* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 04.12.2025 Pronounced on : 06.12.2025 Uploaded on : 06.12.2025 + CRL.A. 234/2003 SURESH KUMAR GUPTA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate with Ms.

Purniam Maheshwari, Mr. M.L. Yadav, Mr.

Kushagra Bansal and Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Advocates alongwith appellant in person versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for State with SI Bheem Singh, PS ACB, GNCTD, Delhi Mr. Krishan Kumar and Mr. Anubhav Kumar, Advocates for victim CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 19.04.2003 and order on sentence dated 22.04.2003 passed in CC No. 32/2000 arising out of FIR No. 37/1999 registered under Sections 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”) at the Anti-Corruption Branch.

Vide the impugned order on sentence, the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 3 years alongwith payment of fine of Rs.12,500/-, in default whereof he would undergo RI for a period of 4 months, for the offence punishable under Section 7 PC Act. He was further sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 4 years alongwith payment of fine of Rs.12,500/-, in default whereof he would undergo RI for a period of 4 months, for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) PC Act. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution, as emerging from the record, is that the appellant was apprehended in a trap organised by the Anti-Corruption Branch officials for having demanded and obtained illegal gratification from the complainant/Sanjeev Chauhan for showing favour to him in discharge of his duties as an Inspector in the Factory Licensing Department of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). Being aggrieved, the complainant lodged a complaint (Ex. PW-3/A) on 27.09.1999 against the appellant. It was stated that on 23.09.1999, the complainant went to Factory Licence Department, MCD, Kashmere Gate for renewal of the factory licence which was originally in the name of “Gemini Exports”, of which one Rakesh Sood was a partner. He met the appellant and showed him the original license for the year 1993-94. The appellant told the complainant that he would renew the license, but it would cost him Rs.25,000/-, out of which Rs.3,600/- will be deposited as late fee and the balance amount would be his service charges. The complainant told the appellant that it was excessive and stated that he would talk to Mr. Rakesh Sood. At this, the appellant stated some reasonable amount and asked him to come back on 24.09.1999 at 12 noon. However, 24.09.1999 was declared a holiday, the complainant talked to the appellant over the phone and the appellant told him to come to his office with the money on 27.09.1999 at 12 noon. The complainant stated that he and his boss, Mr. Rakesh Sood, did not want to pay the bribe amount, but out of helplessness, Mr. Sood consented to the same.

3. The prosecution examined a total of 16 witnesses in support of its case. The complainant was examined as PW-13, the shadow/panch witness as PW-3, and the Raid Officer was examined as PW-9. The owner of the company of which the complainant is an employee, Mr. Rakesh Sood, was examined as PW-6. The remaining witnesses were largely formal in nature.

4. The appellant’s statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he admitted that he was a public servant employed with the MCD at the relevant time, but denied the allegations put to him regarding him demanding and accepting a bribe from the present complainant. He did not lead any defence evidence.

5. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, learned senior counsel, contended that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the appellant had ever demanded any illegal gratification. In this regard, he submitted that both the complainant as well as the shadow witness have not supported the prosecution case.

6. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand