[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Munna Lal Nishad vs C.B.I on 23 February, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 16.02.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 23.02.2026
+ CRL.A. 54/2003
MUNNA LAL NISHAD .....Appellant
Through: Md. Shamikh and Md. Javed,
Advocates.
versus
C.B.I. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Atul Guleria, SPP with Mr.Aryan
Rakesh, Advocate.
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. 276/1994 on the file of the Court of Special Judge, Delhi,
challenging the conviction entered and sentence passed against
him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read
with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the PC Act).
2. The prosecution case is that on 27.12.1990, the
accused, while posted as Junior Telecommunication Officer in the
office of the Sub Divisional Officer II, Okhla Telephone
Exchange, MTNL, demanded illegal gratification of ₹ 1,000/- and
later settled for ₹ 800/- from PW1 for facilitating the restoration of
a disconnected telephone number of Ms. Roopa Mehta, installed at
C-51, East of Kailash, New Delhi.
3. On 27.12.1990, PW1 lodged a complaint, that is, Ext.
PW1/B, with the S.P., Anti-Corruption Branch, CBI, New Delhi,
based on which crime, RC No. 64(A)/90-DLI, that is, Ext. PW1/B
FIR was registered alleging commission of the offence punishable
under Section 7 of the PC Act.
4. PW10, Inspector, Anti-Corruption Branch, 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 the Sections 7 and
13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act.
5. Ext. PW5/A sanction order for prosecuting the accused
was accorded by PW5, the then Area (South), MTNL, Nehru
Place, New Delhi.
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 11.02.1994,
framed a charge against the accused for the offences punishable
under Sections 7 and 13 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 PW10 were
examined and Ext. PW1/A - G, Ext. PW3/A-B, Ext. PW4/A-1 to
A-8, Ext. PW5/A, Ext. PW6/A - B, Ext. PW7/A and Ext. PW9/A
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 the present
case is falsely foisted against him and that the telephone in
question had already been restored on 26.12.1990, prior to the trap
being laid and, in such circumstances, no motive remained for him
to demand or accept any bribe amount. No oral or documentary
evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
9. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence
on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court vide the
impugned judgment dated 20.01.2003 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
22.01.2003, the accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of ₹3,000/- on
each count for his conviction under the abovesaid Sections, and in
default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
three months. The substantive sentences imposed for both
convictions have been directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved, the
accused has preferred the present appeal.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused
submitted that as per the version of PW1, PW9 after hearing his
complaint had called the accused and asked the latter the place and
time at which the amount had to be paid. PW9 had told the accused
that he was calling on behalf of PW1. However, PW9 has no such
case. If there was in fact a conversation between PW9 and the
accused before the trap, the same ought to have been produced.
However, the same has not been produced.
10.1. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted
that Ext. PW9/A FIR dated 27.12.1990 was registered hastily at
about 11:00 a.m. immediately upon receipt of Ext. PW1/B
complaint without even conducting a preliminary inquiry as to the
genuineness of the complaint given by PW1. The crime was
registered prior to the trap proceedings, which was subsequently
conducted at about 2:30 P.M. It was further submitted that there
exists a material contradiction between the testimony of PW2 and
PW3, the two independent witnesses regarding who had taken the
pant pocket wash of the accused after the apprehension of the
accused post trap.
10.2. The learned counsel for the accused also submitted that
the evidence on record clearly establishes that the telephone
connection in question had been restored on 26.12.1990, and
therefore, the allegation that the appellant had demanded or
received any bribe amount on 27.12.1990 for restoration of the
said connection is completely improbable. He further contended,
on the point of sanction, that PW5 accorded Ext. PW5/A Sanction
Order without proper application of mind to the allegations
levelled against the accused and the documents produced in
support of the prosecution case.
10.3. The learned counsel for the accused further pointed out
that during his examination, PW3, one of the independent
witnesses, failed to identify the accused present in Court.
