Back
2025 Supreme(Del) 481
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. HARI SHANKAR, OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, JJ.
Prakash Chand Sharma - Appellant
Vs.
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondent
W.P.(C) 6148 Of 2024, CM APPL. 25569 Of 2024 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1412 Of 2025
Decided On : 28-08-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Nitin Joshi, Mr. Harsimran Singh, Mr. Vaibhav Thaledi, Mr. Sunit Dutt Sharma, Mr. Gursimran Singh and Mr. Harsh Singh, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, SPC with Mr. Amit Acharya, GP with Mr. Kishan Pandey, Adv. for UOI with Mr. Paramjeet Singh, Law Officer, BSF.
The acceptance of bribes by a public servant is substantiated by circumstantial evidence and the presumption under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires rebuttal by the accused.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 11 - Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Section 46 - Dismissal of service and conviction of public servant for corruption - The petitioner, a public servant, was convicted for accepting bribes for improper performance of duties. The General Security Force Court found evidence including video clips of the petitioner accepting money from contractors. The petitioner's claims of insufficient evidence and violations of natural justice were rejected. (Paras 1, 5, 25, 43)
(B) Burden of proof - The prosecution bears the burden to prove the demand and receipt of bribes - However, presumption arises under Section 20 of the PC Act upon proof of acceptance of money, making it the petitioner's responsibility to rebut such presumption with evidence. (Paras 20, 39)
(C) Judicial review scope - The court's review of GSFC proceedings is restricted, primarily ensuring compliance with legal protocols and principles of natural justice during trials conducted under the BSF Act. (Paras 27, 36)
(D) Conviction and sentencing - The GSFC imposed a sentence of three years imprisonment and dismissal from service, deemed appropriate given the seriousness of the corruption charges. (Paras 44, 45)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was dismissed and convicted after being found guilty of bribery charges concerning contracts while serving as an officer in the Border Security Force. Several witnesses and video evidence implicated him in the charges.
Findings of Court:
The GSFC's findings were supported by video evidence showing the petitioner accepting bribes and witnesses corroborating those actions. The conviction was upheld, affirming the serious nature of corrupt practices in public service.
Issues: The main issues included whether the evidence was sufficient to prove demand and acceptance of bribes and the validity of the accusations based on video evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The GSFC's conclusion that the acceptance of bribes was evident from witness testimonies and video clips was upheld, and the presumption of bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act was affirmed based on established evidence.
Result: Writ petition dismissed; order of GSFC upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dismissal and conviction based on corruption. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. defendant contends evidentiary deficiencies. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. court affirms validity of evidence against defendant. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
JUDGMENT :
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition assailing his dismissal from service and his conviction thereof under Sections 7 & 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, [“The PC Act”, hereinafter], 1988 by the General Security Force Court, [“GSFC”, hereinafter] constituted under the Border Security Force Act, [“The BSF Act”, hereinafter], 1968. He further assails the confirmation of the same by Respondent No.3 and the disposal of his 'Pre Confirmation Petition' and 'Post Confirmation Petition' by Respondent No.2.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts as noted from the petition would be that the petitioner was enrolled in the Border Security Force, [“BSF”, hereinafter] as SI/JE (Elect.) on 16.06.1993 and was subsequently promoted to Deputy Commandant (Electricals) on 27.01.2020 at HQ South Bengal Frontier BSF.
3. Allegations of corruption were levelled against the petitioner and as such a Staff Court of Inquiry, [“SCIO” hereinafter] was initiated against him on 28.03.2022 to 'investigate into the circumstances relating to acceptance of bribe from civil contractors by pressurizing them', in lieu of which total 11 witness were examined. Since the petitioner was found guilty as per the material collected during Staff Court of Inquiry, a Record of Evidence, [“RoE” hereinafter] under Rule 48 of the BSF Rules, 1969 was directed to be prepared against the petitioner.
4. The Recording Officer, examined almost 07 Prosecution witnesses and the petitioner having been found guilty, disciplinary action by way of convening a GSFC was directed by Respondent No. 4 and the petitioner was served with a copy of the chargesheet on 14.02.2023 and the trial took place at 85 Battalion BSF deployed at Digberia, 24 Parganas, Kolkata, West Bengal from 21.02.2024 to 21.04.2023. The petitioner was accused of committing a punishable offence under Section 46 (3 charges) of the BSF Act, 1968, which are enumerated as herein below:
| First Charge - Section 46 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 | COMMITTING A CIVIL OFFENCE THAT IS TO SAY BEING A PUBLIC SERVANT ATTEMPTED TO OBTAIN BRIBE FOR IMPROPER & DISHONEST PERFORMANCE OF AN OFFICIAL DUTY PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7(A) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT , 1988 (AMENDED IN 2018) That he, on 21.12.2021 at about 1806 hrs attempted to obtain undue benefit in lieu of contract from Sandeep Dey of contractor, M/s Sujatha Enterprises in the administrative Block of Frontier Headquarters, South Bengal Rajarhat 24 Parganas (N), West Bengal and thereby Committed an offense punishable under Section 7 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. |
| Second Charge - Section 46 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 | COMMITTING A CIVIL OFFENCE, THAT IS TO SAY BEING A PUBLIC SERVANT OBTAINED UNDUE ADVATANGE WITHOUT CONSIDERATION FROM PERSON CONCERNED IN PROCEEDING OR BUSINESS TRANSACTED BY SUCH PUBLIC SERVANT PUNISHABLE U/S 11 OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988 (AMENDED IN 2018) That the petitioner, on 23.12.2021, at about 1344 hrs, at the Administrative Block of Frontier-Headquarters Border Security Force, South Bengal, Rajarhat, 24 Parganas (N), West Bengal, Sri Mohitash Das, M/s Das Enterprises, Resident Laupola, PO - Subarnopur, PS-Haringhata, District - Nadia (West Bengal), without accepting Rs. 10,000 - (Ten Thousand Rupees) from a person whom he knew as a contractor, carrying out electrical works of the Border Security Force and thereby violating the Prevention of Corruption Act, Committed an offense punishable under Section 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. |
| Third Charge - Section 46 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 |
