Delhi High Court
Const. Satish Kumar vs State Of Delhi on 27 April, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 20.04.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 27.04.2026
+ CRL.A. 862/2004
CONST. SATISH KUMAR .....Appellant
Through: None.
Versus
STATE OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with
SI Bheem Singh, P.S. ACB, GNCT
Delhi.
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.56/1998 on the file of the Court of Special Judge,
Delhi, challenging the conviction entered and sentence passed
against him for the offences punishable under Section 7 and
13(1)(d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (the PC Act).
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 862/2004 Page 1 of 19
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:27.04.2026
15:11:44
2. The prosecution case is that, on 26.07.1994, the
accused, while posted as a Constable at Police Station Mehrauli,
Delhi, demanded and accepted a sum of ₹1,000/- as illegal
gratification from one Narender Kumar (the informant) in
consideration for returning the latter’s identity card, which had
earlier been taken by a Head Constable during a police checking
on the intervening night of 26.07.1994-27.07.1994 at Aaya
Nagar, Delhi.
3. On 30.07.1994, the informant lodged a complaint, that
is, Ext. PW5/A, with the Anti-Corruption Branch, New Delhi,
based on which, Crime No. 20/1994, FIR was registered
alleging commission of the offences punishable under Section 7
and 13 of the PC Act.
4. PW6, Inspector, Anti-Corruption Branch, New Delhi,
conducted investigation into the crime and on completion of the
same, submitted the charge-sheet/ final report alleging
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 862/2004 Page 2 of 19
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:27.04.2026
15:11:44
commission of the offences punishable under the Section 7 read
with 13 of the PC Act.
5. Ext. PW6/A Sanction Order for prosecuting the accused
was accorded by Vivek Gogia, IPS, Additional Deputy
Commissioner of Police-I, South District, New Delhi.
6. When the accused on receipt of summons appeared
before the trial court, the Court after complying with the
formality contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C, and after
hearing him, on 08.07.1999, framed a Charge under Section 7
and 13(1)(d) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act against the accused,
which was read over and explained to him to which he pleaded
not guilty.
7. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW10 were
examined and Exts. PW3/A, PW4/A-B, PW5/A-H & 5/DA,
PW6/A, PW9/A, PW10/A were marked in support of the
prosecution case.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 862/2004 Page 3 of 19
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:27.04.2026
15:11:44
8. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused
was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the
incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the
evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied all those
circumstances and maintained his innocence. It was submitted
by the accused that he neither demanded nor accepted any
illegal gratification from the informant at any point of time. It
was further submitted that he had not taken the identity card of
the informant, and therefore, the question of demanding money
for its return does not arise. The accused further asserted that
the raiding party had come to apprehend another police official,
namely, Satbir Singh, who was not present at the spot at the
relevant time, and that he has been falsely implicated in the
present case to justify the raid and its outcome.
9. On consideration of the materials on record and after
hearing the parties, the trial court vide the impugned judgment
dated 26.10.2004 held the accused guilty of the offences
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 862/2004 Page 4 of 19
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:27.04.2026
15:11:44
punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(2) read with 13(2)
of the PC Act. Accordingly, the accused has been sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for each
of the said offences and to pay a fine of ₹ 1000/- on each count.
In default of payment of fine, the accused shall further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 months. The sentences
have been directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved, the accused
has preferred this appeal.
10. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, it was
reported that the appellant/ accused was no more. The death has
been verified by the SHO concerned. Though, opportunity was
granted, his legal representative(s) has not come forward to
contest the appeal. Hence, relying on the dictum of the Apex
Court in Bani Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P., (1996) 4 SCC
720, this Court is proceeding to consider the appeal on merits
after going through the entire records in the case.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 862/2004 Page 5 of 19
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:27.04.2026
15:11:44
11. In the appeal memorandum, it is alleged that the trial
court has erred in convicting the accused under Section 7 and
Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, as
Narender Kumar, the informant, who is the material witness to
prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, was
admittedly not examined, thereby creating a lapse in the
prosecution case. Even otherwise, the testimony of PW5, the
shadow witness, does not corroborate the prosecution case and
is inconsistent with the alleged demand and acceptance. It is
also alleged that the sanction for prosecution is not valid
inasmuch as the accused was appointed by the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, whereas the impugned sanction has
been accorded by an Assistant Commissioner of Police, who
was not the competent authority.
