Babu Ram vs C.B.I.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
rd
Date of reserving Judgment: 03 August, 2026
TH
Date of Decision: 04 November, 2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ CRL.A. 559/2007
BABU RAM .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Pradeep Norula, Mr. Mradul
Prakash Agnihotri, Advs. alongwith
Appellant-in-person.
versus
C.B.I. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Aryan Rakesh, Adv. for Mr. Atul
Guleria, SPP-CBI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV
JUDGMENT
VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J.
1. The present appeal has been initiated by the Appellant assailing the
judgment of conviction dated 29.08.2007 through which the Appellant was
held guilty and convicted under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Act’) and the order on
sentence dated 30.08.2007 through which the Appellant was sentenced to
undergo two and a half years Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for the offence
punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with a
fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further
undergo Simple Imprisonment (SI) for 15 days. The Appellant was also
sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years for the offence
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 559/2007 Page 1 of 27
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:03:05
punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(l)(d) PC Act with a
fine of Rs. 15,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was to further
undergo SI for 30 days, through order on sentence dated 30.08.2007.
2. The brief facts, as borne out from the record, are that the complainant
Satya Prakash (PW-3) approached the CBI with a complaint alleging that the
Appellant, who was working as a JE/Inspector with DVB at Nand Nagri,
had demanded a sum of ₹10,000/- from him in connection with an electricity
theft case pertaining to the premises of his father. The complainant stated
that he was not willing to pay the demanded amount and, accordingly,
approached the CBI. On verification of the complaint, a trap was laid on
19.12.2000. The complainant produced Rs.3,000/- in Government Currency
(‘GC’) notes, which were treated with phenolphthalein powder and their
numbers were duly recorded. Two independent witnesses, namely Shishu
Pal (PW-4) and Edward Toppo (PW-5), were associated with the
proceedings. A tape recorder/micro-cassette recorder was also arranged for
recording the conversation at the spot. The raiding party thereafter
proceeded to the Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking (‘DESU’) office at
Nand Nagri and on arrival the complainant entered the office of the
Appellant while being accompanied by the shadow witness, Shishu Pal
(PW-4).
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the Appellant met the
complainant at the aforementioned location and demanded the money and,
while the complainant was handing over the tainted currency, directed him
to hand over the same to one Ram Kumar, who accepted the money. Upon
the pre-appointed signal being given, the raiding party entered the premises
and Ram Kumar was apprehended. The tainted currency of Rs.3,000/- was
recovered from the right-side pant pocket of Ram Kumar and the recovered
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 559/2007 Page 2 of 27
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:03:05
notes tallied with the numbers recorded during the pre-trap proceedings vide
handing over memo (Ex. PW-3/B). The hand washes of Ram Kumar and the
wash of the inner lining of his right pant pocket were taken which
subsequently tested positive for phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate.
4. The Appellant, however, had escaped from the spot and could not be
apprehended at that time. He was subsequently arrested on 22.12.2000. In
his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as Cr.P.C.), the Appellant denied
the allegations and claimed false implication on account of the electricity
theft proceedings conducted at the premises of the complainat’s father, while
setting up an alibi regarding his presence elsewhere on the date of the
trap.The audio cassettes and the washes were sent to Central Forensic
Science Laboratory (CFSL) for examination. The investigation was
thereafter concluded, culminating in the filing of the chargesheet. It is
pertinent to note that Ram Kumar, who had allegedly actually received the
tainted currency, was discharged by the learned Trial Court at the stage of
framing of charge, whereas charge under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with
Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act was framed against the present Appellant.
5. The prosecution in support of its case, has examined twelve witnesses.
N.P. Singh (PW-1) is the sanctioning authority who proved the sanction
accorded for prosecution of the Appellant. K.S. Chhabra (PW-2) is the
Chemical Examiner from CFSL who examined the three sealed bottles
containing the washes and gave a positive report for the presence of
phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate. Satya Prakash (PW-3) is the
complainant who deposed regarding the demand made by the Appellant, the
pre-trap proceedings, the demand at the spot, the direction given by the
Appellant to hand over the money to Ram Kumar, the subsequent recovery
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 559/2007 Page 3 of 27
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:03:05
and the conversation recorded at the spot. Shishu Pal (PW-4) is the shadow
witness, who accompanied the complainant during the trap and deposed
about the Appellant directing the complainant to hand over the money to
Ram Kumar and about the subsequent receipt of the money by Ram Kumar.
Edward Toppo (PW-5) is the recovery witness who deposed regarding the
apprehension of Ram Kumar and recovery of Rs.3,000/- from his right-side
pant pocket, as also the subsequent wash proceedings. Ranjeet Singh (PW-
8), a neighbour of the complainant, was examined regarding the
circumstances preceding the complaint and was declared hostile during the
course of his examination. Dr. Rajinder Singh (PW-9) is the forensic voice
expert from CFSL who examined the audio cassettes and prepared the
transcription by auditory method. A.K. Malik (PW-11) is the Trap Laying
Officer who deposed regarding the verification of the complaint, pre-trap
proceedings, laying of the trap, apprehension of Ram Kumar, recovery of
the tainted currency and the post-trap proceedings. C.K. Sharma (PW-12) is
the Investigating Officer (‘IO’) who took over the investigation
subsequently, arrested the Appellant, sent the washes and audio cassettes to
CFSL and prepared the transcription of the recorded conversation after
playing the cassettes in the presence of the complainant and the independent
witnesses.
