed his identity to the accused. PW9 informed PW10 that
the accused had demanded and accepted the bribe. PW10 offered
his personal search, which the accused declined. Thereafter, on
the instructions of PW10 the tainted currency notes were
recovered from the drawer of the accused by PW9 and handed
over to the former. Both PW9 and PW10 checked the number of
the currency notes recovered which tallied with the number
earlier recorded. The right-hand wash of the accused was taken,
which turned pink, and was preserved in the sealed bottles. The
wash of the micrometre cover on which the notes had been kept
inside the drawer was also seized and sealed. The currency
notes, bottles containing the wash, and other articles were seized
vide Ext. PW3/B and Ext. PW3/C memos. The pre-raid
proceedings was recorded in Ext. PW3/D report. Thereafter,
PW10 handed over all the material objects and memos prepared
to the PW11. PW11 prepared Ext. PW3/E site plan at his
instance as well as PW9 and completed the formalities. The
accused was taken to the office of the ACB, where his personal
search and arrest was effected. The currency notes seized from
the accused was identified by PW3 and the same were marked
Ext. PA. The bottles of wash were also identified by PW3 and
they were marked as Exts. P4 and P5.
16.1. PW3, in his cross-examination, deposed that he had
been working as a CPWD contractor for about 7-8 years and
had been awarded contracts worth approximately
₹20,00,00,000/-₹30,00,00,000/-. He had never worked with the
accused before the contract in question. He admitted that all
contracts awarded by CPWD are governed by the General
Conditions of Contract for Central PWD Works and are signed
by the Executive Engineer (EE) on behalf of the CPWD. He
further admitted that the guarantee of the contract is also signed
by the EE, and in case there is any lapse on the part of the
contractor, notice is given by the Assistant Engineer (AE) and
EE to the contractor. He denied the suggestion that AE has no
power to issue such notices. The bill is raised by the contractor
from time to time and the same will be put up before the AE/
Junior Engineer (JE) and after it is passed, it will be put up
before the EE for the release of payment. He had submitted bills
of approximately ₹18,00,000 - ₹19,00,000/-, out of which a
deduction of 36% had to be made as per the terms of the tender.
He received payment of approximately ₹12,42,000/- on
03.02.2014. He could not recall the time period within which the
contract was to be completed. He has no grievance regarding the
payment received. But the accused was harassing him by raising
a demand for money in relation to the payment of ₹12,42,000/-
received by him. PW3 admitted that he had not lodged any
complaint against the accused to any senior officer regarding the
demand of money or harassment. The accused had not given him
any written notice to stop the work but had orally told him to
stop the work. According to PW3, both the AE and the EE have
the power to order the stoppage of work. He had completed
approximately 40% of the assigned work before receiving
₹12,42,000/-. The work was proceeding at a very slow pace from
the date of payment, that is, from 03.02.2014, till the date of
raid, that is, 20.02.2014. The accused had started harassing him
for money. He had not lodged any complaint against the accused
regarding the demand of money to any senior officer, as he
apprehended that the accused might cause huge loss to him in
the work awarded. He also stated that he did not lodge any
complaint since his payment was due and he apprehended loss.
He was satisfied with the payment of ₹12,42,000/- received by
him till 03.02.2014. He completed the entire job within 2-3
months of the raid and received full payment for the same.
Around 50% of the work had been completed by the date of the
raid. He did not give any estimate of the work done. The job
assigned to him was to be completed within four months from
the date of agreement.
