* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 06.04.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 16.04.2026 + CRL.A. 789/2003 HARI PRASAD PANDEY .....Appellant Through: Mr. Anurag Andley, Mr. Aditya Antlay and Mr. Sahil Nagar, Advocates.

Versus THE STATE THRU. C.B.I .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vikrant Pachnanda and Mr.Mukul Katyal, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. In this appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (the Cr.PC) the sole accused, in C.C. No. 80/1998 on the file of the Special Judge, Delhi, assails the judgment dated 19.11.2003 and order on sentence dated 24.11.2003 as per which he has been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the PC Act).

2. The prosecution case is that the accused, while employed and posted as Section Officer in the Freedom Fighters Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Lok Nayak Bhavan, New Delhi, on 08.07.1991 and 10.07.1991 demanded and received illegal gratification of ₹2000/- from the complainant, late Devesh Singh, as a motive or reward for sanctioning Freedom Fighter Pension to his father, thereby obtained pecuniary advantage by abusing his official position. Hence, as per the chargesheet/ final report, the accused was alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.

3. Crime no. RC 42(A)/91-DLI dated 11.07.1991 was registered based on Ext. PW2/A complaint of late Devesh Singh. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet/final report was filed against the accused alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)

of the PC Act.

4. After obtaining sanction for prosecution, the respondent/CBI filed a charge-sheet which was registered as C.C.No. 310/1994. The trial court after taking cognizance, summoned the accused and a Charge under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) of the PC Act was framed. The accused pleaded not guilty. The trial commenced and the sanctioning authority as well as the shadow witness were examined as PW1 and PW2 respectively.The accused then moved an application for discharge on the ground of non-application of mind in granting sanction, which plea was accepted by the learned Special Judge vide order dated 25.02.1997, and liberty was granted to the respondent/CBI to file a fresh charge-sheet after obtaining proper sanction.

5. Thereafter, fresh Sanction for prosecution was given by the competent authority i.e. the President of India, through PW1 (Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs), vide sanction order dated 10.07.1997, i.e. Ext. PW1/A.

6. When the accused was produced before the trial court, all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.PC. After hearing both sides, the trial court vide order dated 24.11.2003, framed a Charge under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) 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, PWs. 1 to 11 were examined and Exhibits PW1/A-B, PW1/DA, PW1/DB, PW1/DC, PW2/A-G, PW3/A, PW4/A, PW5/A, PW5/A1-A3, PW7/A, PW9/A-C and PW10/A-C were marked in support of the case.

8. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.PC regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and maintained his innocence. He submitted that the prosecution witnesses had falsely deposed under fear of departmental enquiry and under the influence of the officials of the CBI. According to him, the case was false and had been initiated because the complainant wanted his file to be cleared on the basis of forged documents, which he refused. H