HARI PRASAD PANDEY vs THE STATE THRU C.B.I. - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6243

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 20 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 374, 313 - Conviction for demand and acceptance of illegal gratification - Necessity of proof of demand - Presumption under Section 20 can arise only upon proof of demand - Death of complainant not fatal - Prosecution can establish demand through other witnesses and circumstantial evidence - Fading of colour in phenolphthalein test over time does not discredit positive result at time of trap - Absence of prior verification of complaint not fatal if case otherwise established.

(B) Appeal - Scope - Appellate court not to interfere unless findings perverse or illegal.

Facts of the case:
The appellant, a Section Officer in the Ministry of Home Affairs, was convicted for demanding and accepting ₹2000 from the complainant as a motive for sanctioning a freedom fighter pension. The complainant died before trial. A trap was laid and tainted currency notes were recovered from the appellant's pocket. The trial court convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The appellant appealed on grounds of lack of proof of demand and reliance on presumption without foundational evidence.

Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the prosecution proved demand and acceptance through the testimony of shadow witness (PW2), recovery witness (PW3), trap laying officer (PW9), and PW6, a colleague. The positive phenolphthalein test and the appellant's conduct upon challenge (stammering "Sahab isne de diye") corroborated acceptance. The death of the complainant did not vitiate the prosecution as per the Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta. The absence of prior verification was not fatal. The fading of colour in the solution at trial was a natural phenomenon and did not discredit the contemporaneous positive result. The appellant failed to rebut the presumption under Section 20.

Issues: (i) Whether the prosecution proved demand of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt? (ii) Whether the presumption under Section 20 could be invoked without direct proof of demand? (iii) Whether the death of the complainant and discrepancies in witness testimony rendered the prosecution case doubtful? (iv) Whether the colour change of the wash solution and lack of prior verification were fatal?

Ratio Decidendi: Demand is sine qua non for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of PC Act. However, demand can be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, including testimony of trap witnesses and conduct of accused. Once demand and acceptance are proved, presumption under Section 20 applies. The accused must rebut it on preponderance of probabilities. In this case, the prosecution established foundational facts, and the accused failed to provide any plausible explanation.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Appeal against conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )

2. Core dispute: whether proof of demand is a sine qua non for conviction under PC Act and whether prosecution proved demand beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 11 , 12 )

* 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. He

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6243

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandrasekharan Sudha, J
HARI PRASAD PANDEY – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE THRU C.B.I. – Respondent
CRL.A.-789/2003

Demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; prosecution can prove demand through circumstantial evidence even if complainant dies; presumption under Section 20 arises only after proof of demand.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6243

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIChandrasekharan Sudha, JHARI PRASAD PANDEY – AppellantVersusTHE STATE THRU C.B.I. – RespondentCRL.A.-789/2003

Demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; prosecution can prove demand through circumstantial evidence even if complainant dies; presumption under Section 20 arises only after proof of demand.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

Cases Referred (10)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandrasekharan Sudha, J
HARI PRASAD PANDEY – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE THRU C.B.I. – Respondent
CRL.A.-789/2003