[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Gobind Swaroop Parwani vs State Nct Of Delhi on 10 February, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 05.02.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 10.02.2026
+ CRL.A. 916/2006 & CRL.M.A. 4056/2018
GOBIND SWAROOP PARWANI .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Shailesh N Pathak, Mr. Abhinav
Garg, Mr. Manwendra Gautam, Mr.
Nikhil Chandra, Mr. Radhey S.
Janwa, Ms. Safeena Khan and Mr.
Sachin Gajwani, Advocates.
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with
SI Bheem Singh, P.S. Anti-
Corruption Branch, Delhi.
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 first accused
(A1) in C.C.No. 38/1999 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(2)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(the PC Act).
2. The prosecution case is that on 18.03.1996, A1 while
working as Junior Engineer in the Commercial Estate Branch of
DDA at Vikas Sadan, in collusion with the second accused, (A2),
W/C(R), Mate, DDA, demanded illegal gratification of ₹ 5,000
from PW8 for not demolishing the boundary wall of his shop
bearing No. 14, A-1 Market, Lawrence Road, Delhi, and later
agreed to accept ₹ 2,000 as bribe.
3. On 18.03.1996, PW8 lodged a complaint, that is, Ext.
PW6/A, with the Anti-Corruption Branch, New Delhi, based on
which, Crime no. 13/1996,FIR was registered alleging commission
of the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13 of the PC Act.
4. PW7, Inspector, Anti-Corruption Branch, 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 aforementioned sections.
5. Ext. PW1/A and PW2/A Sanction Order for prosecuting
the accused persons was accorded by PW1, Member Engineer,
DDA and PW2, the then Superintending Engineer, Civil Circle-1,
DDA respectively.
6. When the accused persons on receipt of summons
appeared before the trial court, the Court after complying with the
formality contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C, on 20.04.2001,
framed a Charge against the accused persons for the offences
punishable under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act,
which was read over and explained to them to which they pleaded
not guilty.
7. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW10 were
examined and Ext. PW1/A, Ext. PW2/A, Ext. PW4/A-B, Ext.
PW5/A, Ext. PW6/A-K, Ext. PW8/A,Ext. PW9/A-B were marked
in support of the case.
8. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused
persons were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against them
in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied all those
circumstances and maintained their innocence. A1 submitted that
he has been falsely implicated in this case and that he discharges
his duties as an honest and hardworking government official and in
recognition of his services he has also been awarded with several
accolades.
9. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the
accused persons.
10. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence
on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the
impugned judgment dated 09.10.2006, held A1 guilty of the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of
the PC Act and accordingly, sentenced him under Section 248(2)
Cr.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two
years and to fine of ₹15,000/- under Section 13(2) of the PC Act
and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment
for six months and to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one
year and fine of ₹5,000/- under Section 7 of the PC Act and in
default, to undergo SI for a period of three months. A2 has been
acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. of the offences charged
against him. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
Aggrieved, A1 has preferred the present appeal.
11. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
appellant/A1 pointed out that the alleged demand was made on
16.03.1996 and Ext. PW6/A complaint was made on 18.03.1996.
But the TLO had not conducted any sort of verification with
respect to the demand alleged to have been made by the accused.
Reliance was placed on the dictum in Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi v
State of Andhra Pradesh (2024) 10 SCC 489 to canvass the point
that the factum of demand by public servant before laying the trap
should be verified by recording telephonic conversation between
the decoy and suspect. It was submitted that, PW8 when examined
deposed that, an initial demand of ₹10,000 was made by both the
accused persons which was later settled at ₹2,000. However, the
prosecution case is that only a demand of ₹ 5,000 was made.
Further, PW8 deposed that the money was paid to A2, whereas the
prosecution case is that the money had been paid to A1.
