Delhi High Court
K.C.Sharma vs C.B.I on 2 April, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 17.03.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 02.04.2026
+ CRL.A. 229/2004
K.C.SHARMA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. M.S. Khan, Mr. Akbar Kaleem,
Mr. M. Yasir Khan and Mr. M.
Arshyam, Advocates.
versus
C.B.I. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Atul Guleria, SPP for CBI with
Mr. Aryan Rakesh, Advocate.
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. 32/1997 on the file of the Court of Special Judge, Delhi,
challenging the conviction entered and the sentence passed against
him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 1 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
with Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the
PC Act).
2. The prosecution case is that the accused, while serving
as a public servant in the capacity of an Assistant Sub-Inspector
(ASI) in the Delhi Police and posted at Tis Hazari police post, on
12.07.1996 between 04:30 PM to 04:50 PM, demanded and
accepted illegal gratification of ₹1,000/- from PW5 as a motive or
reward for accepting a bail bond to be executed by the latter
pursuant to an anticipatory bail order in his favour. It is further
alleged that the accused obtained pecuniary advantage of ₹1,000/-
without any public interest. Hence, as per the charge-sheet/final
report the accused is alleged to have committed offences punishable
under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the
PC Act.
3. On 12.07.1996, PW5 lodged a complaint, that is, Ext.
PW5/A, with the Anti-Corruption Branch, New Delhi, based on
which, Crime no. RC 58(A)/96-DLI, namely, Ext. PW6/B FIR was
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 2 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
registered alleging commission of the offences punishable under
Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with
Section 7 of the PC Act against two persons, namely Rajesh
Kumar, Sub Inspector, Chowki Incharge, Police Post (P.P.) Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi and K.C. Sharma, A.S.I., Delhi Police, P.P.
Tis Hazari, Delhi, that is, the appellant herein.
4. PW8, Inspector, Anti-Corruption Branch, New Delhi,
conducted investigation into the crime and on completion of the
same, submitted the charge-sheet/final report alleging the
commission of the offences punishable under the abovementioned
sections against the second accused alone, that is, the appellant
herein. Rajesh Kumar, Sub Inspector, accused no.1 in the FIR was
not chargesheeted as according to the Investigating Officer (IO), no
sufficient evidence could be found against him.
5. Ext. PW2/A Sanction Order for prosecuting the accused
was accorded by the then Deputy Commissioner of Police, North
District, Delhi.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 3 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
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, on 15.01.1998, framed a
Charge against the accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 7 and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act,
which was read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not
guilty.
7. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW8 were
examined and Ext. PW1/A, Ext. PW2/A, Ext. PW3/A-F, Ext.
PW4/B-C, Ext. PW5/DA1-16,Ext. PW5/DA24-26, Ext. PW5/DA-
46, Ext. PW6/B-C, were marked in support of the case.
8. After the closure 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 all the prosecution witnesses are interested
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 4 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
witnesses. PW3 and PW4, despite being witnesses cited by the
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), had not toed the line of the
CBI. PW5, the complainant and PW7, his friend, were harbouring a
grudge against the police officials. PW6 and PW8 are officials of
the CBI and PW1, an expert associated with the CBI, has given a
biased report. PW2 has accorded an invalid sanction. PW5 was
acquainted with the CBI officials, and so, in order to help the
former, had organised the present illegitimate trap and falsely
apprehended him. The falsehood of the CBI and trap is reflected in
the mechanical evidence in the case, including the alleged cassette
recording, colourless hand and pant pocket wash.
9. DW1 to DW3 were examined on behalf of the accused.
10. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence
on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the
impugned judgment dated 19.03.2004, held the accused guilty of
the commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2)
read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and accordingly, sentenced him
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 5 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
a period of one year and to fine of ₹10,000/- under Section 7 of the
PC Act and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three months and to rigorous imprisonment for a
period of two and a half years and fine of ₹25,000/- under Section
13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and in default, to
further undergo for a period of six months. The sentences have been
directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved, the accused has preferred
the present appeal.
11. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant/accused that PW3, the shadow witness and PW4, the
recovery witness, have not supported the prosecution case. It was
pointed out that PW3 and PW4 deposed that the recovery was
effected from a pair of pants hanging on a peg, whereas PW5
deposed that the recovery was made from the pants worn by the
accused.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 6 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
11.1. It was further submitted that there was no need for
PW5 to have visited the Tis Hazari police post as he had already
obtained an anticipatory bail order. The bail order does not contain
any direction requiring him to appear before the police station.
Moreover, there was no official intimation, summons, or notice
issued by the accused to PW5 summoning him to the police station.
Despite this, PW5 is stated to have voluntarily appeared at the
police station to submit the bail bond. The conduct of PW5 in
visiting the police station without any such direction creates doubt.
It was also submitted that the accused was not the IO in FIR No.
276/1996, which was lodged against PW5. The IO was, in fact, SI
Rajesh Kumar, who has not been chargesheeted. When the accused
was never the IO, there was no occasion for him to demand any
bribe.
