[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Bhoop Singh vs State C.B.I on 29 January, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 22.01.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 29.01.2026
+ CRL.A. 582/2003
BHOOP SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Yudhishtar kahol, Mr. Kunal
Kahol and Mr. Birender Singh,
Advocates.
versus
STATE C.B.I. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Atul Guleria, SPP for CBI with
Mr.Aryan Rakesh and Ms. Atreyi C.,
Advs for CBI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the accused in
C.C.No.130/2001 on the file of the Court of Special Judge, Tiz
Hazari Court challenging the conviction entered and sentence
passed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 7
and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (the PC Act).
2. The prosecution case is that on 22.04.1996, the accused,
while working as Sub Inspector, Delhi Police and posted at Ashok
Vihar Police Station, demanded illegal gratification of ₹2,000 /-
from PW4, for favouring him in Crime No. 204/96, which crime
was being investigated by the accused.
3. On 22.04.1996, PW4 lodged a complaint, that is, Ext.
PW10/A with the Anti-Corruption Branch, CBI, Delhi, based on
which crime, RC No. 37(A)/96-DLI, that is, Ext. PW10/B 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. PW11 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. Ext. PW2/A sanction order for prosecuting the accused was
accorded by PW2, the then Deputy Commissioner of police,
North-West District, Delhi.
6. When the accused on receipt of summons appeared before
the trial court, the Court on 15.09.1997, framed a charge against
the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2)
read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act to which he pleaded not
guilty.
7. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW11 were examined
and Ex. PW-1/A, Ex. PW-2/A, Ex. PW-3/A, Ex. PW-4/A-D, Ex.
PW-4/X, Ex. PW-5/A, Ex. PW-5/B, Ex. PW-5/X, Ex. PW-9/A, Ex.
PW-10A-E, Ex. PW-10/G, Ex. PW-10/H, Mark '2A', Mark 'X'
were marked in support of the case.
8. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused
was questioned under Section 313 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.
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 with 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 21.08.2003, held the accused guilty of
commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2)
read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and accordingly,
sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six
months and to fine of ₹2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to
simple imprisonment for one month and to simple imprisonment
for one year and fine of ₹3,000/- and in default of payment of fine,
to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the aforesaid
offences. The substantive sentences of imprisonment have been
directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved, the accused has preferred
the present appeal.
12. The sole appellant/ accused died on 02.10.20222. The death
certificate has been produced and the death verified by the CBI.
Normally, the substantive sentence of imprisonment will stand
abated on the death of the accused (Section 394(2) Cr.P.C.).
However, if fine is also imposed by the trial court, the sentence
regarding fine will not abate (Section 394(2) Cr.P.C.). In this case,
the appeal does not abate under Section 394(2) Cr.P.C. as the legal
representatives of the appellant have come on record as per order
dated 17.03.2025 in CRL.M.A. 23000/2022 by virtue of the
proviso to Section 394(2) Cr.P.C. Hence, I proceed to consider the
appeal on merits.
13. The learned counsel for the appellant/ accused submitted that
PW4 is a stock witness and that he has initiated about 10 cases,
including 5 cases under the PC Act. PW4 is also an accused in
several criminal cases. He is a habitual litigant, thereby casting
serious doubt on his credibility. Placing reliance on the dictum in
Kedar Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2017 SCC OnLine Del
11875, it was submitted that it was highly improbable/ impossible
for the accused to have thrown the money out of the window when
he is alleged to have been caught red handed receiving the money
from PW4, as according to the prosecution, both his hands had
been held by the Inspector concerned. It was further submitted that
despite the trap proceedings having been laid and executed within
the police station where the accused was performing his official
duties, no entries were made in the Roznamcha, no information
was given to the higher officials and no police personnel present
was examined to prove the prosecution case. Hence, in such
circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove recovery of the
tainted money from the person of the accused and consequently,
the statutory presumption contemplated under Section 20 of the PC
Act is not attracted, goes the argument.
14. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned Special Public
Prosecutor (SPP) for the CBI that the appellant/ accused, in
defence, had also not examined any police personnel present in
police station. It was further submitted that the testimony of PW5
categorically establishes that one of the officers, namely, P. K.
Sharma, holding the hands of the accused, lost his grip, whereupon
the accused managed to throw away the money in his hands.
Regarding the allegation that PW4 is a stock witness, the learned
SPP, placing reliance on the dictum of the Apex Court in State of
U.P. v. Zakaullah, (1998) 1 SCC 557, contended that a witness
does not lose the status of an independent witness merely due to
prior acquaintance with the police or participation in other cases,
unless it is shown otherwise. It was also contended that the
investigation conducted by an unauthorised officer would not
vitiate the proceedings in the absence of any miscarriage of justice
or serious prejudice, as held in Union of India v. T. Nathamuni,
(2014) 16 SCC 285.
