An accused's conviction for bribery can be upheld if witness credibility and corroborating evidence outweigh minor discrepancies in testimonies, and procedural lapses do not lead to prejudice.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. This appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the accused in C.C.No.130/2001 on the file of the Court of Special Judge, Tiz Hazari Court challenging the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the PC Act).

2. The prosecution case is that on 22.04.1996, the accused, while working as Sub Inspector, Delhi Police and posted at Ashok Vihar Police Station, demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2,000 /- from PW4, for favouring him in Crime No. 204/96, which crime was being investigated by the accused.

3. On 22.04.1996, PW4 lodged a complaint, that is, Ext. PW10/A with the Anti-Corruption Branch, CBI, Delhi, based on which crime, RC No. 37(A)/96-DLI, that is, Ext. PW10/B FIR was registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of the PC Act.

4. PW11 conducted investigation into the crime and on completion of the same, submitted the charge-sheet/ final report alleging commission of offences punishable under the aforementioned sections.

5. Ext. PW2/A sanction order for prosecuting the accused was accorded by PW2, the then Deputy Commissioner of police, North-West District, Delhi.

6. When the accused on receipt of summons appeared before the trial court, the Court on 15.09.1997, framed a charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the PC Act to which he pleaded not guilty.

7. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW11 were examined and Ex. PW-1/A, Ex. PW-2/A, Ex. PW-3/A, Ex. PW-4/A-D, Ex. PW-4/X, Ex. PW-5/A, Ex. PW-5/B, Ex. PW-5/X, Ex. PW-9/A, Ex. PW-10A-E, Ex. PW-10/G, Ex. PW-10/H, Mark ‘2A’, Mark ‘X’ were marked in support of the case.

8. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and maintained his innocence.

9. After questioning the accused under Section. 313 Cr.P.C., compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C. was mandatory. In the case on hand, no hearing as contemplated under Cr.P.C. is seen done by the trial court. However, non-compliance of the said provision does not, ipso facto vitiate the proceedings, unless omission to comply with the same is shown to have resulted in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused (SeeMoidu K. vs. State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89 : 2009 SCC OnLine Ker 2888). Here, the accused has no case that non-compliance of Cr.P.C. has caused any prejudice to him.

10. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the accused.

11. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the impugned judgment dated 21.08.2003, held the accused guilty of commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the PC Act and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to simple imprisonment for one month and to simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the aforesaid offences. The substantive sentences of imprisonment have been directed to run concurre