6. At the outset, learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that
this is a case which is based upon the audio recording but there are multiple
transcripts of the audio recording, prepared by the CBI (EX.PW-9/B and Ex.
PW-9/C) and by the FSL (Ex.PW-4/E) and incidentally both of these are at
variance. While elaborating on this, it has been submitted that the transcripts
do not bear the signatures of anyone who could attest or prove its
authenticity. Dr. Rajinder Singh (PW-9), who had prepared the transcript
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 559/2007 Page 4 of 27
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:03:05
and the CFSL report (Ex.PW9/A) has categorically admitted that it was not
prepared by him rather one Ms. Vimmy had prepared it but the said Ms.
Vimmy has also not put her signatures nor has she come to depose. In these
circumstances it is submitted that the transcript goes out of contention as its
veracity remains elusive. Then again, it is contended that which one of the
two transcripts may be relied upon as both of them are different.
7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has also pointed out and argued
that there were two persons who were apprehended in this matter i.e. the
Appellant, Babu Ram and one Mr. Ram Kumar but the said Ram Kumar,
who had received the bribe money, even as per the case of the CBI, was
discharged by the Trial Court. It has been vehemently argued by the learned
counsel for the Appellant that therefore, in these circumstances, when the
Appellant himself had not accepted any money and that he was not arrested
from the spot nor any hand-wash test was carried out about him, the
Appellant could not have been convicted. It has been further argued that
since, the actual recipient and the intermediatory in the transaction has since
been let off by the learned Trial Court thus, the Appellant cannot be held
responsible for any offence. In the absence of corroboration to the testimony
qua the complicity of the Appellant whose identity is not clearly established
either by the complainant, or the Panch witnesses who have categorically
stated that a sum of Rs.3,000/- was recovered from the possession of Ram
Kumar and not from Babu Ram, therefore, in such circumstances, the
impugned judgment is, apparently, not in consonance with the facts and
circumstances and therefore, is liable to be set aside.
8. Learned counsel for the Appellant has further assailed the impugned
judgment on the following grounds:
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 559/2007 Page 5 of 27
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:03:05
a) That there is no clear-cut evidence regarding the taking of the voice
samples or their having matched with the audio recording. Further,
that there is no independent identification of the voice of the
Appellant as has been admitted by the Forensic voice expert, Dr.
Rajinder Singh (PW-9).
b) The sanction was granted without any application of mind, no office
reference or memo number on the sanction order and even no
forwarding letter received from the CBI requesting the sanction.
c) The complainant himself was motivated since the premises of his
father had been raided by the team of DVB wherein he was found to
be committing theft of electricity, and in connection to the same, a bill
was also prepared by DVB- corroborated by PW-6,7,8 and 10.
d) Learned trial court completely ignored the corroborated alibis of the
appellant who collectively deposed, that the appellant was carrying
out inspection of electric lines on 19.12.2000 at Nand Nagri.
e) That the testimonies of the witnesses are replete with contradictions
and improvements, with no corroboration on the vital aspects of the
case under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act. The prosecution has
failed to establish either the demand for bribe or its acceptance, and
the alleged recovery of the bribe amount was not made from the
Appellant, Babu Ram.
f) That the Appellant was not present at the spot, as is evident from the
fact that he could not be arrested on 19.12.2000, when the alleged
transaction took place. Rather, he himself surrendered before the
Court on 22.12.2000.
9. Learned SPP for CBI, on the other hand, came up with the plea that
the fact that the Appellant was not the actual recipient of the bribe money
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 559/2007 Page 6 of 27
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:03:05
does not in itself demolish the prosecution’s case, rather it banks upon the
fact that the demand was made by the Appellant-Babu Ram on 18.12.2000,
as can be seen from the contents of the complaint made by complainant
(Ex.PW3/A). Learned SPP has submitted that the money was accepted at the
behest of and on behalf of the Appellant by Ram Kumar and the same was
recovered from the possession of Ram Kumar. These aspects when read in
conjunction with the overall evidence brought on record by CBI especially
the audio recordings and transcripts, which are also part of the record, then
the only conclusion which can be drawn is against the Appellant, that he was
the person who actually demanded money on the pretext of resolving the
issue of inflated electricity bill raised by DVB against the father of the
complainant. It has also been submitted by the learned SPP that the demand
was reiterated as can be seen from the transcript and due to the said demand,
the complainant approached the CBI where his complaint (Ex.PW-3/A) laid
the foundation of the present case.
10. It has been submitted by learned SPP for the CBI that a Regular Case
{RC No.73(a)/2000} was registered by the CBI after verification of the said
complaint (Ex. PW-3/A). Pursuant to this, a raid was organized after
complying with the requisite formalities of having independent witnesses
(shadow witness), demonstration of the process with regard to hand wash
test (Phenolphthalein test) etc. during the pre-raid proceedings. The post raid
proceedings are also there which substantiate the allegations against the
Appellant. Learned SPP has submitted that the learned Trial Court has
recorded the evidence and the facts of the present case and has correctly
applied the law, and therefore, the Impugned Judgment is not required to be
interfered with in any manner.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 559/2007 Page 7 of 27
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:03:05
11. Learned SPP has further submitted that the prosecution’s case,
therefore, rests not on the physical recovery of the tainted currency notes
from the Appellant himself, but on the evidence on record which points
towards the fact that the demand was made by the Appellant and that the
money was accepted by Ram Kumar at the express direction of the
Appellant. The absence of recovery from the Appellant, in such
circumstances, cannot by itself be treated as determinative of his innocence.