Reference was also made to the testimony of PW1 wherein he
deposed that upon the demand being made by the accused, he
informed his superior officer, S. K. Malhotra, who in turn
intimated his Managing Director, pursuant to which PW1 was
provided with ₹1,000/- and directed to meet a particular CBI
officer. This indicates that everything was preplanned.
10.4. The learned counsel for the accused further pointed out
that PW1 in the cross examination deposed that the accused was
arrested at about 2:30 p.m. while he was coming out of the
telephone exchange. Further, PW1 significantly deposed that as
instructed by the accused, he had put the eight ₹100/- currency
notes into the pocket of the accused. It was therefore submitted
that if the money was directly put into the pocket and there was no
contact with the hands of the accused, there is no explanation as to
how the hand wash of the accused turned pink, particularly when a
suggestion was put that both hands were not washed in sodium
carbonate solution thus, creating a serious doubt regarding the
prosecution version of recovery. These circumstances, according
to the learned counsel for accused, clearly demonstrate that the
case against the accused was falsely foisted and pre planned due to
a quarrel that happened between the accused and Mrs. Roopa
Mehta, the actual customer/ subscriber of the telephone in question
who was well acquainted with a CBI officer.
11. Per Contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor
submitted that the foundational facts necessary to substantiate the
prosecution case stand duly proves. The prosecution case is proved
by the materials on record. There are only minor inconsistencies in
the testimonies of the witnesses which are not in any way material
and has in no way affected the prosecution case. There is no
infirmity calling for an interference by this Court.
12. Heard both sides and perused the records.
13. 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.
14. I shall first refer to the evidence on record relied on by
the prosecution in support of the case.PW1, in Ext. PW1/B
complaint dated 27.12.1990 based on which the crime was
registered, has stated thus:- "...Mrs. Roopa Mahta R/o C-51, East
of Kailash, New Delhi is a relative of my M.D. She had authorised
me to process the restoration of her telephone no. 633770. For the
purpose, I approached Shri Munna Lal J.E. Okhla Exchange of the
area. He demanded Rs. 1000/- only (Rs. one thousand only) for
restoring the telephone. I told him that I have already paid Rs.
2080/- vide demand note dated 14/12/90. Munna Lal told me that
phone cannot be restored till I pay him Rs. 1000/- only. He has
called me at telephone exchange for [paying] the bribe between 4
and 5 pm today. I do not want to pay bribe and reporting the
matter to you for the necessary action."
15. PW1, when examined before the trial court, deposed
that during December 1990 he was working as a Liaison Officer
with M/s Ronaq Automotive Components, Nehru Place, New
Delhi, and that Mr. S.K. Malhotra was his immediate superior
officer. In December 1990, Mr. Malhotra entrusted him with the
work of getting the telephone of Mrs. Mehta restored.PW1
deposed that he initially visited the Nehru Place Telephone
Exchange where he was informed that the exchange concerned
was Okhla Telephone Exchange. Thereafter, he went to the
Telephone Exchange, Okhla where he was informed that the
telephone in question had been kept in safe custody for a long time
and that an amount of about ₹2050/- or ₹2080/- was pending
towards outstanding bills against the said telephone number. He
got a demand draft prepared for the requisite amount and deposited
the same at the telephone exchange. On deposit of the demand
draft, Ex. PW1/A receipt was issued to him. He met the S.D.O.
regarding restoration of the telephone, who directed him to meet
the Junior Engineer, the accused. The accused inquired about the
area where the telephone was installed and upon being informed
that it was in East of Kailash, told him that there was heavy
workload, but if he paid a sum of ₹1000/-, the telephone would be
restored. He informed Malhotra about the demand.
15.1 Malhotra spoke to the Managing Director of the
Company and thereafter gave him ₹1000/- with instructions to
contact a particular officer in the CBI whose name PW1 was
unable to recollect. As instructed, he went to the office of the CBI
and met the said officer who entertained his grievance and directed
him to meet PW9. PW9 instructed him to reduce his complaint into
writing, which is Ext. PW1/B. PW9 enquired whether he knew the
telephone number of the accused. He gave the number of the
accused to PW9, who made a telephone call to the accused and
asked the latter where and at what time the money should be paid.
