* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 12.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 17.03.2026 + CRL.A. 207/2006 MAHENDER PRASAD .....Appellant Through: Ms. Riya Kumar, Advocate versus STATE (C.B.I) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Kamal Kant Goel, SPP for CBI with Ms. Jyoti Goel, Advocate

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. This appeal under Section 374of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the sole accused in C.C.No.48/2003 on the file of the Court of Special Judge, Delhi, challenging the conviction entered and sentence passed against him 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 on 05.02.2003 at about

02.20 PM, the accused, a public servant, while working as Malaria Inspector in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), demanded and accepted a sum of ₹500/- from PW4 as illegal gratification for not prosecuting him for maintaining his dhaba in an unhygienic and unclean condition, and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 7 and Section

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

3. On 05.02.2003, PW4 lodged a complaint, that is, Ext.

PW4/A, with the S.P., Anti-Corruption Branch, CBI, New Delhi, based on which crime, RCDAI-2003-A-0009, that is, Ext. PW9/A FIR was registered alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act.

4. PW10, Sub-Inspector (SI), 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 Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act.

5. Ext. PW5/A sanction order for prosecuting the accused was accorded by PW5, the then Additional Commissioner (Health), MCD.

6. When the accused on receipt of summons appeared before the trial court, the trial court after complying with the formality contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C, on 21.01.2004, framed a charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 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 PW10 were examined and Ext.PW1/A, Ext.PW2/A - H, Ext.PW3/A - H, PW4/A, PW4/DA, PW5/A, PW6/A - D, PW7/A, PW7/A-1, PW7/B, PW8/A - C, PW8/DA, PW9/A, PW10/A-B were marked in support of the prosecution case.

8. 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. The accused submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and that even after the trap proceedings, PW4 approached him and demanded money in order to hush up the matter. Upon his refusal to comply with such demand, PW4 threatened him and subsequently lodged another false complaint against him, which was referred to the police but was ultimately closed as untraced. The accused also submitted that PW4 had again threatened him, in the presence of certain staff members of MCD Boys Primary School at Jafarpur Kalan, stating that the latter would ensure that the accused is put behind bars if he refused to pay the demanded money.

9. On behalf of the accused persons, DWs. 1 and 2 were examined.

10.On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide judgment dated 08.03.2006, held the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Vide order on sentence dated 10.03.2006, the accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years along with fine of ₹10,000/- under Section 7 of the PC Act, and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous impri