Mahender Prasad vs State (C.B.I)
2026 Latest Caselaw 1511 Del

Delhi High Court

Mahender Prasad vs State (C.B.I) on 17 March, 2026

                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          %                                 Judgment Reserved on: 12.02.2026
                                                            Judgment pronounced on: 17.03.2026
                          +      CRL.A. 207/2006
                                 MAHENDER PRASAD                                  .....Appellant
                                                   Through:      Ms. Riya Kumar, Advocate

                                                   versus

                                 STATE (C.B.I)                                    .....Respondent
                                                   Through:      Mr. Kamal Kant Goel, SPP for CBI
                                                                 with Ms. Jyoti Goel, Advocate

                                                   JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. This appeal under Section 374of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the sole accused

in C.C.No.48/2003 on the file of the Court of Special Judge,

Delhi, challenging the conviction entered and sentence passed

against him for the offences punishable under Section 7 and

Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (the PC Act).

2. The prosecution case is that on 05.02.2003 at about

02.20 PM, the accused, a public servant, while working as

Malaria Inspector in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi

(MCD), demanded and accepted a sum of ₹500/- from PW4 as

illegal gratification for not prosecuting him for maintaining his

dhaba in an unhygienic and unclean condition, and thereby

committed offences punishable under Section 7 and Section

13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.

3. On 05.02.2003, PW4 lodged a complaint, that is, Ext.

PW4/A, with the S.P., Anti-Corruption Branch, CBI, New

Delhi, based on which crime, RCDAI-2003-A-0009, that is,

Ext. PW9/A FIR was registered alleging commission of the

offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act.

4. PW10, Sub-Inspector (SI), Anti-Corruption Branch,

CBI, New Delhi, conducted investigation into the crime and on

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

alleging commission of the offences punishable under the

Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act.

5. Ext. PW5/A sanction order for prosecuting the accused

was accorded by PW5, the then Additional Commissioner

(Health), MCD.

6. When the accused on receipt of summons appeared

before the trial court, the trial court after complying with the

formality contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C, on

21.01.2004, framed a charge against the accused for the

offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with

13(1)(d) of the PC Act, which was read over and explained to

the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.

7. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW10 were

examined and Ext.PW1/A, Ext.PW2/A - H, Ext.PW3/A - H,

PW4/A, PW4/DA, PW5/A, PW6/A - D, PW7/A, PW7/A-1,

PW7/B, PW8/A - C, PW8/DA, PW9/A, PW10/A-B were

marked in support of the prosecution case.

8. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused

was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the

incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the

evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied all those

circumstances and maintained his innocence. The accused

submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the present case

and that even after the trap proceedings, PW4 approached him

and demanded money in order to hush up the matter. Upon his

refusal to comply with such demand, PW4 threatened him and

subsequently lodged another false complaint against him, which

was referred to the police but was ultimately closed as untraced.

The accused also submitted that PW4 had again threatened him,

in the presence of certain staff members of MCD Boys Primary

School at Jafarpur Kalan, stating that the latter would ensure

that the accused is put behind bars if he refused to pay the

demanded money.

9. On behalf of the accused persons, DWs. 1 and 2 were

examined.

10. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence

on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide

judgment dated 08.03.2006, held the accused guilty for the

offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read

with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Vide order on sentence

dated 10.03.2006, the accused was sentenced to rigorous

imprisonment for two years along with fine of ₹10,000/- under

Section 7 of the PC Act, and in default of payment of fine to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to rigorous

imprisonment for three years along with fine of ₹15,000/- under

Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, and in

default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

three months. The substantive sentence of imprisonment have

been directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved, the accused has

preferred the present appeal.

11. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused

submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish that there

was any prior demand for the bribe as a motive or reward for

performing or not performing any specific official act. The

prosecution has failed to establish that the presence of the

accused at the dhaba was solely for the purpose of receiving the

bribe amount. On the other hand, it is quite probable that the

accused must have visited the premises as part of his duty of

inspecting or evaluating the hygienic condition of the dhaba,

having regard to the position held by him.

11.1. It was also submitted that Ext. PW2/G

transcription does not disclose any demand of money made by

the accused. On the contrary, it indicates that PW4 was

persistently insisting that the appellant receive the money. The

learned counsel further submitted that the panch witnesses

examined in the case are stock witnesses of the CBI and the

testimony of PW2, the shadow witness, does not inspire

confidence as his version does not corroborate either Ext.

PW2/G transcription or the testimony of PW4. In this regard, it

was pointed out that PW2 has stated in his cross examination

that PW4 had a conversation with the appellant for about 25

minutes, which is not reflected in Ext. PW2/G transcription

relied upon by the prosecution.

12. Per Contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor

submitted that the foundational facts necessary to substantiate

the prosecution case stand duly proved. The prosecution case is

proved by the materials on record. There are only minor

inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses which are not

in any way material and has in no way affected the prosecution

case. There is no infirmity calling for an interference by this

Court.

