[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Surjeet Singh Choudhary vs State on 2 February, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 27.01.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 02.02.2026
+ CRL.A. 788/2002
SURJEET SINGH CHOUDHARY .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sarthak Maggon, Advocate
alongwith the wife and son of the
appellant.
versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. In this appeal filed under Section 27 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1947 (the PC Act) read with Section 374 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.), the sole accused
in C.C. No. 29/1996 on the file of Special Judge, Delhi, assails the
judgment dated 25.09.2002 and order on sentence dated
27.09.2002, as per which he has been convicted and sentenced for
the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read
with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.
2. The prosecution case is that the accused, while working
as Security Officer (Health) in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi
and being a public servant, demanded illegal gratification of
₹10,000/- from PW2, a retired Security Supervisor (Health), for
forwarding his pension file to the Additional Commissioner
(Health), and on 22.11.1993 agreed to accept ₹5,000/- on
24.11.1993 at his residence as part payment, with the balance to be
paid at the time of final settlement of the pension claim.
3. On 24.11.1993, PW4 lodged a complaint, that is,
Exhibit. PW2/A with the Anti-Corruption Branch, CBI, Delhi,
based on which Crime No.53/1993, that is, Exhibit. PW14/A FIR
was registered alleging commission of offences punishable under
Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
4. PW14, Inspector, Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi
Police, conducted investigation into the crime and on completion
of the same, submitted the charge-sheet/ final report alleging
commission of offences punishable under the aforementioned
sections.
5. Sanction for prosecution was accorded by PW1,
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, vide Exhibit.
PW1/A order dated 07.10.1996.
6. When the accused was produced before the trial court,
all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to him as
contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides,
the trial court vide order dated 28.05.1997, framed a charge 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 prosecution, PWs 1 to 14 were examined
and Exhibits. PW1/A, PW1/B, PW1/DA, PW1/DB, PW2/A-G,
PW2/DA, PW2/DB, PW4/A-F, PW6/A-C, PW6/C1-C4, PW6/DA,
PW6/DB, PW8/A, PW10/A-B, PW11/Aand PW14/A were marked
in support of the case.
8. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused
was questioned under Section 313 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. He submitted that he has been falsely
implicated in this case as PW2 had a grudge against him.
9. After questioning the accused under Section. 313
Cr.P.C., compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C. was mandatory. In the
case on hand, no hearing as contemplated under Section 232
Cr.P.C. is seen done by the trial court. However, non-compliance
of the said provision does not, ipso facto vitiate the proceedings,
unless omission to comply the same is shown to have resulted in
serious and substantial prejudice to the accused (See Moidu K. vs.
State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89 : 2009 SCC OnLine Ker
2888). Here, the accused has no case that non-compliance of
Section 232 Cr.P.C has caused any prejudice to him.
10. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the
accused.
11. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence
on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court vide the
impugned judgment dated 25.09.2002 held the appellant 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
27.09.2002, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two years along with fine of ₹5,000/-,
and in default of payment of fine, to further rigorous imprisonment
for three months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the
PC Act, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
three years along with fine of ₹5,000/-, and in default of payment
of fine, to further rigorous imprisonment for three months for the
offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)
of the PC Act. The sentences have been directed to run
concurrently. Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant assailed the
impugned judgment primarily on the ground that the sanction for
prosecution, which forms the very foundation of the case, is
vitiated due to complete non-application of mind. It was submitted
that PW1, the Sanctioning Authority, in his cross-examination
categorically admitted that he had received only a draft sanction
order along with a police report and accorded sanction solely on
the basis thereof, without being supplied with the complaint,
seizure memos pertaining to the tainted currency notes and wash
bottles, or the statements of witnesses. It was further submitted that
the alleged report of the Investigating Officer, which supposedly
formed the basis for grant of sanction, was never produced before
the court. Relying on the dictum of Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State
of A.P., (1979) 4 SCC 172, the learned counsel contended that
sanction cannot be an empty formality and must reflect
independent satisfaction of the competent authority on
consideration of all relevant material. The learned counsel
submitted that the mechanical manner in which sanction was
granted renders the entire prosecution vitiated in law. It was
further submitted that the very fairness of the prosecution is
rendered doubtful by the admitted circumstance that a senior
police officer, namely, an Assistant Commissioner of Police,
accompanied PW2 to the Anti-Corruption Branch, indicating that
the initiation of proceedings was authority-driven rather than
arising from an independent investigative assessment.
12.1. The learned counsel for the appellant further
submitted that the prosecution case rests substantially on the
testimony of PW2, whose credibility is seriously impeached by his
own admissions and conduct. It was argued that PW2 was
admittedly inimical towards the appellant, having received nearly
twenty show-cause notices from the latter, repeated warnings, and
facing imminent disciplinary action including suspension, which
led PW2 to approach the Commissioner, MCD, to save himself.
