Delhi High Court
Dinesh Kumar vs State Nct Of Delhi on 21 April, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 16.04.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 21.04.2026
+ CRL.A. 686/2005
DINESH KUMAR .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Riya Kumar, Advocate.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State with SI
Bheem Singh, PS ACB, GNCTD,
Delhi.
+ CRL.A. 717/2005 & CRL.M.A. 2272/2006
LAXMI CHAND .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanchar Anand, Mr. Rajat Rathee
and Mr. Pratimesh, Advocates.
versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State with SI
Bheem Singh, PS ACB, GNCTD,
Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. These appeals under Section 27 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (the PC Act), read with Section 374 of the
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 1 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.), have been filed
by accused nos. 2 and 3 (A2 and A3) in C.C. No. 105/1998 on the
file of the Court of Special Judge, Delhi, challenging the
conviction entered and the sentence passed against them for the
offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act
and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC).
2. The prosecution case is that on or around 10.05.1995,
the accused persons, three in number, while being employed in the
Railway Protection Force (RPF), entered into a criminal
conspiracy to extract illegal gratification from PW5 and, in
furtherance thereof, demanded a sum of ₹10,000/- for not
implicating PW3, his brother-in-law, in a criminal case. It was
alleged that on 13.05.1995 at about 09:00 AM, at the instance of
the first accused (A1), A3 accepted ₹5,000/- from PW5 at Platform
No. 1, RPF Police Post, Tuglakabad Railway Station.
3. On 13.05.1995, PW5 lodged a complaint, that is, Ext.
PW5/A, before the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB), New Delhi,
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 2 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
based on which, Crime No. 10/1995, that is, Ext. PW6/A FIR was
registered alleging commission of the offences punishable under
Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act.
4. PW8, Inspector, Anti-Corruption Branch, CBI, 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 Sections 7 and 13 of
the PC Act.
5. Ext. PW4/A Sanction Order for prosecuting A1, A2 and
A3 was accorded by PW4, Chief Security Commissioner, RPF,
New Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.
6. When the accused persons 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 them, on 04.08.2003, framed a Charge under Sections 7
and 13(l)(d) of the PC Act and Section 120-B IPC against A1 to
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 3 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
A3, which was read over and explained to them, to which they
pleaded not guilty.
7. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW11 were
examined and Ext. PW1/A – B, Ext. PW2/A-B, Ext. PW3/A-B,
Ext. PW4/A, Ext. PW5/A – H, Ext. PW6/A, Ext. PW9/A, Ext.
PW10/A-C and Ext. PW11/A-C were marked in support of the
prosecution case.
8. After the close of the prosecution evidence, A1 to A3
were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the
incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the
evidence of the prosecution. They denied all those circumstances
and maintained their innocence. They submitted that PW3 was
wanted in Crime No. 04/1995 for commission of the offence
punishable under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful
Possession) Act, 1966 [the RP (UP) Act]. The said case was being
investigated by A1 and A2, who had also obtained arrest warrant
from the court. PW3 deposed against them to save himself and got
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 4 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
the present case registered through the ACB with the help of PW5,
who was a Constable in the Delhi Police, as is evident from the
final report submitted in the criminal case against PW3. PW5, the
brother-in-law of PW3, was known to the members of the raiding
team. PW5, in connivance with the officials of the ACB, has
falsely implicated them. It was also submitted that PW6, the
panch witness, a Government employee, is not an independent
witness. There are material contradictions in the testimony of
PW6, who deposed against A1 to A3 at the instance of the ACB
and due to fear of departmental action. PW6 does not fully support
the prosecution case and so he is not a truthful witness. PW8, PW9
and PW10 are also not credible witnesses.
9. DW1 and DW2 were examined on behalf of A1 to A3.
Ext. DW1/A-B and Ext. DW2/B were marked in support of the
defence.
10. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence
on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 5 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
impugned judgment dated 16.08.2005, held A1, A2 and A3 guilty
of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC
Act and Section 120-B IPC. Accordingly, they have been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three
years each with a fine of ₹5,000/- each under Sections and 13 of
the PC Act and Section 120-B IPC and in default of payment of
fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months
each. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
Aggrieved, A2 and A3 have preferred these appeals.
11. When the appeals were taken up for hearing, it was
pointed out that A1 had also filed an appeal, being CRL.A.
711/2005. However, A1 died on 27.05.2021. The death had been
verified, and a report to the said effect has been filed by the
learned APP. The fine imposed had already been deposited and the
legal representatives of A1 did not wish to prosecute the matter.
Hence, the file was consigned to the records.
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 6 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
12. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant/A2 that there is direct evidence of A2 having demanded
or received any bribe amount and therefore, he cannot be held
liable for the offences charged against him.
12.1 It was submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant/A3 that demand is sine qua non for establishing an
offence under the PC Act, and in the case on hand, no such
demand has been proved against the latter. A3 was not present at
the time when the demand is alleged to have been made. There is
no reference made to A3 in Ext. PW5/A complaint. On
13.05.1995, A3 was merely standing in the office of A1 and, upon
being instructed by A1 and A2, he accepted the money on their
behalf from PW5. Apart from this, there is no averment by any
witness attributing any active role to him in the transaction. Mere
acceptance and recovery from A3 does not establish guilt, as he
was merely an innocent recipient and had no knowledge that the
currency notes handed over by PW5 was bribe money.