16.2. PW3 admitted that he had been involved in several
criminal cases. Those cases were taken during his student days
and were related to student politics. He admitted that cases of
kidnapping and attempted murder had also been registered
against him. PW3 admitted that on the date of the raid, he was
sitting inside the office of the accused, in the absence of the
latter, for about half an hour between 02:45 PM to 3:40 PM
along with PW9. He was unable to recall whether he had made
any call to PW10 around 03:40-03:45 PM on that date. PW3
admitted that he and PW9 had tea in the office of the accused in
the absence of the latter. He and PW9 had gone outside the room
separately around 03:40-03:45 PM. PW3 deposed that he is not
aware whether there was any lock for the drawer of the table of
the accused. There were rooms of the other CPWD officers in
the gallery adjacent to the room of the accused. While he was
sitting inside the office of the accused, no other person had come
inside the office during the time between 02:45 PM to 03:45
PM. According to PW3, he carried out the work as per the work
order/tender required at the site and also performed extra work
under the same work order/tender. He was unable to recall the
details of the extra work done by him and could not say the
market rate of such extra work done by him. He admitted that he
had written letter Mark DX, signed by him at point A, to the EE
(Civil), GTB Hospital, Shahdara, stating that he was suffering
losses on account of the extra work being done. He suffered
losses to the extent of ₹3,00,000/- - ₹4,00,000/- as he was not
paid according to market rates. He suffered losses during the
tenure of the accused while performing the extra work. He had
informed the accused that he was suffering losses due to the
extra work being done, to which the accused replied that
payment would be made according to the terms and conditions
of the contract. He admitted that, as per Clause 12 of the office
memorandum, which forms part of Ext. PW3/DA contract,
payment for extra work was to be made as per the original terms
and conditions of the contract. He had not read Clause 12 of the
memorandum, which formed part of the contract. The accused
was apprehended before he wrote letter Mark DX. After the
apprehension of the accused, he was awarded a new work order
Mark DY and was paid as per the market rate for the work done.
He denied the suggestion that he had falsely implicated the
accused as he was having a grudge against the latter due to non-
payment at market rates. PW3 also denied the suggestion that he
had planted the bribe money in the drawer of the accused in the
absence of the latter.
16.3. PW3 further deposed that PW9 had given the signal to
the raiding team after coming out of the room of the accused and
while standing at the door of the said room. The raiding team
immediately reached the spot. He admitted that he had made a
call to PW10 after he took position in the room of the accused, at
which time the accused was not present. He did not make any
call after the accused arrived. He had made the call
approximately half an hour before the accused arrived. Upon
entering the room, the accused asked him, "paise laaye ho kya,"
and on such demand, he handed over the money to the accused.
At the time when the raiding team arrived, the peon of the
accused was not present. PW10, upon entering the room,
disclosed his identity to the accused and informed him about the
acceptance of bribe and its placement in the drawer. PW3 further
added that it was PW9 who had informed PW10 about the
money lying in the drawer. He denied the suggestion that PW9
had not disclosed the said fact to PW10. PW3 denied the
suggestion that PW9 was absent at the time of the raid, during
which time the latter was sitting in the cabin of the peon of the
accused. He further denied the suggestion that the accused, upon
learning about the money lying in his drawer, opened the drawer
in agitation and threw the money on the table, stating that it had
been planted. He denied the suggestion that neither PW9 nor
PW10 had seized the notes from the drawer of the accused. He
denied the suggestion that the proceedings had not been reduced
to writing at the spot or that the documents had been prepared
later in the office of the ACB.
17. PW9, the panch witness, deposed that while posted as
Junior Engineer (JE), Irrigation and Flood Department, Village
Saidulla Jab, Delhi, on 02.04.2014, he was assigned duty as
panch witness in the ACB. He reached the office of the ACB at
about 10:00 AM and met PW10. By about 12 noon, PW3 came
and gave a handwritten complaint to PW10. He also went
through the complaint, the crux of which was that a demand for
₹60,000/- had been made by one Ved Prakash (accused), AE of
PWD. The complaint was signed by PW3. He as well as PW10
also signed in the complaint. He deposed in detail regarding the
pre-raid proceedings. After completion of the said formalities,
he, along with PW10, PW11, and PW3, reached GTB Hospital at
about 02:15 PM. The police officials remained outside the PWD
Office in GTB Hospital Complex while he went inside the office
with PW3. The name plate of the accused was affixed outside his
office. When they entered the office of the accused, the latter
was not there and so they waited for his arrival. The accused
came to the office at about 03:45 PM. PW3 asked the accused
not to cancel the work allotted to him. Thereafter, on a signal
given by PW3, he went and stood at the door of the office of the
accused. PW3 took out the currency notes and handed them over
to the accused. He gave the signal to the raiding party, who
immediately came, identified themselves and told the accused
that he has been caught while accepting bribe. PW10 opened the
drawer of the table of the accused and found money lying there.
PW9 further deposed that "probably raiding officer picked up
the money from the drawer and gave it to me to check whether
the GC notes were the same". The right hand-wash of the
accused taken, turned pink. The hand-wash was poured into two
bottles which were sealed with the seal MRG. The currency
notes had been kept on the micrometre cover inside the drawer
and so the same was also washed, and the wash taken in two
bottles and seized. He had signed on the labels affixed on the
bottles containing the handwash and micrometre cover wash; the
Ext. PW3/B seizure memo relating to the same as well as in Ext.
