Ram Prashad vs. State Of Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 20.04.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 24.04.2026
+ CRL.A. 827/2001
RAM PRASHAD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. M.L. Yadav, Mr. Prashant, Mr.
Piyush Saini, Mr. Hardeep Godara,
Advocates along with appellant in
person.
Versus
STATE OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with
Insp. R.N. Pathak, ACB/GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, (the Cr.P.C.) the sole accused, in C.C.
No. 154/1991 on the file of the Special Judge, Delhi, assails the
judgment dated 30.10.2001 and order on sentence dated
01.11.2001 as per which he has been convicted and sentenced for
CRL.A. 827/2001 Page 1 of 27
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.04.2026
10:16:46

the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the PC Act).
2. The prosecution case is that the accused, while working
as Constable at Jafarpur Kalan Police Station, Naib-Court in the
Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Room No. 326, Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi, on 26.07.1991 at 03:00P.M., demanded, accepted
and obtained illegal gratification of ₹150/- from PW4 for returning
the insurance papers of the scooter bearing registration no. DL-4-
1817 and destroying challan papers from the court record
belonging to his tutor/teacher (PW10). Accordingly, as per the
charge-sheet/final report dated 26.08.1992, the accused was
alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections
7 and 13 of the PC Act.
3. Sanction for prosecution was accorded by PW3,
Additional Commissioner (Crime), Police Head Quarters, New
Delhi, vide Ext. PW3/A order, which is undated.
CRL.A. 827/2001 Page 2 of 27
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.04.2026
10:16:46

4. Crime no. 19/1991, i.e., Ext. PW11/K FIR, was
registered on the basis of PW4/A complaint of PW4. After
completion of investigation by PW11, a charge-sheet was filed
against the accused alleging the commission of the offences
punishable under the aforementioned Sections.
5. When the accused was produced before the trial court,
all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to him as
contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides,
the trial court vide order dated 31.12.1993, framed a charge under
Section 7 and Section 13 of the PC Act, which was read over and
explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty.
6. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 12 were
examined and Exts. PW2/A-B, PW3/A, PW4/A-H, PW6/A,
PW7/A, PW9/A-E and PW11/A-N were marked in support of the
case.
7. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused
was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the
CRL.A. 827/2001 Page 3 of 27
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.04.2026
10:16:46

incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence
of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and
maintained his innocence. He submitted that he has been falsely
implicated in this case as he had never demanded and accepted any
money as bribe. Moreover, Inspectors of AC Branch i.e. IO and
RO are not authorised to investigate or lay the trap in his case as
there was no notification in their favour by the appropriate
government empowering them to investigate the cases under the
PC Act.
8. No documentary evidence was adduced in support of
the defence case.
9. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence
on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court vide the
impugned judgment dated 30.10.2001 held the accused guilty of
the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13 of the PC
Act. Vide order on sentence dated 01.11.2001, the accused has
been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
CRL.A. 827/2001 Page 4 of 27
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.04.2026
10:16:46

one year each along with fine of ₹100/- each, and in default of
payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days each
for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the
PC Act. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
Aggrieved, the accused has preferred this appeal.
10.The learned counsel for the appellant/accused
submitted that there are no materials on record to show that the
demand had been made by him. To augment his contention, he
drew the attention of this Court to the testimony PW4, wherein he
has categorically deposed that the demand was not made to him by
the appellant/accused but rather by another person who had asked
him to give the money to the accused/appellant. The learned
counsel also submitted that PW5 had not deposed anything about
the demand being made, rather he has only mentioned about the
recovery of the bribe amount of ₹150/-, which was not made from
the hands of the appellant/accused, but from a register.
CRL.A. 827/2001 Page 5 of 27
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.04.2026
10:16:46