It is submitted that what is required to be examined is whether the
prosecution has established, through reliable evidence, that the Appellant
made the demand and thereafter directed the complainant to hand over the
demanded amount to Ram Kumar, and whether such acceptance can, in the
facts of the present case, be attributed to the Appellant.
12. Learned SPP has also submitted with regard to the transcripts and the
audio evidence, that the two cassettes used to record the conversation
between the complainant and the Appellant during the raid were sealed
immediately upon conclusion of the raid. Thereafter, transcripts were
prepared, voices identified and the forensic examination was conducted as
per the requirement under law. The sealed cassettes were received by Dr.
Rajinder Singh (PW-9) who, as per his deposition, received the cassettes
with the seals intact, after which he prepared a transcript and prepared the
forensic report of the same (Ex. PW-9/A). Learned SPP has submitted that
the sequence of events pertaining to the recording of the electronic evidence
vide automatic receiver-cum-recorder and the cassettes being sealed
immediately after and being sent for forensic examination and transcription,
creates an unbroken chain of custody which successfully eliminates any
possibility of tampering with evidence or any other possibility of foul play.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 559/2007 Page 8 of 27
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:03:05
13. With regards to the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the
Appellant regarding the lack or the failure of the prosecution to establish
that the voices heard in the electronic evidence were correctly identified and
accordingly attributed to the concerned parties involved in the case, Learned
SPP in reply has brought to this court’s attention, the deposition of the
Investigating officer, Insp C.K. Sharma (PW-12) who has categorically
stated that the cassette was played in the presence of both the complainant
and the independent witnesses whereafter the voices were correctly
identified and attributed accordingly to the complainant and the Appellant.
Learned SPP has further submitted that the cassette was again played during
the deposition of the complainant (PW-3), who had identified his own voice
as well as the Appellant’s voice, especially on specific key points of the
recordings wherein the amount involved and the alleged work for which the
illegal renumeration was being demanded was also being discussed
i.e. ”kitne hain”, “sham ko kardunga ji”, “gin lo ji”.
14. Learned SPP has further submitted that the plea of the defence
regarding the lack of proper identification of the Appellant holds no water.
Learned SPP has submitted that the shadow wintess, Shishu Pal (PW-4) has
categorically deposed in both his examination-in-chief, as well as his cross-
examination that the Appellant was present during the raid and that he had
instructed the complainant to hand over the tainted notes to Ram Kumar. In
support of his submission, learned SPP has placed reliance on Sarwan
Singh v. State of Punjab , (2003) 1 SCC 240 wherein it was held that even
in the absence of Test Identification Prade (TIP), credible identification can
be done in court and minor variations in identification do not affect the
overall result of such identification.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 559/2007 Page 9 of 27
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:03:05
15. Additionally, learned SPP has placed reliance on the following
judgments in order to strengthen his arguments:
a. T.Shankar Prasad v. State of AP , (2004) 3 SCC 753 wherein
the Hon’ble Supreme Court while discussing the evidentiary
value of a hostile witness’ testimony held that once acceptance
of illegal gratification is proved, the statutory presumption
under Section 20 of the PC Act arises; and
b. Madhukar Baskarro Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, 2000
(Suppl) SC 458 wherein it was held by the Apex Court that
proof of acceptance of illegal gratification attracts the statutory
presumption of bribery, and that delay in proceedings does not
by itself, constitutes special reasons to impose a sentence below
the statutory minimum.
16. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record,
the question which arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has
succeeded in establishing, beyond reasonable doubt, the foundational facts
necessary to sustain the conviction of the Appellant under Sections 7 and
13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, particularly with respect to
the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, notwithstanding the fact
that the tainted currency was recovered from Ram Kumar and not from the
Appellant.
17. The law relating to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act is
well settled that demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for
constituting an offence under Section 7 and for establishing the
corresponding misconduct contemplated under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC
Act. Equally, acceptance of the gratification has to be established. In Neeraj
Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731, the Constitution
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 559/2007 Page 10 of 27
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:03:05
Bench has reiterated that the demand by the public servant and the
acceptance or obtainment of illegal gratification constitute facts in issue
which have to be established by the prosecution. The prosecution, therefore,
cannot succeed merely by demonstrating recovery of currency notes unless
the circumstances surrounding such recovery establish that the amount was
received as illegal gratification pursuant to a demand made by the public
servant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra
Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 55 has held that mere recovery or the possession of
tainted currency is insufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of
proof of demand. At the same time, the law does not require that the person
who makes the demand must necessarily be the person from whose physical
possession the tainted currency is ultimately recovered. The question is one
of attribution of the receipt and the circumstances in which the money came
to be accepted.