11.2. It was further submitted that there is a delay of 3
days in forwarding the FIR to the court. Though the FIR was
registered on 12.07.1996, as per the endorsement, it is seen to have
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 7 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
been received in the court on 15.07.1996. It was submitted that
although SI Rajesh Kumar was initially arrayed as the first accused
in the FIR, he was subsequently dropped during the investigation
without any plausible explanation by the IO only because he
happened to be the batchmate of the I.O.
11.3. Lastly, it was submitted that if the hand wash of
the accused turned pink upon dipping in the sodium carbonate
solution, then the solution in the container should have remained
pink. However, the samples of the hand wash, when sent to the
FSL, were found to be colourless. Even PW1, the expert witness,
admitted that the solution had become colourless, which is yet
another factor to doubt the case. Reliance has been placed on the
dictums in P. Satyanarayna Murthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh
(2015) 10 SCC 152, B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh
(2014) 13 SCC 55, C. Sukumaran v. State of Kerala (2015) 11
SCC 314, Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar v. State of Maharashtra
(2011) 4 SCC 143, State of MP v. Sheetla Sahai (2009) 8 SCC
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 8 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
617 and Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat (2023) 9
SCC 164.
12. Per Contra, it was submitted by the learned Special
Public Prosecutor that the recovery of the tainted currency notes
were effected from the very room where the accused and PW5 were
present. Even if there is some discrepancy regarding whether the
tainted money was recovered from the pant worn by the accused or
from a pair of pant hanging on a peg, such inconsistency is
immaterial in the facts of the case as the crucial incriminating
circumstance was that the hand wash of the accused turned pink at
the spot, which could only have occurred if the accused had come
into contact with the tainted currency notes treated with
phenolphthalein powder. Lastly, it was submitted that the impugned
judgment does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference
by this Court. Reliance has been placed on the dictums in Neeraj
Dutta v. State (2023) 4 SCC 731, B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra
Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 55, EdakkandiDineshan v. State of
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 9 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
Kerala, 2025 INSC 28 and Manoj Kumar vs. CBI 2026 DHC
796.
13. Heard both sides and perused the records.
14. The only point that arises for consideration in the
present appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the impugned
judgment calling for an interference by this Court.
15. I shall first briefly refer to the evidence on record relied
on by the prosecution in support of the case. The initial demand in
this case is alleged to have taken place on 11.07.1996, and the trap
was laid on 12.07.1996. PW5 submitted a written complaint, that is,
Exhibit PW5/A on 12.07.1996 in the office of the Anti-Corruption
Branch in which he has stated thus:- “One Mr. Fazal Ahmed, who
lives about three furlongs from my house and against whom several
cases are registered at Sriniwaspuri South Police station and are
under investigation, filed a false complaint against me on
10.06.1996, at Sabzi Mandi Police Station. Based on this, FIR No.
276/96 was registered against me under Sections 506, 323 and 34
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 10 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
IPC. The investigation is being conducted from the Tis Hazari
Chowki (Outpost), and S.I. K.C. Sharma is the Investigating
Officer. On 04.07.1996, I was granted anticipatory bail in this FIR
by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. However,
yesterday, on 11.07.1996, at around 6:00 PM, I went to Tis Hazari
Chowki and met S.I. K.C. Sharma and the Chowki In-charge, Mr.
Rajesh Kumar. Despite my repeated requests, they refused to
accept my bail bond without money. Chowki In-charge Rajesh
Kumar and S.I. K.C. Sharma told me to come back today,
12.07.1996, at around 4:00 PM. The In-charge said that he would
take ₹5,000 for himself and ₹1,000 should be given to the S.I. Then,
my work would be done. They further stated that they would help
me in the investigation as well, even though they know the case is
false, but since it is registered, an investigation must be done. They
said if I pay the money, everything will be settled.”
16. PW5, when examined before the trial court on
08.01.2002, deposed that one Fazal Ahmed had lodged a false
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 11 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
report against him with the police on the basis of which an FIR had
been registered against him at Police Post, Tis Hazari alleging
commission of offences punishable under Sections 506 and 323
IPC. He had obtained anticipatory bail in that case. His friend Rafiq
Khan (PW7) had accompanied him to Police Post Tis Hazari on
11.07.1996 at about 6:00 PM, where he met SI Rajesh Kumar,
Chowki In-charge, and ASI K.C. Sharma (the accused). They
demanded a bribe for accepting the bail bond. He was carrying the
bail bond with him and Rafiq Khan (PW7) was to stand as his
surety. SI Rajesh Kumar demanded ₹5000/- for himself and ₹1000/-
to be paid to the accused. As he did not have the money at that
time, he was asked by SI Rajesh Kumar and the accused to bring
the money the next day. On 12.07.1996, he, along with Rafiq Khan
(PW7), went to the CBI office and lodged Ext. PW5/A complaint.
