Delhi High Court Ends 35-Year Ordeal: Engineers Acquitted in ₹1,800 Bribe Trap from 1991

In a landmark ruling that underscores the limits of statutory presumptions in corruption cases, the Delhi High Court has acquitted two former Flood Control Department engineers accused of demanding and accepting a modest ₹900 bribe each. Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha set aside their 2002 conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) , granting them the benefit of doubt after pinpointing fatal flaws in the prosecution's narrative. This decision closes a grueling 35-year legal battle for Dinesh Garg (Junior Engineer) and V.K. Datta (Assistant Engineer), originally tried in a CBI trap laid on September 20, 1991 .

From Site Encroachments to a Shadowy Trap

The saga began in 1991 when M/s Gupta Construction Co. was awarded contracts for boundary walls and barbed wire fencing along Delhi's Nangloi Supplementary Drain. Supervised by PW1—a power-of-attorney holder for the firm—the projects stalled due to encroachments, leading to pleas for foreclosure and bill clearances. PW1 alleged that on September 20, he met the engineers at their Shastri Nagar office around 10:15 AM, where they demanded ₹1,800 (₹900 each) to expedite "pending" running and final bills.

Unwilling to pay, PW1 rushed to the CBI 's Anti-Corruption Branch, filing a complaint by 11:15 AM. A trap followed that afternoon: PW1, shadowed by independent witness PW4, handed over phenolphthalein-tainted notes, allegedly recovered from the engineers' possession after a signal. The trial court convicted them in 2002 to two years' RI and fines, sentencing to run concurrently. Appeals lingered until Justice Sudha's verdict on April 2, 2026 .

Defense Strikes at the Heart: No Demand, No Dues, No Presence

Appellants' counsel hammered inconsistencies. For Dinesh Garg (A2), prior tensions shone through: his May 1991 complaint (Ext. PW8/DA) accused the contractor of pilfering cement and shoddy work, suggesting retaliation. Muster rolls (Exts. D1, D2)—uncontested and proved via DW1-DW2—placed both engineers at a distant work site on September 20, casting doubt on the morning demand.

No bills were pending, per PW5 (Executive Engineer): one work foreclosed with a ₹300 minus balance owed by the contractor; another suspended sans dues; the third awaiting a seven-day cement curing period. PW1 admitted ignorance of exact dues, with accounts handled by the absent proprietor (CW14). Timeline impossibilities abounded—FIR at 11:15 AM barely after PW1's alleged arrival—and PW3/PW4 testimonies clashed on raid logistics, with 11 charge witnesses (including trap apprehenders) dropped, invoking adverse inference u/s 114(g) Evidence Act .

Precedents like Neeraj Dutta v. State (2023 SCC) reinforced: mere recovery sans proved demand fails PC Act charges.

Prosecution's Pushback: Corroborated Trap, Unchallenged Science

CBI countered that PW1, PW3, PW4, and PW5 corroborated demand-acceptance, with phenolphthalein handwashes turning pink (unchallenged via non-cross of PW2/PW6). FIR omissions of A2 were immaterial; PW4 testified to shares demanded. No rebuttal discredited muster rolls, they argued, urging reliance on trial court's holistic view.

Why the Scales Tipped: Demolishing the Presumption's Foundation

Justice Sudha dissected the prosecution's edifice. Muster rolls—30 km from office, entries by DW2 in presence—undisputedly showed site duties, questioning the 10:15 AM meeting. FIR timing strained credulity: pre-arrival registration implausible. PW3's recovery account contradicted PW1/PW4—no shared room, A1 fetched later.

Crucially, PW5—a "loyal" prosecution witness—confirmed no dues payable , negating motive. Dropped witnesses like CW14 (proprietor) warranted adverse inference ( Mussauddin Ahmed v. State of Assam , 2009 SCC). Section 20 PC Act presumption? Not triggered without foundational proof of demand-acceptance ( Neeraj Dutta ).

“ Suspicion, however strong cannot take the place of proof. ”

V.K. Datta cited Ved Prakash Maurya , Har Swarup Verma et al. for " stock witness " doubts, but the court focused on evidentiary gaps.

Echoes from the Bar: "35 Years of Suspense Ends"

As news outlets noted, this acquittal highlights protracted PC Act trials' toll, with no motive amid "minus bills" sealing doubts.

Freedom After Decades: Acquittal and Broader Ripples

Appeals allowed; conviction quashed under S.248(1) CrPC . Engineers walk free, bail bonds cancelled.

“The appellants/A1 and A2 are entitled to the benefit of doubt ... the trial court went wrong in relying on the aforesaid unsatisfactory evidence.”

This ruling fortifies safeguards: presumptions demand pristine foundations. Future traps must ironclad-prove demand, especially sans dues or alibis like muster rolls— a caution for prosecutors amid witness pruning.

Key Observations

“As long as Exts. D1 and D2 are not disputed it can only be concluded that A1 and A2 were in fact at the site on the said day.”

“In the light of the testimony of PW5... it becomes evident that there was no subsisting due or liability on the part of the department towards the contractor at the relevant time. This also raises doubts regarding the existence of any motive or occasion for the alleged demand.”

“The failure of the prosecution to examine the aforesaid crucial witnesses coupled with the aforesaid inconsistencies... raise further doubts... A party is bound to lead the best evidence in its possession.”

“ Section 20 of the PC Act mandates a statutory presumption ... however, such presumption is not automatic and can only be invoked when the prosecution first establishes the foundational facts.”