10.1. The learned counsel also drew the attention of this
Court to paragraph no. 15 of the impugned judgement wherein the
trial court noticed that demand had not been established, but still
proceeded to find the accused guilty.
10.2. The learned counsel also submitted that Ex. PW3/A
Sanction Order was made without any application of mind. A
perusal of the order would clearly show that the draft order was
accepted as such by merely scoring of the word “draft” from Ext.
PW3/A Sanction Order.
10.3. Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that since the
conviction is under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act, if the demand
of bribe is not proved, then the other aspects need not be looked
into by relying on the dictum in C Sukumaran vs State of Kerala
2015 (2) JCC 1322 , and Jayaraj vs. State of A.P. 2014 (13) SCC
55 where in it has been held that the demand of illegal gratification
is sine qua non to constitute an offence under Section 7 of the PC
Act.
CRL.A. 827/2001 Page 6 of 27
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.04.2026
10:16:46

11. Per contra , the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submitted that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any
illegality or infirmity calling for an interference by this Court.
12.Heard both sides and perused records.
13.The only point that arises for consideration in the
present appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the impugned
judgement calling for an interference by this court.
14. I shall first briefly refer to the evidence on record relied
on by the prosecution in support of the case. PW4 submitted a
written complaint, that is, Exhibit PW4/A dated 26.07.1991 in the
office of the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) in which he has stated
thus: - He takes tuition from PW10. On 04.01.1991, PW10’s two-
wheeler scooter was issued a traffic challan (fine) for which the
date of hearing fixed was 10.03.1991 and the next date of hearing
was fixed as 22.07.1991. According to PW4, since PW10 was
unable to go to the Court to settle the challan, the latter sent him to
the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, room no. 326 to find out
CRL.A. 827/2001 Page 7 of 27
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.04.2026
10:16:46

about the next date of hearing. On inquiring with Ram Prashad,
Naib Court (the accused) he was told that the next date would have
to be checked and that the fine for the challan would be around
₹400 to ₹500. But if he was ready to give ₹ 150/- to Ram Prashad
(the accused), the latter would take out the insurance paper
deposited along with the challan and tear up the challan papers in
front of the former. He has been asked by Ram Prashad (the
accused) to go to the front of room no. 326 at around 03:00 p.m.
with the money. He is against taking or giving bribes but due to
compulsion he has agreed. He has no dealings or enmity with Ram
Prashad (the accused), action may be taken.
14.1 PW4, when examined before the trial court deposed that
his tuition teacher Vijay Bharati (PW10) had a challan of his two
wheeler scooter. PW10 had given him the challan for paying the
fine in the court. According to PW4, someone outside the court
told him that he should enquire about the challan from Ram
Prashad (the accused). When he went inside the courtroom, he saw
CRL.A. 827/2001 Page 8 of 27
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.04.2026
10:16:46

Ram Prashad (the accused) sitting with one another person. The
said person told him that he would have to pay ₹ 400 to ₹ 500 for
the challan, but if he pays ₹150/-, the former would take out the
papers and give them to the latter. The said person also told him to
give the money to Ram Prashad (the accused) in case the former
was not present on his seat. Subsequently, Ram Prashad (the
accused) told him that he would take the money. PW4 further
deposed that initially he did not know the rank of the accused,
but later he came to know that the accused was the ‘ Naib
Court ’. PW4 further deposed that saying that he would be
returning after some time, he went to the ACB where he lodged a
complaint in the name of Ram Prashad (the accused) as he did not
know the name of the other person. PW4 further deposed that
Mohinder Singh Garg (PW5) was also present when Ext. PW4/A
complaint was recorded.
14.2 PW4 further deposed regarding the pre-raid
proceedings. The panch witness (PW5) was directed to accompany
CRL.A. 827/2001 Page 9 of 27
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.04.2026
10:16:46