The SP to whom he submitted the complaint handed it over to
Inspector Lohmor (PW6). PW6 took him, and Rafiq Khan (PW7),
to the room of DSP Mr. Bhist. Two officials of the Food
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 12 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
Corporation of India (FCI), one Surender Kumar (PW4) and the
other whose name he could not recall, were introduced to him. The
complaint was read over to the witnesses, and he confirmed its
correctness. Ten currency notes of the denomination of ₹500/- each
and ten currency notes of ₹100/- each, was handed over to Inspector
Lohmor (PW6). The currency notes were treated with powder, and
a demonstration was conducted during which Surinder Kumar
(PW4) touched the notes and dipped his hands into the solution,
which turned pink. He was instructed to keep the 10 notes of ₹500/-
in the left pocket of his trousers and the remaining notes in the right
pocket. He was also instructed to carry a photocopy of the court
order and to hand over the money on demand. He was also given a
receiver, which he kept in his left shirt pocket. An empty cassette
was inserted, and the voices of the independent witnesses were
recorded. The recorder with the cassette was given to Surinder
Kumar (PW4) and the earphones were kept in the IO’s bag. Rafiq
Khan (PW7) and the independent witness, whose name he could
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 13 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
not recall, were asked to accompany him. Another witness was
instructed to give a signal after completion of the transaction by
scratching his head. They left the office of the CBI after 4:00 PM
and reached the Tis Hazari police post. He, along with Rafiq Khan
(PW7) and the independent witness, went inside. He switched on
the recorder before entering the room of the accused. When he
inquired about the chowki-in-charge, the accused told him that the
latter had left after waiting for sometime. The accused offered him
water, and after some conversation, asked whether he had brought
the money. He replied in the affirmative. He requested to speak to
the chowki-in-charge, but the accused stated that the share of the
chowki-in-charge should also be given to him. Thereafter, he
handed over 10 currency notes of ₹100/-each to the accused, who
received them with his left hand and kept them in the left pocket of
his pants. During the conversation, he told the accused that the case
registered against him was false. The accused replied that he knew
the case to be false, but it was a matter of competition and that his
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 14 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
work would be done if he paid more than the opposite side. After
this, the independent witness gave the signal, and the raiding party
entered the room. The accused was apprehended, and his wrists
were caught. The accused was challenged for accepting the bribe,
but he remained silent. PW5 was not sure as to who had recovered
the 10 tainted currency notes from the left pocket of the accused.
The number of the notes recovered tallied and matched with those
in the handing-over memo prepared during the pre-raid
proceedings. The wash of the left hand of the accused and the wash
of the left pocket of his pants were taken separately in sodium
carbonate solution, which turned pink. The solutions were sealed in
bottles. PW5 also deposed that he was searched and the remaining
tainted currency notes amounting to ₹5000/-; the receiver, and the
bail order were recovered. The cassette was played, and its
transcript was prepared. The recording was less than five minutes
and contained background noise, with only some portions audible.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 15 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
PW5 identified his voice as well as the voice of the accused in the
audio recording, but he was unable to identify the other voices.
16.1. PW5 stood by his case when cross-examined. He
deposed that a telephone call had been made from the CBI office to
the accused at Tis Hazari police post before they proceeded for the
trap. PW5 was unable to recall whether that call had been tape-
recorded. PW5 denied the suggestion that the accused was wearing
a shirt and pyjama when the latter was apprehended. He denied that
his three companions were not allowed to enter Tis Hazari police
post by the sentry. He denied the presence of SI Rajesh Kumar
during the trap.
17. PW3, the shadow witness, deposed that on 12.07.1996,
he, along with Surinder Kumar (PW4),visited the CBI Office on the
directions of his Manager (Vigilance) and reported to Inspector
RVS Lohmore (PW7). The complainant (PW5) and his friend were
already present there. PW3 deposed that the complainant (PW5)
produced ₹1000/- comprising 10 currency notes of ₹100/- each, and
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 16 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
that he did not produce anything else. At this juncture, the
prosecutor sought permission of the court to “cross-examine” PW3
as he was resiling from his previous statement and suppressing the
truth, which request was allowed by the trial court. On further
examination, PW3 admitted that in the office of the CBI, after
meeting Mr Lohmore (PW6), they had gone to the room of DSP
H.C. Bhist, where they were introduced to PW5 and his friend
Mohd. Rafi Khan (PW7). PW3 admitted that PW5 produced 10
currency notes of the denomination of ₹100/- each and 10 currency
notes of ₹500/- each for the trap. The number of these notes were
noted in the handing over memo. PW3 also admitted that the
currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder. He
admitted the pre-trap proceedings. PW3 further deposed that an
audio cassette recorder was brought and a blank cassette was
loaded. The cassette was played before them to show that no voice
was recorded. Thereafter, sample voices of himself and Surinder
Kumar (PW4) were recorded. He admitted that a paper slip was
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 17 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
pasted on the cassette and signed by him and the other witnesses.
