* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 02.04.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 15.04.2026 + CRL.A. 897/2006 SUMER SINGH .....Appellant Through: Mrs. Rajdipa Behura, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Philomon Kani, Ms. Neha Dobriyal, Advocates.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State.

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. 09/2001 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge, Delhi challenging the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the PC Act).

CRL.A. 897/2006

2. The prosecution case is that on 03.04.2000 at about

4:00 PM, the accused, while employed as Head Constable (HC) at police station Patel Nagar, demanded and accepted ₹300/- from PW2 as illegal gratification, as reward for returning the registration certificate (RC) of his motorcycle, which the accused had taken from PW2 during investigation of crime no. 296/1999 regarding the theft of the said motorcycle, and thereby committed the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.

3. On 03.04.2000, PW2 lodged a complaint, that is, Ext.

PW2/A, with the Anti-Corruption Branch, CBI, New Delhi, based on which pre raid proceedings were drawn and the raid was conducted after which Crime no. 18/2000 was registered alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act.

4. PW5, Inspector, Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB), CBI, New Delhi, conducted investigation into the crime and on CRL.A. 897/2006 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. PW1/A Sanction Order for prosecuting the accused was accorded by PW1, Deputy Commissioner of Police, West District, New Delhi.

6. When the accused appeared before the trial court, the court after complying with the formality contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C, on 05.10.2002, framed a charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(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 PW11 were examined and Ext.PW1/A, Ext.PW2/A-G, PW2/E-1, PW2/DA, PW2/X, PW3/A, PW4/A, PW8/A, PW11/A-B, Mark XI and Mark Y were marked in support of the prosecution case.

CRL.A. 897/2006

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 case and that PW2 is an accomplice. According to him, PW8 is a tutored witness and has deposed against him only out of fear of departmental action at the behest of the ACB.

9. On behalf of the accused, DW1 was examined.

10. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the impugned judgment dated 03.10.2006, held the accused guilty of the offences punishable Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Vide order on sentence dated 04.10.2006, the accused has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months along with fine of ₹1,000/-, and in CRL.A. 897/2006 default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to rigorous imprisonment for one year along with fine of ₹2,000/- for the aforesaid offences. The substantive sentence of imprisonment have been directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved, the accused has pr