IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:27.06.2025 + CRL.A. 797/2023 SH. DHANI RAM MEHTO ..... Appellant versus SH. HARNAM SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Manoranjan and Ms. Aditi Ajmera, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Ravi Sharma, SPP for the CBI with Mr.

Swapnil Choudhary, Mr. Ishann Bhardwaj, Mr. Shivam Mishra and Ms. Madhulika Rai Sharma, Advocates for CBI.

Mr. Vivek Kadyan, Advocate for R-5 CORAM HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) challenging the order dated 17.07.2023 (‘impugned order’), passed by the learned Special Judge, Rouse Avenue Courts Complex, New Delhi, in Case No. MISC DJ ASJ 148/2023.

2. By the impugned order, the learned Special Judge dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 340 of the CrPC and Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAMALDEEP CRL.A. 797/2023 Page 1 of 18 Section 195 CrPC read with Sections 193, 195, 196, 204 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 120B of the IPC.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

3.1. On 16.03.2017, the complainant Vakeel Ahmed/ Respondent No.5 made a complaint alleging that he required a ‘No Dues certificate’ against the property bearing no. 47-A, Ram Bagh Road, Azad Market, Delhi-06 from the DDA and in lieu of issuing the same, the appellant (AD, Damage Department, Room No. 14A, DDA Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi) and the accused Satvir, who was working under the appellant, had demanded a bribe of ₹5,000/- from the complainant. Verification of the aforesaid complaint was conducted on 16.03.2017 and the same confirmed the demand of ₹4,000/- on part of the appellant. Pursuant to the same, on the basis of the verification, on 16.03.2017, RC No. DAI-2017-A-0010 was registered against the appellant for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’) by CBI, ACB, New Delhi.

3.2. The conversations recorded during verification proceedings were heard in the presence of independent witness and the complainant and the same corroborated the version of the complainant and the demand of bribe of ₹4,000/- by the appellant, whereafter the verification memo was prepared.

3.3. On 16.03.2017, after registration of the case, a trap was laid wherein the appellant was caught red handed while demanding and Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAMALDEEP CRL.A. 797/2023 Page 2 of 18 accepting the bribe. It was alleged that the appellant had kept the bribe amount of ₹3500/- with himself which was recovered from him and ₹500 was given to one of the appellant’s staff-Suraj Mehto, LDC. The part bribe amount was seized from the accused Suraj. The distinctive number of the notes recovered from the accused persons were tallied. The Left Hand Wash and Right Hand Wash of the appellant and the accused Suraj was taken separately and the same turned the clear solution into pink indicating that they had touched the tainted bribe money prepared for the trap.

3.4. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed for the offence under Section 120B of the IPC read with Section 7 and

13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.

3.5. After appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Special Judge by judgment dated 23.12.2022 convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 7 and under 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, which is punishable under Section 13(2) of the PC Act and acquitted co-accused. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of ₹15,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The appellant filed an appeal, being, CRL.A. 102/2023, against his conviction before this Court and his sentence was suspended by order dated 14.02.2023.

3.6. The application under Section 340 of the CrPC was filed by the appellant