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 7 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
12.2 It was further pointed out that when PW5 entered the
office of A1, there was no conversation regarding any bribe in the
presence of A3. The testimony of PW5 does not support the
prosecution case against A3, as in his cross-examination, he
admitted that prior to the raid, he did not know A3. It was further
submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that A3 had
any knowledge of the case registered against PW3 or that any
bribe was to be accepted by him on behalf of A1 and A2.
12.3 It was also submitted that A3 could not have presumed
that the money handed over was bribe money. At the relevant time,
he was performing his duty as a sentry/orderly and was simply
following instructions. There is no evidence to establish any
meeting of minds or conspiracy involving him. There is also no
charge of abetment proved against him, nor is there any material to
show his conscious involvement in any criminal act. In the absence
of proof of demand, knowledge, or intention, the essential
ingredients of the offence are not satisfied, and therefore, he is
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 8 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
entitled to the benefit of doubt. Reference was made to the dictums
in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2023)
4 SCC 731, N. Sunkanna v. State of A.P., (2016) 1 SCC 713 and
A. Karunanithi v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1677.
13. It was submitted by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment
calling for interference by this Court. PW3 deposed that a demand
for illegal gratification was initially made by A1 and upon non-
fulfilment of the said demand, A2 and one police constable started
visiting PW3’s place. Although the said constable was not
specifically named as A3 at the initial stage, his involvement has
been indicated in the cross-examination of PW3, where he denied
the suggestion that no demand was made by A3 or that the latter
had been falsely implicated. It was further argued that for an
offence under Section 120-B IPC, an overt act is not required to be
proved against each conspirator. The existence of a conspiracy can
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 9 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
be inferred from the conduct of the accused persons and the
surrounding circumstances on record, argued the prosecutor.
14. Heard the learned counsel for A2 and A3 and the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
15. I shall first 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 been made on 10.05.1995 and the trap laid
on 13.05.1995. PW5 submitted a written complaint, that is, Ext.
PW5/A on 13.05.1995 in the office of the Anti-Corruption Branch,
in which he has stated thus:-“…My brother-in-law, Mohd. Iqbal
(PW3) works as a kabari at Ali More in the Badarpur area, which
falls within the jurisdiction of the RPF Tuglakabad Police Station.
The in-charge of the police station is one Inspector known as
Chann Sahib (A1), along with one ASI, namely Dinesh Kumar
(A2). About two and a half months earlier, one Bondu Khan was
falsely implicated in a case by Inspector Chann (A1). Inspector
Chann had also implicated my brother-in-law, Mohd. Iqbal
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 10 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
(PW3), in that case. Thereafter, Inspector Chann (A1) and Dinesh
Kumar (A2) started harassing my brother-in-law daily, demanding
₹10,000/- and threatening that the latter would be arrested if the
amount was not paid. On 10.05.1995, I met Chann Sahib (A1) at
the police station and requested him that my brother-in-law, Iqbal
(PW3), was not at fault. They said that “खचा तो आपको करना ही
पड़े गा”. I explained that we were poor and could not arrange such
a large amount. The Inspector (A1) asked me to pay ₹5,000/-
within the next two to three days and the remaining amount after
Iqbal’s (PW3) name was removed from the case. I again met
Inspector Chann Sahib (A1) on 12.05.1995, who told me to bring
₹5,000/- on 13.05.1995 in the morning, around 08:00 to 09:00
AM, at the running room of the police station. A1 also asked me to
bring ASI Dinesh Kumar (A2) from quarter No. D-II/97 so that the
former could also tell A2 not to trouble us. I am against giving
bribe, however agreed to pay only under compulsion. Neither me
nor my brother-in-law had any prior dealings with the Inspector or
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 11 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
the ASI. I have brought ₹5,000/- with me; appropriate action may
be taken.”
16. PW5, when examined before the trial court reiterated
his case in the complaint. He deposed that on 13.05.1995 at about
06:00 AM, he went to the office of the ACB and reported the
matter. The panch witness, namely, Hari Kishan Mann (PW6)
from the Food Supply Department, was already present there when
his Ext. PW5/A complaint was recorded. Nine currency notes of
the denomination of ₹500/- each and five currency notes of ₹100/-
each, were handed over to Inspector SK Banta (PW9). The number
of the currency notes was noted down in the pre-raid report. The
currency notes were treated with powder, and a demonstration was
conducted during which the panch witness (PW6) touched the
notes and dipped his hands in a solution, which turned pink. He
was instructed to keep the currency notes in his pocket. He was
also instructed to keep the panch witness (PW6) along with him at
the time of the raid, and similar instructions were given to PW6.
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 12 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
16.1. The raiding party, including himself, the panch witness
and some officials of the ACB, left the ACB office at about 07:00
AM and reached Tuglakabad police station at 08:00 AM. He along
with PW6, proceeded to the Traffic Office situated on the first
floor, while the other members of the raiding party took their
respective positions. He was instructed to hand over the money to
Inspector Chann (A1) only on specific demand and the panch
witness (PW6) was directed to overhear the conversation and give
a prearranged signal on acceptance of the bribe by the Inspector
(A1). Before going to the police station, he and the panch witness
went to the house of Dinesh Kumar (A2). Thereafter, he along
with the panch witness (PW6) and Dinesh Kumar (A2) went to the
office of Preet Pal Singh (A1). A2 directed him and PW6 to wait
outside the office and asked about the money, to which he replied
that he had brought ₹5,000/-. A2 then asked him if he had brought
Iqbal (PW6) with him, to which he replied in the affirmative.
