* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 17.03.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 02.04.2026 + CRL.A. 229/2004 K.C.SHARMA .....Appellant Through: Mr. M.S. Khan, Mr. Akbar Kaleem, Mr. M. Yasir Khan and Mr. M.

Arshyam, Advocates.

versus C.B.I. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Atul Guleria, SPP for CBI with Mr. Aryan Rakesh, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. This appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the sole accused in C.C.No. 32/1997 on the file of the Court of Special Judge, Delhi, challenging the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the PC Act).

2. The prosecution case is that the accused, while serving as a public servant in the capacity of an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) in the Delhi Police and posted at Tis Hazari police post, on 12.07.1996 between 04:30 PM to 04:50 PM, demanded and accepted illegal gratification of ₹1,000/- from PW5 as a motive or reward for accepting a bail bond to be executed by the latter pursuant to an anticipatory bail order in his favour. It is further alleged that the accused obtained pecuniary advantage of ₹1,000/- without any public interest. Hence, as per the charge-sheet/final report the accused is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.

3. On 12.07.1996, PW5 lodged a complaint, that is, Ext.

PW5/A, with the Anti-Corruption Branch, New Delhi, based on which, Crime no. RC 58(A)/96-DLI, namely, Ext. PW6/B FIR was registered alleging commission of the offences punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 7 of the PC Act against two persons, namely Rajesh Kumar, Sub Inspector, Chowki Incharge, Police Post (P.P.) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and K.C. Sharma, A.S.I., Delhi Police, P.P.

Tis Hazari, Delhi, that is, the appellant herein.

4. PW8, Inspector, Anti-Corruption Branch, New Delhi, conducted investigation into the crime and on completion of the same, submitted the charge-sheet/final report alleging the commission of the offences punishable under the abovementioned sections against the second accused alone, that is, the appellant herein. Rajesh Kumar, Sub Inspector, accused no.1 in the FIR was not chargesheeted as according to the Investigating Officer (IO), no sufficient evidence could be found against him.

5. Ext. PW2/A Sanction Order for prosecuting the accused was accorded by the then Deputy Commissioner of Police, North District, Delhi.

6. When the accused on receipt of summons appeared before the trial court, the Court after complying with the formality contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C, on 15.01.1998, framed a Charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, which was read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty.

7. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW8 were examined and Ext. PW1/A, Ext. PW2/A, Ext. PW3/A-F, Ext. PW4/B-C, Ext. PW5/DA1-16,Ext. PW5/DA24-26, Ext. PW5/DA-

46, Ext. PW6/B-C, were marked in support of the case.

8. After the closure 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 all the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses. PW3 and PW4, despite being witnesses cited by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), had not toed the line of the CBI. PW5, the complainant and PW7, his friend, were harbouring a grudge against the police officials. PW6 and PW8 are officials of the CBI and PW1, an expert associated with the CBI, has given a biased report. PW2 has accord