12. Per Contra, it was submitted by the Additional Public
Prosecutor (APP) appearing for the State that the impugned
judgment does not suffer from any infirmity warranting
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 862/2004 Page 6 of 19
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:27.04.2026
15:11:44
interference by this court as the trial court has duly considered
each and every ground raised in the present appeal and, upon an
overall appreciation of the materials on record, adjudicated the
matter on merits.
13. Heard 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
judgement 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 in the intervening
night of 26.07.1994-27.07.1994 and the trap laid on 30.07.1994.
From the TCR it is seen that though summons was issued to
Narender Kumar, the informant, several times, the same
returned unexecuted with the report that his whereabouts could
not be traced. Hence, he was not examined before the trial court.
Ext. PW5/A is the information alleged to have been given by
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 862/2004 Page 7 of 19
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:27.04.2026
15:11:44
Narender Kumar to PW9, Inspector, ACB, New Delhi. The gist
of the information roughly translated reads thus:-“…I, Narendra
Kumar, son of Ram Niwas Yadav, permanent resident of Village
Manethi, District Rewari, Haryana presently residing at S.P.
Colour Lab, G-17, Green Park, Delhi, working as a property
dealer by the name of Kumar Associates Property Dealer , do
hereby state the following facts: On 26th July 1994 or 27th July
1994, my relatives forcefully took me in a car DL 1J 4431 Fiat
car from Delhi to Haryana. My brother in law (wife’s sister’s
husband) Om Prakash was driving the car. When the car
reached the Aya Nagar Police check post, then I broke the
window in the back of the car and started shouting “Bachao
Bachao” (“Help! Help!”) The car climbed onto the pavement
and came to a halt. At that moment, Head Constable (H.C.)
Satbir Singh and Satish came to the vehicle from the check post.
It was approximately 02:00 AM at the time. Then H.C. Satbir
Singh took me, Mukesh Yadav, and Rajesh Yadav inside the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 862/2004 Page 8 of 19
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:27.04.2026
15:11:44
check post. The driver Om Prakash and Prem Chand were also
there. Rajendra Yadav fled the spot. Inside the check post, H.C.
Satbir Singh and Satish beat me and also abused me and took
₹3,000/- from my pocket (in 100-rupee denomination). H.C.
Satbir Singh kept the money and also confiscated my identity
card. He told me to return on the evening of 30.07.1994, with
another ₹1,000/- to collect my Identity Card. If I do not give
₹1,000/- as a bribe, the identity card will not be returned, and
they will implicate me in a robbery case. When I asked as to
who would take the money, H.C. Satbir directed me to give the
money to whoever was present, and take back my card. I do not
want to give bribe to H.C. Satbir and Constable Satish
(accused), but I am being forced to give it out of necessity. I
have no other dealings with H.C. Satbir and Constable Satish
(the accused). I have brought ₹1,000/- rupees with me; please
take action…”
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 862/2004 Page 9 of 19
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:27.04.2026
15:11:44
16. PW5 LDC, Land and Building Department, when
examined, deposed that on 30.07.1994 he was deputed as panch
witness to the office of the ACB. On the said day, he reached
the office of the ACB at about 09:30 AM. At about 02:45 PM,
Narinder Yadav came and his Ext. PW5/A statement was
recorded. PW5 further deposed about the pre-raid proceedings
conducted. The phenolphthalein treated notes were handed over
to Narinder Yadav who kept them in his shirt pocket. He was
instructed to remain close to the complainant and observe the
transaction and to give a pre-arranged signal by moving his
hand over his head once the money was accepted by the
accused. After the pre-raid formalities conducted he along with
Narender Yadav; PW9, the Trap Laying Officer (the TLO) and
other four police officials left the office of the ACB at about
04:00 PM and reached Aya Nagar Check Post at about 04:15
PM. The vehicle was parked at a distance and thereafter he
along with Narender Yadav proceeded to the spot. The accused
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 862/2004 Page 10 of 19
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:27.04.2026
15:11:44
was present at the check post. Narender Yadav demanded return
of his ID card and stated that he had brought the money. The
accused arranged tea and thereafter demanded money and took
Narender Yadav to the side of the check post where the latter
handed over the money to the former who accepted it with his
left hand and kept it in the left pocket of his pant. Following
this, he gave the pre-arranged signal. The raiding party reached
the spot and the accused was apprehended. He recovered the
tainted money from the left pocket of the accused and it was
seized vide memo Ext. PW5/C. The number of the currency
notes recovered tallied with the ones recorded in the pre raid
report. Thereafter, the left hand wash and pant pocket wash
were taken with sodium carbonate solution which turned pink.