PW9 while making the call told the accused that he was speaking
on behalf of PW1. PW1 further deposed regarding the pre trap
proceedings. PW9 introduced him to two independent witnesses
and was told that they would be members of the trap team and one
of the said witnesses was directed to remain with him. He was
instructed to hand over the money to the accused on demand and to
give a pre-determined signal by scratching his head after the bribe
amount had been paid. PW1 further deposed that no documents
were prepared prior to their departure from the CBI office.
15.2 They left the CBI office at about 1.30 PM and
proceeded to Okhla Telephone Exchange. The vehicle was parked
at a distance of about 1 kilometre from the Telephone Exchange.
One of the witnesses accompanied him, while the other members
of the raiding party took positions at places which were not
disclosed to him. The accused was found waiting outside the gate
of the telephone exchange. He told the accused that he had brought
₹800/- and that he had taken ₹200/-. The accused directed him to
put whatever amount he had brought into the former's pocket. As
directed by the accused, he put the eight currency notes of the
denomination of ₹100/- each and placed it inside the pant pocket
of the accused. PW1 further deposed that after handing over the
money, he gave the pre-arranged signal. Immediately thereafter,
the officials of the raiding party reached the spot and caught hold
of the accused by his collar. The pant of the accused was removed
and the pocket was washed. The solution turned pink in colour.
The accused was searched and the tainted currency notes were
recovered from his pocket.
15.3 PW1 identified the currency notes, namely, Ex. P-1 to
Ex. P-8 as the currency notes which he had placed in the pocket of
the accused. PW1was unable to recollect as to who had actually
taken out the currency notes from the pocket of the accused.PW1
further deposed that no writing work was done at the scene. He
further deposed that the personal search of the accused was not
conducted in his presence. He also deposed that he does not know
what had been done with the pink colour solution obtained from
the wash of the pants pocket of the accused. At this juncture, the
prosecutor is seen to have requested the permission of the Court to
"cross examine" the witness on the ground that the latter had
resiled from his previous statement. The request was allowed.
15.4 On further examination by the prosecutor, PW1 denied
having stated to the police that when he had first met the accused,
the latter had asked him to come with the money at about 4.00 or
5.00 PM or that PW9 had a telephonic conversation with the
accused fixing the time and place of meeting. PW1 was unable to
say whether the two independent witnesses were Sondhi (PW2)
and Kainth (PW3). He denied having stated to the police that his
complaint had been shown to the independent witnesses and that
they had read the same and questioned him about it. PW1 further
denied having stated to the police that Inspector Kishore Kumar
had demonstrated by applying phenolphthalein powder to the
currency notes, touching the hands of Sondhi (PW2) with those
notes and thereafter washing the hands in a colourless sodium
carbonate solution which turned pink. He stated that no such
demonstration was given and that he had not stated so to the
police. He denied telephoning the accused from the reception gate
or the accused asking him to wait for ten minutes. PW1 denied
having stated to the police that he had asked the accused as to
when the telephone would be restored and that the accused had
told him that it would be restored by 5.30 PM on the same day.
PW1 denied having stated to the police that the accused had asked
him whether he had brought the money and had enquired as to how
much he had brought. He further denied having stated that the
accused had told him that the latter had to pay ₹300/- to the Cable
Jointer and could retain only ₹200/- for himself. PW1 further
denied having stated to the police that PW2 had told the accused
that since they both of them had come, the accused should reduce
₹100/- for each of them and that thereafter the accused reduced the
demand to ₹800/-. PW1 also denied having stated that the accused
had agreed to accept ₹800/- on the request of PW2. PW1 admitted
that he had handed over the money to the accused near a tea stall
situated about five steps away from the gate of the Telephone
Exchange. He admitted that he had paid ₹800/- to the accused and
had kept ₹200/- in his own pocket. PW1 denied having stated to
the police that both the hands of the accused were washed in
sodium carbonate solution and that the handwash solutions had
turned pink. PW1 could not recollect as to who had taken out the
money from the pocket of the accused. He denied having stated to
the police that the money was recovered from the pocket of the
accused by PW2.