18. In the present case, the prosecution has led evidence on the aspect of
demand through the complainant Satya Prakash (PW-3), who has given a
specific account of his interaction with the Appellant. PW-3 has stated that
the Appellant had demanded Rs.10,000/- from him in connection with the
electricity theft case at his father’s residence and that, pursuant to the said
demand, he approached the CBI and produced Rs.3,000/- for the purposes of
the trap. More importantly, his testimony does not stop at the initial demand.
He has deposed about what transpired at the DESU/DVB office on the date
of the trap and has specifically stated that the Appellant demanded the
money from him and, when the money was being handed over, directed him
to give the same to Ram Kumar on the representation that the Appellant was
going to wash his hands.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 559/2007 Page 11 of 27
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:03:05
19. This aspect of the complainant’s testimony assumes considerable
significance because it provides the necessary link between the person who
allegedly made the demand and the person from whom the money was
ultimately recovered. The prosecution is not seeking to attribute the receipt
to the Appellant merely because Ram Kumar happened to be present at the
spot. The specific case of the prosecution is that Ram Kumar received the
money at the instance and on the direction of the Appellant. The
complainant (PW-3) has consistently deposed to this aspect and his
testimony, as also corroborated by the other witnesses.
20. The testimony of Shishu Pal (PW-4), who was associated as the
shadow witness, lends material corroboration to this part of the
prosecution’s case. PW-4 has stated that he accompanied the complainant
and saw the Appellant, Ram Kumar and the complainant at the relevant time
i.e. during the raid. He has specifically deposed that the Appellant directed
the complainant to pay the money to Ram Kumar. He further stated that he
saw the money being received by Ram Kumar and thereafter gave the pre-
appointed signal to the raiding party. PW-4 has remained consistent
regarding his account of the raid and the handing over of the tainted
currency notes to Ram Kumar, at the behest of the Appellant in both his
examination in chief and his cross examination.
21. The defence has sought to discredit PW-4 on the ground that he had
earlier deposed that the corridor was dark and that he only had a glimpse of
the Appellant. The said circumstance does require consideration, but it
cannot be examined in isolation. PW-4 has not merely claimed to have seen
an unknown person at the spot. He has specifically attributed to the
Appellant the act of directing the complainant to hand over the money to
Ram Kumar. His evidence on this material aspect has remained substantially
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 559/2007 Page 12 of 27
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:03:05
intact in cross-examination. The fact that the corridor may have been dark
may affect the quality of visual observation to some extent, but it does not,
by itself, render the entire testimony unreliable, particularly when the
witness has identified the Appellant and has given a consistent account of
the role attributed to him.The relevant portion of his cross-examination is
reproduced hereunder for reference:
“We reached DESU office Nandnagri at about 2.30 pm. The
corridor was dark. Only one person was sitting in the cabin
whose name was Ram Kumar. I saw Babu Ram in the corridor.
He was carrying a bundle of wire but I could not see him due to
dark in the corridor. He had a talk with Satya Prakash
regarding money and he asked Satya Prakash to pay the money
to Ram Kumar.”
22. The evidence of Edward Toppo (PW-5) operates on a somewhat
different plane. He was associated principally as the recovery witness and
has deposed that, after the signal was received and the raiding party entered,
Ram Kumar was apprehended and the sum of Rs.3,000/- was recovered
from the right side pocket of his pant. The numbers of the recovered
currency notes were tallied with the numbers recorded during the pre-trap
proceedings and were found to correspond. PW-5 therefore provides direct
corroboration to the recovery of the very currency which had been produced
and treated during the pre-trap proceedings. His evidence does not
materially advance the prosecution’s case regarding the conversation
preceding the acceptance, but that by itself does not detract from the
evidentiary value of his testimony on recovery.
23. The chemical examination further corroborates the recovery
proceedings. The washes of both hands and the right-side pant pocket of
Ram Kumar were taken and the resulting solutions were found to contain
phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate. K.S. Chhabra (PW-2), the Chemical
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 559/2007 Page 13 of 27
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:03:05
Examiner, through his report has provided scientific corroboration of the
fact that Ram Kumar had handled the tainted currency. The recovery
evidence, therefore, is not dependent merely upon the oral assertion of the
witnesses but is supported by the contemporaneous trap proceedings and the
subsequent chemical examination.
24. The principal objection raised by the learned counsel for the
Appellant, however, is that since the tainted currency was recovered from
Ram Kumar and the Appellant neither handled the currency nor underwent
any positive hand-wash or pocket-wash, the ingredient of acceptance cannot
be attributed to him. However, the prosecution’s case is not that the
Appellant personally put the currency into his pocket. Quite the contrary, the
prosecution’s case is that after making the demand, the Appellant directed
the complainant to hand over the money to Ram Kumar. The present case, as
it currently stands, dictates that if this part of the prosecution’s evidence is
found reliable, the physical recovery from Ram Kumar does not sever the
connection between the demand made by the Appellant and the eventual
receipt of the gratification.