him and to give the signal when the money was given. When he
reached the court, the panch witness was behind him and the
officers of the ACB were following them. Since the other person
who had demanded the money was not present in the court, he
asked Ram Prashad (the accused) to take the money. Ram Prashad
(the accused) asked him to keep the money on the table, but he
gave the money in his hand. Ram Prashad (the accused) took the
money in his right hand, but thereafter corrected himself by saying
that he was unable to recall with which hand the accused had
accepted the money. The accused kept the money inside the
Register. When the money was received, PW5 gave the signal,
immediately afterwards the officers of the ACB came and
apprehended the accused. The Inspector (PW6) revealed his
identity to the accused. The hand wash of the accused taken turned
pink. The solution was transferred into two bottles and labels were
affixed on the bottles on which he signed. The Inspector (PW6)
recovered the notes from the register.PW4 also deposed in detail
CRL.A. 827/2001 Page 10 of 27
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.04.2026
10:16:46

regarding the post raid formalities undertaken by the Inspector
(PW6). During the course of the examination-in-chief, the
prosecutor is seen to have sought the permission of the trial court
to conduct cross-examination of PW1 on the ground that he had
resiled from his earlier statement made to the police. The same is
seen allowed. On further examination, PW4 admitted that he had
not stated in his complaint about the person sitting along with the
accused. He had talked to one person and so he presumed that the
name of the said person was Ram Prasad (the accused). PW4
denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely in order to
shield the accused. He came to know that the accused was ‘ Naib
Court ’ from the Inspector (PW6) who had recorded his complaint.
14.3 PW4 in his cross-examination admitted that Inspector
Bhagavan Das working in the ACB is his maternal uncle. But
when he went to the ACB to take his uncle's help, he came to
know that the latter had already been transferred. PW4 further
admitted that when the raid took place, the Magistrate was holding
CRL.A. 827/2001 Page 11 of 27
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.04.2026
10:16:46

court. The officials of the ACB had not spoken to the Magistrate
before apprehending the accused. But when the accused was
apprehended the Magistrate asked as to what was happening and
then the officials informed the Magistrate that they were from the
ACB.
15. PW5, the panch witness, deposed that in July 1991, he
was posted as Inspector, Food and Supplier, Circle No. 5, Kalyan
Vas, Delhi. On 26.07.1991, he was deputed on duty as a panch
witness in the ACB. The complaint of PW4 had been recorded in
his presence in which he affixed his signature. PW5 deposed in
detail regarding the pre-trap proceedings. PW5 further deposed
that he had been instructed to remain close to PW4 throughout the
trap proceedings and was also instructed to give a pre-decided
signal when he was satisfied that the accused had accepted the
money. On the said day, the raiding party went into room no. 326,
Tis Hazari Court building. He and PW4 were together. The
accused was found at his seat. PW4 went to the accused and gave
CRL.A. 827/2001 Page 12 of 27
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.04.2026
10:16:46

₹150/- to the latter requesting him to tear off the challan (“ rafa
dafa kar do ”). The accused did not reply, but took the money in his
right hand and kept it in his register, lying on the table.
Immediately, PW5 gave the pre- decided signal, pursuant to which,
the members of the raiding party came in and apprehended the
accused. PW5 further deposed that Inspector S.K. Sharma (PW6)
disclosed his identity to the accused and asked the accused where
had he kept the money. The accused kept mum. Thereafter, the
money was recovered from the register by PW6. PW5 further
deposed that the right hand wash of the accused taken had turned
pink. PW5 also deposed regarding the post trap proceedings
conducted.
15.1 PW5 in his cross examination, admitted that when PW4
had gone inside the room, there were many other persons in the
court and the Presiding Officer was also in the chair. According to
PW5, when PW6 along with his team entered into the court room,
the Presiding Officer enquired as to what was happening. PW5
CRL.A. 827/2001 Page 13 of 27
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.04.2026
10:16:46

further deposed that the post-raid proceedings took place inside the
court room. PW5 denied the suggestion that no money had been
recovered from the register. PW5 admitted that neither the
Presiding Officer, nor any other staff member had been asked to be
a witness or signed the raid proceedings.
16. PW6, the TLO, broadly supported the prosecution
version. PW6 deposed that on receiving the signal from PW5, he
along with his team reached the spot. PW4 informed that the
accused had accepted the currency notes and had kept the same in
his register. PW6 further deposed that the accused became
perplexed and kept mum on being challenged by him. PW6 also
deposed that the money was recovered from the register and that
when the right hand wash of the accused was taken, the colourless
solution turned pink.
16.1 PW6, in his cro ss-examination, admitted that he and
Bhagwan Das belonged to Delhi Police Service. However, PW6
denied the suggestion that he was aware of the fact that PW4 was
CRL.A. 827/2001 Page 14 of 27
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.04.2026
10:16:46