15. Heard both sides and perused the records.
16. 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.
17. 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 20.04.1996 and the trap laid
on 23.04.1996. In Exhibit PW10/A complaint dated 22.04.1996,
PW4 has stated thus: -"... FIR No. 204/96 alleging offences under
Sections 323, 325, 34 IPC has been registered against me in Ashok
Vihar Police Station, Delhi on 18.04.1996 and the names of my
father, Raj Kumar Gupta; my elder brother, Jagdish Gupta; and
my uncle, Kishan Kumar, have also been included. On 20.04.1996,
S.I. Bhoop Singh, Ashok Vihar Police Station took my father Raj
Kumar and elder brother Jagdish from our home to the police
station. After questioning, they were released. At that time, S.I.
Bhoop Singh asked my father to send his son Anil (PW4) to the
police station by the evening of 22.04.1996 with ₹2,000/-. Today,
Bhoop Singh called me again on telephone number 7213780. He
told me that just as he had instructed my father on 20.04.1996, I
should go to the police station in the evening with the money; if
not, he would lock up my family members in the jail. I do not wish
to pay any money as bribe. Therefore, I request you to take
appropriate legal action against S.I. Bhoop Singh, Ashok Vihar
Police Station."
17.1. PW4, when examined before the trial court, deposed that, he
was running a provision shop and that a criminal case had earlier
been registered at his instance against certain persons at Ashok
Vihar police station. The investigation in the said case was being
conducted by accused. Thereafter, a counter case was registered
against him and his family members, that is, Crime No. 204/96
alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 323,
325 read with Section 34 IPC. Two days later, on 20.04.1996, the
accused came to his residence and took his father and brother to
Ashok Vihar police station. They were interrogated by the accused
and released on the condition that they sent him a bribe of ₹2,000/-
through PW4 by 22.04.1996. On 22.04.1996, the accused
telephoned him at his residence to demand the money and
threatened to put the entire family behind bars if the demand was
not acceded to by evening. Pursuant to the same, he lodged a
written complaint on 22.04.1996.
17.2. As directed by the officials of the CBI, he spoke to the
accused from telephone no. 7120938. The accused directed him
to bring the amount of ₹2,000/- to the police station on
23.04.1996 by around 1 PM. PW4 was also instructed to take
his uncle and a surety for the purpose of bail. The conversation
between him and the accused over telephone was recorded at
the office of the CBI. On 23.04.1996, he reached the office of
CBI as instructed, where the pre-trap proceedings were
completed by the officials concerned. The currency notes
amounting to ₹2,000/- were treated with phenolphthalein
powder and kept in the left pocket of his shirt. He was
instructed to hand over the money to the accused only when a
specific demand was made. PW5 along with Inspector PK
Sharma were deputed to accompany him and observe the
transaction.
17.3. PW 4 further deposed that thereafter he went to police station
and met the accused in his office. When the accused questioned
the identity of the accompanying individuals by asking, "YEH
KAUN HAIN", he responded by identifying PW5 as the surety
and PK Sharma as a resident of his house. Then the accused
completed the bail formalities. The accused asked him to send
PW5 and PK Sharma out of the room. Before they left the
room, the accused had asked whether he had brought the
money and so PW4 requested the former to reduce the amount.
As directed by the accused, PW5 and PK Sharma went outside
the room and stood at the door which was open. The accused
again demanded the money and so he took the money and
passed it to the accused with his right hand. The accused
accepted the money with his right hand and kept it in the right
pocket of his pant. Immediately, Inspector PK Sharma came
inside the room, identified himself and caught hold of the left
wrist of the accused. PW5 gave the predetermined signal to the
trap party. The accused attempted to free himself but could not
succeed. He then took out the money from the right pocket of
his pant and threw the same out of the window of his office.
PW4 further deposed that by this time, the other members of
the trap team came into the room. PW5 informed them that the
accused had thrown the money outside. Hence, S.K. Peshin
(PW10), DSP, directed Inspector S.R. Singh and PW5 to go
downstairs and fetch the money. Shortly, thereafter, they
returned with a boy named Iqbal (PW3) who was in possession
of the currency notes. Iqbal (PW3) said that he had come as
surety to the police station and was waiting outside the police
station and that he had picked up the currency notes when he
saw them falling out of the window. PW 4 further deposed that
the right hand wash of the accused as well as the wash of the
right side pant pocket of the accused turned pink. He also stated
that the hand wash of Iqbal Ahmed (PW3) similarly turned
pink. The relevant washes were sealed and seized and signed
by the panch witnesses and the formalities completed. The
audio cassette in which the telephonic conversation between
PW4 and the accused recorded in the office of the CBI, was
played during trial. The voice was identified as that of the
accused and the same was marked as Ext. PW4/X.
