* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 01.04.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 04.04.2026 + CRL.A. 455/2003 BHIM SINGH LAKARA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Gulab Singh, Advocate (through VC).

versus C.B.I. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SPP, CBI with Mr.

Changez Khan and Ms. Mishika Pandita, Advocates.

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. 228/1994 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 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (the PC Act).

2. The prosecution case is that on 18.07.1986, the accused, while working as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Slum Department, Delhi Development Authority (the DDA), Jawalapur, Delhi, demanded and accepted a sum of ₹100/- from PW2 as illegal gratification for incorporating “No. IV Jawalapuri” on his possession slip No. 007364 in respect of plot No. C-82, Block No IV, Jawalapuri, Delhi and thereby, committed the offences punishable under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the PC Act.

3. On 18.07.1986, PW2 lodged a complaint, that is, Ext.

PW2/B, with the S.P., CBI, New Delhi, based on which crime, RC 47/86-DLI, that is, Ext. PW4/A FIR was registered alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 161 IPC.

4. PW4, Inspector 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 Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d)

read with Section 5(2) of the PC Act.

5. Ext. PW1/A sanction order for prosecuting the accused was accorded by PW1, the then Director, (Housing and General Administration) Slum Wing, DDA.

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 03.06.1988, framed a charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) 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 PW6 were examined and Ext.PW1/A, Ext.PW2/A to E, Ext.PW3/A and PW4/A to D 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 this case. He neither demanded or accepted any money from PW2. The money was never recovered from him or his pant pocket rather, it was planted.

9. No oral or documentary evidence was advanced on behalf of the accused.

10. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide judgment dated 30.06.2003, held the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the PC Act. Vide order on sentence dated 02.07.2003, the accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year along with fine of ₹1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Aggrieved, the accused has preferred the present appeal.

11. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that the latter has falsely been implicated in the case. There are several contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. PW2 deposed that the tainted currency notes were taken by the accused with both his hands. However, only his left hand wash tu