15.5 PW1 further deposed that no solutions were sealed in
his presence and he denied having stated to the police that the hand
wash bottles and the pant pocket wash bottle were sealed in his
presence and that he had signed the labels. He denied the
suggestion that the pre raid proceedings were recorded in the CBI
office in the form of a handing over memo. PW1 further denied the
suggestion that all the proceedings conducted at the spot were
recorded in the recovery memo at the spot itself. In his cross
examination, PW1 deposed that he does not recollect the date on
which the accused had demanded money from him. PW1 further
deposed that the CBI officer never recorded the statement of
Malhotra and that Malhotra always avoided giving any statement.
PW1 further deposed that his senior officer Malhotra had informed
him that the Managing Director of the Company where he was
working had spoken to some officer in the CBI and had directed
him to meet that officer. PW1 denied the suggestion that Mrs.
Mehta had a quarrel with the accused and as she was known to the
Managing Director, the latter had contacted someone in the CBI,
pursuant to which, he had been sent to the CBI office.
16. PW2 deposed that on 02.01.1991, he along with PW3
were directed by their officer to report at the office of the CBI.
They went to the CBI office and met PW9. After some time, PW1
also reached the office. A tape-recorded conversation was played
before them in which the accused was heard demanding bribe from
PW1. The said tape-recorded conversation was played in the
presence of PW1, PW3 and the CBI officials. Thereafter, he went
along with PW1, while PW3 remained with the CBI officials.
After they reached the office of the accused, PW1 made a
telephone call to the accused from a public telephone situated
downstairs. The accused replied that he would be coming down in
five minutes. After about five minutes, the accused came down and
took them outside the telephone exchange. PW1 asked the accused
whether the work had been done to which the latter replied that the
work would be done by 05.00 or 5.30 PM and thereafter demanded
money. When PW1 requested reduction of the amount by ₹200/-,
the accused replied that the telephone instrument itself would cost
₹800/- and that he could not reduce the amount further as he would
get only ₹200/- PW2 further deposed that while the conversation
with the accused was going on, PW3 also reached there and joined
the conversation. They requested the accused to reduce ₹200/-
since PW3 had also come along. Accordingly, the accused reduced
the demand by ₹200/- and agreed to accept ₹800/-. PW2 further
deposed that PW1 gave ₹800/- to the accused, who received the
same in his right hand, counted the notes with both hands and kept
the money in the right side back pocket of his pants. Thereafter, he
gave the predetermined signal by scratching his head. The CBI
team reached the spot and caught hold of the accused by both his
wrists. PW9 disclosed his identity and challenged the accused that
he had accepted ₹800/- as bribe from PW1. The accused remained
silent. The money was recovered from the pocket of the accused
either by some CBI officer or by PW3. The right-side pocket of the
pants of the accused was washed and the solution turned pink. The
proceedings conducted at the spot were recorded and Ex. PW1/E
recovery memo was prepared. PW2 further identified Ex. P 14
pants as the one worn by the accused at the time of the incident.
He further deposed that the personal search of the accused was
conducted vide Ex. PW3/A memo. At this juncture, the prosecutor
sought the permission of the trial court to "cross examine" the
witness on the ground that he was suppressing the truth and
resiling from his previous statement, which request is seen allowed
by the trial court.
16.1 On further examination by the prosecutor, PW2
deposed that when he and PW3 reached the CBI office, they were
introduced to the PW1. He admitted that the complaint was not
shown to them, however its contents were conveyed to them
verbally. He deposed that he did not make any enquiry regarding
the complaint from PW1.He further admitted that PW1 had been
instructed to hand over the money to the accused only upon
specific demand. They were instructed that when the accused
accepted the money and kept it, either of them was to give the
signal. PW2 deposed that PW9, the TLO, had not telephoned the
accused in his presence. PW2 was unable to recollect whether the
tape-recorded conversation had been played before them.
