* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Pronounced on: 26^th September, 2025 + CRL.A.315/2021 TARA DUTT S/o Sh. Tikaram R/o 1/190, Khichripur, Delhi. .....Appellant Through: Mr. Kundan Chandravanshi and Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocates versus STATE …..Respondent Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for State with SI Neeraj P.S. Subzi Mandi.

+ CRL.A.319/2021

1. MUKUL KUMAR S/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar

2. RAMESH KUMAR S/o Late Sh. Ram Chander Both R/o :

H.No.1/212, Khichripur, Delhi-110091. .....Appellants Through: Ms. Sushma Sharma, Advocate.

versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) …..Respondent Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for State with SI Neeraj P.S. Subzi Mandi.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The aforesaid two Appeals have been preferred by Appellant Tara Dutt, and Appellants Mukul Kumar and Ramesh Kumar respectively, to challenge the Judgment dated 27.09.2021vide which they have been convicted for the offence under Section 12 Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) and have been sentenced to three years imprisonment and Fine, by the learned Special Judge in Complaint Case No.183/2019 pertaining to CNR No. DLCT 11-000885-2019.

2. The facts in brief are that one Dayanand Sharma (since deceased) who had worked as a Court Master in the Delhi High Court, retired in 2011, and thereafter worked as a Special M.M. in the MCD. He retired from this service in 2015. Dayanand Sharma was related to the appellant ASI Tara Dutt, being his “Chachia Sasur”.

3. The Co-Appellant/Mukul Kumar qualified the written examination for the post of Peon in the Delhi District Courts, and his interview for this post was scheduled for 27.08.2017. Sh. Chandra Shekhar, ASJ was a part of the Selection Committee. ASI Tara Dutt, who knew Co-Appellant Mukul Kumar and his father/Co-Appellant Ramesh Kumar, being their neighbours, contacted Dayanand Sharma, who while working as a Court Master at the Delhi High Court, had met the learned ASJ two to three times and claimed to have become known to him.

4. Appellant Tara Dutt conveyed to the other co-Appellants, Mukul Kumar and Ramesh Kumar, that he could get their work done if Rs. 50,000/- were given to the learned ASJ for favouring Mukul in the interview. Accordingly, Appellant Mukul and his father Ramesh Kumar arranged Rs. 50,000/- and contacted ASI Tara Dutt to get Mukul selected in the interview to be held on 27.08.2017 at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

5. ASI Tara Dutt went to the Court premises on 26.08.2017 and contacted HC Surender Kumar, who was posted as Naib Court with the learned ASJ, and requested a meeting with him in his Chamber, by making a reference of Dayanand Sharma. ASI Tara Dutt even showed the Visiting Card of Dayanand Sharma to confirm the contact, but refused to give the card to HC Surender Kumar, who then took a photocopy of it. The learned ASJ told HC Surender Kumar that he did not know any such person and declined to meet ASI Tara Dutt, and left for lunch. While leaving, the learned ASJ remarked to HC Surender Kumar that ASI Tara Dutt had probably come to meet someone else.

6. HC Surender Kumar informed about this remark to ASI Tara Dutt, who was present outside the courtroom. ASI Tara Dutt then called Dayanand Sharma at 13:14 hours and thereafter, confirmed that he had come to meet the learned ASJ only. ASI Tara Dutt then handed over an envelope to HC Surender Kumar, to be delivered only to the learned ASJ. On returning to the Chamber, HC Surender Kumar on the asking of learned ASJ, opened the envelope which was found to contain a copy an Interview Letter of Appellant Mukul Kumar and 25 currency Notes in the denomination of Rs. 2,000/- each, totalling to Rs. 50,000/-.

7. The written Complaint dated 26.08.2017 was given by the learned ASJ, which was received vide DD No.23-A. FIR No.215/2017 under Section 12 PC Act was registered.

8. Investigations were carried out and the Chargesheet under Section 12 PC Act was filed against the three Appellants and Dayanand Sharma, before th