PW3/C seizure memo relating to the currency notes seized. PW9
also identified Ext. P1 (colly) currency notes seized from the
accused. The four bottles labelled RHWI, RHWII, MMCWI and
MMCWII marked as Ext. P2 to P5 were also identified by PW9.
17.1. At this juncture, the prosecutor is seen to have sought
the permission of the trial court to "cross-examine" PW9, which
request is seen allowed by the court. On further examination,
PW9 admitted that prior to the raid, he had been directed to
remain with PW3 in order to hear the conversation between
PW3 and the accused including taking of bribe. He was
instructed to give the signal only after the bribe was demanded
and accepted. He reiterated that he did not hear the conversation
between PW3 and the accused, but he had seen the accused
accepting the money. He admitted that PW3 had told the accused
as the former was suffering loss, the latter may not cancel the
contract. PW9 further deposed that as the accused was hesitating
to talk in his presence, PW3 signalled him to stand at a distance.
He never stated this to the police as he was not asked about the
same. He admitted that PW10 had introduced himself to the
accused and told the latter that he had accepted bribe from PW3.
17.2. PW9, in his cross-examination, deposed that there was
a written order deputing him on duty as a panch witness. Ext.
PW3/A complaint was not written in his presence, however it
was read over to him. PW9 could not recall if the drawer of the
table of the accused had been locked or not. He was also unable
to say whether the drawer had any locking facility. The members
of the raiding party had not contacted him while he was in the
room of the accused. He is unaware whether the raiding team
had contacted PW3 during the period they were waiting for the
accused. He admitted that the offices of JE/AE were next to the
room of the accused. While he and PW3 were waiting inside the
room of the accused, the peon of the accused was outside the
room of the accused. PW3 had ordered tea, which was brought
by the peon. No officials of the PWD or any other person(s)
came to the room of the accused at the time of the raid. The EE
was called to the room after the apprehension of the accused.
According to PW9, he had come out of the room of the accused
to give the signal to the raiding team. PW9 denied the suggestion
that he was not present in the room of the accused or that he was
standing outside the room in the passage or that he was sitting in
the cabin of the peon and was not visible to PW3 and the
accused. After giving the signal to the raiding party, he entered
the room of the accused along with the former. He could not
recall who had entered the room first. PW9 denied the
suggestion that the accused, upon hearing from PW10 that he
had taken bribe and kept it in his drawer, hesitantly opened the
drawer and finding money lying therein, picked it up and threw
it on the table, stating that PW3 had planted the money in his
drawer. He further denied the suggestion that he had picked the
money from the table and given it to PW10. PW9 asserted that
he had taken the money from the drawer of the table of the
accused and given it to PW10. According to PW9, PW3 had not
introduced him to the accused and the accused had never asked
about his identity. After the accused arrived, PW3 had signalled
to him to go outside by moving his head. After he had moved on
the signal of PW3, within 5 to 7 minutes, he had given the signal
to the raiding party. He further denied the suggestion that he was
a stock witness of the ACB.
18. PW10, the Trap Laying Officer (TLO), deposed that
on 20.02.2014 at about 12 noon, PW3 had given him Ext.