Thereafter, Dinesh Kumar (A2) went inside the office of Preetpal
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 13 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
Singh Chann (A1). After about 2 to 3 minutes, A2 came out and
took him and the panch witness (PW6) inside the room of Preetpal
Singh (A1). Inspector Chann (A1) was having his breakfast with
another person, who left the room. At that time, Constable Laxmi
Chand (A3) was also present inside the room of Preetpal Singh
(A1). Preetpal Singh (A1), pointing towards ASI Dinesh (A2) and
Constable Laxmi Chand (A3), said “Mey enn logo ko bhaij raha
hu” and told him to hand over the money to them. They came out
of the room and when he asked A2 to whom he should hand over
the money, the latter told him to hand over the money to A3. A3
took him and the panch witness to the platform which was at a
distance of about 50 yards. A3 demanded the money from him. He
took out the currency notes of ₹5,000/- from his shirt pocket and
handed it over to A3, who accepted the same with his right hand
and counted the notes with both hands. PW6 gave the pre-arranged
signal, and upon receipt of the same, members of the raiding party
came to the spot and apprehended A3. PW9 disclosed his identity
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 14 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
and challanged A3 for having received the money. The tainted
currency notes were recovered by PW9 from the left hand of A3.
The number on the notes seized from A3 tallied with the number
already noted. The left hand wash of A3 was taken in a solution,
which turned pink. The hand wash was transferred into bottles and
sealed with the seal of RE. The bottles containing the wash were
marked as LHWI and LHWII and seized vide Ext. PW5/G seizure
memo, which was signed by him. The personal search of A1 to A3
was conducted vide Ext. PW5/D to PW5/F memo. The pre-raid
and post-raid proceedings were reduced into writing, that is, Ext.
PW5/A and Ext. PW3/B. The tainted currency notes were seized
vide Ext. PW5/H memo. According to PW5, Exts. P1 to P4 are the
bottles containing the wash. The currency notes identified by PW5
were marked as Exts. P5 to P16.
16.2. PW5, in his cross-examination, deposed that the
criminal case, in which one Bondu Khand and his brother-in-law
(PW3) were involved, was related to theft of railway property. He
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 15 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
denied the suggestion that before giving the complaint to the ACB,
an anticipatory bail application had been moved by PW3 in the
theft case. He admitted that PW3, his brother-in-law, had
surrendered before the court in the said case and had been
remanded to police custody. He denied the suggestion that he had
made a deliberate false statement that Bondu Khan and his brother-
in-law had been falsely implicated in the said theft case. PW5
further deposed that he had been in the service of the Delhi Police
since 01.05.1982. According to PW5, on 07.05.1995, his brother-
in-law (PW3) came to his house and told him about the demand of
₹10,000/- made by Inspector Pritpal Singh Chann (A1). PW5
admitted that PW3 was very much available at the latter’s
residence during the period from 1995 to 1997. PW5 admitted that
he had not produced his brother-in-law (PW3) before the IO in the
theft case during the period 1995 to 1997, despite being asked to
do so. When asked to assign a reason for not producing his
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 16 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
brother-in-law, he answered that he could not assign any specific
reason and added that he was not asked by the IO.
16.3. On 10.05.1995, he was posted in Old Police Lines
under Reserve Inspector Hari Bhushan Sharma. He used to mark
his attendance in the attendance register. PW5 claimed that he does
not know whether he was on duty or on leave on 10.05.1995. He
admitted that an employee on duty cannot leave the police line
without making an entry in the register concerned. He further
admitted that had he been on duty on 10.05.1995, he could not
have gone to the RPP, Tuglakabad on that day. He had gone alone
to the police post and met A1 at about 6:00 PM. No other person
was present in the room at that time. He had not disclosed to
anybody that money had been demanded from his brother-in-law.
On 12.05.1995, he had met A1 at about 05:00 or 06:00 PM.
According to PW5, the office of the ACB situated in Civil Lines
functions round the clock. He had not visited the ACB on
12.05.1995. He went to the ACB on 13.05.1995 at about 06:00
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 17 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
AM, where his report was recorded by the duty officer in the daily
diary. He could not recall the name of the duty officer. PW9 had
recorded his Ext. PW5/A complaint. When he reached the office of
the ACB, PW6 was already present there. He denied the
suggestion that he had lodged a false complaint to save his brother-
in-law or that a false trap had been arranged.
16.4. According to PW5, his monthly income at the time of
the raid was about ₹4,500/-. PW3 earned about ₹1,500/- per
month. PW3 had arranged ₹5,000/- to be given as bribe. He denied
the suggestion that the treated currency notes had been provided by
the officials of the ACB from their secret fund. PW5 further
deposed that it is a one-hour journey from the office of the ACB to
Tuglakabad railway station. They had started from the ACB office
at 07:05 AM and reached within an hour. By about 08:30 – 08:35
AM, they went to the office of A1 when A1 was having his
breakfast. A2 went inside, while he and PW6 waited outside. He
did not offer the money to A1 when he went inside the room of the
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 18 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
latter. He also did not offer the money to A2 when he along with
the latter came out of the office of A1.
16.5. PW5 further admitted that prior to the raid, he was
unaware of the involvement of A3 in the false implication of PW3.