11.1. It was further submitted that, as per the testimony of
PW6, the panch witness, at the time of the acceptance of bribe, he
was not present in the shop of PW8, as he had gone to attend the
call of nature and it was only upon his return that PW8 informed
him that the money had been paid. Thus, the testimony of PW6 is
purely hearsay insofar as the alleged acceptance is concerned, and
he is not an eye witness to the transaction. Further, as per PW10,
the Trap Laying Officer (TLO), it was PW6 who informed him
that PW8 had given the money to the accused. There is no
independent witness to the alleged acceptance of bribe. Therefore,
the prosecution has failed to prove either the demand or the
acceptance of the bribe by the accused. It was further submitted
that the trial court acquitted A2 by extending the benefit of doubt
on the ground that the evidence against him was not sufficient
enough to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, but at the same
time used the same evidence to convict A1/the appellant. As the
demand and acceptance have not been proved, the statutory
presumption contemplated under Section 20 of the PC Act cannot
be invoked against A1/ the appellant, goes the argument.
12. Per Contra, it was submitted by the Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State that the impugned judgment
does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this
court as the trial court has duly considered each and every ground
raised in the present appeal and, upon an overall appreciation of
the materials on record, adjudicated the matter on merits. It was
further submitted that the essential ingredients of demand and
acceptance of illegal gratification stand established primarily
through testimony of PW8.
13. Heard both sides and perused the records.
14. The only point that arises for consideration in the present
appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the impugned judgment
calling for an interference by this Court.
15. I shall first briefly refer to the evidence on record relied
on by the prosecution in support of the case. The initial demand in
this case is alleged to have taken place on 16.03.1996 and the trap
laid on 18.03.1996. PW8 submitted a written complaint, that is,
Exhibit PW6/A on 18.03.1996 in the office of the Anti-Corruption
Branch in which he has stated thus:- "...I reside at the above-
mentioned address and run an STD PCO shop at shop no. 14, A-I
Market, Lawrence Road. On the roof of this shop, I had a 'parda
boundary' (partition wall) built for quite some time. On 16.3.96 at
around 4:00 PM, a man who identified himself as G.S. Parwani,
along with another man whose name I do not know, arrived at my
shop on a scooter (No. DDN 2710, Make LML Vespa, grey color).
He stated that he is a J.E. in the DDA and the other person is his
colleague. Pointing towards the partition wall on the roof, the J.E.
said, "You have not taken permission for this and we will demolish
it." I replied that this is just a partition wall and not a room etc., so
permission is not required. At this, he said, "You will have to pay
at least five thousand rupees." I told him that I cannot give that
much money, you may go ahead and demolish it. Upon this, the
J.E. said, "Fine, give only two thousand rupees". I said that I do
not have the money at this time, come and collect it later. On this,
G.S. Parwani said, "Fine, we will come this Monday, on 18.3.96,
between 11:00 AM and 1:00 PM." The man who came with the
J.E. said that "if Parwani Sahib cannot come, I will come, you
keep the money ready." I am against giving or taking bribes, but I
have agreed out of compulsion. I have no personal enmity or
dealings with the J.E. or his companion. I have brought two
thousand rupees with me; appropriate action should be taken."
15.1. PW8 when examined before the trial court reiterated his
case given in Exhibit PW6/A and further deposed that after
lodging the complaint he handed over the said currency notes to
the raid officer, who recorded their serial numbers in the pre-raid
report marked as Ex.PW6/B. PW8 deposed regarding the pre-trap
formalities. According to him, PW6, the panch witness, was
directed by the TLO to overhear the conversation between him and
the accused persons, and after being satisfied that the bribe had
actually been given, PW6 was to give a signal to the raiding party
by moving his hand over his head. PW8 deposed that he, along
with PW6, PW10, the TLO, and other members of the raiding
party, left the Anti-Corruption Branch at about 10:40 a.m. and
reached Lawrence Road at shop no. 14 at about 11:00 a.m. He,
along with PW6, entered the shop, while the other members of the
raiding party remained outdoor and took their respective positions.
