The court upheld the defendant's conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act based on credible witness testimony corroborated by procedural evidence despite minor procedural defects.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. This appeal under Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (the PC Act) read with Section 374of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the accused in C.C.No. 57/1996 on the file of the Court of Special Judge, Tiz Hazari Court, Delhi challenging the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act.

2. The prosecution case is that on 25.09.1995, the accused, while working as Sub Inspector, Delhi Police and posted at Jama Masjid Police Station, demanded illegal gratification of ₹5,000 /- from PW1, for not taking any adverse action against him in Crime No. 187/95, which crime was being investigated by the accused.

3. On 06.10.1995, PW1 lodged a complaint, that is, Ext. PW1/A, with the S.P., CBI, Anti-Corruption Branch, New Delhi, based on which crime, RC No. 86(A)/95-DLI, that is, Ext. PW5/A FIR was registered alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act.

4. PW5, Inspector, Anti Corruption Branch, CBI, New Delhi, conducted investigation into the crime and on completion of the same, submitted the charge-sheet/ final report alleging commission of the 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, Central District, Delhi.

6. When the accused on receipt of summons appeared before the trial court, the Court after complying with the formality contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C, on 12.09.1997, 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 which was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.

7. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW8 were examined and Ext. PW1/A, Ext. PW2/A, Ext. PW3/A – H, PW4/A, PW5/A- B, PW6/A, Mark A & B, PW8/A 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. He admitted that he was the Investigating Officer in Crime No. 187/95 Jama Masjid, Police Station in which one Om Prakash Tiwari had been arrested and that the latter on questioning, disclosed the involvement of PW1 and so PW1 was also wanted in the said crime. He admitted his presence at Tis Hazari Courts on the date of the trap in connection with his official duties, but denied all other 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. On behalf of the accused, DW1 was examined and Ext. DW1/A-B was marked.

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