Credible panch-witness and raiding-officer testimony can sustain a Section 8 conviction despite a hostile complainant.

The complainant, seeking a duplicate driving licence, alleged that Rajinder Singh offered to arrange it for ₹1,300, including the government fee.

The complainant reported the matter to the Anti-Corruption Branch, which arranged a trap.

During the operation, the treated currency was allegedly handed to co-accused Mukesh Kumar in Rajinder Singh’s presence and was recovered after the raiding party intervened.

Receipts relating to licence fees were also recovered from Rajinder Singh’s personal search.

The complainant and another prosecution witness did not support the prosecution at trial, but the panch witness testified to the demand and transaction.

The Trial Court convicted Rajinder Singh under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced him to 18 months’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000.

He appealed under Section 374 CrPC, challenging, among other matters, proof of demand and acceptance.

Whether the prosecution proved the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, including the requisite demand or receipt of gratification as a motive or reward for inducing a public servant.

Whether the conviction could be sustained when the complainant and another material witness turned hostile, in light of the panch witness’s testimony and the other evidence.

Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as applied by the Court, required proof that the accused accepted, obtained, agreed to accept, or attempted to obtain gratification for himself or another as a motive or reward for inducing a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means, to perform or refrain from performing an official act or to show favour or render a service.

The Court relied on Sandeep Deshwal @ Sanju v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, which, following State through CBI, New Delhi v. Jitender Kumar Singh, recognised that the testimony of a panch witness and raiding officer may sustain a finding against an accused when it is cogent and convincing.

The appellant’s reliance on Bharat Bhushan v. State and Babji v. State concerned the principle that recovery alone, without cogent proof connecting the money to the alleged gratification and inducement, is insufficient.

The Court found that, despite the complainant and another witness turning hostile, the panch witness gave a consistent account of the demand and transaction, including the transfer of the treated currency in Rajinder Singh’s presence; the raiding officer and police witnesses provided supporting evidence.

The Court also relied on the recovery of the currency and fee receipts relating to licence applications, which it found Rajinder Singh had not explained.

On that evidence, it concluded that the prosecution had proved the statutory ingredients and that the Trial Court’s conviction was supported by the record.

Rajinder Singh was directed to surrender forthwith to serve the sentence and was held entitled to set-off under Section 428 CrPC.