PW5 was directed to pass the treated currency notes to the accused
on specific demand. PW3 denied the suggestion that ₹1000/- was to
be paid to ASI KC Sharma (the accused) and ₹5000/- to SI Rajesh
Kumar. He stated that an electronic gadget consisting of recorder-
cum-receiver, two earphones, a credit-card-type mic, and a blank
cassette was used. PW5 was directed to switch on the mic while
entering the room of the accused. PW3 deposed that he was
directed to act as a shadow witness and accompany PW5 to hear the
conversation and see the transaction. He was also directed to give a
signal to the trap party in the event of the accused accepting the
bribe. PW3 admitted that Mohd. Rafi Khan (PW7) was also
directed to accompany PW5 posing as surety. PW3 admitted that on
reaching the police post, he along with PW5 and Mohd. Rafi Khan
(PW7) went inside the police post to contact the Inspector
concerned. The remaining members stayed outside. A constable on
duty did not allow all of them to enter the room of the accused.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 18 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
According to PW3, only one person was allowed to go in. PW5
went inside, while he and Mohd. Rafi Khan (PW7) remained
outside. PW3 denied that all three of them had entered the room of
the accused. He denied having heard the accused demanding the
bribe or seeing PW5 handing over ₹1000/- to the accused or seeing
the accused keeping the money in his left pocket. PW3 deposed that
he was standing outside the room and that after giving the money,
PW5 came out and gave a signal and on receiving the said signal,
the CBI team entered the room of the accused. He denied having
stated to the CBI that the accused was caught by two CBI officials
and that he had informed the CBI that the accused had accepted the
bribe with his left hand and kept it in the left side pocket of his
pants. According to PW3, he saw a pant hanging on a nail and PW7
recovering 10 tainted currency notes of the denomination of ₹100/-
each from that pant pocket. He denied PW7 recovering the notes
from the left pocket of the pants worn by the accused. He admitted
that the number on the notes when compared by Surinder Kumar
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 19 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
(PW4) with the number referred to in the handing over memo, was
found tallying. PW3 also admitted that when the accused was asked
to dip his left hand fingers in the sodium carbonate solution, the
same had turned pink. He also admitted that the inner lining of the
left side pocket of the pants when dipped in the solution also turned
pink, and that the wash was preserved. PW3 denied witnessing
recovery of ₹5000/- from the left side pocket of PW5’s pants. From
PW5, only a credit card-type mic was recovered and not cash or the
bail order. PW3 further denied that the audio cassette had been
played in the room of the accused or a transcript being prepared
there. According to PW3, the transcript was later prepared in the
office of the CBI in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he
had been won over by the accused and that he was deposing falsely.
17.1. PW3 in his cross-examination reiterated that he did
not see the accused accepting money from PW5, and he did not see
the transaction and therefore could not say whether PW5 had put
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 20 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
the currency notes in the pants of the accused hanging on the nail.
He did not hear any conversation between PW5 and the accused.
18. PW4, the recovery witness, deposed that on 12.07.1996,
while working as Assistant Grade-I, Vigilance Department, FCI,
Headquarters, he went to the office of the CBI on being called. He
met Inspector Lohmor (PW6), who introduced him to one Zahid
Khan (PW5). Zahid Khan (PW5) produced currency notes worth
₹6000/-, consisting of 10 notes of ₹100/- each and 10 notes of
₹500/- each. The notes were treated with some powder and he was
asked to touch them. Thereafter, his hands were dipped in a
solution, which turned pink. The notes were handed over to Zahid
Khan (PW5) to be kept in the left side pocket of his trousers and to
be handed over on demand. A tape recorder small in size was also
given to Zahid Khan (PW5). Mr. Prem Chandra (PW3), another
official from his office, also joined the proceedings. The cassette
inserted in the recorder was shown to be blank. Thereafter, his
voice and that of Prem Chandra (PW3) was recorded in the cassette,
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 21 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
and their signatures were also put on it. The mic was put in the
pocket of the complainant (PW5), while the recorder was kept by
the Inspector. The earphone part of the equipment was kept with
one of the members of the trap party, but he could not recall with
whom. Prem Chand (PW3) was asked to accompany the
complainant (PW5) and act as a shadow witness. They left the CBI
office at about 03:30 PM and went to Tis Hazari Police Post. The
shadow witness (PW3) and the complainant (PW5) went inside,
while other members of the raiding party, including himself,
remained outside. After some time, a signal was received, and he,
along with the other members of the raiding party, went inside. ASI
Sharma (the accused) was present there. The complainant (PW5)
told them that the said ASI had taken the bribe. PW4 identified the
accused in the court. He was asked by someone from the raiding
party to take the pant hanging on a peg on the wall and to take out
the money from the pocket. The pant was handed over to him and
he took out ₹6000/- from one of its pockets. The number on the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 22 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
recovered notes tallied with those noted in the handing-over memo.
The wash of one hand of the accused was taken in sodium
carbonate solution, which turned pink. The wash was poured into a
clean, empty bottle and sealed. The wash of the pocket of the
trousers from which the money had been taken was also taken,
which turned pink, and was similarly sealed in another bottle. His
signatures and those of another independent witness were taken on
the wrappers of both the bottles. The accused was arrested and the
personal search memo was prepared. A recovery memo and a site
plan were also prepared. The cassette was played and a transcript
was prepared. The complainant (PW5) was also searched, but PW4
was unable to recall what was recovered.
