* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 23.03.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 02.04.2026 + CRL.A. 748/2002 DINESH GARG .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sameer Chandra, Ms. Vivya Nagpal, Mr. Ekansh Bansal and Mr.Aryan Tomar, Advocates.

Versus C.B.I. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Atul Guleria, SPP with Mr.

Aryan Rakesh and Ms. Atreyi Chatterjee, Advocates.

+ CRL.A. 763/2002 V.K. DATTA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sunil Dalal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Raghav Bhalla, Mr. Ankit Rana, Ms. Shipra Bali, Ms. Zeba Khan, Advocates.

Versus NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Atul Guleria, SPP with Mr.

Aryan Rakesh and Ms. Atreyi Chatterjee, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. These appeals under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.) read with Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“the PC Act”) has been filed by accused nos. 1 and 2 (A1 and A2) in C.C.No.109/1994 on the file of the Court of Special Judge, Delhi, challenging the conviction entered and sentence passed against them for the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(1) (d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act.

2. The prosecution case is that on 20.09.1991, A1, Assistant Engineer, Flood Control Department, and A2, Junior Engineer, Flood Control Department, both being public servants, demanded and accepted ₹900/- each from PW1 as illegal gratification for facilitating the release of the PW1’s running and final bills.

3. On 20.09.1991, PW1 lodged a complaint, that is, Ext.

PW1/E, with the Anti-Corruption Branch, New Delhi, based on which, RC No. 57(A)/91-DLI, Ext. PW7/A FIR was registered alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act.

4. PW8, Inspector, 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 Section 7 read with 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.

5. Ext. PW2/A and Ext. PW2/B Sanction Orders for prosecuting both A1 and A2 was accorded by PW2, Chief Secretary, Delhi Administration.

6. When the accused persons on receipt of summons appeared before the trial court, the Court after complying with the formality contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C, and after hearing them, on 15.07.1992, framed a Charge under Section 7 and 13(l)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act against both the accused persons, which was read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty.

7. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW8 were examined and Ext. PW1/A - Q, Ext. PW2/A-B, Ext. PW4/A, Ext. PW5/A - C, Ext. PW6/A, Ext. PW7/A and Ext. PW8/DA were marked in support of the prosecution case.

8. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused persons denied all those circumstances and maintained their innocence. Both A1 and A2 submitted that PW1 came to the office of A1 and complained about the dragline. A1 called A2 and the moment the latter entered A1’s cabin the whole raiding party came inside his cabin and there was a commotion. Subsequently, they were taken to the CBI office. No document was prepared at the spot.

9. DW1 and DW2 were examined on behalf of the accused persons. Ext. D-1 and Ext. D-2 were marked in support of the defence.

10. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the impugned judgment dated 03.09.2002, held both the accused persons, that is, A1 and A2, guilty of the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Accordingly, both the convicts have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each with a fine of ₹5,000/- each under Section 7 of the PC Act and in defau