PW3/A complaint. The complaint was against AE Ved Prakash,
PWD, regarding the demand for a bribe of ₹60,000/-. On receipt
of the complaint, he called the panch witness Dinesh Goyal
(PW9) and gave him the complaint to read. After reading it,
PW9 signed it at point B. PW10 identified the signature of PW3
at point A in Ex. PW3/A complaint. He also identified his
signature at point C in the complaint. PW10 deposed in detail
regarding the pre-trap proceedings. The pre-trap proceedings
were recorded in Ext. PW3/D report in which the number of the
currency notes produced by PW3 were also recorded. PW9 was
instructed to remain close to PW3 and observe the transaction of
demand and acceptance of the bribe. PW9 was also instructed to
give a signal by hurling his hand twice over his head on
completion of the transaction. PW3 was also instructed to keep
the panch witness close to him so the latter could witness the
transaction. The treated currency notes were returned to PW3,
who kept them in the left front pocket of his shirt. The raiding
team, along with PW3 and PW9, reached the PWD office, GTB
Hospital, Shahdara, and parked their vehicles about 200 meters
away. PW3 and PW9 entered the office of the accused. Inspector
Sushil Kumar (PW11) remained in the vehicle. He and his team
followed PW3 and PW9. PW9 came out shortly after to inform
them that the accused was not present in the office. PW9 was
instructed to wait inside the office of the accused with PW3 who
was already inside. The remaining members of the raiding party
stood outside. At about 03:50 PM, PW9 came to the door and
gave the pre-arranged signal. He, along with the raiding team,
entered the room of the accused. PW9 pointed toward the
accused and informed that the latter had demanded ₹60,000/-,
but PW3 had given ₹50,000/-, which the accused had accepted
and kept in the right-side drawer of his table. He informed the
accused that he had to recover the money from the drawer and
offered his personal search, which the accused refused. On his
directions, PW9 recovered the treated currency notes from the
drawer. The serial numbers of the said notes tallied with the
number recorded in the pre-raid report. The currency notes were
seized vide Ex. PW3/C seizure memo. PW10 further deposed
that he took the right-hand wash of the accused and the
micrometre cover, which turned pink. The solution was
preserved in bottles marked RHW-I and RHW-II and MMCW-I
and MMCW-II. The shirt of the accused, the bottles of the wash,
were seized, and he prepared Ext. PW8/A post-raid report and
also prepared PW9/A rukka and sent the same to the ACB for
registration of the case. PW11 was then called to the spot, to
whom the custody of the accused and the material objects of the
case were handed over.
18.1. At this juncture, the prosecutor requested permission to
ask leading questions to PW10, which request was allowed by
the trial court. On further examination, he admitted that, as per
the pre-raid report, during the demonstration, the currency notes
had been touched by PW9 only and not by PW3. He admitted
that he had instructed PW3 and PW9 that money was to be given
only on demand. He also admitted that PW3 and PW9 had
informed him that the accused had accepted money with his
right hand and kept it in the drawer.
18.2. PW10 in his cross-examination, deposed that he had no
prior acquaintance with PW3, and that he had met the latter for
the first time on 20.02.2014 in the office of the ACB. He did not
verify the antecedents of PW3, as he was not the IO. He did not
check whether PW3 had any criminal antecedents. PW9 was
present in the office of the ACB before the arrival of PW3. He
denied the suggestion that though he was aware that PW9 was a
stock witness of the ACB, he still chose to include the latter in
the present case. He had not verified whether the accused had
the authority to stop the work of the contract awarded to PW3
and allot it to another contractor. He does not know the terms of
Ext. PW3/DA contract between PW3 and the PWD, or whether
payment for extra work had to be made as per the contract terms
and not at market rates as demanded by the contractor. He does
not know whether PW3 had suffered loss to the tune of lakhs
and hence was unhappy with the accused and so had falsely
implicated him. He had verified the complaint only from PW3
and had not done any other verification.
18.3. PW10 deposed that he had taken his position in front of
the office of the accused. PW3 and PW9 entered the room of the
accused at about 02:25 PM. PW9 thereafter came out and
informed him that the accused was not present in the room. He
was unable to recall when the accused arrived at his office. At
about 03:50 PM, PW9 gave the signal to him. From about 02:25
PM to 3:50 PM, the raiding party remained outside the office of
the accused, while PW3 and PW9 remained inside. PW3 had not
contacted him on his mobile phone during the said period and
denied the suggestion that any such call had been made by PW3.
PW9 had not told him that PW3 had asked him to step outside
the room of the accused as the latter was hesitant to speak in his
presence. On receiving the signal, he entered the room of the
accused, at which time PW9 informed him that the accused had
demanded ₹60,000/- from PW3, but PW3 had given ₹50,000/-,
which the accused accepted and kept in the drawer of his table.
He denied the suggestion that, upon being challenged, the
accused opened the drawer in agitation and threw the money on
the table, stating that it had been planted by somebody. On his
instructions, PW9 recovered the bribe money from the drawer of
the accused's table.
19. PW11, Inspector, ACB, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, the
Investigating Officer, supported the prosecution case. While he
remained in the vehicle, PW3, PW9 and the raiding team headed
by PW10 had gone to the office of the accused. After the raid,
PW10 had handed over to him the material objects in the case,
the documents prepared as well as the custody of the accused.
He spoke about the various steps taken during investigation.