At about 12:00 noon, both the accused persons arrived on a two-
wheeler scooter. The first accused remained standing outside the
shop, while the second accused entered the shop and asked PW8 to
give the bribe amount as settled on the previous day. On his
demand, PW8 handed over the treated currency notes to the second
accused by taking them out from his shirt pocket and placing them
in the right hand of the latter. PW8 further deposed that he was not
sure whether the bribe amount was given in the name of A2.
Thereafter, PW6 went outside the shop and gave the pre-
determined signal to the raiding party, upon which the raiding
party entered the shop and introduced themselves. Thereafter, the
search of A2 was conducted by the officials of the Anti-Corruption
Branch, and the treated currency notes were recovered from the
pocket of the former.
15.2. PW8 further deposed that serial numbers of the
recovered currency notes confirmed with those mentioned in
Ex.PW6/B pre raid report and the recovered currency notes were
seized vide Ex.PW6/D, seizure memo. Thereafter, the right-hand
wash of the accused was taken in a solution, which turned pink.
The solution was transferred into two clean bottles, duly sealed,
with paper slips affixed thereon. He as well as PW6 signed on the
same. The pocket wash of the shirt of the accused was also taken,
which similarly turned pink and the wash was transferred into
sealed bottles. The shirt of the accused was converted into a
pullanda and all the material objects along with the pullanda were
seized vide Ex.PW6/E, seizure memo duly signed by him. At this
juncture, the prosecutor sought the permission of the trial court to
"cross-examine" PW8 on the ground that he was resiling from his
previous statement. The request was allowed by the trial court.
15.3. On further examination by the prosecutor, PW8
deposed that that he could not recall whether A1 was a Junior
Engineer or whether A2 was the former's colleague. PW8 denied
having stated to the police that in the presence of PW6, A1 asked
him whether the bribe money had been arranged or not. He denied
having stated to the police that he had some conversation with A1
and then handed over the treated currency notes to the latter, who
received it with his right hand and kept it in the left pocket of his
shirt. PW8 further deposed that at the time of delivery of the bribe
amount, the accused persons had told him that they were doing his
work for a small amount and that normally they charge ₹10,000/-.
PW8 deposed that he cannot recall whether he had mentioned in
his complaint that the initial demand was ₹5,000/-. He could not
recall the person from whom the bribe money had been seized.
15.4. PW8 denied the suggestion that he had given the bribe
money to A1; or that the money was recovered from the shirt
pocket of A1 or that the wash of the pocket of the shirt of A1 was
taken along with his right-hand wash in a solution of sodium
carbonate.
15.5. PW8, in his cross examination, deposed that he had
seen Ex. PW6/A complaint, which is not in his handwriting. He
had not read the said complaint before signing it; however, he had
heard the contents of the complaint. He could not recall the name
of the officer who had recorded the Ex. PW6/A complaint. He was
unable to recall whether the panch witness (PW6) had arrived at
the Anti-Corruption Branch before the complaint was written or
thereafter. According to PW8, he had told the Inspector in his
complaint that both the accused persons had demanded ₹10,000/-
from him.PW8 admitted that he had got P.K. Sharma, JE, and K.C.
Verma, JE of DDA trapped in RC No. 68A/94, DLI. PW8 deposed
that he was unable to recall whether he was the complainant in
another trap case, namely, RC No. 13A/97/(CBI versus Anil
Kumar Gupta, JE, DVB).
16. PW6, Panch witness, deposed that in March 1996, he
was posted in the Minor Irrigation Division, Flood Control Dept.,
Shastri Nagar, Delhi. On 18.03.1996, he was called to the Anti-
Corruption Branch at about 8:00 a.m. or 8:30 a.m. In his presence,
the complaint of PW8 was recorded. PW6further deposed about
the pre-trap proceedings. He deposed that he had been instructed
by the TLO to give a signal by placing his hand over his head after
receipt of the bribe and to overhear the conversation between PW8
and the accused. The tainted currency notes were handed over to
PW8. He further deposed that by about 10:15 to 10:30 a.m., he and
PW8 along with PW10, the TLO, and team left the office and
reached Lawrence Road Market by about 11:00 to 11:15 a.m. The
vehicle was parked approximately 200 to 250 yards away from the
PW8's shop. He and PW8 proceeded to the shop of the former,
while the remaining officials, including the TLO, stayed nearby in
the market. He and PW8 sat inside the shop. They waited for about
15 to 20 minutes. He then told PW8 that the appointed time had
passed and enquired how much longer he would have to wait,
having arrived early in the morning. PW6 further deposed that
after waiting for a further 10 to 15 minutes, he sought the
permission of the Inspector to go and attend the call of nature.