The learned counsel also pointed out that the appellant was due to
retire within a few days of the alleged incident, which
circumstance substantially erodes any plausible motive to demand
illegal gratification and lends weight to the defence plea of false
implication. It was further submitted that PW2 admitted to illegally
drawing dearness allowance from two departments, namely, the
Army and the MCD, and that a substantial amount was later
recovered from him by the Army. The learned counsel contended
that PW2, being an accomplice and a person of questionable
integrity, his testimony could not have been relied upon without
independent corroboration, which is conspicuously absent. It was
also pointed out that PW6 deposed regarding PW2 threatening
office staff by claiming influence with senior officers of the Anti-
Corruption Branch, thereby further eroding his credibility.
12.2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredient of
demand, which is the sine qua non for offences under Sections 7
and 13 of the PC Act. It was argued that there are material and
irreconcilable inconsistencies between the testimonies of PW2 and
PW3 regarding the alleged demand, the words spoken, the
language of conversation, and even the role attributed to the
appellant at the time of the alleged transaction. While PW2
claimed that the conversation took place in Punjabi and involved a
clear demand, PW3 stated that the conversation took place in
Hindi and initially deposed that the appellant did not ask for any
money, later improving his version when led by the prosecution. It
was further urged that the entire prosecution version rests solely on
oral assertions without any contemporaneous electronic or
objective corroboration, thereby rendering proof of demand
doubtful, particularly in the face of material inconsistencies.
Relying on the dictum of Rajesh Gupta v. State (through CBI),
CRL.A.1769/2014, it was submitted that mere recovery of
currency notes is insufficient in the absence of proof of demand
and voluntary acceptance, and that presumption under the PC Act
cannot arise unless demand is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
12.3. The learned counsel for the appellant further
submitted that even the allegation that the appellant demanded
bribe for clearing the pension file is inherently improbable, a
contention which was specifically raised and noticed in paragraph
24 of the impugned judgment. It was argued that PW2 himself
admitted that prior to his retirement he had been issued Exhibit
PW2/DA letter dated 28.09.1993 by the appellant, calling upon
him to furnish a certificate from the Army authorities regarding
dearness allowance. PW2 also admitted that he never replied to the
said letter. The learned counsel contended that if PW2 himself
failed to furnish the requisite certificate and the pension file lacked
vigilance clearance and was incomplete as on the date of the
alleged incident, there was no occasion for the appellant to process
or clear the file, and consequently no occasion for demanding any
gratification.
12.4. The learned counsel for the appellant also assailed
the prosecution case on the aspect of link evidence and chain of
custody, contending that the integrity of the alleged wash samples
was not established in accordance with law. It was argued that
though four sample bottles were allegedly prepared, two pertaining
to the hand wash (RHW-I and RHW-II) and two to the pant pocket
wash (RPW-I and RPW-II), only two bottles (RHW-I and RPW-I)
were forwarded to the CFSL without any explanation as to why the
remaining samples were retained, where they were kept, and under
whose custody. It was further submitted that the samples were not
kept in a notified malkhana but in the personal almirah of a police
officer, thereby breaking the chain of custody. The learned counsel
pointed out that the pant of the accused was never sent for
chemical examination and that the alleged pant pocket wash was
conducted at the spot itself, resulting in destruction of the best
available evidence. It was further contended that the prosecution
failed to examine the police official who allegedly conducted the
pant pocket wash, leaving a crucial link witness unexamined. The
learned counsel submitted that the inconsistencies regarding the
place of wash, the person who conducted it, the custody of the
seal, and the timing of return to the police station cumulatively
render the chain of custody doubtful and strike at the root of the
prosecution case.
12.5. The learned counsel for the appellant further
submitted that the alleged recovery proceedings are vitiated by
serious procedural lapses, inasmuch as the raid officer did not offer
his own personal search to the appellant or to the independent
witness prior to conducting the search, a fact admitted by PW3 in
his cross-examination. It was argued that in the absence of such
safeguard, and having regard to the presence of multiple members
of the raiding party at the spot, the possibility of planting of tainted
currency cannot be ruled out. The learned counsel further
contended that the omission in the FIR to mention the alleged
demand of ₹5,000 as first instalment is not a minor discrepancy but
goes to the root of the prosecution case, as the amount demanded
forms the very substratum of the charge, and such omission further
weakens the credibility of the prosecution version.
13. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the sanction
for prosecution was validly accorded by the competent authority
and does not suffer from non-application of mind, as mere reliance
on a draft sanction or a police report does not vitiate the sanction
in the absence of any failure of justice. It was further submitted
that the credibility of the complainant cannot be doubted merely on
account of disciplinary proceedings or prior official friction with
the appellant, and that the alleged misconduct relating to dearness
allowance is collateral. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor
contended that demand and acceptance of illegal gratification stand
proved through the testimonies of PW2and PW3, the panch
witness, duly corroborated by the raiding officer and the positive
phenolphthalein test. It was argued that minor variations regarding
language or the exact words spoken do not affect the core of the
prosecution case, and that the appellant, being in a position to
grant clearance in the pension matter, could facilitate or obstruct
the process, thereby attracting the provisions of the PC Act.