17.4. In the cross examination, PW4 admitted that there were
criminal cases pending against him. He admitted that he was
part of multiple criminal and civil disputes including
complaints against public servants under the PC Act. PW4
denied all suggestions of false implication and stood by his
version regarding demand, acceptance and recovery.
17.5. PW5, a shadow witness in his examination before the trial
court, supported the prosecution case. PW5 deposed that on
23.04.1996, on the directions of his senior officer, he had gone
to the office of the CBI at about 10:45 AM where PW4 was
present. After completing the pre-trap formalities, they
proceeded to the police station along with PW4; Inspector PK
Sharma and the remaining members of the trap party. On
reaching the police station, he along with PW4 and Inspector
PK Sharma went into the office of the accused and met the
latter. PW5 deposed that after completion of the bail bond
related formalities, the accused demanded money by asking:-
"PAISA LAYE HO" and upon being told that ₹2,000/- had been
brought, accepted the currency with his right hand and kept it
inside the right pocket of his pant. According to PW5, he then
gave the pre-determined signal, whereupon Inspector PK
Sharma apprehended the accused and that during the process,
the accused attempted to free himself and managed to take out
the currency notes from his pant pocket and throw it out of the
window. PW5 further deposed that the currency notes were
recovered from one Iqbal (PW3) who had picked up the notes
on seeing them falling from the window upstairs. During the
course of the chief examination by the prosecutor, permission
was sought to put a leading question to PW5 as to whether
Inspector PK Sharma had caught the accused by his left or right
hand which permission was granted. The question then put
reads:- "Are you sure that Inspector PK Sharma caught hold
the accused from his right wrist and not from his left wrist?
Ans:- I am definite that Inspector PK Sharma caught hold of
the accused from his right wrist." At this juncture, the
prosecutor is seen to have sought the permission of the Court
"to cross-examine" the witness on the ground that he was
resiling from his earlier statement and suppressing the truth.
The request is seen allowed. On further questioning by the
prosecutor, PW5 deposed that he cannot admit or deny and then
added that it would be incorrect to suggest that Inspector PK
Sharma had caught hold of the accused by his left wrist after
disclosing his identity. He further deposed that the accused
could not manage to get his right wrist free from the hold of
Inspector PK Sharma. Only the grip of PK Sharma became
loose at which moment, the accused managed to take out the
tainted money from the right pocket of his pant and throw it out
of the window. He also deposed that during the said process,
the wrist of the accused was in the grip of Inspector PK
Sharma. He also deposed that when DSP, S.K. Peshin (PW10)
challenged the accused, the latter kept mum and did not offer
any explanation.
17.6. PW5 during cross-examination deposed that he does not
remember the exact number of members of the trap party. He
admitted that when they reached the police station, there were
number of police officials as well as members of the public
present in the station. However, none of them were asked to
join as witness in the trap team.
18. PW3 Iqbal Ahmed when examined deposed that on
23.04.1996, at about 2.10 p.m., he along with his mother had
gone to Ashok Vihar Police Station, Delhi, in connection with
the bail of his father. While he was standing downstairs, he
noticed four currency notes of ₹500/- falling down from
upstairs. He picked up the said notes from the ground and
proceeded towards the stairs with the intention of returning the
money to the person concerned. In the meantime, the CBI
officials came downstairs and apprehended him, after which he
was taken to the second floor. One of the officials of the CBI
took the notes from his hand. PW3 further deposed that
thereafter a chemical powder was dissolved in a glass of water
to prepare a colourless solution and he was asked to dip the
fingers of his right hand in the said solution, which turned pink.
PW3 deposed that his right hand wash was transferred into a
clean empty bottle, which was sealed with the seal of the CBI
after covering the mouth of the bottle with a piece of cloth and
an identification labelled fixed thereon. He further deposed that
Ext. PW3, recovery memo, had been prepared at the spot, which
was signed by him and by other witnesses.
19. PW8 another member of the trap team duly supported the
prosecution case in the chief examination. In the cross-
examination, he deposed that there was no tinge of pink colour
or any marking on the right side pocket of the pant of the
accused. The right hand wash of accused was colourless. He
further deposed that he did not see the transaction and he was
told about the same by the shadow witness. PW8 also deposed
that his statement had been recorded by the Trap Laying Officer
(TLO) on his own accord. However, the TLO had narrated the
same to him thereafter. PW8 also deposed that he had been
directed that the TLO to depose in Court in tune with his
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
20. PW9, Senior Scientific Officer, CFSL, New Delhi deposed
that on 13.05.1996, he had received two sealed parcels with the
seals intact. The parcels contained two audio cassettes. One
audio cassette with the recorded conversation which was
marked as 'Q' and the other cassette containing the specimen
voice of the accused, marked 'S'. The voice recorded in the
cassettes were compared by selecting the common words and
taking the spectography with the help of voice spectrograph.