PW3 had not told him so. A3 was not present in the office of A1
when he had first interacted with A1 on the day of the raid. He
denied the suggestion that A3 had not accepted the currency notes
from him. PW5 admitted that A3 had never demanded any bribe
from him or from PW3. PW5 further admitted that PW3 had never
told him that A3 had also harassed the former.
17. PW3, the brother-in-law of PW5, when examined,
deposed that in the year 1995, he was doing business of kabari in
Ali More, Badarpur area. Sometime in 1995, A1 contacted him at
his place of business. He was questioned by A1 regarding the
authority under which he was running a godown there. A1
demanded payment of money every month. He expressed his
reluctance to pay any money as he was not doing anything illegal.
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 19 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
A1 told him that if he was not willing to pay monthly, he would
take ₹10,000/- in a lump sum. He expressed his inability to pay.
Thereafter, A1 got a warrant issued against him. He contacted his
brother-in-law, Shamim (PW5), who assured him that the latter
would speak to A1. He is unaware of the details of the talk that
took place between PW5 and A1. After the warrant was issued, A2
and one another police official started harassing him and
demanding that he arrange money, saying that they would only
charge a minor case against him so that he could get bail easily.
Thereafter, he surrendered before the court. PW3 deposed that he
had nothing more to say in the matter and had no further
knowledge of the present case.
17.1 At this juncture, the prosecutor is seen to have
requested permission of the trial court to “cross-examine” PW3 on
the ground that he was resiling from his previous statement. The
permission is seen to have been granted by the court. On further
examination, PW3 admitted that he had stated to the police that on
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 20 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
03.03.1995, A1 had arrested three other accused in case No.
04/1995. In the said case, Tandon Sahib (A1) had also implicated
him. He admitted that he had told the police that Tandon Sahib
(A1), Dinesh (A2), and Constable Laxmi Chand (A3) had
threatened to arrest him in the said crime if he failed to pay
₹10,000/- to them. PW3 identified A3 in the court. He admitted
that he had also stated to the police that he had informed PW5, his
brother-in-law, employed as a constable in the Delhi Police. He
admitted that he had stated to the police that PW5 had made a
request to Pritpal Singh Tandon (A1) not to implicate him in a
false case. PW5 told him that the former had settled the matter for
₹5,000/-. He had also stated to the police that he was arrested on
20.09.1995 in the theft case. PW3 admitted that he had handed
over documents relating to the said case to the IO in this case vide
Ext. PW3/B memo, which was signed by him at point A. The
documents handed over are Exts. P1 to P5. PW5 admitted having
given a statement to the police. However, he denied having stated
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 21 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
that A3 also used to contact him along with A1 and A2, but it was
some other constable. He further admitted that Tandon (A1),
Dinesh (A2), and Laxmi Chand (A3) used to threaten to arrest him.
17.2 PW3 in his cross-examination admitted that he, along
with Mohd. Haroon, Rafiq, Alambir, Gafoor, and Bondhu Khan
are the accused persons in a criminal case relating to the theft of
motors and copper wires belonging to the railway. He admitted to
have surrendered before the Court concerned in the said crime,
pursuant to which he was sent to police custody. Before he
approached PW5 seeking help, he was aware of the crime
registered against him. The bail application moved in the said case
was dismissed. According to PW3, it was he who had arranged
₹5,000/- by selling his buffalo. He had accompanied PW5 to the
office of the ACB when the complaint was given. He denied the
suggestion that the money used for the trap had been provided by
the raid officer from their secret fund.
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 22 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
18. PW6, the panch witness, deposed that he was posted in
the Department of Food and Civil Supply, Government of Delhi.
On 13.05.1995, he was deputed to perform duty as a panch witness
in the ACB. He reported for duty in the office of the ACB at about
06:00 AM, where Inspector Banta Singh (PW8) was present. Ext.
PW5/A complaint of PW5 was recorded in his presence, which
bears his signature at point B. PW5 produced currency notes
totalling ₹5,000/-, some in the denomination of ₹500/- and some in
₹100/- denomination. PW6 deposed regarding the pre-raid
proceedings. He was instructed by PW9 to keep a watch on the
transaction of money between PW5 and the person demanding
money and to report the same. He, along with PW5, and PW9, and
the members of the raid team proceeded to the Government
Railway Quarters, Tuglakabad. The vehicle was parked at some
distance, and the raiding team remained behind while he and PW5
went to a first-floor house where A2 was residing. In his presence,
A2 asked PW5 whether he had brought the money, to which PW5
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 23 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
replied that he had brought ₹5,000/-. Thereafter, all three of them
went to Tuglakabad Railway Station. On reaching the platform, A2
asked them to wait outside while A2 went inside the office of A1.
After about 2 to 3 minutes, when they entered the office, they saw
one Inspector and an elderly Sikh having breakfast, and A3
standing behind them. A2 then spoke to A1. Though he could not
fully understand the conversation, he heard A1, while signalling
towards A2, say “Usko de dena.” Thereafter, he, along with PW5,
A2 and A3, came out of the room. PW5 asked A2 as to whom the
money should be paid, to which the latter replied that it should be
handed over to A3. Thereafter, A2 left the place. He and PW5
followed A3 to a place under a tree about 50 to 60 paces from the
platform. PW5 took out ₹5,000/- and handed it over to A3. As
soon as A3 accepted the amount, he gave the pre-arranged signal,
and the raiding team immediately arrived and apprehended A3. A3
was taken to the office of A1, and the latter was informed that the
former had been apprehended while taking money. The police
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 24 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
recovered ₹5,000/- from A3. The number on the currency notes
tallied with the numbers noted earlier. The hand wash of A3 taken
turned pink, and the same was transferred to two bottles. The
bottles were sealed. He signed on the label on both the bottles.
