Delhi High Court
Hari Prasad Pandey vs The State Thru C.B.I on 16 April, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 06.04.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 16.04.2026
+ CRL.A. 789/2003
HARI PRASAD PANDEY .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Anurag Andley, Mr. Aditya
Antlay and Mr. Sahil Nagar,
Advocates.
Versus
THE STATE THRU. C.B.I .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Vikrant Pachnanda and
Mr.Mukul Katyal, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. In this appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, (the Cr.PC) the sole accused, in C.C.
No. 80/1998 on the file of the Special Judge, Delhi, assails the
judgment dated 19.11.2003 and order on sentence dated
24.11.2003 as per which he has been convicted and sentenced for
the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read
with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
(the PC Act).
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 1 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
2. The prosecution case is that the accused, while
employed and posted as Section Officer in the Freedom Fighters
Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Lok
Nayak Bhavan, New Delhi, on 08.07.1991 and 10.07.1991
demanded and received illegal gratification of ₹2000/- from the
complainant, late Devesh Singh, as a motive or reward for
sanctioning Freedom Fighter Pension to his father, thereby
obtained pecuniary advantage by abusing his official position.
Hence, as per the chargesheet/ final report, the accused was alleged
to have committed the offences punishable under Section 7 and
Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.
3. Crime no. RC 42(A)/91-DLI dated 11.07.1991 was
registered based on Ext. PW2/A complaint of late Devesh Singh.
After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet/final report was
filed against the accused alleging commission of offences
punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)
of the PC Act.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 2 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
4. After obtaining sanction for prosecution, the
respondent/CBI filed a charge-sheet which was registered as
C.C.No. 310/1994. The trial court after taking cognizance,
summoned the accused and a Charge under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d)
of the PC Act was framed. The accused pleaded not guilty. The
trial commenced and the sanctioning authority as well as the
shadow witness were examined as PW1 and PW2 respectively.The
accused then moved an application for discharge on the ground of
non-application of mind in granting sanction, which plea was
accepted by the learned Special Judge vide order dated 25.02.1997,
and liberty was granted to the respondent/CBI to file a fresh
charge-sheet after obtaining proper sanction.
5. Thereafter, fresh Sanction for prosecution was given by
the competent authority i.e. the President of India, through PW1
(Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs), vide sanction order
dated 10.07.1997, i.e. Ext. PW1/A.
6. When the accused was produced before the trial court,
all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to him as
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 3 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
contemplated under Section 207 Cr.PC. After hearing both sides,
the trial court vide order dated 24.11.2003, framed a Charge under
Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC
Act, which was read over and explained to the accused, to which
he pleaded not guilty.
7. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 11 were
examined and Exhibits PW1/A-B, PW1/DA, PW1/DB, PW1/DC,
PW2/A-G, PW3/A, PW4/A, PW5/A, PW5/A1-A3, PW7/A,
PW9/A-C and PW10/A-C were marked in support of the case.
8. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused
was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.PC regarding the
incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence
of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and
maintained his innocence. He submitted that the prosecution
witnesses had falsely deposed under fear of departmental enquiry
and under the influence of the officials of the CBI. According to
him, the case was false and had been initiated because the
complainant wanted his file to be cleared on the basis of forged
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 4 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
documents, which he refused. He had never dealt with the said file
at all. He further submitted that he never demanded or accepted
any bribe and there was neither any occasion nor opportunity for
the same, and that nothing had been recovered from his possession.
The sanction for pension to the father of the complainant was
given at the instance of the officials of the CBI. Subsequently, it
was found that the documents submitted along with the request for
sanction of pension were forged documents. He also claimed that
the case had been instituted at the instance of PW6, his colleague
who had a grudge against him.
9. On behalf of the accused, DW1 was examined. No
documentary evidence was adduced.
10. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence
on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the
impugned judgment dated 19.11.2003, held the accused guilty of
the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read
with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Vide order on sentence dated
24.11.2003, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 5 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
imprisonment for a period of one year each along with fine of
₹4,000/- for each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three months eachfor the offences
punishable under Sections 7 and 13(l)(d) read with section 13(2) of
the PC Act respectively.The substantive sentences in respect of
both the convictions have been directed to run concurrently, while
sentence in case of non-payment of fine has been directed to run
consecutively. Aggrieved, the accused has preferred this appeal.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused
submitted that the impugned judgment suffers from a fundamental
error inasmuch as there is no independent finding with regard to
proof of demand of illegal gratification, which is a sine qua non
for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. It was
contended that the learned Special Judge has erroneously treated
the recovery of the alleged bribe amount as sufficient to raise
presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act, without there being
proof of demand beyond reasonable doubt. Reliance placed by the
trial court on Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh,
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 6 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
AIR 1979 SC 677, was stated to be misplaced, as the said position
of law no longer holds the field in view of the later judgments of
the Apex Court in P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District
Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, (2015) 10 SCC
152 and the Constitution Bench decision in Neeraj Dutta v. State
(NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731, wherein it has been
categorically held that presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act
can arise only upon proof of demand. It was thus submitted that in
the absence of such proof, the entire foundation of conviction
collapses.