PW11 admitted that he had not made any inquiry regarding the
antecedents of PW3, as there was no necessity for the same. He
had read the PWD Manual during the course of investigation. He
was unable to say whether an AE was empowered under the
General Conditions of Contract for Central PWD to award
contracts, cancel contracts, make payments, or make additions or
alterations in the contract. According to PW11, the accused had
not recommended cancellation of the contract as the latter
obtained bribe of ₹50,000/- and was caught red-handed
demanding and accepting the same. The accused had not
recommended cancellation before the raid as he was negotiating
with the complainant for the bribe. He was unaware whether
PW3 had been awarded extra work vide contract Mark DY. The
letter Mark DX was not brought to his notice during the course
of investigation. It did not come to his knowledge that for the
extra work done by PW3, the accused recommended payment at
old rates while PW3 insisted on payment at market rates. He also
does not know whether the complainant had suffered losses on
this account. PW11 denied the suggestion that, for the aforesaid
reason, PW3 was unhappy with the accused and hence had
falsely implicated the accused. He denied the suggestion that the
accused had never demanded or accepted any bribe or that PW3
had planted the tainted notes in the drawer of the accused in the
absence of the latter.
20. I will also refer to the testimony of the defence
witnesses. DW1, Cashier, office of Executive Engineer, PWD,
GTB Hospital, Shahdara, produced the summoned documents,
including the letter dated 07.03.2014 written by PW3 and Work
Order No. 01/EE/BPD B-221 (N)/2014-15 dated 02.04.2014.
21. DW2, Assistant Engineer, PWD Division South-East/
Road- II, Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi-25, deposed that he had
been working in said division for the last 4 months and he has
experience/knowledge about the allotment of tenders and extra
work given to the contractor. Any contract above the limit of
₹2,00,000/-, is required to be signed by the EE on behalf of the
department. The AE of the department has no role in awarding,
altering, adding work or payment of the contract. When the
contractor is awarded additional work, the payment will be made
in accordance with the rates mentioned in the original contract.
21.1. DW2, in his cross-examination, admitted that apart
from the CPWD manual, there are administrative orders passed
regarding the pecuniary limits of the work order. He admitted
that the pecuniary limits can vary from time to time according to
the order passed by the Director General, Central PWD, and the
terms of the contract vary in accordance with the work assigned.
Only the EE can approve extra items used during the subsistence
of a contract. Payment for such works up to a limit of
₹2,00,000/- can be done by AE, and above that by the EE. If the
rates of the extra items are not mentioned in the contract, they
will be given as per the Delhi schedule of rates (DSR),
plus/minus, the rates quoted by the contractor in the original
agreement. He clarified that in a particular agreement, in case an
extra item is used, the rate of the same is payable at the rate of
DSR minus the rate quoted in the contract. He denied the
suggestion that the rate of the extra item would be given to the
contractor according to the market rate of the item. He admitted
that the work at the site is supervised by the AE and JE as per
the directions of the Engineer-in-Charge. The entries in the
measurement book are verified 100% by JE, 50% by AE and
10% by EE. He denied the suggestion that all the entries are
verified by the JE and AE and then forwarded to the EE. The
supervision of the work under the contract is by all three, JE, AE
and EE. DW2 deposed that the accused was not his batchmate
and that he had never been posted with the latter. DW2 denied
the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the
accused.
22. The prosecution case as noticed earlier is that the
accused, while working as AE at GTB Hospital, demanded a
bribe of ₹60,000/- from PW3 and subsequently accepted
₹50,000/- on 20.02.2014. The principal contention raised is that
the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The prosecution
case primarily relies on the testimony of PW3 and PW9. PW3,
in Ext. PW3/A complaint and in the box, has consistently stated
that the demand made by the accused on 18.02.2014. PW3 in his
cross-examination deposed that on 20.02.2014 on entering the
room of the accused, the latter asked him, "paise laaye ho kya"
and on such demand, he handed over the bribe money to the
accused. According to PW3, after hearing or seeing the
transaction, PW9 gave a signal to the raiding party. However,
PW9 deposed that as indicated by PW3, he had stood at a
distance as the accused was hesitant to talk in his presence. PW9
deposed that he had not heard any conversation between the
accused and PW3 regarding the demand of bribe but had merely
seen PW3 taking out money and the accused accepting the same
with his right hand. The testimony of PW10 and PW11
regarding the demand being made by the accused is derivative,
based on what PW3 and PW9 told them, and not based on direct
observation. PW11 admitted that he had not conducted any
independent verification of the complaint and was convinced of
the genuineness of the same by questioning PW3. Therefore,
there is no evidence other than the testimony of PW3 to support
the element of demand of ₹60,000/- made by the accused on
20.02.2014.