According to him, the tape recorder might have been played. He
further admitted that PW3 was not present when the conversation
between PW1 and the accused took place and that PW3 reached
the spot only after the signal was given. He deposed that he could
not recollect whether the hands of the accused were washed in
separate solutions and whether both the solutions turned pink.
PW2 also deposed that he could not recollect whether he had made
such a statement to the police. PW2 deposed that he is not sure
about the hand wash proceedings and therefore cannot depose
about the same.
16.2 In his cross examination, PW2 deposed that his earlier
statement regarding playing of the tape was not correct and
clarified that in fact no tape was played in the CBI office in his
presence.
17. PW3 deposed that on 27.12.1990, he was working as
P.S. to Director Finance in the Accounts Section of HIL, Scope
Complex, Lodhi Road, Delhi. On the directions of Director
Finance, he along with PW2 went to the CBI office and met PW9.
He was introduced to PW1 and was verbally apprised of the
complaint of the latter. PW3 deposed regarding the pre trap
proceedings also. They reached Okhla Telephone Exchange at
about 4.00 PM. He along with members of the raiding party stood
at a distance of about 10 metres from the gate of the MTNL office
building. PW2, along with PW1 or someone he does not know
went towards the gate of the building. They were visible to him
and the other members of the party. After about 10 to 15 minutes,
PW3 and other members of the raiding party also went to the gate,
where one other person was present. PW9 apprehended the
accused. PW3 failed to identify the accused present in Court
during his examination and stated that due to passage of time he is
unable to identify the person. PW3 further deposed that PW9
caught hold of the accused by his wrist and he might have
recovered money from the pant pocket of the accused. PW3 could
not recall the exact amount recovered and stated that it could have
been ₹800/- or ₹1000/. The pant of the accused was removed and
the pocket was dipped into a chemical solution which turned pink.
The solution was transferred into bottles and the bottles were
sealed. He deposed that he cannot recall whether any paper work
was done at the spot or whether his signatures had been obtained
on any writing. At this juncture, the prosecutor is seen to have
sought permission to "cross-examine" PW1 on the ground that he
was suppressing the truth. The request was allowed by the trial
court.
17.1 On being further examined by the prosecutor, PW3
deposed that that after the trap he had never gone to the CBI office
and that his statement was not recorded by the CBI. He identified
Ex. PW3/A the personal search memo of the accused. PW3 denied
the suggestion that the accused present in Court is the same person
who was arrested and whose personal search was conducted vide
memo Ex. PW3/A. He further denied that any site map was
prepared at the spot. According to him, the map was prepared in
the CBI office and his signatures were obtained thereon in the CBI
office. PW3 deposed that he does not know whether any
instructions had been given to PW1 to remain close to PW2 and to
talk to the accused in such a manner that PW2 could hear and
watch the transaction and to give signal by scratching his head
upon acceptance of money. He denied having stated so to the
police. PW3 denied any instructions being given to PW1 to give
signal by scratching his head after the accused accepted the
money. PW3 further deposed that after reaching Okhla Telephone
Exchange, PW1 had telephoned someone. PW3 denied seeing
PW1, PW2 and the accused coming out of the building towards the
gate of the Exchange building. PW3 denied that on seeing the
signal he along with other members of the raiding party had gone
to the gate of the Exchange building. PW3 admitted that upon
apprehension of the accused, the CBI officer had challenged the
accused and informed him that he had accepted the money as
bribe, and on being so challenged, the accused kept silent and did
not say anything. PW3 denied hearing PW1 saying that the
accused had accepted ₹800/- out of ₹1000/-. He further denied
hearing PW1 and the shadow witness saying that the accused had
counted the money and kept the same in the pocket of his pant.
PW3 denied recovering ₹800/- from the pant pocket of the
accused. PW3 could not recollect whether both the hands of the
accused had been washed separately in solution prepared at the
spot.He admitted that the hand wash was transferred to two bottles
and sealed with the seal of CBI. PW3 could not recollect whether
PW1 was searched and ₹200/- recovered from his pocket.