13.1. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further
submitted that the recovery of tainted money and the wash
proceedings stand duly proved and that it is not mandatory that all
samples collected be sent to the CFSL, as forwarding of
representative samples is sufficient. It was argued that non-
examination of every official associated with the process does not
vitiate the prosecution case when the essential links are otherwise
established. It was further contended that the inconsistencies
pointed out by the defence relate to peripheral aspects and do not
go to the root of the matter. It was therefore urged that the
prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, the
statutory presumption under the PC Act stands attracted, and the
appeal deserves to be dismissed.
14. Heard both sides and perused the records.
15. The only point that arises for consideration in the
present appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the impugned
judgement calling for an interference by this court.
16. I shall first refer to the evidence on record relied upon
by the prosecution in support of its case. PW2 submitted a written
complaint, i.e., Exhibit PW2/A, on 24.11.1993 in the office of the
Anti-Corruption Branch in which he has stated thus: He is a re-
employed ex-serviceman working as a Security Supervisor at I.D.
Hospital, Kingsway Camp, Delhi, and that his head office is at the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Town Hall. His retirement was
due on 30.11.1993 and that his Chief Security Officer (Health),
namely, the appellant/accused, was harassing him by demanding
illegal gratification of ₹10,000/-, threatening that in case the said
amount was not paid, his pension and dearness allowance would
be stopped. Since PW2 did not pay the demanded amount, the
appellant had not forwarded his retirement pension file to the
Additional Commissioner (Health), MCD. On 22.11.1993 at about
2:00 PM, he met the appellant/accused at his office in Town Hall
and requested the latter to reduce the demanded amount and to
forward the former's retirement file. The appellant/accused agreed
to accept ₹5,000/- as part payment and asked him to come to his
residence at 112, Block-10, Tilak Nagar on 24.11.1993 at about
10:30 AM to deliver the said amount, stating that the remaining
₹5,000/- should be paid at the time of full and final settlement of
the pension claim. PW2 agreed to the said demand under
compulsion, that he bore no personal enmity or prior dealings with
the appellant, and that since the appellant was to accept ₹5,000/- as
bribe on that day, legal action be taken against him. PW2 also
stated that he is a retired Subedar from the Army, drawing pension,
knows how to read and write Hindi.
17. PW2, when examined before the trial court, deposed
that after serving in the Army, he was re-employed in the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi as a Security Supervisor and
retired from the MCD in November 1993 and that prior to his
retirement from the MCD, he was required to obtain clearance for
entitlement of dearness allowance with his pension from the Army.
He further stated that the appellant demanded illegal gratification
of ₹10,000/- from him for clearing his papers. He further stated
that on 22.11.1993 the appellant demanded ₹10,000/- and agreed
to accept the amount in parts, fixing the first instalment of ₹5,000/-
to be paid on 24.11.1993 at about 10:15 AM at the residence of the
appellant, with the balance amount to be paid after the papers were
signed. On 24.11.1993, he went to the office of Anti-Corruption
Branch and submitted his written complaint, Exhibit PW2/A.
17.1. PW2 also deposed regarding the manner in which
the raid was arranged. He stated that he produced ₹5,000/-
comprising one currency note of ₹500/- and forty-five currency
notes of ₹100/- each, the numbers whereof were noted and
phenolphthalein powder was applied. He further deposed that the
raiding party, including officials of the Anti-Corruption Branch,
proceeded in a government vehicle to Tilak Nagar, where the
residence of the appellant is situated. As directed by the
appellant/accused, he along with PW3, the panch witness, went to
the house of the appellant and waited outside, as the time fixed
was 10:30 AM. The appellant came downstairs after some time
and enquired whether the money had been brought. PW2 stated
that the conversation took place in Punjabi and that upon his
answering in the affirmative, he handed over the money to the
appellant, who accepted it with his right hand and kept it in the
right-side pocket of his pant. PW2 deposed that the appellant
assured him that he would sign his file, adjust the dearness
allowance, and asked him to pay the remaining ₹5,000/- later.
Thereafter, PW3 gave the pre-arranged signal, upon which the
Inspector came and apprehended the appellant. PW2 further
deposed that PW14, the Inspector challenged the appellant for
having accepted the bribe and that the appellant became perplexed.
PW14 recovered the currency notes from the right-side pocket of
the pant of the appellant and the numbers of the notes tallied with
those recorded in the raid report. PW2 further deposed regarding
the formalities that were complied with by the CBI team thereafter,
including the fact that the carbonate solution turned pink when the
appellant/accused was made to dip his left hand in the same. The
inner lining of the pocket of the garment worn by the
appellant/accused also turned pink on being dipped in the solution.