23. With regard to the acceptance and recovery of the
treated currency notes, the prosecution relies primarily on the
testimony of PW3, PW9, the panch witness, and PW10, the
TLO. PW3 deposed that after he handed over ₹50,000/- to the
accused, the accused kept the same in the drawer of his table,
and upon the pre-arranged signal being given by PW9, the
raiding team entered the room and the tainted currency notes
were recovered from the drawer of the table of the accused by
PW9 as instructed by PW10. PW9 supports the version of PW3.
PW10, the TLO, deposed that upon entering the room after
receiving the signal, he was informed by PW9 that the accused
had accepted the bribe and kept it in the drawer. As per his
instructions, the tainted currency notes were recovered from the
drawer by PW9. The testimony of PW3, PW9 and PW10 shows
that the hand wash of the accused and the micrometre cover
wash had turned pink. As per Ext. PW4/A, the FSL report, which
is not disputed or discredited, traces of phenolphthalein and
sodium carbonate were found in the hand wash and the
micrometre cloth wash taken. On going through the testimony
of PW9, I find no reasons to disbelieve him. No reason(s) has
been shown as to why he should depose falsehood against the
accused. The accused has no case that PW9 is in any way on
inimical terms with him and so in connivance with PW3 has
falsely implicated him. That being the position, I find no reasons
to disbelieve PW9. Therefore, the acceptance of money and
subsequent seizure from the drawer of the accused stands
established.
24. Section 20 of the PC Act raises a statutory presumption
in favour of the prosecution, however, such presumption does
not arise automatically. It can be invoked only when the
prosecution first proves the foundational facts, namely, the
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused. It
is only thereafter that the burden shifts to the accused to rebut
the presumption by leading cogent and credible evidence, and
that too on the standard of preponderance of probabilities.
25. While considering the case under Sections 7,
13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act, it has to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted money
knowing it to be bribe; absence of proof of demand for illegal
gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes
is not sufficient to constitute such offence; and the presumption
under Section 20 of the PC Act can be drawn only after demand
for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved (See C.M.
Girish Babu v. CBI, (2009) 3 SCC 779 and in B. Jayaraj v.
State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55). Mere acceptance of illegal
gratification without proof of offer by the bribe giver and
demand by the public servant would not constitute an offence
under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, as held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of
NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731. Therefore, the question now
to be considered is whether PW3 can be believed to prove the
case of demand of bribe by the accused.
26. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/
accused, there was a specific reason for PW3 to falsely implicate
the accused. The attention of this Court was drawn to the
admissions made by PW3 in the box that he had suffered loss to
the tune of ₹3,00,000/- to ₹4,00,000/- during the tenure of the
accused, as he was being paid for the extra work done by him as
per the contract rates and not as per the market rate. PW3
admitted that though he had requested the accused to sanction
payment at the market rates, the latter refused to do so and
insisted on payment at the contract rate. This aspect was pointed
out as the reason for the false implication.
27. It is true that PW3 admitted that he was suffering loss
and despite request to the accused, the latter refused to process
payment as per market rates. However, going by the case of the
accused, he never had the authority to do so. He has examined
DW2 to substantiate this aspect. According to DW2, it is only
the EE who can approve extra items used during the subsistence
of a contract. Payment for such works up to a limit of
₹2,00,000/- can be done by the AE and above that, by the EE.
PW3 does not deny the contract though he feigned ignorance
relating to Clause 12 of the Contract entered into with the
department as per which he is entitled only to payment as per
contract rate. It has also come out in evidence that after the
accused was arrested in the raid, PW3 gave Mark DX letter
dated 07.03.2014 which reads thus:-
"सेवा म,
कायपालक अिभय ा (िसिवल)
G.T.B. Hospital Campus
Shahdara Delhi
Name of work :- Renovation of Girls Hostel bathroom in residential
campus at G.T.B. Hospital Shahdara, Delhi.