18.1. At this juncture, the prosecutor sought permission
to “cross-examine” PW4 as he was suppressing the truth and
resiling from his previous statement. The request was allowed by
the trial court. On further examination, PW4 deposed that he could
not recall whether a copy of the bail order dated 07.07.1996 was
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 23 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
given to the complainant (PW5). PW4 denied knowledge of any
instruction to PW5 that ₹1000/- was to be paid to the accused and
₹5000/- to SI Rajesh Kumar. PW4 admitted that a transmitter had
been given to the complainant (PW5), but denied that the mic had
been given to him. He also denied that one earphone had been
given to him and the other to Inspector Malik. He could not recall
whether Rafiq Khan (PW7) had also accompanied the complainant
(PW5) and the shadow witness (PW3) inside the police post. He
denied that the pant from which the money was recovered was
worn by the accused and not hanging on the peg. He was unable to
recall whether ₹5000/-, the balance tainted money, was recovered
from the complainant (PW5) along with the bail order.
18.2. PW4 in his cross examination admitted that he had
been a witness about 5-6 times earlier in similar trap cases. He
admitted that he always went whenever he was called by the CBI.
He had gone about eight times to be a witness in CBI cases. He
admitted he did not see anyone handing over or receiving money.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 24 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
According to PW4, about five pants were hanging on a peg inside
the room where the accused and the complainant (PW5) were
present. Someone from the trap party identified the pants as
belonging to the accused. When apprehended, the accused was
wearing a pyjama and a shirt.
19. PW7, Mohd. Rafiq Khan, a friend of PW5, deposed that
he had accompanied the latter to the Tis Hazari police post and met
the Chowki-in-charge Rakesh Kumar and K.C. Sharma (the
accused). Both of them took Zahid Khan (PW5) to a room. After
some time, Zahid Khan (PW5) came out and told him that he had
been asked to come the next day. On the way, Zahid Khan (PW5)
told him that ₹6000/- had been demanded from him. The next day,
Zahid Khan (PW5) told him that he was not interested in giving
bribe and wanted to lodge a complaint with the CBI. Thereafter, he
and Zahid Khan (PW5) went to the CBI office and met SP Shri
Bisht. Zahid Khan (PW5) showed his complaint to the SP, who
asked the former whether the complaint was correct, to which the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 25 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
former replied affirmatively. The SP introduced them to two
persons from the FCI, namely, Surinder Kumar (PW4) and Prem
Chand (PW3), and also introduced them to Inspectors Malik and
Lohmor (PW6). ₹6000/- was arranged for use in the trap in the
form of 10 currency notes of ₹500/- each and 10 currency notes of
₹100/- each. The number of those currency notes was recorded and
the notes were treated with phenolphthalein by Inspector Malik.
Sodium carbonate was mixed in a glass of water. He was asked to
touch the currency notes and dip his hand in the solution.
Thereafter, in a blank cassette the voice of Prem Chand (PW3) and
Surinder Kumar (PW4), was recorded. Prem Chand (PW3) was
asked to remain close to Zahid Khan (PW5). Zahid Khan (PW5)
was given a card-type instrument to keep in his pocket with
directions to switch it on at the time of the transaction of the bribe
amount. Prem Chand (PW3) was directed to give a signal by
scratching his head with both hands after completion of the
transaction. Surinder Kumar (PW4) was given a hearing instrument
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 26 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
to hear the conversation. An automatic recorder was also given. The
treated currency notes were given to Zahid Khan (PW5) after his
search was conducted, and was directed to give the bribe only on a
specific demand and not otherwise. ₹5000/- was to be given to
Rakesh Kumar and ₹1000/- to K.C. Sharma (the accused). In the
office of the CBI, he signed the handover memo. They left the
office of the CBI at about 03:45 PM. He, along with Zahid Khan
(PW5) and Prem Chand (PW3), went inside the police post, while
the remaining persons stayed outside. The Chowki-in-charge was
not there. They met K.C. Sharma (the accused), who was in
uniform. The accused asked Zahid Khan (PW5) whether he had
brought the money to which the latter replied in the affirmative.
The accused demanded the money by a gesture. Zahid Khan (PW5)
asked to meet the in-charge, but the accused stated that the in-
charge had gone for a meeting. Thereafter, Zahid Khan (PW5)
handed over ₹1000/- to the accused. The accused received the
amount in his left hand and kept it in the left side pocket of his
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 27 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
trousers. In the meantime, Prem Chand (PW3) went out to give the
signal. On this, the entire team, including SP Bhist, reached there
and the accused was apprehended by his wrists. The CBI officers
disclosed their identity and challenged the accused. The accused
remained silent. A solution of sodium carbonate was prepared, and
the left fingers of the accused were dipped in the solution, which
turned pink. Thereafter, Surinder Kumar (PW4) took out currency
notes of ₹1000/- from the pocket of the accused. The left pocket of
the trousers of the accused was also dipped in a freshly prepared
sodium carbonate solution, which also turned pink. The accused
K.C. Sharma was arrested. Both the washes were transferred into
separate bottles, sealed and labelled, and signatures were obtained
on the labels. Zahid Khan (PW5) was also searched, and the
remaining ₹5000/- along with surety papers were seized. The
cassette was sealed at the spot.