Thereafter, A1 to A3 were taken to the office of the ACB. PW9
had not prepared any documents at the spot but had seized some
files. The writing work was done at the office. He did not sign any
document(s) at the spot. He admitted his signature in Ext. PW5/C
pre-raid report, Ext. PW6/A post-raid report and in Ext. PW5/H
seizure memo, relating to the currency notes. The hand wash of
both the hands of A3 taken turned red, and the washes were
transferred into four bottles marked RHW-I, RHW-II, LHW-I, and
LHW-II and sealed at the spot. PW6 identified the bottles
containing the wash and the currency notes seized and marked as
Ext. P1 to Ext. P4 and Ext. P5 to Ext. P18 respectively.
18.1. During the course of the examination-in-chief, the
prosecutor is seen to have sought the permission of the trial court
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 25 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
to “cross-examine” PW6, on the ground that he had resiled from
his previous statement. The request is seen allowed. On further
examination, PW6 denied the suggestion that the old Sardar, who
was having breakfast with A1 had left the room as soon as they
had entered the room of A1. He denied the suggestion that the
conversation between A1 and A2, including signalling of A1
towards A3, had taken place in the absence of the Sardar.
18.2. PW6 in his cross-examination deposed that on
12.05.1995 at about 10:00 AM, when he reported to the office of
the ACB on duty as a panch witness, his presence had been
recorded in the register. On the said day, he was instructed to
report to the office of the ACB, on the morning of 13.05.1995. On
12.05.1995, he had been told that there was a possibility of a raid
being conducted on 13.05.1995. He had not met PW5 in the office
of the ACB on 12.05.1995. He is unaware whether PW5 had come
to the office of the ACB on 12.05.1995. He never knew that PW5
was employed in the Delhi Police. PW6 admitted that the currency
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 26 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
notes to be used in the raid were already with PW8. However, he
does not know from where PW8 got the same. He denied the
suggestion that no pre-raid proceedings had taken place in the
office of the ACB and that said proceedings had been done after
the raid. According to PW6, PW5 had not offered the money to
A2 at the latter’s residence or offered it while in the office of A1.
The handing over of the money took place on the platform of the
railway station. According to PW6, one of the officials of the ACB
had recovered the currency notes from A3. He admitted that the
raid officer had not recovered the currency notes from the hand of
A3. After apprehension of A3, when A3 was brought into the
office of A1, the latter was present but A2 was absent. A2 was
subsequently called to the said office from another office. A2 had
not been brought from his quarter as he arrived there within a
minute.
19. PW9, Inspector, ACB, Delhi, deposed that on
13.05.1995, he had recorded Ext. PW5/A complaint of PW5 in the
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 27 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
presence of the panch witness (PW6). The complaint was
regarding the demand of bribe of ₹10,000/- by the Inspector and
ASI of the RPF department for not falsely implicating PW3 in a
case. PW5 brought the bribe amount of ₹5,000/-, that is, nine
currency notes of the denomination of ₹500/- each and five
currency notes of the denomination of ₹100/- each. He noted the
serial number of the notes in Ext. PW5/C pre-raid report and
smeared them with phenolphthalein powder. The panch witness
was directed to touch the notes and his hand wash taken turned
pink. PW9 further deposed that the characteristics of the powder
and solution had been explained to the panch witness and PW5
through the said demonstration. The treated currency notes were
given to PW5, who was instructed to remain close to PW6, the
panch witness, and to carry out the transaction in a manner which
would be visible and the conversation audible to the latter. PW6
was also instructed to remain close to PW5 and to signal the
raiding team once the transaction was complete. Around 07:00
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 28 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
AM, he organised a raiding team. The raiding team along with
PW5 and PW6 reached the Tuglakabad Railway Station at around
08:00 AM. PW5 and PW6 were sent to the quarters of A2 while
he along with the other members of the raiding team took suitable
positions at a distance.
19.1. PW5, PW6 and A2 thereafter proceeded towards the
office of A1. After some time, PW5, PW6 and one another person
came outside the room, whereas A2 remained inside. PW5, PW6
and the said person proceeded to a distance of about 50 yards from
the office on platform no. 1 and stood under a tree. At about 09:00
AM, he received the pre-determined signal from PW6.Then he,
along with the members of the raiding party, rushed to the spot. A2
also reached there. PW6 informed them that A3 had accepted the
bribe from PW5. He disclosed his identity and challanged A3 for
having received the bribe. He recovered the treated currency notes
from the left hand of A3. The serial number of the said notes
tallied with the number recorded in the pre-raid report. He took the
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 29 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
left and right hand wash of A3, which turned pink. The solution
was transferred into four small empty clean bottles, which were
sealed and marked as LHWI, LHWII, RHWI and RHWI. He
prepared Ext. PW6/A, the post-raid report and also prepared
PW9/A endorsement and sent the same to the ACB for registration
of the case. Inspector Sobhan Singh (PW10) was then called to the
spot, to whom the custody of the accused and the material objects
of the case were handed over.