When he returned to PW8's shop, the seat earlier occupied by him
was seen taken by someone else. After waiting for some time,
when he was about to leave, PW8 informed him that the persons
had arrived and that the bribe money had already been given to
them. On enquiry as to who the persons were, PW8 pointed to A1.
16.1. PW6 further deposed that he, thereafter came out of
PW8's shop and gave the signal agreed to earlier, upon which the
police team immediately reached the spot and enquired as to who
had taken the money and so he pointed towards A1, who was then
surrounded by the trap team. Thereafter, the post trap formalities
were completed. At this juncture, the prosecutor sought the
permission of the trial court to "cross-examine" the witness. The
request was allowed by the trial court.
16.2. On further examination by the prosecutor, PW6 denied
having stated to the police that both the accused persons had
arrived on a two-wheeler scooter bearing registration number
DDN-2710, LML Vespa; or that when A1 asked for money, PW8
had taken out the money from his pocket and enquired whether
any other officer would harass him with another complaint and
what he should do in such a situation, to which A1 replied that he
was responsible for the state of affairs till that date only and that he
would not take responsibility for the future; or that he heard A1
telling PW8 that the former was doing the work for less money or
that he had seen A1 accepting the money with his right hand and
keeping it in the upper pocket of his shirt. PW6 denied having
stated to the police that he thereafter came outside and gave signal
to PW10 or that he had told PW10 that A1 had received the bribe.
However, he admitted that A1 was searched in his presence and
that ₹2,000 was recovered from the latter's pocket and that the
right-hand wash of A1 and the wash of the pocket of the shirt worn
by A1 were taken in a colourless solution of sodium carbonate,
which turned pink.
16.3. PW6 in his cross examination deposed that the
transaction of giving and taking money did not take place in his
presence. He, however denied the suggestion that the recovery of
the tainted money was not effected in his presence. PW6 also
denied the suggestion that the recovery memo was prepared
subsequently at the Anti-Corruption Branch or that his signatures
had been obtained at a later point of time.
17. PW-10, Inspector, Anti-Crime Branch, deposed that on
18.03.1996, PW8 came to his office at about 10:00 a.m. and got
his complaint recorded in the presence of PW6, panch witness.
PW10 further deposed regarding the pre-trap formalities
completed. He instructed PW6 and PW8 to remain close to each
other so that the conversation and transaction could be heard and
seen by PW6. PW6 was further directed to give a signal by
'hurling' his hand over his head upon receipt of the bribe.
18. PW10 further deposed that by about 1:00 p.m., both the
accused persons arrived at the spot on a two wheeler scooter,
parked it, and entered the PW8's shop. After 2 to 3 minutes, PW6
gave the pre-determined signal, upon which he along with the
raiding party immediately entered the shop. PW6 informed him
that PW8 had handed over the treated currency notes to A1, who
had kept them in his shirt pocket. PW10 disclosed his identity and
challenged the accused for having accepted bribe of ₹2,000. On
searching A1, the treated currency notes were recovered from the
latter's shirt pocket. The serial numbers of the recovered notes
tallied with those recorded in Ex. PW 6/B pre raid report and
found correct, where upon the notes were seized vide Ex. PW 6/D
memo. PW 10 further deposed that the right hand wash of A1was
taken in sodium carbonate solution, which turned pink, and then
the shirt pocket wash was also taken separately. He further
deposed that Inspector Ramesh was called to the spot, and the
custody of both the accused persons, the recovered currency notes,
exhibits, the pullanda of the shirt along with seizure memos and
other relevant documents handed over.