19.1 PW7 stood by his case when cross-examined.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 28 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
20. PW6, the Trap Laying Officer (the TLO) fully supported
the prosecution case. PW7 denied having deliberately allowed the
actual accused to go scot-free and had falsely implicated the present
accused. On 12.07.1996, SI Rajesh Kumar was called to the office
of the CBI after the trap. PW6 admitted that SI Rajesh Kumar was
not arrested despite his name being mentioned in the complaint.
PW6 denied the suggestion that SI Rajesh Kumar had been let off
because the latter was a batchmate of CBI officer, and that false
allegations had been made against the accused. He denied the
suggestion that he was deposing falsely due to official pressure.
21. I also make a brief reference to the defence witnesses.
DW1 was summoned to produce certain documents. However, he
deposed that the said document had already been weeded out.
22. DW2 deposed that he knows the accused, who had been
posted at Tis Hazari P.P. On the day of the trap, he was present at
the police post as he had gone to complain regarding the theft of his
telephone instrument. He inquired from the duty constable about
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 29 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
the in-charge and was informed that the in-charge was not present.
He then informed the duty constable about the theft and he was
asked to wait. After some time, the accused arrived at the police
post wearing a kurta-pyjama. He informed the accused about the
theft of his telephone instrument. Meanwhile, two other persons
arrived. Both the said persons asked the accused about the in-
charge to which the latter replied that the in-charge was not present
and asked them to wait inside the room. One of those persons went
inside the room. He, along with the accused, also went inside the
room to register his complaint. While the accused was preparing to
give him the paper, the other person present in the room went out of
the room stating that he would return within two minutes. After
about 3-4 minutes, 5-6 people entered the room. One of them
caught hold of the accused’s hand and disclosed that he was from
the CBI and that the accused had been trapped. He asked the
officials about the nature of the trap. He was told that it was their
work and he was directed to go outside. In the meantime, two or
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 30 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
three lawyers also arrived but were not allowed to enter the police
post. According to DW2, the accused had been falsely implicated in
the case and that he had witnessed the entire proceedings.
22.1. DW2 in his cross-examination deposed that his
telephone instrument was never recovered and that on the said day
he could not lodge a report due to the trap. He was unable to lodge
the report thereafter also. DW2 denied the suggestion that he had
been attending court on each and every date of the case. According
to him, he had come only on specific dates, including when the
statement of Zahid Khan (PW5) was recorded. DW2 deposed that
no conversation had taken place between Zahid Khan (PW5) and
the accused on the date of the trap. He also deposed that no post-
trap proceedings were conducted in his presence, as he had been
asked to go outside. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing
in favour of the accused as the latter was his friend. DW2 admitted
that he had not made any complaint to higher authorities regarding
the false implication of the accused. DW2 further admitted that he
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 31 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
had filed a bail application on behalf of the accused and secured the
release of the latter on bail. He admitted that he had not mentioned
his presence at the time of the trap in the bail application. He
further stated that he did not make any DD entry at the police post
after the accused had been taken away by the CBI officials.
23. DW3, the then DD Writer, Tis Hazari P.P., deposed that
he was present in the police post when the raid was conducted. On
the said day, at about 04:00 PM, two persons came to the police
post and inquired about the chowki-in-charge multiple times. He
informed them that the in-charge was not available. He then told
them to go inside the police post and verify for themselves that the
in-charge was not present. One of them went inside to check, while
the other remained standing at the gate. When the person returned,
DW3 asked whether he was convinced that the in-charge was not
inside. Both persons then left, stating that they would return after
some time. Thereafter, a lawyer came to the police post and stated
that his instrument had been lost. He also inquired about the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 32 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
chowki-in-charge. While they were talking, the accused arrived
wearing a kurta-pyjama from the bathroom located within the
police post premises. He told the lawyer to speak to the accused
since the in-charge was not present. They began conversing.
Meanwhile, the same two persons returned and again asked about
the chowki-in-charge. He told them that since the in-charge was not
available, they should wait. He further told them that if they had
urgent work, they could speak with the accused. The accused asked
them to sit inside the police post and told them that the in-charge
would be coming shortly. One of them went inside, while the other
remained standing near the gate. The lawyer and the accused were
standing near the gate and conversing. In the meantime, about 10-
12 people arrived. Two persons stood near his seat, while the others
went inside the room where the lawyer and the accused were
talking. The person who had earlier gone inside the room, along
with the accused and the lawyer, was inside the room. He heard
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 33 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
noises of a raid taking place but stated that he did not know
anything further about the case.
23.1. DW3 during cross-examination admitted that he had not
recorded any DD entry regarding the visit of the CBI team, the
lawyer or the arrest of the accused. He denied the suggestion that he
was not present at the police post at the time of the raid and stated
that the CBI officials had made entries in the roznamcha at about
04:00 PM in his presence. He did not inform his senior officers
about the arrest of the accused, as the CBI officials had stated that
they would do so. He had not informed anyone about the false
implication of the accused till date. He denied the suggestion that
he was falsely deposing in favour of the accused merely because he
was subordinate to him.