the nephew of Bhagwan Das. PW6 admitted that he was aware that
the raid was to be conducted on the Naib Court of Court room no.
326. However, he never sought permission from the District Judge
to conduct the raid inside the Court room. According to PW6, the
Sub-Judge had been informed. However, he was unable to
recollect the name of the Sub-Judge. PW6 admitted that he had not
informed the Sub-Judge in writing. He had sought the permission
and informed the Presiding Officer of the Court after apprehending
the accused. To a specific query as to whether he had sought the
permission of the District Judge or Presiding Officer, he admitted
that he had not sought permission from either of them.
17. PW3, Deputy Commissioner of Police, South West
District, New Delhi, deposed that on the request of D.C.P., ACB,
he had gone through the police file and the judicial file of the case
and after considering the allegations against the accused and the
circumstances, granted sanction order vide Ext. PW3/A Sanction
Order. PW3, in his cross-examination deposed that he could not
CRL.A. 827/2001 Page 15 of 27
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.04.2026
10:16:46

recall if he had received a draft sanction order from D.C.P., ACB.
PW3 also admitted that Ext. PW3/A Sanction order is undated.
PW3 further admitted that a word had been erased at the place
encircled red and marked “X” in Ext. PW3/A and that the word
erased was “draft”. PW3 further admitted that he had not initialled
the erasure.
18. The offences alleged against the appellant/accused arise
under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of
the PC Act. It is now well settled that, to bring home an offence
under Section 7 of the Act, the prosecution must establish: (i) that
the accused was a public servant; (ii) that there was a demand of
illegal gratification; and (iii) that such gratification was voluntarily
accepted by the accused as a motive or reward for doing or
forbearing to do any official act. Similarly, for an offence under
Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2), the prosecution is
required to prove that the public servant, by corrupt or illegal
means or by abusing his position, obtained for himself or for any
CRL.A. 827/2001 Page 16 of 27
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.04.2026
10:16:46

other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. Crucially,
the foundational requirement for both provisions is the proof of
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
19. The prosecution case primarily is based on the testimony
of PW4, PW5, PW6 and PW3. PW4 in the box does not fully
support the prosecution case. While in Ext. PW4/A he attributes
the demand to the accused, he develops a new version while
testifying before the trial court, wherein, he stated that the initial
demand of money was made by another person present in the court
room along with the accused and not directly by the accused.
According to PW4, on 26.07.1991 the said person told him to give
the money to the accused and only thereafter the accused stated
that he would take the money. The omission of such vital fact in
the initial complaint given by PW4 casts doubt on his credibility.
Further, PW4 is very uncertain regarding the manner of acceptance
of bribe by the accused. He oscillates on whether the money was
CRL.A. 827/2001 Page 17 of 27
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.04.2026
10:16:46

directly accepted by the accused or whether the accused had kept
the money on the table of the accused.
20. PW5, the panch witness, though supports the prosecution
version to the extent of the recovery of the tainted currency note,
does not corroborate the aspect of demand. PW5’s testimony is
confined only to the handing over of the money by PW4 to the
accused and the subsequent recovery by the trap team. As
contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, by relying
on Jayaraj ( supra ) and C. Sukumaran ( supra ), proof of demand
of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for establishing offences
under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act, which position is well
settled by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Neeraj
Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731 . PW5 had
remained silent with respect to any specific demand made by the
accused at the time of the trap and he does not clarify the role of
the alleged “other person” referred to by PW4.
CRL.A. 827/2001 Page 18 of 27
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.04.2026
10:16:46