The wash were sealed in bottles marked LHW I, LHW II,
LPPW I, LPPW II and seized vide memo Ex. PW5/D. The pant
Ex. P7 was seized vide memo Ex. PW5/E. The accused was
arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 862/2004 Page 11 of 19
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:27.04.2026
15:11:44
PW5/F. PW5 more or less stood by his case when cross
examined.
17. PW7, Constable, deposed that on 30.07.1994, he was
on duty along with the accused and at about 05.00 PM, two
persons came to the check post and shook hands with the
accused. The accused offered them tea and they started talking
while sitting on a cot, whereas he continued performing his
duty. PW7 further deposed that after some time, the accused and
those two persons went outside the check post room. Thereafter,
he saw those two persons catching hold of the accused. On his
inquiry, they informed him that the accused had been arrested in
a bribery case and that they were officials from the Anti-
Corruption Branch.
18. PW8, Constable, who was posted at Aya Nagar Police
Post from 25.07.1994 to 01.08.1994 along with accused, HC
Satvir Singh, Jeet Kumar and others deposed that on the
intervening night of 26.07.1994-27.07.1994, he was on duty
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 862/2004 Page 12 of 19
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:27.04.2026
15:11:44
along with Constable Jeet Kumar from 12:00 midnight to 08:00
AM. The accused was present at the check post along with
Constable Anand Pal, though the former was not on duty. At
about 03.30 AM, one Fiat car came from the Delhi side and
stopped at Aya Nagar Police Post. One Narinder, who was
sitting in the car, informed them that he had been kidnapped by
the occupants of the car and was being taken to Haryana. On
receiving this information, they conveyed the message to PS
Mehrauli, whereupon one Sub Inspector along with constables
arrived at the spot and took the accused along with HC Satbir
and two other persons, who were related as Jeeja and Sala, to PS
Mehrauli. On 27.07.1994, the accused and HC Satbir returned
to the police post and informed him that a compromise talk was
going on among the persons apprehended. He further deposed
that on 30.07.1994, he and Constable Jeet Kumar were on duty
from 08:00 AM to 04:00 PM and after completion of duty at
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 862/2004 Page 13 of 19
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:27.04.2026
15:11:44
about 04:00 PM, he left for his residence. PW8 deposed that he
does not know any person by name Narinder Kumar.
19. PW9, the TLO, when examined, fully supported the
prosecution case.
20. Going by the prosecution case, the accused, a
constable, while performing his official duty, demanded
₹1,000/- as illegal gratification from one Narinder Kumar for
returning his identity card, which had been confiscated during a
police checking conducted on the intervening night of
26.07.1994 – 27.07.1994 at Aya Nagar, Delhi, and was
subsequently apprehended while accepting the said amount
during a trap proceeding laid by PW9. The main question that
arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has
succeeded in establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused had actually demanded and accepted illegal
gratification as a motive or reward for performing a specific
official act, thereby attracting the offences punishable under
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 862/2004 Page 14 of 19
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:27.04.2026
15:11:44
Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
It is well settled that both the offer by the bribe giver and the
demand by the public servant constitute foundational facts
which must be proved by the prosecution. Mere acceptance of
illegal gratification, in the absence of proof of demand, would
not be sufficient to bring home the guilt under Sections 7 and
13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act.