25. Moving onto addressing the argument of the learned counsel for the
Appellant, that since Ram Kumar, the recipient of the tainted currency notes
and the man from whom the recovery was affected, was let off by the
Learned Trial Court, the Appellant would also be entitled to the same type
of treatment. However, the fact that Ram Kumar was discharged at the stage
of framing of charge also does not result in the automatic exoneration of the
Appellant. The question before this Court is not whether Ram Kumar ought
or ought not to have been charged. The order of discharge operates in
relation to Ram Kumar and cannot, by itself, determine the evidentiary
worth of the acts attributed to him insofar as those acts form part of the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 559/2007 Page 14 of 27
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:03:05
prosecution’s case against the Appellant. The prosecution is required to
establish against the Appellant that the illegal gratification demanded by him
was accepted by Ram Kumar pursuant to his direction. That question has to
be answered on the evidence led in the present trial.
26. The role attributed to Ram Kumar is, in fact, significant but limited
only to the extent that it completes the transaction alleged by the
prosecution. The complainant had brought a sum of Rs.3,000/- pursuant to
the demand allegedly made by the Appellant. At the spot, the Appellant
allegedly directed that the money be handed over to Ram Kumar. Ram
Kumar received the money. The same tainted currency was recovered from
his possession immediately thereafter and his hand and pocket washes tested
positive. These circumstances form a continuous and unbroken chain of
events. The recovery from Ram Kumar is thus not an isolated circumstance
divorced from the Appellant, rather, it is the consequence of the specific
direction attributed to the Appellant.
27. The audio recording has been assailed at considerable length by the
learned counsel for the Appellant. It is submitted that there are multiple
transcripts, that the transcripts are not identical, that Dr. Rajinder Singh
(PW-9) did not receive specimen voices, that the number of speakers was
not mentioned in his report and that the transcription was in the handwriting
of his assistant Ms. Vimmy, who did not sign the same nor did she enter the
witness box. These are circumstances which undoubtedly require the Court
to examine the audio evidence with caution. However, the objections raised
do not, in the facts of the present case, completely obliterate the other
evidence available on record.
28. Dr. Rajinder Singh (PW-9) has stated that the two sealed cassettes
were received by him and that their contents were transcribed by auditory
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 559/2007 Page 15 of 27
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:03:05
method. In cross-examination, he admitted that the transcript was in the
handwriting of his assistant Ms. Vimmy, who had not signed it and that the
report did not mention how many persons' voices were contained in the
cassette. He had also admittedly deposed that he had not received any
specimen voice of any person in the case. These admissions undoubtedly
weaken the forensic aspect of the voice identification, particularly if the
prosecution were to rest its entire case upon a scientific comparison of the
Appellant's voice with the recorded voice.
29. That, however, is not the position here. The prosecution has not relied
upon the audio recording in isolation. PW-3, the complainant, was himself
present during the conversation and identified the voices when the cassette
was played in Court. He identified his own voice as well as the voices
attributed to Ram Kumar and the Appellant. C.K. Sharma (PW-12), the
Investigating Officer, has also stated that the transcription (Ex.PW-4/E) was
prepared after the recorded conversation was played in the presence of the
complainant and the independent witnesses, after the voices were identified,
and that the transcription bears his signature as well as those of the
independent witnesses.
30. The objection that the transcription could not have been relied upon
merely because it was prepared by the Investigating Officer also cannot be
accepted as an absolute proposition. The weight to be attached to such
transcription would necessarily depend upon the evidence by which the
underlying recording and the identity of the voices are established. Here, the
complainant was not a stranger to the conversation. He was the person who
allegedly participated in it and was therefore in a position to identify his own
voice and the voices of the persons with whom he had conversed during the
trap.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 559/2007 Page 16 of 27
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:03:05
31. There is also a distinction between the two aspects of the
prosecution’s case which the learned counsel for the Appellant has
vehemently opposed, namely, the authenticity of the recording and the
evidentiary value of the transcription. A transcription by itself cannot
establish that a conversation took place. It is the recorded conversation,
together with evidence establishing its identity and authenticity, which has
to be assessed. In the present case, the prosecution has led evidence that the
recording equipment was supplied during the pre-trap proceedings, that the
conversation was recorded during the transaction and that the cassettes were
subsequently sealed and sent to CFSL. PW-12 has further deposed about the
preparation of the transcription after the voices were identified by the
persons who were present during the raid proceedings i.e. the complainant
and the Panch witness. The variations pointed out between the transcripts
also do not, in themselves, demolish the prosecution’s case. What is material
is whether the portions relied upon by the prosecution are substantially
consistent with the oral evidence regarding what transpired at the spot. The
central and prominent circumstance emerging from the prosecution’s
evidence is that the Appellant was demanding the money and that the
complainant was directed by him to hand it over to Ram Kumar. The
transcript relied upon by the prosecution contains utterances attributed to the
Appellant concerning the amount and the direction to hand over the money,
while Ram Kumar is heard participating in the conversation concerning the
amount. This broad circumstance is consistent with the oral account given
by PW-3 and PW-4.
32. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant
regarding the absence of specimen voice of the Appellant also cannot be
treated as fatal in the present facts. Had the prosecution sought to establish
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 559/2007 Page 17 of 27
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:03:05
the identity of the Appellant's voice solely through a scientific comparison
with a specimen voice, the absence of such specimen would undoubtedly
have assumed greater significance. Here, however, the complainant (PW-3),
who was a participant in the conversation, identified the voice of the
Appellant in Court. The evidence of voice identification is therefore not
confined to the forensic expert.