17.2. In his cross-examination, PW2 admitted that
during his service in MCD, he had been drawing dearness
allowance from both the Army and the MCD and that he had
continued to receive the same even after issuance of Exhibit
PW2/DA letter by the appellant, calling upon him to furnish a
certificate from the Army authorities. He admitted that he did not
reply to the said letter and did not obtain any certificate from the
Army, despite knowing that drawing dearness allowance from both
places was an offence. PW2 further admitted that the dearness
allowance paid to him by the Army was subsequently recovered
after his retirement and that a substantial amount had been
deducted. He also admitted that he had received a show-cause
notice from the Army in this regard. PW2 further admitted that he
had lodged complaints against certain clerks in the department and
that the appellant had issued several show-cause notices to him,
though he denied that he bore grudge or ill-will against the
appellant. PW2 denied the suggestions that the appellant had not
demanded or accepted any bribe; that the currency notes were
forcibly thrust into the pocket of the appellant, or that the appellant
had thrown the notes on the ground in protest. He admitted that
many persons had gathered at the spot when the appellant was
apprehended. He further admitted that he does not remember
whether the Inspector offered his personal search before recovery
of the money, that the money was recovered prior to the hand wash
being taken, and that the Inspector handled the currency notes
while tallying their numbers. PW2 stated that he could not
recollect who had washed the pant pocket of the appellant and that
his own hand wash was not taken. He denied the suggestion that
no pre-raid or post-raid proceedings were conducted or that he had
made a false statement.
18. PW1, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of
Delhi, deposed that he had accorded sanction for prosecution, vide
Exhibit PW1/A. The appellant/accused had been working as
Security Officer in the MCD and that he was competent to remove
the latter from service. After carefully perusing the material placed
before him and duly considering the allegations and circumstances
of the case against the accused, he accorded sanction for
prosecution of the accused.
18.1. PW1 admitted during his cross-examination that
he hadnot called the Investigating Officer or any official of the
Anti-Corruption Branch before granting sanction and that neither
the judicial file nor the police file had been placed before him. He
further admitted that he had not received a copy of the complaint,
the seizure memos relating to the money or wash bottles, or the
statements of witnesses. PW1 stated that he had received Exhibit
PW1/DB draft sanction order, along with Exhibit PW1/DA report
of the Investigating Officer, and that sanction was granted on the
basis thereof and the letter of the DCP.
19. PW3, Panchayat Secretary, Government of Delhi,
deposed that he was deputed as panch witness in the A.C. Branch.
PW2 had come to the A.C. Branch and that Exhibit PW2/A
complaint had been recorded in his presence and that it was also
signed by him. He further deposed that he was instructed to
remain close to PW2to see the transaction and hear conversation
between PW2 and the accused. He was also instructed to give
signal by moving his hand on his head when he was satisfied that
the money was accepted as bribe by the accused. The raiding party
which also included staff members went to the residence of the
accused at Tilak Nagar. The vehicle was parked at some distance.
He along with PW2 went to the house of the accused while the
other members followed. PW3 further deposed that the
appellant/accused asked PW2 whether he had brought the money.
PW2 answered in the affirmative and took out the money and gave
it to the accused. The accused took the money in his right hand and
put it in the right side pocket of his pants. The accused told PW2
that he would send the file and adjust the Dearness Allowance.
Thereafter, he gave the pre-arranged signal, whereupon the other
members of raiding party rushed to the spot and apprehended the
accused. PW14, Inspector, disclosed his identity and challenged
the accused who became nervous. First the accused kept mum and
then started saying "no, no, no". Money was recovered from the
pant pocket of the accused by the Inspector.
19.1. PW3 further deposed that number of the
recovered currency notes tallied with the ones recorded in pre-raid
report. The right hand of the accused was washed in a colourless
solution prepared at the spot. The solution turned pink and was
transferred into two glass bottles. Labels were affixed on those
bottles and the bottles were sealed. The right side pocket of pants
of the accused was also washed in another colourless solution.
That solution also turned pink and it was transferred into another
two bottles. Those bottles were also labelled and sealed. He had
also signed on the labels of all the four bottles, on the pocket of the
pants of accused and also on the slip of paper which was placed
under the seal while sealing the pants. The pants was also then
sealed in an envelope and he had also signed on the envelope.
Currency notes, that is, Exhibit P-1 to Exhibit P-46 were seized
vide Exhibit PW2/C memo. At this juncture, the prosecutor sought
the permission of the Court to 'cross examine' PW3 on the ground
that the witness appeared to have forgotten the conversation which
took place between PW2 and the accused. The request was
allowed by the trial court. On being further examined by the
prosecutor, PW3 deposed that when PW2 informed the accused
that he had brought the money, the accused demanded the money
by saying "Laa" and that after accepting the money with his right
hand, the accused asked PW2 "Kitne Hain?" and PW2 informed
him that there was five thousand rupees. He further deposed that
after the accused told PW2 that his file would be sent and the
accused will adjust the dearness allowance, PW2 told the accused
that he would give the remaining amount of ₹5,000/- after the
work was done, and that PW2 should give the remaining amount
of ₹5,000/- later on.