11.1. It was further submitted that in the present case, there is
no independent proof of demand, particularly in view of the fact
that the complainant, late Devesh Singh, had expired prior to
recording of evidence and, therefore, could not be examined. As a
consequence, the demands alleged to have been made on
08.07.1991 and 10.07.1991 remained unproved, and even the
alleged demand on 11.07.1991 rests on shaky evidence. It was
argued that the prosecution case hinges upon the testimony of
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 7 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
PW2, the shadow witness, and PW6, a colleague of the accused,
both of whom do not support the case of demand. It was pointed
out that PW2, in his cross-examination, clearly stated that he
neither heard any conversation between the appellant and the
complainant nor had witnessed any transaction of money, despite
being present at the spot. Further, PW6, who was admittedly
seated in close proximity to the appellant, also did not hear any
such conversation or see any transaction, and his testimony to that
effect has in fact been accepted by the trial court.
11.2. The learned counsel further submitted that even
otherwise, the testimony of PW2 is unreliable. It was argued that
PW2 was not standing in close proximity to the appellant and the
complainant, and was at some distance, thereby making it
improbable for him to have witnessed the alleged demand or
acceptance. It was also pointed out that the alleged incident took
place in a hall where other staff members and members of the
public were present, further casting doubt on the prosecution
version. Additionally, PW2 was stated to be a stock witness,
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 8 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
having been associated with other CBI cases, thereby affecting his
credibility.
11.3. The learned counsel also contended that the entire case
of the prosecution is rendered doubtful in view of the fact that the
file relating to the complainant’s father was itself based on forged
documents. It was submitted that neither the father of the
complainant was examined nor was he made part of the
investigation, and the evidence on record shows that the
documents were forged and the pension was subsequently
suspended. In this regard, reliance was placed on Sat Paul v. Delhi
Administration, (1976) 1 SCC 727, to submit that where the very
substratum of the prosecution case is doubtful, the benefit must go
to the accused. It was further argued that the appellant had
consistently taken the stand in his statement under Section 313
Cr.PC. that the complainant had falsely implicated him as he
refused to process the file based on forged documents.
11.4. It was next submitted that the conduct of the CBI itself
raises serious doubts regarding the fairness of the investigation. It
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 9 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
was argued that CBI officials were actively pursuing the file of the
complainant’s father with the department, which is wholly
unwarranted and indicative of bias and proximity with the
complainant. The learned counsel further submitted that the FIR
and trap proceedings were initiated without any prior verification
of the alleged demand, which is contrary to settled practice. It was
contended that the complaint was made on 11.07.1991 and on the
very same day directions were issued to register the case and lay a
trap, without any attempt to verify the allegations. Reliance was
placed on the judgments of the Apex Court in Mir Mustafa Ali
Hasmi v. State of A.P., (2024) 10 SCC 489 and of this Court in
Gobind Swaroop Parwani v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC
OnLine Del 524, to contend that such verification is a necessary
safeguard in trap cases, and failure to do so casts serious doubt on
the prosecution case.
11.5. It was also argued that the recovery itself is doubtful, as
the complainant had not signed the recovery memo, and even the
carbon copy supplied to the appellant did not bear his signature,
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 10 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
thereby raising serious questions regarding the genuineness of the
alleged recovery. Further, it was submitted that when the
handwash samples were produced before the Court, their colour
was found to be white instead of pink, which is inconsistent with
the prosecution case. Reliance was placed on C. Sukumaran v.
State of Kerala, (2015) 11 SCC 314, wherein the Apex Court had
disbelieved recovery in similar circumstances.
12. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor
supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the
prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the demand and
acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant on the basis of
consistent, cogent and corroborated evidence on record. It was
submitted that the testimony of PW2, an eye witness to the
transaction, clearly establishes the demand and acceptance of bribe
stands duly corroborated by the testimony of PW3, PW6, and
PW10, the trap laying officer (TLO), coupled with the recovery of
the tainted currency notes from the right side pant pocket of the
appellant. It was further submitted that the hand wash and pocket
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 11 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
wash of the appellant turning pink, coupled with the CFSL report
confirming the presence of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate,
conclusively establish that the appellant had handled and accepted
the tainted money.
12.1. It was further submitted that the recovery of tainted
currency notes along with positive phenolphthalein test is a strong
incriminating circumstance against the appellant. Reliance was
placed on Sarup Chand v. State of Punjab, (1987) 2 SCC 486, to
contend that once the recovery is proved and the phenolphthalein
test is positive, it establishes acceptance of bribe money by the
accused.
12.2. It was further submitted that the contention of the
appellant regarding the change in colour of the wash solution is
wholly misconceived. Reliance was placed on Ram Naresh
Pandey v. State, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 2751, to contend that
fading or disappearance of pink colour over a period of time is a
natural phenomenon and does not in any manner discredit the
prosecution case. It was submitted that phenolphthalein, being an
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 12 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
acid-base indicator, turns pink only in an alkaline medium when
the pH value exceeds 8, and may subsequently become colourless
if the pH level falls below 8 due to passage of time or change in
chemical composition of the solution. It was thus contended that
the mere absence of pink colour at a later stage does not negate the
fact that the solution had turned pink at the time of trap,
particularly when contemporaneous evidence and the CFSL report
clearly establish the same.
12.3. It was also submitted that the prosecution has duly
proved voluntary and conscious acceptance of illegal gratification
by the appellant and once such acceptance is established, demand
can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. In this regard,
reliance was placed on B. Noha v. State of Kerala and Ors.,
(2006) 12 SCC 277, to submit that once acceptance of money is
proved, the burden shifts on the accused and there is no further
requirement for the prosecution to prove demand by direct
evidence in every case.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 13 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
12.4. It was further submitted that even if there are minor
inconsistencies or partial hostility on the part of independent
witnesses, the prosecution case cannot be discarded when the core
evidence of demand, acceptance and recovery stands proved
through reliable witnesses and scientific evidence. It was thus
contended that the defence raised by the appellant is not borne out
from the record and fails to rebut the statutory presumption arising
under the PC Act.
13. Heard both sides and perused 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 refer to the evidence on record relied on by
the prosecution in support of the case. The demand in this case is
alleged to have taken place on 8.07.1991 and 10.07.1991, and the
trap was laid on 11.07.1991. The complainant, late Devesh Singh,
submitted a written complaint dated 11.07.1991, i.e., Ext. PW2/A
in the office of the CBI, wherein he stated thus:- He is the son of a
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 14 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
freedom fighter, whose case for “Samman Pension” had earlier
been rejected by the Bihar Government on 29.5.1985 due to lack
of documents, but upon submission of the required documents, the
Bihar State Advisory Committee recommended the case on
16.2.1991 and forwarded it to the Ministry of Home Affairs,
Freedom Fighters Division, Lok Nayak Bhavan, New Delhi, vide
letter dated 06.04.1991. On 08.07.1991, when he visited the said
office to inquire about the status of his father’s case, he came to
know that the file was being dealt with by the accused, who, upon
being requested to expedite the matter, demanded illegal
gratification of ₹15,000/- to ₹20,000/- for processing the file. On
10.07.1991 at about 6:00 PM, when he again met the accused and
requested for expeditious disposal of the case, the accused
reiterated that nothing would be done for less than ₹10,000/-, and
upon his expressing inability to pay such amount, the accused
agreed to accept ₹2,000/- as an initial payment and directed him to
bring the said amount on 11.07.1991 at about 01:00 PM at the car
parking area below his office, with a warning that in case he met
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 15 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
him without money, his father’s file would be misplaced and
would never be traceable. He further stated that he did not wish to
pay the bribe demanded by the accused and therefore approached
the CBI seeking appropriate legal action against him.
15.1. The complainant died before he could be examined
before the trial court.