33. Learned counsel for the Appellant had also raised an argument with
regards to the sanction, particularly on the ground that there was no office
reference or forwarding letter and that the sanctioning authority N.P. Singh
(PW-1) did not remember the number of documents placed before him.
However, PW-1 in his deposition has categorically stated that he had
perused the relevant documents and statements before issuing the sanction.
Moreover, his inability to recall the precise number of documents or the
exact procedural details, merely indicates a very human tendency to be
unable to recall precise details pertaining to certain events due to passage of
time and lapse of memory. Even so, there is nothing on record to indicate
that the sanction itself was issued without application of mind or otherwise.
Learned counsel for the Appellant has also relied upon the testimony of D.R.
Gautam (PW-10) who stated that the preparation of the electricity bill was
his duty and not the Appellant’s. This fact however, cannot come to the
rescue of the Appellant as the actual performance of the act or the
competence of the Appellant to perform the act for which illegal
gratification was demanded and accepted, is not a ground for acquittal,
especially in a case like the one in hand. The mere fact that the final bill was
to be prepared by a superior officer and not the Appellant, does not, unto
itself makes it impossible for the Appellant to demand illegal gratification.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 559/2007 Page 18 of 27
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:03:05
34. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the
complainant was motivated by the electricity theft raid conducted at the
premises of his father also does not incidentally furnish a sufficient
explanation for the subsequent events. Although, such circumstance
undoubtedly calls for the testimony of the complainant to be scrutinised with
due care. The earlier contention of the learned counsel that the Appellant
was not the competent authority to issue the electricity bill does not do
much, to advance this argument. Rather, it leaves an unanswered question as
to why, out of all the officials associated with the proceedings, would the
complainant go to such lengths to falsely implicate the Appellant. Even if
the entire body of evidence supporting the prosecution case were, for the
sake of argument, disregarded, the defence theory of false implication would
still fail to furnish a plausible explanation for the specific circumstances in
which the Appellant came to be implicated. The contention, therefore, does
not, by itself, cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution case.
35. The evidence led by the defence also does not inspire confidence. The
Appellant has sought to rely upon the testimony of D.R. Gautam (PW-10)
and the defence witnesses to contend that he was engaged in inspection of
electrical lines in A and B Block, Nand Nagri, and therefore could not have
been present at the place of trap. PW-10 does support the fact that the
Appellant had accompanied him for inspection earlier in the day. However,
PW-10 has also stated that he left the Appellant in B Block at about 4.00 PM
and thereafter went away. The alleged trap took place subsequently. Thus,
the testimony of PW-10 does not establish the continued presence of the
Appellant at B Block at the time when the alleged transaction took place.
More importantly, the plea of alibi has to be considered against the positive
evidence of the complainant (PW-3) and the shadow witness Shishu Pal
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 559/2007 Page 19 of 27
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:03:05
(PW-4), both of whom place the Appellant at the spot and attribute to him
the direction to hand over the money to Ram Kumar. The defence evidence,
therefore, does not create such a complete and irreconcilable circumstance
as would displace and dislodge the direct testimony of the prosecution
witnesses. The fact that the Appellant could not be apprehended at the spot
and was arrested on 22.12.2000 is also not sufficient to establish that he was
not present there. The prosecution witnesses have consistently explained that
he left the immediate place of occurrence and could not thereafter, be
located by the raiding team.
36. The submission regarding the conduct of the Appellant in leaving the
spot also requires to be examined in the context of the circumstances
prevailing at the time. The prosecution’s case is that the Appellant left after
directing the complainant to hand over the money to Ram Kumar and that
the raiding party entered at the scene after the pre-appointed signal was
given. By that time, the money had already been received by Ram Kumar.
The fact that the Appellant was not found when the raiding team entered
does not, by itself, negate the occurrence which had already taken place.The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in State by Lokayuktha Police v. Sri. K. Rangayya ,
2026 SCC OnLine SC 963, has succinctly held that Section 7 of the PC Act
does not contemplate a requirement that the demand or attempt to obtain
undue advantage must necessarily be made directly and personally by the
public servant himself. The statutory scheme, particularly Explanation 2 to
Section 7, also encompasses an attempt to obtain undue advantage for
another person or through intermediaries, including subordinate public
servants, where such conduct is attributable to the public servant. Thus, the
fact that the gratification is sought to be obtained through an intermediary or
another person does not, by itself, take the conduct outside the ambit of
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 559/2007 Page 20 of 27
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:03:05
Section 7 of the PC Act. The relevant portion of Lokayuktha (supra) is
reproduced hereunder:
“ 24. The High Court fell into a grave error in characterizing the
aforesaid conduct of the Respondent No. 1 as insufficiently
proximate to constitute a „demand‟ within the meaning of
Section 7 of the PC Act. The High Court appears to have
imported a requirement of a direct, personal, and express
demand by the public servant himself by not taking into
consideration Explanation 2, a standard not warranted by the
broad statutory language. The PC Act does not countenance any
such straitjacketed formulation limiting to acts of demand and
acceptance of bribe by the official himself as explained by
expansive provision of Explanation 2. It can be for obtaining the
undue advantage “for another person” also. Further, an attempt
to obtain a bribe through subordinates who are also public
servants, is precisely the kind of indirect corruption that the
legislature, by enacting Explanation 2 to Section 7, has sought
to bring within the fold of the statute.