19.2. In the cross-examination, PW3 admitted that he
had reached the A.C. Branch at about 9.30 a.m. As per duty roster,
he had gone to the A.C. Branch on 23.11.1993. On that day, he
was directed to report again on 24.11.1993, by the A.C. Branch.
However, he was not deputed in the roster for 24.11.1993. The
duty officer had directed him to come again on 24.11.1993. PW3
further stated that they had left the Anti Corruption Branch at
10:00 or 10:15 a.m. They reached the spot at about 11 a.m. They
met the accused on the road outside his house. He was standing
with PW2 at that time. The accused did not enquire about him to
PW2. He does not remember if PW2 had told the accused that he
wanted to be recruited as a gunman and was prepared to pay Rs.
15,000. The accused did not question his presence there. The
conversation between PW2 and the accused took place in Hindi,
not in English or Punjabi.
19.3. PW3 further deposed that neither PW2 nor the
accused had suggested that they should go to the house of the
accused and that they were standing on a public road and there
were passers-by. He stated that when the accused asked PW2
whether he had brought the money, no specific amount was
mentioned by either the accused or PW2. PW3 stated that after
application of powder, the currency notes were handed over to
PW2, who kept them in his shirt pocket inside a folded paper, and
that PW2 handed over the money to the accused with his right
hand without the paper, which remained in PW2's pocket. He
stated that the hand wash and the pant pocket wash of the accused
was taken by PW14, the Investigation Officer. However, the hand
wash and the shirt pocket wash of PW2 was not taken and the
paper in which the money had been kept was also not seized. PW3
identified the pant produced in court as the same pant worn by the
accused at the time of the incident. He stated that the recovery of
money and the hand wash were conducted at the spot on the road,
whereas the pant pocket wash was taken in the office of a
workshop across the road, at a distance of about 500 yards, where
the writing work was also carried out. PW3 further stated that no
person from the office of the workshop was asked to sign the
proceedings. They returned to the Anti-Corruption Branch by
about 4:00 or 5:00 PM and that he remained there for about 10 to
15 minutes. He deposed that he does not remember whether any
bottles were kept in any almirah in his presence. The seal after use
was handed over to him, but no receipt was obtained for the seal.
He does not remember the initials on the seal, which was a brass
seal and that he did not obtain any receipt when the seal was
returned.
20. PW4, then Inspector, Anti-Corruption Branch, Delhi
deposed that on 24.11.1993 he was also in the trap team headed by
PW14 and that he had been directed to remain with PW2 with the
direction to overhear the conversation between PW2 and the
accused. They reached near the residence of the accused at Tilak
Nagar, New Delhi. He was sitting in the vehicle during the raid.
Investigation of this case was handed over to him by PW14. PW14
had handed over the tainted money which was seized vide Exhibit
PW2/C memo and the pants vide Exhibit PW2/D memo. The pant
pocket wash was seized vide Exhibit PW2/E seizure memo. The
accused was also produced before him. PW4 deposed that the
sealed bottles containing right hand wash of the accused and
pocket wash were brought to the Police Station. Out of two right
hand wash, one bottle of right hand wash (RHW-I) and out of two
pocket wash, one bottle (RPW-I) were kept in the malkhana and
one bottle each was kept in the almirah of ACP, KC Verma (PW5).
The almirah was locked and the key was kept by PW5. He retained
the seal. The next day, the seal when checked in the presence of
PW5, was found intact. The seal was broken and the almirah
opened. The case property was taken out, both the bottles were
found intact and were taken by him to the office of CFSL for
examination. Articles recovered in personal search of the accused
were also deposited in the malkhana of Police Station Civil Lines.
20.1. PW4, in his cross-examination, admitted that he
had joined the raid only to the extent of accompanying the raiding
party from the Anti-Corruption Branch up to the place where the
vehicle was parked and that the investigation of the case was
entrusted to him only after completion of the post-raid
proceedings. He further admitted that during investigation he came
to know that PW2 had visited the Anti-Corruption Branch on
23.11.1993. According to PW4 the post-raid proceedings were
conducted at the spot and not in any workshop. He admitted that it
is a matter of record that PW2 had been drawing dearness
allowance from both the Army and the MCD, though he stated that
he had no personal knowledge as to whether such conduct
constituted an offence. PW4 further stated that all documents
prepared by the raid officer were handed over to him when the
investigation was entrusted to him and that all the memos were in
the handwriting of the raid officer. He admitted that no receipt was
obtained from PW5 for depositing the wash bottles, though an
entry was made in the daily diary. He further admitted that the
panch witness was not present when the bottles were deposited and
that the office of PW5 was not a notified malkhana, though the
bottles were kept there as per the prevailing practice in the Anti-
Corruption Branch.