िवषय : Girls Hostel म काय के स म
महोदय जी,
उपरो िवषय के स म आपको अवगत कराना है िक हमारा काय
G.T.B. Campus म Girls Hostel म चल रहा है हमारी Schedule की Item
C.I / centrifugally pipe की नहीं है । यह काय हम से कराया जा रहा है ।
िजससे हमे काफी नुकसान हो रहा है यिद ये Item हमारे Schedule म होती तो
इस Agreement का Quoted Rate अभी बाजार भाव के िहसाब से होता इस
Agreement म हम इस काय को नहीं कर सकते यिद हमसे यह काय करवाया
जाये तो यह Item हमे market Rate पर दी जाये।
यह कायवाही ज से ज की जाये िजससे हम अपना Agreement Item
समय पर पूरा कर सके।
ध वाद
भवदीय
तप
M/s Avtar Builders"
(emphasis supplied)
28. It is admitted by the accused that based on the aforesaid
request, the department had awarded payment to PW3 as per
market rates. The accused has no case that awarding market rate
by the department was illegal or against any provision(s) of law.
Therefore, for the extra work done by PW3, PW3 was entitled to
payment at market rate and hence that appears to be the reason
why the department has sanctioned such payment. If this could
have been done, why did the accused refuse the same despite
PW3 informing him that he was suffering losses? So, was the
accused the stumbling block, preventing the lawful claim of
PW3? It appears that the accused did not process the file as per
the market rates as his unlawful demand had not been met by the
accused. In such circumstances, I am unable to accept the
argument of false implication. A careful perusal of the testimony
of PW3 does not raise any doubt(s) about the case put forward.
Hence, I find that the demand for bribe stands established by the
testimony of PW3.
29. It is true that PW3 and PW9 were inside the room/
cabin of the accused for about an hour or so in the absence of the
latter. A defence is taken that the money was planted by PW3
inside the drawer of the table of the accused in his absence. This
is improbable because PW9 has clearly deposed that he had seen
PW3 handing over the money to the accused. As noticed earlier,
I find no reason(s) to disbelieve PW9. PW9 may not have heard
the conversation between PW3 and the accused. But his
testimony clearly shows that he saw the passing of the money or
the acceptance of the money by the accused from PW3. It was
argued that if PW9 is to be believed, the accused was reluctant to
talk in his presence and so as indicated by PW3, he stood
slightly apart. Referring to this testimony, it was argued that if
the accused was reluctant to even talk in the presence of PW9, it
is highly unlikely and improbable for the accused to have
received the money in the presence of PW9.
30. It is true that PW9 deposed that as indicated by PW3,
he had moved away from the accused and PW3. But he clearly
spoke of the passing of the money. If actually PW9 was a stock
witness and a tutored witness, he could have even claimed to
have overheard the conversation. On the other hand, he
truthfully deposed that he did not hear the conversation between
the accused and PW3, but only saw the money being handed
over by PW3 to the accused. PW9 further asserted that as per the
instructions of PW10, he had in fact recovered the money from
inside the drawer of the table of the accused. PW9 also denied
the suggestion that the accused on being apprehended, had
opened the drawer, and on finding the currency notes inside,
thrown it out by saying that he has been falsely implicated. As
stated earlier, I do not find any reason(s) to disbelieve PW9.
31. Further, the testimony of PW3 and PW9 indicate the
freedom PW3 had in the office of the accused. Normally, when
an officer is not present in his room/ cabin, outsiders would not
be permitted to sit inside in the absence of the officer. But in this
case, PW3 and PW9 were allowed to sit inside the room of the
accused in the absence of the latter. The presence of the peon of
the accused outside the room of the accused is spoken to by the
witnesses. Therefore, in the absence of the accused, the peon
must have permitted PW3 and PW9 to sit inside. This
permission would have been given and PW3 taken the liberty to
sit inside because the same must have been allowed by the
accused. When this was pointed out to the learned counsel for
the appellant/ accused, it was submitted that PW3 was no
stranger to the accused and hence there is nothing unusual in the
said conduct. Not only does PW3 sit inside the room, but he
orders tea and it is seen served to him by the peon inside the
cabin of the accused in the absence of the latter. Therefore, if
PW3 had been in inimical terms or unhappy with the accused as
claimed by the latter, such freedom and liberty would never have
been given. The testimony of PW9 clearly establishes handing
over of the money and the subsequent recovery. The hand wash
of the accused taken turned pink, which further corroborates the
prosecution case. Ex. PW4A report has substantiated the case for
the prosecution. Hence, I do not find any reason(s) to disbelieve
the prosecution case. There is no infirmity in the impugned
judgment calling for an interference by this Court.
32. In the result, the appeal sans merit is dismissed.
33. Applications, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 16, 2026
kd
