1. Appeal challenging conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 )
Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandrasekharan Sudha, J
CONST. SATISH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI – Respondent
CRL.A.-862/2004
1. Appeal challenging conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 )
2. Appellant argued conviction unsupported due to missing informant, inconsistent shadow witness, and invalid sanction; State contended no infirmity. (Para 8 , 11 , 12 )
3. Appeal dismissed for lack of merit; conviction and sentence affirmed. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 )
Yes, demand can be proved through other witnesses, documentary evidence, or circumstantial evidence when the complainant is unavailable; non-examination does not automatically lead to acquittal. (Para 15 , 21 )
Yes, evidence is weighed not counted; conviction can be based on a single reliable witness such as a shadow witness if found wholly reliable. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 22 )
Once demand and acceptance are proved, the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption on a preponderance of probabilities; failure leaves the prosecution case unrebutted. (Para 23 , 24 )
Yes, the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police is competent to remove constables under the Delhi Police Act, hence competent to grant sanction under Section 19(1)(c) of the PC Act. (Para 25 )
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt both the demand by the public servant and the acceptance of illegal gratification as a motive or reward for an official act. (Para 20 )
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.56/1998 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 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the PC Act).
2. The prosecution case is that, on 26.07.1994, the accused, while posted as a Constable at Police Station Mehrauli, Delhi, demanded and accepted a sum of ₹1,000/- as illegal gratification from one Narender Kumar (the informant) in consideration for returning the latter’s identity card, which had earlier been taken by a Head Constable during a police checking on the intervening night of 26.07.1994-27.07.1994 at Aaya Nagar, Delhi.
3. On 30.07.1994, the informant lodged a complaint, that is, Ext. PW5/A, with the Anti-Corruption Branch, New Delhi, based on which, Crime No. 20/1994, FIR was registered alleging commission of the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13 of the PC Act.
4. PW6, Inspector, Anti-Corruption Branch, 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 the Section 7 read with 13 of the PC Act.
5. Ext. PW6/A Sanction Order for prosecuting the accused was accorded by Vivek Gogia, IPS, Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-I, South District, New Delhi.
6. When the accused on receipt of summons appeared before the trial court, the Court after complying with the formality contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C, and after hearing him, on 08.07.1999, framed a Charge under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act against the accused, which was read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty.
7. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW10 were examined and Exts. PW3/A, PW4/A-B, PW5/A-H & 5/DA, PW6/A, PW9/A, PW10/A 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. It was submitted by the accused that he neither demanded nor accepted any illegal gratification from the informant at any point of time. It was further submitted that he had not taken the identity card of the informant, and therefore, the question of demanding money for its return does not arise. The accused further asserted that the raiding party had come to apprehend another police official, namely, Satbir Singh, who was not present at the spot at the relevant time, and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case to justify the raid and its outcome.
9. On consideration of the materials on record and after hearing the parties, the trial court vide the impugned judgment dated 26.10.2004 held the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(2) read with 13(2) of the PC Act. Accordingly, the accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for each of the said offences and to pay a fine of ₹ 1000/- on each count. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 months. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved, the accused has preferred this appeal.
10. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, it was reported that the appellant/ accused was no more. The death has been verified by the SHO concerned. Though, opportunity was granted, his legal representative(s) has not come forward to contest the appeal. Hence, relying on the dictum of the Apex Court in Bani Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P., (1996) 4 SCC 720, this Court is proceeding to consider the appeal on merits after going through
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top