Delhi HC Upholds EPFO Supervisor’s Conviction For Demanding And Accepting ₹500 Bribe, Rejects Claim Cash Was Thrust Into His Pocket

Rajkumar, a Section Supervisor/Head Clerk in the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for demanding and accepting ₹500 from a claimant whose provident-fund payment remained unpaid.

The prosecution relied on the complainant’s written complaint and testimony, a shadow witness’s account of the trap transaction, recovery of the treated notes, positive hand and pocket washes, and a recorded conversation.

The Trial Court sentenced him to concurrent terms of two and three years’ rigorous imprisonment, respectively.

He appealed under Section 374 CrPC, challenging, among other matters, proof of demand and voluntary acceptance, the electronic evidence, and the validity of the prosecution case.

The Court applied Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii), punishable under Section 13(2), of the PC Act as they stood at the time of the offence.

Under *Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi*, (2023) 4 SCC 731), demand and acceptance or obtainment are foundational facts that may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence; once the foundational facts for Section 7 are established, Section 20 raises a rebuttable presumption, but that presumption does not apply to Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii).

Under *Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer*, (2014) 10 SCC 473, and *Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal*, (2020) 7 SCC 1, a Section 65-B(4) certificate is ordinarily a condition for admitting secondary electronic evidence; however, under *Sonu v. State of Haryana*, (2017) 8 SCC 570, an objection to the mode or method of proof must ordinarily be raised when the evidence is tendered.

The Court also relied on *Sundar v. State*, (2024) 12 SCC 764, regarding application of that principle, and *Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration*, (1976) 1 SCC 727, for the proposition that evidence of a witness permitted to be cross-examined by the calling party is not thereby effaced.

The Court found the complainant’s direct testimony of the prior ₹500 demand corroborated by his contemporaneous complaint, and the shadow witness’s account established a renewed demand at the trap and the appellant’s receipt and placement of the notes in his shirt pocket.

Recovery of the recorded notes and positive washes from both hands and the pocket supported conscious handling; the appellant’s claim that the money was thrust into his pocket was not supported by the witnesses or consistent with the forensic evidence.

The Court held that the claim remained within the appellant’s supervised section pending onward transmission, and rejected the asserted hostility and post-trap registration theories for want of adequate evidentiary support.

The Section 65-B objection was raised for the first time on appeal, after the cassette had been admitted without objection, and was therefore rejected as belated.

The recording was treated as corroborative, not as a substitute for the direct evidence of demand and acceptance.

It dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentences.

The appellant was directed to surrender within four weeks to serve the remainder of his sentence; custody already undergone was to be set off under Section 428 CrPC.