17.2 PW3 in his cross-examination was unable to recall
whether the currency notes were recovered from the left or right
pocket of the pant of the accused. PW3 further deposed that the
post-raid proceedings were conducted in the Okhla Exchange
office and that the raid officer neither called any official from the
telephone exchange nor associated any member of the public. PW3
also deposed that the hands of the accused were not washed in his
presence.
18. PW9, posted as Inspector, CBI, ACB, Delhi, the TLO
supported the prosecution case.
19. PW5, Director-cum-Area Manager (South), MTNL,
Nehru Place, New Delhi is the sanctioning authority and Ext.
PW5/A is the Sanction Order.
20. The testimony of the aforesaid witnesses is mainly
relied on by the prosecution to prove the demand and acceptance
of the bribe by the accused/ the appellant herein.
21. As can be seen from the materials on record, the
prosecution case is that the accused demanded illegal gratification
of ₹1000/- for restoration of the telephone number of one Roopa
Mehta, an acquaintance of the Managing Director of the Company
in which PW1 was an employee. An amount of ₹2080/- had
already been paid to the service provider vide Ext. PW1/A demand
notice dated 14.12.1990. It is well settled that mere recovery of
tainted money is insufficient to bring home the charge under the
PC Act. To sustain a conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of
the PC Act, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
public servant voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be
illegal gratification. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aman Bhatia
v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1013 has held
that demand of bribe is sine qua non for establishing an offence
under Section 7 of the Act.
22. The statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC
Act would arise only when the foundational facts are established
by the prosecution. The question is whether the prosecution has
proved the foundational facts in the case on hand beyond
reasonable doubt. The same appears quite doubtful from the
materials on record. PW9, the TLO, upon receipt of Ext. PW1/B
complaint, is not seen to have done any verification whatsoever
regarding the alleged demand. Though it is claimed that a
telephonic conversation had taken place between PW9 and the
accused, the same has not been produced before the court, for
which no reason(s) are given. PW2, one of the independent
witnesses, denied that any such call had been made, recorded or
played in his presence. According to PW1, during the pre-trap
proceedings, PW9 had spoken on his behalf to the accused at
which time the accused reiterated his demand. However, PW9, the
TLO, does not seem to have such a case. Further, according to
PW1, as instructed by the accused, he had put the currency notes
inside the pocket of the accused. PW1 does not have a case that the
currency notes had been handled by the accused. On the other
hand, the specific case of PW1 is that he had put the currency
notes directly inside the pant pocket of the accused.PW1 denied
having stated to the police that he had handed over the money to
the accused and that the hand wash of the accused had turned pink.
PW2, on the other hand, deposed that PW1 gave the amount of
₹800/- to the accused and that the latter had received the money
with his right hand and counted the notes with both his hands and
thereafter kept it in his pant pocket. PW2 was unable to recall
whether the hand wash of the accused had turned pink. PW2
deposed that he was not sure about the hand wash conducted by
the raiding team. PW2 in his chief examination deposed that the
telephonic conversation between PW9 and the accused during the
pre trap proceedings had been recorded and the same played in the
presence of PW1 and PW3. However, in cross examination he
denied the same. PW3, the other independent witness failed to
identify the accused. PW1 to PW3 gave different versions
regarding the paperwork alleged to have been done by the TLO
before and after the trap proceedings. PW1 denies any paperwork
having been carried out by the raiding team at the scene of
occurrence.
23. Another contention raised by the appellant's counsel is
that the telephone connection in question stood restored on
26.12.1990, as reflected from Ex. PW6/A Jumper Clip and the
corresponding entry "320/26/12" in the CGS Register, and that the
trap having been laid on 27.12.1990, there was no occasion for the
accused to demand any illegal gratification for restoration. It is
apparent from the testimony of PW8, OCS Operator that on
26.12.1990, he tested the line, found it operational, spoke to a lady
subscriber and made the endorsement "RCTSSS" (Right on Test,
Subscriber Spoken and Certified). These endorsements are
contemporaneous official records maintained in the ordinary
course of business and, unless discredited, possess considerable
evidentiary value. Also, PW6, SDO of the Okhla Exchange during
the relevant time proved that PW6/A jumper letter denotes that the
telephone connection in question had been restored on 26.12.1990.
