[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court

V.K.Gupta vs State (C.B.I.) on 17 February, 2026

                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          %                                 Judgment Reserved on: 11.02.2026
                                                            Judgment pronounced on: 17.02.2026
                          +      CRL.A. 672/2003
                                 V.K.GUPTA
                                                                                  .....Appellant
                                                   Through: Mr. Lovkesh Sawhney, Senior Advocate
                                                            with Mr. Hari Kishan, Mr. Rohit Kumar
                                                            and Mr. Kartik Dhingra, Advocates.

                                                   versus

                                 STATE (C.B.I.)
                                                                          .....Respondent
                                                    Through: Mr. Atul Guleria, SPP with Mr.Aryan
                                                             Rakesh and Ms. Atreyi Chattrjee,
                                                             Advocates.
                                                             SI Vivek Chahar, PS - Lodhi Colony.

                                                   JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. In this appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. 1973 (the Cr.P.C), the sole accused in CC No.

101/1998 on the file of the Special Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi,

assails the judgment dated 12.09.2003 and order on sentence dated

16.09.2003 as per which he has been convicted and sentenced for

the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (the PC Act).

2. The prosecution case is that the accused while posted

as Inspector at the Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB), Green Park office

demanded an illegal gratification of ₹5,000/- from PW4

on10.06.1998 to be paid on 11.06.1998 for expediting the

inspection report which was pending with the accused in relation

to electricity connection applied by PW4's father for his

residence.As per the chargesheet/ final report dated 10.06.1998,

the accused was alleged to have committed the offences

punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section

13(2) of the PC Act.

3. On 10.06.1998 PW4 lodged a complaint, i.e., Exhibit

PW4/A with the Anti-Corruption Branch, CBI, Delhi, based on

which crime, RC No. 32(A)/98-CBI/ACB/DLI, i.e., Exhibit

PW7/B was registered alleging commission of offences punishable

under Sections 7 of the PC Act.

4. PW7 conducted investigation into the crime and on

completion of the same, submitted the charge-sheet/ final report

dated 10.06.1998 alleging commission of offences punishable

under the aforementioned sections.

5. Exhibit PW2/A sanction order dated 26.08.1998 for

prosecuting the accused was accorded by PW2, the then Additional

General Manager (Administration), DVB.

6. When the accused on receipt of summons appeared

before the trial court, the Court on 15.11.1999, framed a Charge

against the accused for the offences punishable 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 which he pleaded not

guilty and claimed trial.

7. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 9 were

examined and Exhibits PW1/A, PW2/A, PW4/A-E, PW5/A,

PW/6A-D, PW6/DC, PW7/A-B, PW8/A1-A6 in support of the

case.

8. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the

accusedwas questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the 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. It was stated by the

accused that he had been falsely implicated in the present case.

9. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the

accused.

10. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence

onrecord and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the

impugned judgment dated 12.09.2003, held the accused guilty of

offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act and accordingly

vide order on sentence dated 16.09.2003, sentenced him to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year along with fine of

₹2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to rigorous

imprisonment for a period of 3 months. The accused has been

acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read

with Section 13 of the PC Act. Aggrieved, the accused has

preferred the present appeal.

11. The learned senior counsel appearing for the

appellant/accused submitted that the conviction entered into by the

trial court is contrary to law and the materials placed on record.

Despite PW1 and the other material witnesses examined in the

case failing to identify the accused, the trial Court erroneously

proceeded to convict the accused. Hence, the judgment is liable to

be set aside.

12. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment

calling for an interference by this Court.

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. The initial demand in this case is alleged to have been

made on 10.06.1998 and the trap was laid on 11.06.1998. In

Exhibit PW4/A complaint dated 10.06.1998 PW4 has stated thus -

" ... my father had applied for an electric domestic connection for house no. 33 Hauz Khaz Village in November 1997. The finalisation of the electric connection is pending with Sh. V.K Gupta Inspector (DVB) Delhi Vidyut Board having office at Green Park. In connection with the above said matter I contacted Sh. V.K Gupta in his office on 10.06.1998 requested to expedite the site report pending with him (Sh. V.K Gupta). On this Sh. V.K Gupta demanded an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as bribe and directed me to pay the amount on 11.06.1998 at his office in forenoon session. I have been able to arrange only 3000/-. I do not want to pay the bribe to Sh. V.K Gupta. I request you to take necessary action against Sh. V.K Gupta."

(Emphasis supplied)

16. PW4 when examined before the Court failed to identify

the accused. He deposed that in June 1998, his father had applied

for domestic electric connection. Based on the application, the

officials of DVB, were required to inspect the premises. However,

they did not inspect the site, but made a report that at the time

oftheir visit, the premises, was found locked. On 10.06.1998, he

went to the office of DVB, situated at Green Park, Delhi and met

one Gupta, Inspector, DVB to find out the fate of the application.

When PW1 was asked to identify the accused, he deposed that he

cannot say whether the accused the said Gupta. When PW4 did not

support the prosecution case, the prosecutor sought permission of

the court to "cross-examine" the witness, which request was

allowed. On further examination by the prosecutor also, he did not

identify the accused. The relevant portion of the testimony reads

thus-

"......I do not recollect therefore, I cannot identify the accused V K. Gupta present in Court as the same Inspector Gupta who demanded and accepted bribe. It is incorrect to suggest that I deliberately declining to identify the accused in order to save him......."

16.1. PW5, one of the Panch witnesses, also does not support

the prosecution case. He deposed that he alongwith PW6, the other

Panch witness; PW4 and the raiding party proceeded to the office

of Delhi Vidyut Board. After reaching the office, PW4 alongwith

PW6 was asked to contact the accused. He alongwith the other

members of the trap party did not enter the office of the accused.

He alongwith the other members of the trap party took position at a

distance of about 20 pacesfrom the office of the accused. About

five minutes later, accused V. K. Gupta arrived at his office. PW5

deposed thus-

".....accused present in court appears to be the same person, but at that time, he was wearing pant and coat...... "

The prosecutor then sought the permission of the trial court

to "cross-examine" the witness, which request was allowed by the

trial court and on further examination, PW5 deposed that he had

not seen PW4 giving the money to the accused.

16.2. PW6, the other Panch witness, deposed that no money

was given by PW4 in his presence to the accused. On the other

hand, he deposed that by about 9:00 to 9:30P.M., he alongwith the

other members of the raiding team left for the office of the

accused. PW4 was directed to go inside the office of the accused.

PW6 further deposed that he had followed PW4 also into the office

of the accused but he did not meet the suspect there. The testimony

of PW6 on this aspect reads thus-

".....complainant was directed to went inside the DESU office to see the accused and I followed him at 2 or 3 steps. Suspect was not met there. He came after half an hour. No conversation took place between the complainant and accused in my presence. No bribe was also given to suspect in my presence. After giving the bribe amount, complainant came out on the road and told that he had given the bribe amount. ......"

(Emphasis supplied)

The prosecutor then sought the permission of the trial court

to "cross-examine", which request was allowed by the trial court

and on further examination, PW6 again denied that the money had

been given by PW4 to the accused in his presence.

17. In the light of the aforesaid testimony of PW4, PW5

and PW6, it can only be held that the trial court went wrong in

finding the accused guilty of the offence charged against him.

When PW4 himself is not sure as to whether the accused and

Gupta, Inspector, DVB is one and the same person, it can only be

held that prosecution has failed in establishing the case beyond

reasonable doubt.