21. PW5, Shri K.C. Verma, ACP, D-Cell, Delhi Police,
deposed that on 24.11.1993 two sealed exhibits, namely RHW-I
and RPPW-I, along with the sample seal of PW4 were received by
him and kept in his almirah, which was locked with his key and
sealed with the seal of PW14. He stated that on 25.11.1993 the seal
was broken and the almirah was opened with his key and the said
exhibits along with the sample seal were taken out by the
Investigating Officer for being deposited with the CFSL. PW5
stated that so long as the case property remained in his custody, it
was not tampered with and the seals remained intact.
21.1. PW5, in his cross-examination, admitted that the Anti-
Corruption Branch is a notified police station, whereas his office
was not a notified malkhana. He admitted that his signatures were
not obtained on the recovery memo as acknowledgment of having
received the case property and that he did not issue any receipt to
the Investigating Officer. He further admitted that the panch
witness was not present at the time the case property was deposited
with him and that no public person was associated at that stage.
PW5 also admitted that no CFSL form was deposited along with
the case property. He stated that the key of the almirah was given
by him to the Investigating Officer and that the seal was kept by
him. He further admitted that no public person or panch witness
was present when the seal was broken and the almirah opened for
handing over the case property to the Investigating Officer. PW5
also stated that he did not maintain any register regarding deposit
of case property. He further admitted that the seal 'BS' used in the
case belonged to Inspector Balwan Singh, who subsequently
became the Investigating Officer.
22. PW6 deposed that on 18.11.1978, she was working as
LDC, Municipal Corporation of Delhi. During the relevant period,
the Security Wing was dealing with the pension papers of the
employees, including that of PW2. PW6 further deposed that on
30.11.1993 she handed over the service book and pension-related
documents of PW2 to the PW14. PW2 further deposed that the
office of the appellant was searched and the files relating to
administrative approval and service book of PW2 had been seized.
22.1. PW6, in her cross-examination, admitted that
Exhibit PW2/DA notice had been issued by the appellant to PW2,
requiring the latter to submit a reply within a fortnight. However,
PW2 never replied to the said notice. She admitted that in the
absence of such reply, the pension papers of PW2 could not be
signed by the appellant/accused. She further admitted that PW2
was an ex-serviceman and that an employee cannot draw dearness
allowance from two departments at the same time. She deposed
PW2 had been asked to submit his pension book, but he never
complied with the same. PW6 further deposed that during her
tenure she had dealt with PW2's case relating to leave encashment
and that upon scrutiny by the Accounts Branch, discrepancies were
noticed in the leave records, including incorrect absentee
statements and excess claims. She stated that the Additional
Deputy Commissioner (Health) had called for her comments on
the pension papers of PW2 and that she had submitted the same.
PW6 further deposed that after the initiation of the case on hand,
PW2 had visited the office and threatened her and the other
officials by claiming that one Chauhan, ACP of the Anti-
Corruption Branch was his close friend and that he could put all of
them in trouble with the help of his friend. Pursuant to the same, a
written complaint was given to the Anti-Corruption Branch, a copy
of which has been marked as Exhibit PW6/DB.
23. PW7 deposed that on 10.01.1995 he was posted as
ACP, Anti-Corruption Branch, and that the investigation of the
case had been entrusted to him. PW7 deposed that that he partly
investigated the case, questioned PW1, PW3, PW6 and PW12 as
well as seized certain documents relating to PW2, including
Exhibit PW6/C1 to Exhibit PW6/C4, vide Exhibit PW6/C memo.
PW7 further deposed that the investigation was handed over to
PW8.
24. PW8 deposed that on 02.01.1996 he was posted as
Inspector in the Anti-Corruption Branch and on that day the case
file was handed over to him for further investigation. He further
stated that he collected photocopies of the attendance register of
the appellant/accused, and he thereafter obtained sanction for
prosecution of the accused and submitted the charge-sheet. In his
cross-examination, PW8 stated that he does not know whether
there was any notification or order authorising him to investigate
the present case as an Inspector of the Anti-Corruption Branch.
25. PW9 produced the service book of the
appellant/accused who was working as Security Officer (Health),
MCD, Town Hall, Delhi. PW9 deposed that the service book had
earlier been produced before the Investigating Officer.
26. PW10 deposed that in the year 1993 he was working as
a Security Guard in the Health Department of MCD and that the
appellant/accused was posted as Security Officer at that time. He
stated that he had shown the attendance register of the year 1993 to
PW14 and produced a photocopy of the same, which was taken
into possession vide Exhibit PW8/A memo.
