* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 22.01.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 28.01.2026 + CRL.A. 567/2001 BALDEV SINGH .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Riya Kumar, Advocate.

versus C.B.I. .....Respondent Through: Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, CGSC with Mr. Ankit Khatri, Ms. Usha Jamnal and Ms. Nyasa Sharma, Advocates. CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (the Cr.P.C.) the sole accused, in C.C. No. 72/99 on the file of the Special Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, assails the judgment dated 02.08.2001 and order on sentence dated 03.08.2001 as per which he has been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the PC Act).

2. The prosecution case is that the accused, while posted as Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) at Police Post Shakur Basti, on 08.11.1995 demanded illegal gratification of₹ 10000/- from PW1 for not harassing him in connection with the complaints initiated at the instance of the latter’s brother and, on 09.11.95actually received ₹ 5000/-.

3. Sanction for prosecution was accorded by PW2, Deputy Commissioner of Police (North-West District), Delhi, vide Ext.

PW2/A order dated 18.04.1996.

4. Crime no.98(A) 95-DLI, that is, Ext.PW7/A FIR, was registered on the basis of PW1/A complaint of PW1.After completion of investigation by PW8, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section

13 (1)(d) of the PC Act.

5. When the accused was produced before the trial court, all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides, the trial court vide order dated 19.02.1998, framed a charge under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and also under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (the IPC), which was read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 8 were examined and Exts. PW1/A-D, PW2/A, PW3/A, PW3/A, PW4/A-D, PW5/A, PW6/A, PW7/A and PW8/A were marked in support of the case.

7. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 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 submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case as PW1 had a grudge against him. He stated that he had gone to ‘Standard Sweet Shop’ to meet PW1an acquaintance, but he neither demanded nor accepted any money. According to him, it was one Sanjay Yadav, the companion of PW1, who tried to thrust money into his pocket which he resisted, and as a result thereof, the currency notes fell down on the ground and his scooter also fell down in the process. Immediately, he was surrounded by the CBI officials, who falsely implicated him in this case.

8. 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 Section 232 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 the same is shown to have resulted in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused (See Moidu K. vs. State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89 : 2009 SCC OnLine Ker 2888). Here, the accused has no case that non-compliance of Section 232 Cr. PC has caused any prejudice to him.

9. On behalf of the accused, DWs. 1 to 5 were examined and Ext. DW3/A was marked in support of his defense.

10. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record and after he