Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
Vikram Singh – Appellant
Versus
CBI – Respondent
Crl. Appeal Nos. 280, 306 of 2012
Decided On : 12-03-2018
Corruption - Police Personnel - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13 (1)(d), Section 13 (2), Section 7, Section 120-B of IPC
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, police personnel, were convicted under Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as well as under Section 120-B of the IPC for demanding a bribe from a complainant. The case was registered based on a written complaint, and a trap was laid to catch the accused red-handed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's case was largely based on the testimony of the complainant, who turned hostile during cross-examination, and other witnesses did not fully support the prosecution's version. The court concluded that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, essential for proving the offences under the Act, were not established beyond reasonable doubt. As a result, the accused were acquitted, and their bail bonds were cancelled.
Issues: The key issue was whether the prosecution had proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the proof of demand of illegal gratification is essential for establishing the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mere recovery of the amount without proof of demand would not be sufficient to convict the accused.
Final Decision: The accused were acquitted, and their bail bonds were cancelled and sureties discharged.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
1. These appeals are directed against the impugned judgment and order on sentence 31.01.2012 and 24.02.2012 wherein both appellants (police personnel) ASI Vikram Singh and constable Vikram Singh had been convicted under Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) as also under Section 120-B of the IPC. The maximum sentence awarded to each of them was RI for a period of 18 months besides payment of fine. Separate sentences were awarded to them qua their convictions under Section 7 as also Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the said Act. Benefit of Section 428 of the Cr.PC had been granted to the convicts.
2. The nominal rolls of the appellants reflect that they had hardly remained incarcerated for any period of time. They remained on bail during trial. Even when the appeals were filed, their sentences were suspended on the very first day vide order dated 13.03.2012.
3. Record shows that the present case was registered against both the accused persons on 07.02.2004 on a written complaint of the complainant Satish Kumar Gupta (PW-5). The initial RC was registered under Section 7 of the said Act. The allegation of the complainant was that the traffic police was demanding money from the complainant while he was plying his public transport vehicle; on 07.02.2004 ASI Vikram Singh and Constable Vikram Singh, both police personnel of the Delhi Traffic Police demanded a bribe of Rs. 100/- as an entry fee for allowing the plying of the vehicle through Kodiapul Bus stand. The complainant was threatened that his vehicle will be challaned if this bribe money was not paid by 08.02.2004. The complainant was not willing to pay this bribe. He made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Branch, Head Quarter, New Delhi on 07.02.2004. The case was entrusted to Inspector H.K. Lal (PW-10) for laying a trap. A trap team was constituted. In the presence of two independent witnesses Jitender Bhardwaj (PW-7) and Suresh Kumar (PW-9) pre-trap proceedings were conducted. These were recorded in the handing over memo dated 08.02.2004 (Ex.PW-5/B) which was prepared at the office of the complainant. A Samsung digital recorder was handed over to the complainant to record the version with the accused persons. The trap team boarded the vehicle to reach the spot i.e. R.R. bus stand at Kodiapul where the vehicle was stopped by constable Vikram Singh. PW-5 along with his driver Parshuram (PW-15) alighted from the bus and walked towards the police officials. The shadow witness (PW-9) was directed by PW-10 to remain in the vehicle and to watch the transaction which was visible from the bus. PW-5 approached ASI Vikram Singh. The complainant recorded the conversation that ensued between him and ASI Vikram Singh. ASI Vikram Singh had directed the complainant to handover the bribe money of Rs. 100/- to Constable Vikram Singh who thereafter made an entry in the pocket diary produced by the complainant. The accused persons were arrested at the spot. Their hand washes were obtained and were accordingly forwarded to the FSL for a chemical examination. The FSL vide its report dated 18.03.2004 gave a positive opinion about the presence of phenolphthalein powder in the RHW, LHW and LSPPW i.e. right hand wash, left hand wash and left side pent pocket wash of constable Vikram Singh i.e. the person who had pocketed the money.
4. In view of the aforenoted evidence collected by the prosecution, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons. The charges which were leveled against them were under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) and Section 7 of the said Act as also Section 120-B of the IPC.
5. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom the star witness of the prosecution was the complainant examined as PW-5. The recovery witnesses were examined as PW-7 and PW-9. PW-8 (Subhash Chand) was a chance witness. The driver
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