24. Now, the question is whether the aforesaid evidence is
sufficient to find the accused guilty of the offences charged against
him or whether the appellant/accused has been able to rebut the
presumption contemplated under Section 20 of the PC Act with the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 34 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
materials on record. It is not in dispute that the accused in his
capacity as Assistant Sub-Inspector was posted at Tis Hazari police
post. It is a well-settled position of law that the offer by the bribe
giver and the demand by the public servant have to be proved by
the prosecution as a fact in issue for conviction under Sections 7
and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Mere acceptance of illegal gratification
without proof of offer by the bribe giver and demand by the public
servant would not constitute an offence under Sections 7 and
13(1)(d)(i) and (ii)of the PC Act, as held by the Apex Court in
Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4
SCC 731.
25. The prosecution relies primarily on the testimonies of
PW5 and PW7, his friend, as well as on the testimony of PW3 and
PW4 to establish the demand made on 11.07.1996 and its
acceptance on 12.07.1996. It is true that PW3, the shadow witness
and PW4, the recovery witness, did not fully support the
prosecution case. Though they have not supported the prosecution
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 35 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
case with regard to the acceptance of illegal gratification, they have
admitted several material aspects of the prosecution case. Both
witnesses have supported the pre-trap proceedings, including the
production and treatment of the currency notes with
phenolphthalein powder. They have also admitted that the hand
wash of the accused and pocket wash of the pant turned pink. Thus,
their testimony, to a great extent corroborates the prosecution case.
It is well settled that the testimony of a hostile witness is not to be
discarded in toto and the Court may rely upon those portions of the
testimony which inspire confidence and support the prosecution
case. (Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab; AIR 2013 SC 2408,
Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P.; AIR 2012 SC 1979, Prithi v.
State of Haryana; (2010) 8 SCC 536, Lella Srinivasa Rao v.
State of A.P.; AIR 2004 SC 1720, Koli Lakhmanbhai
Chanabhai v. State of Gujarat; AIR 2000 SC 210).
26. Further, the materials on record show that when the
accused was apprehended, he remained quiet and he never claimed
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 36 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
to be innocent. This is yet another circumstance supporting the
prosecution case regarding the demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification [See M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P., 2001 SCC
(Cri) 258].
27. Further, I also refer to Ext. PW3/F transcription of the
audio recording which translated roughly reads:-
“Mohd. Zahid Khan: I left the card…. In the car with identity card
and FD (fixed deposit)
KC Sharma: FD ?
Mohd. Zahid Khan: He had made an FD
KC Sharma: Give some water to him
Mohd. Zahid Khan: Cold …….
KC Sharma: ……
Mohd. Zahid Khan: I made two STD calls to you, however, both
times you were not available.
KC Sharma: STD call?
Mohd. Zahid Khan: yes
KC Sharma: yes I came to know
—-
KC Sharma: Did you get money?
Mohd. Zahid Khan: Yes sir .. I want to meet Saheb
KC Sharma: I will make you meet Saheb alsoSignature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 37 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
………
KC Sharma: We were avoiding that you don’t get arrested
Mohd. Zahid Khan: Let me talk to Saheb so that I get reassured.
…….
Mohd. Zahid Khan: You know that it’s a false case
KC Sharma: It is a false case. He must have spent a lot to file a case
against you.
Mohd. Zahid Khan: I don’t understand
KC Sharma: Please understand …… This is a competition ….
Mohd. Zahid Khan: I am not behind in the competition. I will do as
the in-charge orders.”
(Emphasis supplied)
28. It was submitted by the learned defence counsel that the
transcription has not been proved in accordance with law. Many
portions of the audio recording is not audible. Only the portion
convenient or favourable to the prosecution is audible. As the entire
conversation is not audible, the same cannot be relied on as chances
of tampering cannot also be ruled out.
29. The fact that an audio device had been used during the
trap proceedings is spoken to by the prosecution witnesses
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 38 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
including PW3 and PW4, the witnesses who turned partially hostile
to the prosecution case. It is true that the transcript itself shows that
the entire conversation was not audible. But the materials on record
do not indicate or probablize a case of tampering of the audio
recording. Even assuming that the audio recording or the transcript
cannot be relied on, there is still the testimony of PW5 and PW7
which has to be read along with the testimony of PW3 and PW4.