19.2. PW9 in his cross-examination deposed that at the time
of recording the complaint, he did not know that PW5 was a
constable in the Delhi Police. He had not enquired about PW5’s
occupation or profession at the time of recording the complaint,
nor did the latter disclose his occupation at that time. He denied
the suggestion that he knew PW5 very well, as the latter was
employed in the Delhi Police. PW9 admitted that he had not
enquired about the source of ₹5,000/- from PW5. He denied the
suggestion that he had provided the treated currency notes of
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 30 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
₹5,000/- from their secret fund or that no pre-raid proceedings had
taken place in the office of ACB. PW9 admitted that PW5 had not
disclosed to him during the pre-raid proceedings that the latter
would first go to the residence of A2 and take A2 along with him
when he went to the office of A1. However, this fact was disclosed
by PW5 while they were on their way to the office of A1. He had
not inspected the office of A1 and had not entered the room at any
stage. He admitted that, as per his endorsement made at 08:55 AM
in the raid report, PW5 and PW6 had come out from the office of
the In-charge along with another person, who had taken the
money.
20. I will also make a brief reference to the testimony of
the defence witnesses. DW1, Inspector, RPF, deposed that A1, A2
and A3 are employees of the RPF. In May 1995, A1 was posted as
in-charge RPF Post, Tuglakabad, whereas A2 was posted as ASI
and A2 as Head Constable in the police post. In June 1995, he was
given charge of RPF, Tuglakabad, when A1 was suspended
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 31 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
pursuant to his apprehension. Crime no. 04/1995, registered under
Section 3 of the RP (UP) Act, was pending investigation. The said
crime was being investigated by A2. After he took charge, he took
over the investigation. He had perused the case file and found that
one Mohd. Iqbal s/o Ibrahim (PW3) was wanted in the said case.
A2 had already arrested three other persons in the said crime. A
disclosure statement had been given by one of the persons arrested
in the crime, which disclosed the involvement of PW3 in the crime
and hence PW3 was wanted in the said crime. A2 had already
obtained non-bailable warrants from the Court against PW3, but
the latter was evading arrest. On 20.09.1995, PW3 surrendered
before the Court in the said crime. DW1 was not cross-examined
by the prosecutor.
21. DW2 deposed that in May 1995, he was posted as
Moharrar Head Constable at RPF Post, Tuglakabad. A1 was the
in-charge of the RPF Post, Tuglaqabad. He produced a copy of
entry of daily diary dated 12.05.1995, that is Ext. DW2/A. As per
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 32 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
entry 46, A1 had left the RPF post on 12.05.1995 at 11:37 AM to
attend the office of Senior Security Commissioner and vide entry
81, the latter returned to the post on the said day at 08:25 PM.
22. The principal question that arises for consideration is
whether the conviction of A2 and A3 under Sections 7 and
13(1)(d) of the PC Act and Section 120-B IPC is sustainable in
law. In the case on hand, the prosecution alleges that A1 and A2
demanded ₹10,000/- from PW5 for not implicating PW3, his
brother-in-law, in a theft case and that, in furtherance of the said
demand, ₹5,000/- was accepted by A3 on behalf of A1 and A2.
According to PW5, the demand by A1 was first made on
10.05.1995 and then reiterated on 12.05.1995 between 05:00 and
06:00 PM. DW2 has produced Ext. DW2/A, copy of the entry of
the daily diary dated 12.05.1995. A perusal of Ext. DW2/A shows
that A1 had left the police post on 12.05.1995 at 11:37 AM to
attend a meeting/conference in the office of the Senior Security
Commissioner. Going by Ext. DW2/A, which is not disputed, A1
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 33 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
returned to his office on 12.05.1995 at about 08.25 pm. There is no
reason to disbelieve Ext. DW2/A as it is prepared in the regular
course of business and as such, no material has been brought on
record to show otherwise. If PW5 is to be believed, the demand for
bribe was reiterated by A1 on 12.05.1995 when he met the latter
between 05:00 and 06:00 PM in the office of the latter on the said
day. But going by Ext. DW2/A, A1 was not in his office at that
time. If that be so, who had made the demand on 12.05.1995
between 05:00 and 06:00 PM as claimed by PW5? This is one
aspect that raises doubts regarding the prosecution case.
23. Further, the definite case of PW5 is that A1 and A2
were threatening PW3 that they would implicate him in a false
case if money was not paid to them. However, PW3 does not seem
to have such a case. If PW3 is to be believed, A1 demanded money
for permitting the former to run his business in a godown situated
at Ali More, Badarpur area. A1 demanded monthly payment from
PW3 to which the latter expressed reluctance stating that he was
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 34 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
not doing anything illegal. A1 is then alleged to have stated that if
PW3 was unwilling to pay monthly, the latter would have to pay
an amount of ₹10,000/- in lump sum. PW3 again expressed his
inability to pay. Thereafter, A1 got a warrant issued against him.
Notably, PW3 has no case that A1 threatened to implicate him in a
false case. PW3 in his cross-examination admitted that he was
aware that he was an accused in Crime No. 04/1995 even before
approaching PW5 for assistance. It has also come out from the
materials on record that the bail application moved by PW3 in the
said crime had been rejected by the Court concerned. When PW3
was already an accused in a theft case, there appears no reason for
A1 and A2 to demand money to prevent his implication in the
crime. PW3 and PW5 have no case that the bribe had been
demanded for some other purpose, like for instance, not to arrest
PW3 pursuant to a warrant being issued by the Court concerned.