25. The interpretation adopted by the High Court, if permitted to
stand, would limit the broad scope of Section 7 read with
Explanation 2, and would create a pernicious loophole in the
anti-corruption law by permitting senior public officials to
orchestrate and direct the collection of illegal gratification
through their public servant subordinates and park the benefits
in the account of the “another person” for whose benefit the
public servant intends, while maintaining personal deniability.
Such a construction would subvert the manifest purpose and
policy of the PC Act and render the Explanation 2 redundant,
and thus, cannot be countenanced.
26. In this regard, it is apposite to note the legal proposition as
set out in the observations of this Court in Devinder Kumar
Bansal v. State of Punjab:
“ 12. Further it is seen that, Section 7 speaks of the
“attempt” to obtain a bribe as being in itself an
offence. Mere demand or solicitation, therefore,
by a public servant amounts to commission of an
offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. The word
“attempt” is to imply no more than a mere
solicitation, which, again may be made as
effectually in implicit or in explicit terms.
13. Actual exchange of a bribe is not an essential
requirement to be prosecuted under this law.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 559/2007 Page 21 of 27
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:03:05
Further, those public servants, who do not take a
bribe directly, but, through middlemen or touts,
and those who take valuable things from a
person with whom they have or are likely to have
official dealings, are also punishable as per
Sections 10 and 11 of the 1988 Act, respectively.
14. *
15. We may also refer to a Division Bench
decision of the Bombay High Court in Damodar
Krishna Kamli v. State [Damodar Krishna Kamli
v. State, 1954 SCC OnLine Bom 72 : 1955 Cri LJ
181]. P.B. Gajendragadkar, J. (as his Lordship
then was), speaking for the Bench, observed as
under: (SCC OnLine Bom para 9)
“9. … If we turn to Section 161, it would be clear
that a public servant would be guilty of the
offence of taking gratification under the said
section even if he agrees to accept the prohibited
gratification. It is thus not necessary in order to
bring home to the public servant the charge
under Section 161 to prove that he has actually
accepted or obtained illegal gratification. It
would be enough if it be shown that he had
agreed to accept the said illegal gratification. In
other words, if a proposal is made to the public
servant in respect of payment of illegal
gratification and the proposal is accepted by the
public servant, he would be guilty under Section
161 of the Penal Code.”
16. Section 161 of the Penal Code, 1860 came to
be omitted at the time when the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947 came to be repealed and
the Prevention of Corruption of Act, 1988 came
into force. Section 161 IPC is parimateria to
Section 7 of the 1988 Act.”
27. Mere demand or solicitation, therefore, by a public servant
may amount to commission of an offence under Section 7 of the
PC Act. The word „attempt‟ is to imply no more than a mere
solicitation, which, again, may be made as effectually in implicit
or in explicit terms. This Court further observed therein that
“actual exchange of a bribe is not an essential requirement to be
prosecuted under this law” and that those public servants who
do not take a bribe directly but through middlemen are equally
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 559/2007 Page 22 of 27
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:03:05
made liable under the provisions of the PC Act, 1988. These
observations, though rendered in the context of grant of
anticipatory bail in a case involving offence under Section 7 of
the PC act, firmly reflect the legislative policy pervading the PC
Act that an attempt to obtain undue advantage whether for
oneself or for another, and whether directly or through
intermediaries is equally culpable under Section 7 read with
Explanation 2 of the Act. The Respondent No. 1's implicit yet
unmistakable direction to the Complainant to provide illegal
gratification to his subordinate police officials as disclosed in
the records thus falls squarely within the scope of “attempt to
obtain” an “undue advantage” “for another person,” as
contemplated by Explanation 2(i) to Section 7 of the PC Act. The
fact that the Respondent No. 1 may not personally have received
or even intended to receive any part of the illegal gratification is
entirely immaterial to the establishment of the offence at the
stage of prima facie inquiry, by reason of the express statutory
language of Explanation 2 to Section 7 of the PC Act.“
37. The alleged contradictions and improvements in the testimonies of
PW-3 and PW-4 have also been considered. It is true that there are
discrepancies regarding timings, the preparation of documents and certain
details concerning the recording equipment. There are also omissions in the
earlier statements of the witnesses. However, the discrepancies which have
been pointed out do not dislodge the central features of the prosecution case.
Both PW-3 and PW-4 place the Appellant at the spot, both speak of the
direction given by the Appellant to hand over the money to Ram Kumar, and
PW-4 specifically states that he saw the money being received and thereafter
gave the pre-appointed signal. PW-5 independently establishes the
immediate recovery of the same currency from Ram Kumar, supported by
the positive chemical examination.
38. The evidence, therefore, when examined cumulatively, establishes a
sequence which cannot be separated into isolated fragments. The
complainant approached the CBI with a specific allegation of demand. The
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 559/2007 Page 23 of 27
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:03:05
pre-trap proceedings were conducted and Rs.3,000/- in treated currency was
produced. The shadow witness accompanied the complainant inside the
DESU Office wherein the Appellant was present and, according to PW-3
and PW-4, directed the complainant to hand over the money to Ram Kumar.