18.1. PW10 in his cross examination deposed that he is
unaware whether on the complaint of PW8 raids had been
conducted against other public servants through the Anti-
Corruption Branch or the CBI. According to PW10, the raiding
party waited near the spot for about two hours for the arrival of the
accused persons and that during the said period neither PW6 nor
PW8 had requested him to close the raid proceedings.
19. PW1, Engineer Member, DDA, Delhi Vikas Sadan,
deposed that he perused the documents relating to A1 and
accorded sanction to prosecute the latter. The Sanction Order is
marked as Ex. PW 1/A.
20. PW2, Superintending Engineer, Civil Circle I, DDA,
deposed that after perusal of the record relating to A2, who was
working in a subordinate capacity to A1 in the Commercial Estate
Branch, he accorded sanction to prosecute the latter. The sanction
order has been marked as Ex. PW 2/A.
21. The testimony of the aforesaid witnesses is mainly relied
on by the prosecution to prove the demand and acceptance of the
bribe by A1, the appellant herein.
22. As can be seen from the materials on record, the definite
prosecution case is that it was A1, in the presence of A2 who
demanded the money from PW8 and thereafter received it from the
latter. However PW8, who had given the Ext. PW6/A complaint,
when examined deposed that, it was actually A2 who had received
the money from him. But PW6, the panch witness, who was
supposed to have been present throughout the transaction, does not
support the version of PW8. On the other hand, he deposed that he
was not physically present at the time when PW8 had handed over
the money to the accused. According to PW6, he had gone to
attend the call of nature and when he returned to the shop of PW8,
the latter told him that the money had been given to A1. Therefore,
the version of PW8 and PW6 are inconsistent. Apart from the
testimony of PW8 and PW6, there is only the testimony of PW10,
the TLO, who did not actually witness the acceptance of the bribe
by either A1 or A2. He was the Officer who had completed the
formalities before and after the trap.
23. It was further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellant/A1 that when PW8 gave PW6/A
complaint, the authorities should have verified the same to
ascertain whether the complaint was genuine. Relying on the
dictum in Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi, v. State of Andhra Pradesh,
2024 (10) SCC 489, it was submitted that the TLO ought to have
made efforts to verify the factum of demand by the public servant,
namely, A1, before laying the trap by recording a telephonic
conversation between the decoy and the suspect. It is true that no
such attempt was made in the case on hand. However, in all cases
the non-recording of the conversation would not be fatal to the
prosecution case. If the other materials on record are creditworthy
and reliable, there would be no bar in the court on relying on the
same for arriving at a conclusion regarding the guilt of the
accused. However, in this case as noticed earlier, the testimony of
PW8 and PW6 is quite unsatisfactory. The argument that some
verification of the complaint ought to have been done by the TLO,
appears justified, taking into account the subsequent events that
have transpired in this case. PW8 and PW6 do not support the
prosecution case, which raises doubts in the mind of the Court
regarding the prosecution case. In fact, the trial court found that
PW8 was deliberately deposing falsehood and hence proceeded to
take proceedings against him under Section 344 Cr.P.C. The trial
court acquitted A2 by giving him the benefit of doubt. But quite
interestingly, convicted A1, relying on the very same evidence,
which was found unsatisfactory as far as A2 was concerned. It is
true that merely because PW8 had given a few other complaints
against public servants, is not a sole ground to disbelieve his
testimony. But the said conduct read with his testimony in Court,
does raise suspicions in the mind of the Court, regarding his actual
intention. That being the position, I find that the trial court went
wrong in relying on the unsatisfactory evidence on record, relied
on by the prosecution to prove the case. In these circumstances, I
find that the appellant/ A1 is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
24. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned
judgment by which A1/appellant has been convicted and sentenced
for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the PC Act is set
aside. The accused is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. of all
the offences charged against him. He shall be set at liberty and his
bail bond shall stand cancelled.
25. Applications, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 10, 2026/ABP