In such circumstances, the allegation of false implication also
becomes doubtful.
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 35 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
24. According to PW3, a warrant had been issued against
him in Crime No. 04/1995, after which, he had approached PW5
for help. On 20.09.1995, he surrendered before the Court
concerned and was then remanded to police custody. No
documents pertaining to Crime No. 04/1995 has been placed on
record. Therefore, the outcome of the said case remains unknown
to this Court. Further, it is admitted by PW3 that he was very much
in Delhi during the year 1995. PW5 admitted that he had not
produced PW3 before the IO in the theft case despite being asked
to do so. When questioned, PW5 could not give any clear answer
for not complying with the direction of the IO in the theft case.
The sequence of events gives a strong indication that PW3 might
have been evading arrest and PW5 was helping him to do so.
25. Further, PW5 deposed that he visited the office of the
ACB for the first time on 13.05.1995 at about 06:00 AM for giving
the complaint, at which time PW6, the panch witness, was already
there. According to PW6, he had been deputed as a panch witness
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 36 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
to the office of the ACB on the relevant day. The learned
Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that panch witnesses are
normally deputed from various departments on specific days to the
office of the ACB. However, no such document(s) has been
produced to substantiate the case of deputation. PW6 deposed that
on 12.05.1995, he had reported to the office of the ACB as he had
been deputed on duty as a panch witness. On the said day, he was
asked to report again in the morning of 13.05.1995, as there was a
possibility/likelihood of a raid being conducted. Notably, PW6 had
reported to the office of the ACB at about 10:00 AM on
12.05.1995. Therefore, the normal reporting time was probably
around 10:00 AM. But on 13.05.1995, PW6 reported before the
office of the ACB at 06:00 AM. PW5 has no case that he had gone
to the office of the ACB on 12.05.1995. If that be so, how did the
officials of the ACB know on 12.05.1995, that a raid would have
to be conducted on 13.05.1995, that too, in the early morning? The
only plausible explanation could be that PW5 had prior
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 37 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
acquaintance with PW9, the Trap Laying Officer (the TLO).
However, PW9 asserts that he had no prior acquaintance with
PW5. PW5 admittedly was a constable in the Delhi Police. But
quite interestingly, according to PW9, he was unaware of the said
fact. So, what enquiry or was any enquiry at all done by PW9,
before the raid was arranged and conducted?
26. Further, according to PW5, he had gone to the office of
the ACB on 13.05.1995 at 06:00 AM. The pre-raid formalities are
supposed to have been completed and the raiding team left the
office for the raid at about 07:00 AM. How all the formalities of
registering the complaint of PW5, the pre-raid formalities etc.,
were completed within a short span of one hour? Was PW9, the
TLO, expecting PW5 to approach him and make the complaint? It
seems so. Otherwise, how could all the formalities have been
completed and the raid team arranged within less than an hour and
the raiding team leave the office for the raid at 08:00 AM? The
TLO indeed seems to have done some fast work.
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 38 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
27. Another aspect that raises doubts is the conduct of A1
and A2 during the time of the alleged transaction. According to
PW5, A1 did not accept the money directly from him, though the
latter was alone in his office on 13.05.1995 when the former
approached him. On the other hand, A1 is alleged to have
indicated to PW5 to hand over the money to A2 and A3. However,
A2 also does not accept the money directly from PW5. A2 in turn
is alleged to have instructed PW5 to hand it over to A3. It is
unclear as to why A1 would refuse to accept the money in the
privacy of his office with no one around except the parties
involved in the transaction and instead direct the transaction to
occur in an open place or in a public platform. Further, if A1 had
directed PW5 on 12.05.1995 to bring the money on the morning of
13.05.1995 between 08:00 and 09:00 AM, there is no clear
explanation as to why he did not accept it himself.
28. Coming to the role of A3, there is no evidence that he
had demanded any bribe from PW3 or PW5. PW5 admitted that
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 39 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
prior to the raid, he was unaware of the involvement of A3 in the
false implication of PW3. A3 was also not present in the office of
A1 when PW5 had first interacted with A1 on the day of the raid.
PW5 further admitted that A3 had never demanded any bribe from
him or from PW3 and that PW3 had never told him that A3 had
also harassed him. According to PW3, A3 had never contacted or
threatened him like A1 and A2, but it was some other police
constable. The role of A3 appears only at the stage of
accepting/receiving the bribe.
29. For recording a conviction under Section 7 and
Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act, the prosecution has to
prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification either by
direct evidence, which can be in the nature of oral evidence or
documentary evidence or circumstantial evidence. In other words,
to convict a person under the aforesaid provision demand and
acceptance of illegal gratification is sine qua non. [See Neeraj
Datta (supra)].
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 40 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
30. Here, I refer to the two decisions submitted on behalf of
A3. A. Karunanithi (supra) was also a case under the PC Act. In
the said case, A1 therein was serving as Village Administrative
Officer and A2 as Village Assistant in the same office. The
complainant therein had applied to the Tehsildar for a community
certificate for the purpose of joining government service.
However, his application was returned with an endorsement to
approach A1 for a report. When the complainant approached A1,
the latter is alleged to have demanded bribe for processing the
papers. Subsequently, the complainant lodged a complaint with the
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department with regard to the
demand for bribe made by A1. A trap was arranged and after the
trap was laid and the complainant approached A1, he reiterated the
demand for bribe and instructed A2 to collect the money from the
complainant. The complainant then handed over the marked
currency notes to A2, who accepted the same as directed by A1.