The money was thereafter recovered from Ram Kumar almost immediately
pursuant to the pre-appointed signal. The currency notes tallied with the
notes produced during the pre-trap proceedings and the hand and pocket
washes of Ram Kumar tested positive for phenolphthalein and sodium
carbonate. The audio recording and the testimony concerning the
conversation provide further corroborative circumstances.
39. The absence of physical recovery from the Appellant, therefore,
cannot be elevated into a requirement that must necessarily be satisfied in
every case. Acceptance of gratification may be established from the
circumstances and need not invariably take the form of the accused
personally putting the currency into his own pocket. In the present case, the
prosecution has established that the Appellant was the person who made the
demand and that the amount was handed over to Ram Kumar pursuant to his
direction. The subsequent recovery and chemical examination corroborate
the occurrence of the transaction.
40. The statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act also has to
be considered in this context. The presumption does not arise merely
because currency is recovered in a trap. The prosecution must first establish
the foundational facts concerning the demand and acceptance of
gratification. Once those foundational facts are established, the statutory
presumption operates in accordance with law. In the present case, the
evidence discussed above establishes the demand by the Appellant and the
acceptance of the demanded amount through Ram Kumar. The positive
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 559/2007 Page 24 of 27
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:03:05
recovery and scientific evidence provide substantial corroboration to the
factum of acceptance.
41. The defence has sought to rely upon the absence of a positive hand-
wash of the Appellant as though it completely negatives acceptance. Such an
approach would overlook the very case set up by the prosecution. If the
money was accepted by Ram Kumar pursuant to the direction of the
Appellant, the absence of phenolphthalein on the Appellant's hands would
be an expected circumstance and not a contradiction in the prosecution’s
case. The scientific evidence is relevant to establish the handling of the
currency by Ram Kumar; the oral evidence is relied upon to establish why
and at whose direction Ram Kumar received it. It is also significant that the
Appellant, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has denied the
conversation and the demand altogether. He has not offered any satisfactory
explanation for the presence of the complainant and Ram Kumar at the
relevant place or for the recovery of the exact amount of Rs.3,000/- from
Ram Kumar immediately after the pre-appointed signal. His plea is one of
complete denial coupled with alibi and false implication. Such denial, by
itself, cannot displace the positive evidence led by the prosecution.
42. This Court is conscious of the fact that the prosecution’s evidence
concerning the audio recording contains certain deficiencies. The forensic
expert did not undertake specimen voice comparison and the transcription
prepared at the CFSL has not been established with the degree of certainty
which would make it, standing alone, conclusive against the Appellant. The
investigation also contains certain omissions. However, a criminal case has
to be assessed on the totality of admissible and reliable evidence and not on
the basis of one isolated piece of evidence. In the present case, even if the
audio evidence is kept aside or its weight is considerably reduced, the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 559/2007 Page 25 of 27
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:03:05
testimony of PW-3 and PW-4, read with the immediate recovery from Ram
Kumar and the positive chemical examination, conclusively to establish the
material circumstances against the Appellant.
43. The evidence of the complainant (PW-3) has come from his
experience in the whole ordeal as someone who personally interacted with
the Appellant and handed over the money pursuant to his direction. The
Panch witness, Shisu Pal (PW-4) was an independent shadow witness who
corroborates the material circumstance, of the Appellant directing the
complainant to hand over the money to Ram Kumar and thereafter witnessed
the receipt of the money. Edwart Toppo (PW-5) corroborates the immediate
recovery. K.S. Chhibra (PW-2) provides scientific corroboration to the
handling of the treated currency. A.K. Malik (PW-11) corroborates the trap
proceedings and C.K. Sharma (PW-12) the subsequent investigation. These
pieces of evidence, when stitched together, form a coherent chain pointing
towards the guilt of the Appellant.
44. The prosecution has, therefore, succeeded in establishing the demand
of illegal gratification by the Appellant and the acceptance of the same
pursuant to his direction through Ram Kumar. The fact that Ram Kumar was
discharged does not efface the evidence of the transaction or the recovery
made from him. The prosecution was not required to establish that the
Appellant physically possessed the currency at the time of the raid especially
when its specific case, supported by the testimony of the complainant and
the shadow witness, is that he directed its delivery to Ram Kumar.
45. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the learned Trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence
on record and has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the Appellant had
demanded illegal gratification and that the amount demanded by him was
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 559/2007 Page 26 of 27
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:03:05
accepted pursuant to his direction. The deficiencies pointed out by the
learned counsel for the Appellant, including those relating to the audio
recording, transcription, sanction, alibi and the absence of recovery from the
Appellant, do not create a reasonable doubt when the prosecution evidence
is considered cumulatively in conjunction with the whole set of facts and
circumstances.
46. The essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 7
and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act thus stand established
against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction, therefore,
does not call for interference.
47. Consequently, the judgment of conviction dated 29.08.2007 and the
order on sentence dated 30.08.2007 are upheld as nothing has been argued
qua the aspect of sentence.
48. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appellant within two weeks
from the date of judgment order to undergo the sentence.
49. Copy of the judgment be transmitted to the learned Trial Court and
Prison Authorities for information and requisite compliances.
VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J
NOVEMBER 04, 2026/ hk/ij
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 559/2007 Page 27 of 27
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
11:03:05