21. PW6, the TLO deposed in line with the prosecution
version. However, his testimony is essentially based on what was
conveyed to him by PW4 and PW5. His testimony does not help
the prosecution to establish that the accused had demanded money
from PW4.
22. At this stage this Court finds it necessary to deal with the
manner in which the trap proceedings were conducted. A perusal
of Ext. PW11/A site plan clearly depicts that the alleged
transaction took place inside Court Room No. 326, Tis Hazari
Courts in close proximity to the seat of the presiding Magistrate.
The markings ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ in Ext. PW11/A site plan show that
PW5; the accused as well as the panch witness were all positioned
within the court room itself, while the raiding party was stationed
just outside. If that be so, the alleged demand and acceptance are
stated to have occurred virtually under the immediate gaze and
within the hearing range of the Presiding Officer, at a time when
the Court proceedings were admittedly going on. I cannot but
CRL.A. 827/2001 Page 19 of 27
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.04.2026
10:16:46

wonder as to how such a transaction took place in the immediate
presence or to put it in other words “under the nose of the
Magistrate” presiding in the court. What was the Magistrate doing
at that time that he did not notice such a transaction itself taking
place inside his courtroom. The Magistrate seems to have been
completely oblivious of the things happening inside his Court. The
materials on record shows that it was when the accused was
apprehended, the Magistrate asked what was happening and then
the officers of the ACB seemed to have disclosed their identity.
PW6 the TLO has categorically admitted that no prior permission
had been obtained from the Presiding Officer or the District Judge
before the raid inside the Court room was conducted and that too
when the Court proceedings was going on. The Magistrate is never
seen to have questioned the activities carried out without his
permission inside his court room. The Magistrate seems to have
been quite nonchalant about the raid conducted, though no
permission was sought by the officer concerned. It is beyond my
CRL.A. 827/2001 Page 20 of 27
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.04.2026
10:16:46

comprehension as to how PW6 dared to conduct a raid and
apprehend the accused inside the court hall, that too when the court
proceedings were going on. In the light of the temerity/audacity of
PW6, the TLO, in conducting the raid and arrest inside the court
hall and that too while the court proceedings was going on, it was
felt necessary that the Case Diary (CD) maintained in this case
under Section 172 Cr.P.C. needs to be looked into. The CD was
handed over during the course of the hearing by the learned APP.
This Court has perused the same and has noticed the following
anomalies.
23. Ext. PW4/A complaint given by PW4 does not refer to
the time when he approached the ACB. From a reading of Ext.
PW4/A, it appears that PW4 had approached the accused in the
morning of 26.07.1991 when he was asked to come with the
money at 03:00 p.m on the very same day. Pursuant to the demand,
PW4 is stated to have proceeded to the office of the ACB. The
materials on record do not show the time at which the accused
CRL.A. 827/2001 Page 21 of 27
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.04.2026
10:16:46

made the first demand or the time at which PW4 reached the office
of the ACB. But the endorsements made on the bottom of Ext.
PW4/A complaint reveals the following details. It is recorded that
on the basis of the statement/information of PW4, at 02:15 p.m the
pre-raid formalities were completed. Thereafter, at 02:50 p.m
Inspector B. M. Sharma (PW11) formed the raiding team and the
team along with PW4 and PW5 left the office of the ACB. At
02:55 p.m. they reached Room No. 326, third floor, central hall
opposite the canteen at Tis Hazari Court. Thereafter, PW4 and
PW5 are stated to have gone inside Room No. 326 and handed
over the money to the accused, pursuant to which he was
apprehended. It is further recorded thus -
“ Date and time: 3 p.m. on 26.7.1991
Place: Room No. 326, IIIrd Floor, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Time of dispatch of tehrir report: 5:15 p.m. on 26.7.1991
Sd/- B.M. Sharma, Inspector, A.C.В., 26.7.1991”
As noticed earlier the time at which Ext. PW4/A was
recorded is not seen recorded anywhere in the materials before this
CRL.A. 827/2001 Page 22 of 27
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.04.2026
10:16:46