13. Heard both sides and perused the materials on record.

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 refer to the evidence on record relied on by

the prosecution in support of the case. PW4, in Ext. PW4/A

complaint dated 05.02.2003 based on which the crime was

registered, has stated thus:- "... for the past three months, I have

been running a rented dhaba named Mahalaxmi at Main Rawta

Mod (near Jafarpur Kalan village).On the afternoon of

04.02.2003, Shri Mahendra Sharma came to my dhaba and,

after inspecting the hotel's water tank, etc., started saying that

there is a lot of filth in the hotel. Therefore, a challan will have

to be issued. When I pleaded with Shri Mahendra Sharma that

there is no dirt in the hotel because it has only been open for

three months, Shri Mahendra Sharma stated that he would

refrain from issuing the challan on only one condition: if I keep

giving him ₹600/- every three months as a bribe. Then he will

never issue a challan for my hotel. When I told Mahendra

Sharma that the income from my hotel is very low, Mahendra

Sharma reduced the bribe amount to ₹500/- every three months

and said that he will personally come to my hotel on the evening

of 05.02.2003 to collect ₹500/-. Mahendra Sharma also

threatened that if I fail to pay the said money, he will issue a

challan and seal the hotel. I do not wish to give bribe to Shri

Mahendra Sharma. Please take legal action..."

16. PW4 when examined before the trial court stood by his

case in Ext. PW4/A complaint. PW4 deposed that on

03.02.2003, he went to the CBI office at about 10.00 A.M.

along with Ex. PW4/A written complaint and met the

Superintendent of Police, Anurag Garg. After reading the

complaint, the Superintendent of Police, directed PW9, the Trap

Laying Officer (the TLO) to take necessary action on the

complaint. PW4 deposed regarding the pre-trap proceedings.

PW4 also deposed that a pen type tape recording instrument was

placed in his left shirt pocket to record any conversation that

might take place at the spot. PW2, the shadow witness, was

directed to stay with him and PW3, the recovery witness, to be

with the raiding party. The raiding party left the CBI office at

about 12.30 P.M. and reached Rawta More, Jaffarpur Kalan at

about 2.00 P.M. They got down from the vehicle at a distance of

about half a kilometre from PW4's dhaba. Then he along with

PW2 proceeded towards the dhaba, while the remaining

members of the trap party followed them on foot. According to

PW4, when he reached the dhaba, the accused was already

sitting outside on a chair. He switched on the tape-recording

instrument and called the accused inside the dhaba. The accused

demanded ₹500/- and so he took out the treated currency notes

from his pant pocket and handed it over to the accused who

received it and put in the left pocket of his shirt. In the

meantime, PW2, who had been sitting beside him and hearing

the conversation, went outside and gave the predetermined

signal to the raiding party. Soon thereafter, when the accused

was leaving, PW9, after disclosing his identity apprehended the

accused for accepting the bribe. PW4 further deposed that the

accused admitted having taken the money from him. He also

deposed that the hand wash of the accused turned pink. PW4

further deposed regarding the post-trap formalities. PW4 stood

by his case in the cross-examination.

17. PW2, the shadow witness and PW3, the recovery

witness fully supported the prosecution case.

18. PW8, Scientific Officer, CFSL deposed that his

examination showed that the questioned voice in the audio

recording matched the specimen voice sample of the accused.

19. PW10, the Investigating Officer deposed regarding the

various steps taken during investigation.

20. I also make a brief reference to the defence evidence.

DW1 deposed that the accused was his superior officer during the

period January-February 2003. According to DW1, PW4 had come

to their office on 01.02.2003 to invite the accused to the birthday

party of the former's son scheduled on 05.02.2003. PW4 again

visited the office on 05.02.2003 in the morning and requested the

accused to come to his dhaba at about 02.00 PM. DW1 further

deposed that since the officials had gone for site inspection on

official duty, the accused later proceeded alone to the PW4's

dhaba and at about 01.45 PM, a person from PW4's side came and

took the accused to the dhaba. He further deposed that in the

evening they came to know that the accused had been implicated

in a trap case. DW1 further deposed that the accused joined duty

on 13.02.2003 and on that day at about 10.00 AM, PW4 came to

their office and demanded a sum of ₹70,000/- from the accused for

changing his statement, but the accused refused to make any

payment. PW4 again approached the accused after about an hour

and demanded ₹ 60,000/-, stating that the matter would be settled

through his uncle, but the accused again refused to accede to the

demand.

21. DW2, another witness, spoke in the same line as DW1.

22. The question is whether the prosecution has established

the foundational facts of demand and acceptance of bribe or

whether the accused has been able to rebut the presumption

contained under Section 20 of the PC Act. Section 20 says that

where in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7 or

Section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) to sub-Section 1 of Section

13, it is proved that an accused has accepted or obtained or has

agreed to accept or attempt to obtain for himself or for any other

person any gratification or any valuable thing from any person,

it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved, that he

accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain

that gratification or that valuable thing as the case may be, as a

motive or reward as is mentioned in Section 7 or as the case

may be without consideration, or for a consideration which he

knows to be inadequate. However, Section 20 will come into

play only when the foundational facts are established by the

prosecution.

23. Here the testimony of PW4 read along with the

testimony of the other prosecution witnesses clearly establish

the prosecution case. Though the witnesses are seen extensively

cross examined, nothing was brought out to disbelieve or

discredit their testimony. That being the position, it can only be

held that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the

demand and acceptance of the bribe. In such circumstances,

Section 20 of the Act is attracted. The defence evidence led by

the accused instead of helping the accused to disprove the

prosecution case has all the more substantiated the prosecution

case. If DW1 and DW2 are to be believed, PW4 after the

incident had approached the accused twice and demanded

money for changing his prior statement. What is the prior

statement of PW4? The statement is apparently one supporting

the prosecution case. The testimony of DW1 and DW2 read

along with the testimony of the prosecution witnesses has

proved, beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution case which I

find no reason(s) to disbelieve.

24. In the light of the materials on record, I find no

infirmity in the impugned judgement calling for an interference

by this court.

25. In the result, the appeal, sans merit, is dismissed.

26. Application(s), if any, pending shall stand closed.

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA (JUDGE) MARCH 17, 2026 kd