26.1. PW10 in his cross-examination, deposed that in
November 1993 he was attached with the appellant/accused as a
Security Guard and that his duty was to remain outside the office
room of the latter as a Security Guard-cum-peon. He stated that
visitors used to write their names on slips which were handed over
to the appellant, and only thereafter permission to meet the latter
was granted. PW10 further deposed that he knew PW2,who was
working as a Security Supervisor under the appellant. He stated
that on 22.11.1993, PW2 never came to meet the appellant in his
office and that he was present on duty throughout the day. PW10
further deposed that the staff members had lodged a report with the
ACP, Anti-Corruption Branch, alleging that PW2 used to threaten
them by claiming that one ACP of the Anti-Corruption Branch was
his close associate.
27. PW11 deposed that on 25.11.1993 two sealed bottles
bearing the seal of "BS" were received in the office of CFSL along
with the specimen seal and forwarding letter. The bottles, marked
RHW-I and RPPW-I, contained pink liquid of about 85 ml and 80
ml respectively. PW11 deposed that the seals tallied with the
specimen seal and thereafter chemical examination was conducted
under his supervision. According to PW11, the contents of both
bottles tested positive for phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate.
He further deposed that after examination, the remaining contents
were resealed with the CFSL seal and returned along with the
report and sealed impressions to the forwarding authority.
27.1. In his cross-examination, PW11 admitted that a
worksheet was prepared at the time of examination of the exhibits
and that the final report was prepared thereafter. He stated that the
worksheet was prepared by his assistant in a printed proforma in
the assistant's handwriting and was signed and countersigned, but
the worksheet was not produced in court as it formed part of the
CFSL office record.
28. PW12 deposed that on 18.04.1994, while he was
posted as MHCM at Police Station Civil Lines, two bottles marked
RHW-I and RPPW-I along with one sealed envelope of CFSL were
deposited in the malkhana by an Inspector. He stated that the case
property was kept in safe custody and necessary entries were made
in Register No. 19. According to PW12, so long as the case
property remained in his custody, it was not tampered with and the
seals remained intact.
29. PW13 deposed that on 31.01.1994, while he was
posted as Inspector in the Anti-Corruption Branch, he took over
the case for further investigation after the transfer of the earlier
Investigating Officer. He stated that during the course of
investigation he recorded the statement of a Head Clerk of MCD
and thereafter handed over the case file to ACP for further
investigation. In his cross-examination, PW13 denied the
suggestion that he was not empowered to investigate the present
case for want of a general or special order under the PC Act.
30. PW14 deposed that on 24.11.1993, while posted as
Inspector in the Anti-Corruption Branch, PW2 approached him
and gave Exhibit PW2/A complaint. PW2 produced ₹5,000/-, the
numbers of which were noted and phenolphthalein powder was
applied. The treated notes were handed over to PW2 with
instructions to deliver the same only on specific demand in the
presence of the panch witness, who was directed to give a pre-
arranged signal. A raiding party was thereafter constituted, who
proceeded to the residence of the accused at Tilak Nagar. At about
10:45A.M., on receipt of the signal, PW14 and other members of
the raiding party rushed to the spot, challenged the accused and
apprehended him. The tainted currency notes recovered from the
right side pocket of his pant, tallied with the pre-raid record and
were seized vide Exhibit PW2/C memo. The right hand wash and
pant pocket wash of the accused turned pink and the solutions
were sealed in bottles marked RHW-I, RHW-II, RPPW-I and
RPPW-II and seized vide Exhibit PW2/E memo. The pant,
envelope and slip were seized vide Exhibit PW2/D memo.
30.1. In his cross-examination, PW14 admitted that he
was aware that drawing dearness allowance from two departments
simultaneously was illegal and that whilerecording of PW2's
statement he realised that PW2 had been drawing Dearness
Allowance from both the Army as well as the MCD. He admitted
that as per the complaint the transaction was to take place at the
house of the accused, though the actual transaction did not take
place inside the house. He stated that the place of transaction was
not visible to him from where he was positioned and that the
accused was apprehended in a service lane.
30.2. PW14 further admitted that he had not offered his
personal search either to PW3, panch witness or to the accused
prior to conducting the search. He stated that the hand wash and
pant pocket wash of the accused were taken by a Head Constable,
though he had not mentioned the name of the said official in the
seizure memos or post-raid report. He admitted that the hand wash
of PW2 was not taken. According to PW14, the accused was
arrested in a service lane. The accused had not been taken to any
garage or shop situated nearby. All the post-raid proceeding was
conducted at the spot. Peoplewere passing by in the service lane.
One or two persons might have gathered at the spot. PW14 also
admitted that PW2 was accompanied by an ACP of Delhi Police
when he came to the Anti-Corruption Branch to lodge the
complaint prior to the raid.