21. As seen earlier, Narinder Kumar, the informant, who
had lodged Ext. PW5/A before the Anti-Corruption branch
regarding the demand of the illegal gratification of ₹1,000/- by
the accused, could not been examined by the prosecution as he
remained untraceable despite repeated summons. But as held by
the Apex Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of
NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731, Para 68(f) & 70, in cases
where the complainant/informant is unavailable, or is dead, or
turns hostile, the demand of illegal gratification can still be
proved through the testimony of other witnesses, documentary
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 862/2004 Page 15 of 19
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:27.04.2026
15:11:44
evidence, or even by circumstantial evidence. The case does not
abate nor does it automatically result in acquittal. Therefore, the
non-examination of the informant does not, by itself, preclude
the prosecution from establishing the offence of demand and
acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant.
22. In the case on hand, of PW5, the panch witness who
had accompanied the Narinder Kumar, throughout the trap
proceedings, fully stood by the prosecution case when
examined. Nothing has been shown as to why he should depose
falsely. It is a settled principle that evidence has to be weighed
and not counted, and conviction can be based on the testimony
of a single witness if found wholly reliable. Thus, perusal of the
testimony of PW5 clearly establishes the consistent demand
made by the accused in connection with the informant’s identity
card confiscated by him and the demand and acceptance of
bribe for returning the same. In the absence of any material to
show that PW5 is an interested or partisan witness who would
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 862/2004 Page 16 of 19
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:27.04.2026
15:11:44
depose otherwise, I do not find any reason(s) to disbelieve his
version, which by itself is sufficient to prove the demand.
Further, the acceptance also stands clearly established,
inasmuch as no dispute has been raised with regard to the
recovery of the tainted currency from the possession of the
accused. Therefore, the factum of acceptance also stands duly
proved.
23. Section 20 of the PC Act mandates a statutory
presumption in favour of the prosecution, however, such
presumption is not automatic and can only be invoked when the
prosecution first establishes the foundational facts, namely, the
demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification by the
accused. It is only upon such proof that the burden shifts upon
the accused to rebut the presumption by adducing cogent and
credible evidence on the touchstone of preponderance of
probabilities.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 862/2004 Page 17 of 19
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:27.04.2026
15:11:44
24. In the present case, once the demand and acceptance
stand duly proved from the cogent testimony of PW5 coupled
with the recovery of the tainted currency, the statutory
presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act stands invoked and
shifts the burden upon the accused. However, the accused has
failed to discharge the said burden as no plausible or probable
explanation has been furnished to rebut the presumption,
thereby leaving the prosecution case unrebutted.
25. Coming to the question of validity of Ext. PW6/A
Sanction order and whether the Sanction authority gave the
same is valid. The sanction order Ext. PW6/A was accorded by
Vivek Gogia IPS, who was holding the position of Additional
Deputy Commissioner of Police at the relevant time. A bare
reading of Section 12 and Section 21 of the Delhi Police Act,
1978 makes it clear that the Additional Deputy Commissioner
of Police is empowered to appoint as well as order removal
from service of officers of subordinate rank, which includes
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 862/2004 Page 18 of 19
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:27.04.2026
15:11:44
constables. Since the test under Section 19(1)(c) of the PC Act
is whether the sanctioning authority is competent to remove the
accused from office, and since that power expressly vests in the
Addl. DCP under the abovesaid statute, Vivek Gogia IPS was
fully competent to accord sanction vide Ext. PW6/A Sanction
order.
26. In light of the aforesaid discussion, I find no infirmity
in the impugned judgement calling for an interference by this
court.
27. In the result, the appeal, sans merit, is dismissed.
28. Application(s), if any, pending shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 27, 2026/kd/mj/rs
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 862/2004 Page 19 of 19
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:27.04.2026
15:11:44