* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 11.03.2026 Judgment pronounced on:16.03.2026 + CRL.A. 846/2004 MOHD. YAMIN @ YAMEEN KHAN .....Appellant Through: Mr. Yudhishtar Kahol with Mr. Kunal Kahol and Mr. Nikhil Kahol, Advocates.

versus STATE THR. C.B.I .....Respondent Through: Mr. Kamal Kant Goel, SPP with Ms.Jyoti Goel, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. In this appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (the Cr.P.C.) the sole accused, in C.C. No. 106/2001 on the file of the Special Judge, Delhi, assails the judgment dated 06.10.2004 and order on sentence dated 12.10.2004 as per which he has been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the PC Act).

2. The prosecution case is that the accused, while posted as Assistant Manager (Accounts) at ITDC, Hotel Samrat, New Delhi, on 29.11.1996 demanded illegal gratification of ₹500/- from PW3, whose taxies were attached with the Hotel Samrat on panel basis, for disbursing the payment of taxi bills, which had already been passed and approved by the General Manager at ITDC, Hotel Samrat, New Delhi.

3. Sanction for prosecution was accorded by PW2, the then Vice President (Credit and Collection), ITDC, New Delhi, vide Ext. PW2/A.

4. Crime no. RC 83(A)/1996, dated 29.11.1996 was registered on the basis of PW3/A complaint of PW3. After completion of investigation by PW10, a charge-sheet dated 29.05.1997 was filed against the appellant alleging the commission of the offences punishable under the aforementioned sections.

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 20.02.1998, framed a Charge under Section 7 and Section 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.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 11 were examined and Exhibits PW1/A-D, P1-56, PW2/A, PW3/A, PW4/A-B were marked in support of the case.

7. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) 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 due to personal and union rivalry and at the instance of interested persons. According to him, PW3, who was related to union leader one S.S. Upadhyaya, had a grudge against him as he had refused to process and release payments in violation of the prescribed rules and procedures of ITDC. PW3 wanted early release of certain bills and payments which were not due at the relevant time, and when he did not accede to such demands, a false complaint was lodged against him. He further submitted that he had always discharged his duties strictly in accordance with the departmental rules and guidelines and that he never came into direct contact with taxi operators, as their bills were processed through the prescribed channel. He asserted that during his long service of about 26 years, no complaint of corruption or misconduct had ever been made against him and that his integrity and efficiency had been recognized by the department, even earning him honorarium and responsible assignments. The investigation has been unfair and biased; the evidence had been fabricated and manipulated. He denied having demanded or accepted any bribe or illegal gratification from PW3 and claimed that he had been made a victim of a conspiracy hatched by interested union elements to settle personal scores.

8. On behalf of the accused, DWs. 1 to 7 were examined.

No documentary evidence was adduced.

9. On consideration