Court and not in the CD also. But it appears from the materials on
record that soon after the complaint/information was recorded the
Inspector had conducted the pre-raid formalities, formed the raid
party and left for the Court for conducting the raid. The FIR that is
produced before the Court says that the date and hour of
occurrence as – 26.07.1991 at 03.00 p m. Column no. 01 in the
FIR reads thus :

24. In the first page of the CD, it is stated that Inspector B.
M. Sharma, ACB Delhi, the investigating officer had received the
information on 26.07.1991 at 05:15 p.m. Going by the FIR, if the
information was received at 05:20 p.m., how does the CD record
the time as 05:15 p.m.? The investigating officer B. M. Sharma
(PW11) is the person to whom PW4 is alleged to have given the
complaint and he is the officer who is supposed to have recorded
the complaint/information, conducted the pre-raid formalities,
CRL.A. 827/2001 Page 23 of 27
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.04.2026
10:16:46

conducted the raid as well as the post-raid formalities. As noticed
earlier, the endorsements on the bottom of Ext. PW4/A complaint
shows that PW11 had come to know about the complaint at least
by 02:15 p.m. Therefore, the endorsement that information was
received at 05:15 p.m. or 05:20 p.m. obviously cannot be correct.
Further, no enquiry seems to have been conducted by PW11 to
ascertain about the genuineness of the complaint before the raid
was arranged and conducted. Going by the entries in CD, the
information was received by PW11 at 05:15 p.m., but the FIR says
that the information was received at 05:20 p.m.
25. Section 172 deals with the CD to be maintained during
the course of investigation by the investigating officer. Sub-section
(1) says that every police officer making an investigation under
Chapter XII shall day by day enter his proceedings in the
investigation in a diary, setting forth the time at which the
information reached him, the time at which he began and closed
his investigation, the place or places visited by him and a statement
CRL.A. 827/2001 Page 24 of 27
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.04.2026
10:16:46

of the circumstances ascertained through his investigation. Sub-
section (1B) says that the diary referred to in subsection (1) shall
be a volume and duly paginated. Therefore, the CD to be
maintained by the IO shall necessarily contain the time at which he
received the information. Here the materials on records show
different dates. The FIR shows one date and the CD shows another
date and nowhere in the materials on record either before this court
or in the CD, the time at which PW4/A complaint was recorded is
seen noted. Apparently, everything happened during the course of
the same day. No enquiry whatsoever regarding the genuineness of
the complaint is also seen made. It is true that PW5, the panch
witness, supports the case of acceptance of the bribe. But the
evidence regarding the demand is quite unsatisfactory for the
reasons hereinabove referred to. Materials do make out a case of
strong suspicion against the accused, but suspicion however strong
cannot take the place of proof.
26. The testimony of PW3, the sanctioning authority and Ext.
CRL.A. 827/2001 Page 25 of 27
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.04.2026
10:16:46

PW3/A Sanction order probabilises the defense version that there
was never any application of mind before the Sanction Order was
given. PW3 admits that the word ‘draft’ before the words ‘sanction
order’ had been erased and that he had not initialled the erasure.
Therefore, it appears that the draft sanction order sent to PW3 was
merely signed by him after erasing the word ‘draft’ from the order.
PW3 did not even take the pains to type out a fresh order, but he
seemed to have merely scored off the word ‘draft’ before the
words ‘sanction order’ and signed the same. Therefore, non-
application of mind is evident and apparent or writ large on the
face of the order itself.
27. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I find that the
evidence on record is insufficient to find the appellant/accused
guilty of the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13 of the PC
Act beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, I find that the trial court
went wrong in convicting the accused.
CRL.A. 827/2001 Page 26 of 27
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.04.2026
10:16:46

28. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned
judgment of conviction and the order on sentence are set aside.
The appellant/accused is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. of
the charge under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the PC Act. He is set at
liberty and his bail bond shall stand cancelled.
29. Application(s), if any, pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 24, 2026
Rs/p’ma/ kd
CRL.A. 827/2001 Page 27 of 27
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.04.2026
10:16:46