31. The question is, whether the aforesaid evidence on
record is sufficient to prove the prosecution case. The same
appears to be quite doubtful. The specific case of PW2 is that the
accused had not forwarded his pension file to the authority
concerned and that the accused was harassing him by demanding
illegal gratification of ₹10,000/- and threatening him that in case
he failed to pay the amount, his pension and dearness allowance
would be stopped. Therefore, on 22.11.1993, at about 2:00 p.m., he
met the appellant/accused in the office of the latter at Town Hall
and requested him to reduce the amount and to forward his
retirement file. On the said day, the appellant/accused is alleged to
have agreed to accept ₹5,000/- as part payment and directed PW2
to meet him at his residence on 24.11.1993 with the amount and to
pay the remaining amount at the time of full and final settlement of
the pension claim. However, PW10, a loyal prosecution witness, to
whose testimony I have already referred, deposed that on
22.11.1993 PW2 had never come to the office of the
appellant/accused to meet the latter. PW10 deposed that he was the
security guard posted on duty and was outside the office room of
the appellant/accused as security guard-cum-peon for the entire
day. He further deposed that any visitor to the room of the
appellant/accused had to go through him. A visitor will have to
write his name on a slip, which PW10 would take to the
appellant/accused seeking permission. It is only when the
appellant/accused grants permission, the visitor would be able to
enter the room of the former and meet the former. PW10
categorically asserted that PW2 had never visited the office of the
accused on 22.11.1993.
31.1. PW10, as noticed earlier, is a loyal prosecution
witness. During his examination no permission was sought by the
prosecutor to put questions in the nature of cross-examination, nor
did the prosecution contend that PW10 had resiled from his earlier
statement or was deliberately deposing falsely. There is, therefore,
no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW10. If that be so, the
assertion of PW2 that he had gone to the office of the
appellant/accused on 22.11.1993 and that the accused discussed the
bribe and the manner of its payment falls to the ground.
32. I also refer to the testimony of PW6, who deposed that
though Ex. PW2/DA notice had been issued by the
appellant/accused to PW2, the latter failed to reply to it. PW6
further deposed that in the absence of a reply, the pension papers of
PW2 could not have been processed by the appellant/accused.
PW6 is yet again a loyal prosecution witness. In such
circumstances, it appears highly improbable for the
appellant/accused to have demanded a bribe for processing the
pension file, as the first step for processing the file had to be taken
by PW2 himself, which the latter admittedly failed to comply. It
has also come on record that several show-cause notices had been
issued by the appellant/accused to PW2 directing him to take
necessary steps. PW2 has admitted that he did not reply to those
notices.
33. Another aspect which deserves notice is the testimony
of PW6 as well as PW10 to the effect that PW2 used to threaten
the staff of the MCD that he could put them all in trouble as one of
his friends was an ACP in the Delhi Police. Their testimony
assumes significance, particularly when the accused has a specific
case that PW2 had initiated this false complaint against him with
the assistance of his ACP friend.
34. Further, according to PW2, on the date of the trap, the
conversation between him and the accused took place in Punjabi,
whereas PW3, the panch witness, deputed to watch and hear the
conversation, stated that it took place in Hindi. PW3 stated that the
post-trap proceedings took place in a workshop, whereas PW4 and
PW14 have no such case and stated that the entire proceedings
took place in a by-lane near the house of the accused. PW 3
deposed that after completing all the formalities, they returned to
the office between 04:00 P.M. and 05:00 P.M. According to PW2,
he along with the trap team had reached near the house of the
accused by about 10:30A.M. Going by the version of PW4 and
PW14, the trap and post-trap proceedings were conducted in a by-
lane near the residence of the appellant/accused. Does that mean
that for the entire day they were on the street completing the so
called formalities? That is highly unlikely. Yet another aspect is
whether PW3 was actually on duty on the said day because in the
cross examination, he deposed that though he had reported for duty
on 24.11.1993, he was not deputed in the roster of the day. Further,
materials have come on record to show that members of the public
were passing by at the time of the incident, yet none of them, nor
any person from the workshop where part of the proceedings was
alleged to have been completed, was examined to corroborate the
prosecution case.
35. Another important aspect relates to the sanction for
prosecution. PW1, the sanctioning authority, admitted that Ext.
PW1/DB is the draft sanction order on the basis of which he issued
the sanction. The sanction order issued appears to be a verbatim
reproduction of the draft. Save for the blanks in the draft order
being filled up, there is no difference in the sanction order. This
raises doubts as to whether there was any independent application
of mind by PW1.
36. Further, it has also come on record that PW2 was
drawing dearness allowance from the Army, where he was initially
employed, and after his retirement and joining the MCD, he was
also drawing dearness allowance from the MCD. Proceedings were
initiated against him in that regard by the Army and the excess
amount was recovered from him. If PW6 is to be believed, there
were several discrepancies noted in the leave records of PW2
including absentee statements and excess claims.
37. In the aforesaid circumstances, the claim of PW2 that
the appellant/accused had demanded a bribe appears highly
doubtful, particularly in the light of the testimony of PW6 and
PW10, both loyal prosecution witnesses. Hence, I find that the trial
court erred in relying upon such unsatisfactory evidence to hold
the accused guilty of the offences alleged against him. The accused
is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt.
38. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned
judgment is set aside.
39. Applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 02, 2026
rs/rn
