Delhi HC Upholds Electricity Official’s Bribery Conviction After He Directed Complainant To Hand ₹3,000 To Colleague

The complainant alleged that Babu Ram, a Junior Engineer/Inspector with DVB, demanded ₹10,000 in connection with an electricity-theft case concerning the complainant’s father.

After the complainant approached the CBI, a trap was laid on 19 December 2000 with ₹3,000 in treated currency.

The prosecution alleged that Babu Ram directed the complainant to give the money to Ram Kumar, from whom the currency was recovered; Ram Kumar’s hand and pocket washes tested positive for phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate.

Ram Kumar was discharged at the charge-framing stage, while Babu Ram was tried and convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), read with Section 13(2), of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Babu Ram appealed, challenging, among other matters, proof of demand and acceptance, the audio evidence, identification, sanction, and his presence at the scene.

Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), read with Section 13(2), of the Prevention of Corruption Act require proof of demand and acceptance or obtainment of illegal gratification; recovery of tainted currency alone is insufficient.

Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731, identifies demand and acceptance or obtainment as facts in issue to be proved by the prosecution.

B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 55, likewise holds that recovery or possession alone cannot sustain conviction without proof of demand.

The Court also relied on State by Lokayuktha Police v. Sri K. Rangayya, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 963, for the proposition that Section 7, including Explanation 2, may encompass an attempt to obtain an undue advantage for another person or through an intermediary.

The presumption under Section 20 arises only after the prosecution establishes the foundational facts of demand and acceptance.

The Court accepted the complainant’s evidence that Babu Ram demanded the money and directed its delivery to Ram Kumar, corroborated on that material point by the shadow witness.

The recovery of the same treated currency from Ram Kumar, together with the positive hand and pocket washes, supported the receipt of the money and its connection to the trap.

Ram Kumar’s discharge did not determine the evidentiary question concerning Babu Ram’s alleged direction to him.

The Court acknowledged weaknesses in the transcripts and the absence of specimen-voice comparison, but held that the conviction did not depend on the audio evidence alone.

It also found that the sanction evidence, asserted motive for false implication, and alibi did not displace the prosecution witnesses’ account.

On the Court’s view of the evidence, acceptance through Ram Kumar could be attributed to Babu Ram’s direction; personal recovery from Babu Ram was not essential.

It upheld the conviction and sentence orders dated 29 and 30 August 2007, dismissed the appeal, and directed Babu Ram to undergo the sentence within two weeks.