A2 was apprehended with the treated currency notes and his hand
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 41 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
wash turned pink. Both A1 and A2 were found guilty by the trial
court for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section
13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The conviction and
sentence were confirmed by the High Court. When the matter
came up before the Apex Court, it was noticed that the materials
on record did not reveal that A2 had ever demanded any illegal
gratification. On the other hand, the materials were only to the
effect that A2 had accepted the money on the directions of A1 and
kept it with him. It was held that the demand made by A1 could
not be attributed to A2 as no evidence was adduced which could
establish that A2 was a habitual offender working in aid with A1
or was facilitating A1 in demanding and receiving illegal
gratification. Accordingly, in the absence of any allegation of
evidence that A2 had demanded bribe from the complainant or that
he was acting in connivance with A1, it was held that he could not
be prosecuted for the commission of the crime of demanding and
receiving illegal gratification. It was also noticed that A2 had
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 42 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
never been charged with abetment of the aforesaid crime. He had
only accepted the money as per the directions of A1. A2 could
have received the money innocently on the direction of A1 or he
might have received it knowingly. Both views were possible.
However, as no evidence had been adduced to prove that A1 and
A2 had connived to demand and accept the bribe, it could not be
concluded with certainty that A2 was an accomplice in the crime.
Accordingly, in the absence of a charge of abetment and proof of
connivance between A1 and A2, it was held that A2 could not be
convicted for the offences charged against him.
31. In N. Sunkanna (supra), the materials on record
revealed recovery of tainted currency notes from the possession of
the accused, which possession was also admitted by the accused.
However, it was held that mere possession and recovery of the
currency notes from the accused without proof of demand would
not bring home the offence under Section 7, since demand of
illegal gratifications is sine qua non to constitute the offence. In
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 43 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use
of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant
to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held
to have been established. It is only on proof of acceptance of
illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section
20 of the PC Act that such gratification was received for doing or
forbearing to do any official act. Unless there is proof of demand
of illegal gratification, proof of acceptance would not follow.
32. I also refer to dictum in Mahendra Singh Chotelal
Bhargad v. State of Maharashtra (1998) 2 SCC 357, wherein it
has been held that accepting money on behalf of another person
may certainly constitute an abetment of an offence, but in the
absence of a charge of abetment, the person accepting the bribe is
not liable to be convicted.
33. In the case on hand, it is true that the materials on
record show that the tainted currency notes were recovered from
the possession of A3. Even if the materials on record is accepted
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 44 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
and taken into account, it only shows that A3 received the money
on behalf of A1 and A2. However, there is no charge of abetment
of the offence against A3 and therefore, his conviction under
Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act does not appear to be correct.
34. The trial court has found A2 and A3 also guilty of the
offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC. To bring home the
charge of conspiracy within the ambit of Section 120-B IPC, it is
necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the
parties for doing an unlawful act. Circumstances in a case, when
taken together on their face value, should indicate meeting of
minds between the conspirators for the intended object of
committing an illegal act or an act which is not illegal, committed
by illegal means. In other words, the essence of criminal
conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an
agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by
circumstantial evidence or by both. It is a matter of common
experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 45 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
available. Accordingly, the circumstances proved before and after
the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the
complicity of the accused. Even if some acts are proved to have
been committed, it must be clear that they were so committed in
pursuance of an agreement made between the accused persons who
were parties to the alleged conspiracy. Inferences from such
proved circumstances regarding the guilt may be drawn only when
such circumstances are incapable of any other reasonable
explanation. In other words, an offence of conspiracy cannot be
deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises
or inference which are not supported by cogent and acceptable
evidence. [See CBI v. K. Narayana Rao, (2012) 9 SCC 512]
34.1. In State v. Anup Kumar Srivastava, (2017) 15 SCC
560, it was observed that the object behind the conspiracy is to
achieve the ultimate aim of conspiracy. A charge of conspiracy
means knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a
legal act by illegal means is necessary. In some cases, intent of
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 46 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
unlawful use being made of the goods or services in question may
be inferred from the knowledge itself. This apart, the prosecution
has not to establish that a particular unlawful use was intended, so
long as the goods or services in question could not be put to any
lawful use. When the ultimate offence consists of a chain of
actions, it would not be necessary for the prosecution to establish,
to bring home the charge of conspiracy, that each of the
conspirators had the knowledge of what the collaborator would do.
35. In the case of hand, there is absolutely no evidence to
bring in the ingredients of Section 120-B IPC. Therefore, with the
materials on record the trial court obviously went wrong in finding
A2 and A3 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 120B
IPC.
36. I find the materials on record unsatisfactory to find A2
and A3 guilty of the offences charged against them beyond
reasonable doubt. Suspicion, however, strong cannot take the place
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 47 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40
of proof. Hence, I find that A2 and A3 are entitled to benefit of
doubt.
37. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned
judgment convicting A2 and A3 for the offences punishable under
Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and Section 120-B IPC is set
aside. The appellants/A2 and A3 are acquitted under Section
248(1) Cr.P.C. of the offences charged against them. They shall be
set at liberty and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
38. Applications, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 21, 2026
p’ma/mj
CRL.A. 686/2005 & CRL.A. 717/2005 Page 48 of 48
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.04.2026
09:34:40