The result of the analysis was that the voice sample marked 'Q'
and the specimen sample marked 'S' are probable voices of the
same speaker. The report of PW9 has been marked as Ext.
PW9/A. In the cross-examination, PW-9 deposed that he had
only compared two sentences in the questioned as well as
specimen recording, which were found common. He has also
mentioned the reasons for his opinion in Ex. PW9/A.
21. PW10, S.K. Peshin, DSP, CBI/ACB/DLI during the year
1996 supported the prosecution case. PW10 deposed that when
the accused took the money from his right hand pocket and
threw it outside the window, S.R. Singh was directed to secure
the right hand of the accused by catching hold of his wrist. Then
two members of the trap team were sent downstairs to collect
the notes which had been thrown by the accused out of the
window. Thereafter, both of them came upstairs accompanied
by Iqbal Ahmed (PW3) who was holding the currency notes in
his left hand palm. Iqbal Ahmed informed them that he had
picked up notes from the ground as he had seen them falling
down from upstairs. PW10 also deposed that the hand wash of
the accused as well as PW3 turned pink. The inner lining of the
pant of the accused also turned pink when it was dipped into the
sodium carbonate solution. In his cross-examination, PW10
deposed that he had heard the telephonic conversation between
PW4 and the accused after the same had been recorded in the
audio cassette. However, he cannot say whether the accused had
demanded the money in that conversation or not. According to
PW10, the same is a matter of record. To a question with
reference to the transcript of the conversation that took place
between the accused and PW4 and when he was asked whether
there was any specific demand for money by the accused, he
replied that there was a reference to the amount by PW4 and not
by the accused. However, the reference to the same has been
made a number of times by PW4 and at only one stage, the
accused had replied "Han". Otherwise, there was no specific
demand made by the accused in the said telephonic
conversation. PW10 also deposed that it was PW4 who had
given the signal from the window of the room of the accused.
22. PW1, Senior Scientific Officer, Grade-I-cum-Assistant
Chemical Examiner, CFSL, deposed that on 01.05.1996, he had
received 3 sealed bottles containing pink colour liquid with
sediments, marked RHW Bhoop Singh; RHW Iqbal and RPPW.
The bottles were received in the office with the seals intact. The
seals tallied with the specimen seal provided. He further
deposed that the contents of the sealed bottles were analyzed by
his Assistant under his supervision and the test for
phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate was positive. His report
has been marked as Ex.PW1/A.
23. Finally, PW11, the Investigating Officer deposed regarding
the various steps that he had taken during the course of
investigation and on completion of the same, had submitted the
charge-sheet/ final report before the Court.
24. The main thrust of the argument by the learned counsel for
the appellant/ accused was that, when the wrist of the accused
had been caught by the Inspector concerned, it was just
impossible for him to have thrown the money out of the
window. Further, referring to the judgment dated 16.11.2017 of
this Court in Kedar Singh v. State NCT of Delhi, CRL.A.
172/2011, it was submitted that the prosecution has failed to
prove the demand and payment of bribe.
25. I have already referred to the testimony of the material
prosecution witnesses in detail. It is true that there are slight
discrepancies in their testimonies. But a whole reading of the
materials on record shows that the discrepancies or
inconsistencies are not quite material, nor has it affected the
prosecution case. Nothing has brought out to discredit or
disbelieve the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. An
important aspect that needs to be noted is that the prosecution
case is not only supported by the official witnesses, but also by
the testimony of PW3, an independent witness. The appellant/
accused has not shown any reason(s) as to why PW3 should
also depose falsehood. PW3 has clearly deposed that he had
seen the currency notes falling down from upstairs and that he
had picked up the same. PW3 also deposed that the hand wash
of the accused had also turned pink when the same was dipped
in the sodium carbonate solution. In such circumstances, I do
not find any materials to doubt or discard the prosecution case.
26. It is true that materials have come on record to show that
several other complaints have been filed by PW4 against other
persons including under the PC Act. As held by the Apex Court
in Zakaullah (supra) that alone is no ground to disbelieve his
witness. PW4 was able to withstand the cross-examination and
nothing was brought out to disbelieve his testimony regarding
the prosecution case.
27. Further, in the light of the dictum in T. Nathamuni (supra),
even if the investigation has been done by an unauthorized
officer, the same alone does not vitiate the entire proceedings
unless it results in miscarriage of justice or has caused prejudice
to the accused. No such miscarriage or prejudice has been
shown to have been caused by the alleged defective
investigation.
28. In the light of the materials on record, I find no scope for
interference into the impugned judgment.
29. In the result, the appeal sans merit is dismissed.
30. Applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 29, 2026
kd/AB