30. It was submitted by the learned defence counsel that the
testimony of PW7 can never be relied on because he has admitted
that he is a very close friend of PW5 and hence clearly an interested
witness. The term ‘interested’ postulates that the witness must have
some direct interest in having the accused somehow or the other
convicted for some animus or for some other reason (See Kartik
Malhar v. State of Bihar, 1996 KHC 1402: (1996) 1 SCC 614
and Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, 1976 KHC 932: (1976) 4
SCC 158). The testimony of even a close relative, who is a natural
witness, cannot be regarded as an interested witness, as ordinarily, a
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 39 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
close relative would be the last person to screen the real culprit and
falsely implicate an innocent person. The mere fact of relationship,
far from being a foundation for false implication is often a sure
guarantee of truth (See Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1953
KHC 369: AIR 1953 SC 364). There is no proposition in law that
relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary,
reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show
that the witnesses had reason to shield actual culprit and falsely
implicate the accused (Harbans Kaur v. State of Haryana, 2005
KHC 642: (2005) 9 SCC 195). A close relative cannot be
characterised as an “interested” witness. His evidence, however,
must be scrutinised carefully. If on such scrutiny, his evidence is
found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly
trustworthy, conviction can be based on the testimony of such
witness. Close relationship of witness with the deceased or victim is
no ground to reject his evidence.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 40 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
31. In the case on hand, it is true that PW7 has admitted that
he is a close friend of PW5. However, that alone is not sufficient to
discard his testimony unless it is shown that he had a direct interest
in having the accused somehow or the other convicted for some
animus or for some other reason. It is only that the Court must
scrutinize his evidence carefully and if on such scrutiny his
evidence is found credible, the same can be relied on. In the case on
hand, PW7 has given an explanation for his presence along with
PW5. PW7 deposed that he had gone along with PW5 as the latter’s
surety. This part of his testimony has not been discredited.
Moreover, his testimony will have to be read along with the
remaining evidence on record.
32. Coming to the contention that PW5 had no reason to
visit the police station in the absence of any summons or direction
in the anticipatory bail order. Ext. PW5/DA-13 bail order dated
04.07.1996 reads:
“Counsel for the applicant.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 41 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
Heard. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is
ordered that in the event of arrest of the applicants, he be admitted to
bail on furnishing a P.Bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety
each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO concerned.
However, applicant are directed to join the investigation as and when
required.”
(Emphasis supplied)
33. The explanation offered by PW5 in his cross-
examination that he was advised by his advocate to approach the
police for the purpose of execution of the bail bond appears
plausible especially when he had been directed to co-operate with
the investigation.
34. It was further contended by the learned defence counsel
that since the accused was not the IO in FIR No. 276/1996, which
was lodged against PW5 and as the chowki-in-charge, SI Rajesh
Kumar, was in fact the IO, there was no occasion for the accused to
demand any bribe. SI Rajesh Kumar was named in Ext. PW6/B FIR
as the first accused. However, he has not been chargesheeted. It was
submitted that PW8, the IO in the present case, is a batchmate of SI
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 42 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
Rajesh Kumar and hence the latter was not chargesheeted. On the
other hand, the learned prosecutor submitted that there was no
evidence that bribe had been accepted by SI Rajesh Kumar and that
the offence becomes complete only on acceptance of the bribe. That
was not the case with SI Rajesh Kumar and as no offence was made
out against the said person, he was not chargesheeted.
35. Section 7 of the PC Act as it then stood reads thus:
7. Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration
in respect of an official act.–
Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains
or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself
or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal
remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any
official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his
official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or
attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the
Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the
Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or
Government company referred to in clause (c) of Section 2, or with any
public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with
imprisonment which shall be not less than three years but which may
extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.”
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 43 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
(Emphasis supplied)
36. A plain reading of the above provision shows that even
an attempt to obtain or an agreement to accept gratification other
than legal remuneration is sufficient to attract Section 7 PC Act.
Further, mere demand or solicitation of gratification by a public
servant amounts to an offence under Section 161 IPC. (See
Mubarak Ali v. State, AIR 1958 MP 157). In order to bring home
the guilt of the public servant, it is not necessary to prove that he
has actually accepted or obtained illegal gratification. It is enough if
it is shown that he had agreed to accept the said illegal gratification.
In other words, if a proposal is made to a public servant for
payment of illegal gratification and the proposal is accepted by him,
he would be guilty under Section 161 IPC. (See Damodar v. State,
ALR 1955 Bom 61). Therefore, the argument that no offence(s)
was made out against SI Rajesh Kumar does not appear correct.
37. But this mischief done by the IO, would not help the
appellant/ accused in the light of the consistent testimony of PW5
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 44 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
and PW7, corroborated by the testimony of PW3 and PW4. The
testimony of the defence witnesses do not in any way help the
appellant/accused. On going through the testimony of DW2 and
DW3, I find that they have put forward a case which the
appellant/accused himself does not have either during the
examination of the prosecution witness or when he was examined
under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
38. Certain lapses in the investigation were also pointed out,
particularly the delay of 3 days in forwarding the FIR to the court.
Delay alone cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case
unless materials are brought in to support the case put forward.
However, the defects in investigation do not by themselves render
the prosecution case unacceptable if the substantive evidence on
record establishes the commission of the offence. [See Hema v.
State, (2013) 10 SCC 192 and C. Muniappan v. State of T.N.
(2010) 9 SCC 567: (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1402]
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 45 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
39. On an overall appreciation of the evidence on record,
this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned
judgment calling for an interference by this Court.
40. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
41. Application(s), if any pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 02, 2026
kd/p’ma
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 229/2004 Page 46 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:02.04.2026
16:48:05