24. The prosecution, however, seeks to explain this
circumstance by contending that although restoration was
technically effected on 26.12.1990, PW1 was unaware of the same
since the confirmation was conveyed only to the subscriber who
answered the test call. According to the prosecution, PW1
continued to believe that the line had not been restored and,
therefore, the demand and trap on 27.12.1990 remain unaffected.
This explanation may account for the PW1's subjective lack of
knowledge, but it does not by itself resolve the legal issue.
25. At the risk of repetition, it is reiterated that the core of
the offence under the PC Act is the demand and acceptance of
illegal gratification in connection with a pending or proposed
official act. If the restoration of the telephone had already been
completed on 26.12.1990, the prosecution must clearly establish
that the demand for bribe was made prior to such restoration and
that the payment on 27.12.1990 was in pursuance of that earlier
demand. In the absence of cogent evidence demonstrating such a
prior demand, the existence of documentary proof showing
completion of the official act before the payment of the bribe, does
raise doubts.
26. A perusal of the testimony of PW1 reveals material
inconsistencies both within his own deposition and with the
prosecution case. According to him, the accused had demanded a
sum of ₹1000/- for restoration of the telephone. However, at the
time of the alleged trap he admittedly paid only ₹800/- and
retained ₹200/- with himself. He also denied any negotiation or
reduction of the demand occurred, yet no explanation emerges as
to why the full amount of ₹1000/- was not paid if that was indeed
the settled illegal gratification creating an inherent inconsistency
regarding the very quantum of demand. Further, while he deposed
that PW9 made a telephonic call to the accused and even spoke to
him to fix the meeting, he later professed ignorance of the
accused's telephone number and admitted that the number was
neither mentioned in his complaint nor in his statement, thereby
casting doubt on the alleged pre-arranged contact.
27. Serious inconsistencies also appear in respect of the
recovery proceedings. PW1 deposed that the tainted currency notes
were recovered and their numbers tallied in his presence, yet in
cross-examination he stated that he does not recollect who took out
the money, that the numbers were not tallied in his presence, that
no writing work was done at the scene, and that he was sent to sit
in the vehicle soon after the accused was apprehended. Likewise,
although he acknowledged that powder was applied to the
currency notes, he denied that any demonstration was conducted or
that any handing-over memo was prepared before departure from
the CBI office, which stands at variance with the testimony of the
other prosecution witnesses.
28. The learned counsel for the accused also challenged the
validity of Ex. PW5/A sanction order on the ground of non-
application of mind. PW5, the competent authority, has deposed
that he was empowered to remove the accused from service and
thus he accorded sanction after perusing the relevant documents.
He also identified his signatures on the sanction order and denied
that he acted mechanically or at the behest of the CBI. Though in
cross-examination, PW5 deposed that he did not specifically
mention the documents perused, did not bring the sanction file, and
could not recall whether a request was received from SP, CBI,
these omissions by themselves do not establish absence of
application of mind. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State
of Maharashtra v. Mahesh G. Jain (2013) 8 SCC 119, the
sanctioning authority is only required to arrive at a prima facie
satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute the offence, and
once it is shown that relevant material was placed before it and
considered, the court cannot undertake a deeper evaluation of the
adequacy of such material. In the absence of material proof that the
sanction was mechanical or without proper application of mind,
the challenge against Ext. PW5/A sanction order cannot sustain.
29. In the light of the aforesaid unsatisfactory evidence, I
find it unsafe to find that the prosecution has proved the case
beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the trial court went wrong in
finding the evidence sufficient to conclude regarding the guilt of
the accused. I find that the appellant/ accused is entitled to the
benefit of doubt.
30. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned
judgment is set aside. The appellant/ accused is acquitted under
Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. of the offences charged against him. He
is set at liberty and his bail bond shall stand cancelled.
31. Application(s), if any, pending, shall stand disposed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 23, 2026/ABP