16. PW2 deposed that on 11.07.1991, he was working as
Accountant in NBCC Ltd. at Lodhi Road, New Delhi, and that
PW3, his colleague, was working in the PR Division. Both he and
PW3 were directed by their senior officer to proceed to the office
of the CBI, where they met PW9, who introduced them to the
complainant. They were shown the complaint regarding bribe
demanded by the accused in relation to the pension of the
complainant’s father, a freedom fighter. The complainant admitted
his signature in the complaint. The complainant produced ₹2000/-
(in denomination of four notes of ₹100/- and thirty-two notes of
₹50/-), the numbers of which were recorded in Ext. PW2/B the
Annexure to Ext. PW2/B handing over memo. PW2 further
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 16 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
deposed in detail about the pre-trap proceedings. According to
PW2, the trap party left the Office of the CBI by around 12:30 PM
for Lok Nayak Bhawan. Upon reaching the spot, he and the
complainant separated from the rest of the trap party and by
around 01:00 or 01:30 PM, the accused approached the
complainant. PW2 further deposed that he followed both the
accused and the complainant into an office where the accused
enquired whether the money had been brought and in turn, the
complainant also enquired to the accused, whether his file would
be traced (“Hamari file nikaljayegi”). The accused asked the
complainant as to how much money he had brought to which the
complainant replied that he had brought ₹2000/- only and the rest
would be arranged by him after returning from Bihar in 10 to 15
days. The accused responded “lao do hazaar, jo aap lao ho”.
When the accused asked for the money, the complainant handed
over ₹2000/-, which the accused placed in his right-side pant
pocket. PW3 then gave the pre-arranged signal, prompting the
raiding party to enter and apprehend the accused. When the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 17 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
Inspector disclosed his identity, the accused kept mum and did not
say anything. He further deposed that PW3 recovered the currency
notes from the accused’s pocket, and the number on the currency
notes tallied with those recorded in the pre-raid report. PW6, a
colleague of the accused, also counted the notes at the inspector’s
request. PW2 further deposed that a hand wash of the accused was
conducted in a solution which turned pink, and this solution was
later sealed in two bottles. Similarly, the accused’s pant pocket
was washed in a solution which also turned pink and was sealed in
bottles (Ext. P38 to P40).
16.1. PW2, in his cross-examination, admitted that the labels
in Exts. P39 to P40 bottles does not bear his signature. He also
admitted that the colour of the solution in the bottles when shown
to him during trial was white. Regarding Ext. PW2/B pre-raid
report; Ext. PW2/D recovery memo, and Ext. PW2/A complaint,
he deposed that he could only identify his signature and was
unable to identify the signature of others seen on those exhibits.
PW2 further deposed that he was at a distance of about 5 to 6 feet
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 18 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
from the complainant during the transaction. He denied the
suggestion that he had not heard the conversation between the
accused and the complainant. When the money was offered, the
accused was seated, the complainant sat opposite to the former,
and he was at a distance of about 1 or 2 yards away from the
complainant. The post-trap proceedings, including the preparation
of the recovery memo and the recording of statements, were
completed on the spot over approximately one and a half hours.
PW2 denied the suggestion that the complainant after leaving the
money, had run away from the spot. According to him, he had
signed the recovery memo on the spot. But he was unable to
recollect whether the signature of the complainant had been
obtained in the personal search memo and the recovery memo.
17. PW3, the recovery witness, deposed that on
11.07.1991, he went to the office of the CBI accompanied by PW2
on the direction of the Executive Director (Vigilance). At the CBI
office, he met PW9 TLO, and was introduced to the complainant.
After reviewing the complaint, he questioned the complainant to
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 19 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
satisfy himself regarding its genuineness. The complainant
produced ₹2000/- consisting of four currency notes of ₹100/-
denomination and thirty-two notes of ₹50/- denomination. The
number of the currency notes was noted, and the notes were treated
with a powder. The treated notes were returned to the complainant,
who placed them in his left-side shirt pocket, with instructions to
pass the money only upon a specific demand. PW2 was directed to
act as the shadow witness to observe the transaction and signal
once the money was passed. These pre-raid proceedings recorded
in Ext. PW2/B handing-over memo which bears his signature.
PW3 further deposed that the team left the office of the CBI at
approximately 12:30 PM and reached Lok Nayak Bhavan at 12:40
PM. Upon arrival, the complainant and PW2 were sent ahead. At
01:00 PM, the accused came downstairs to the ground floor
parking area and spoke to the complainant. Following this, the
accused, the complainant, and PW2 proceeded upstairs toward the
office of the accused, which was located on the second floor. After
a while, PW2 gave the signal, and the raid team entered the hall
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 20 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
where the accused was present. The accused was apprehended by
his wrist by a CBI officer. PW9 TLO disclosed his identity and
challenged the accused, who initially kept mum but, subsequently
stammered and said “Sahab Isne Dey Diye”. PW3 further deposed
that, at the instance of the Inspector, CBI, he recovered the tainted
money from the right-side pant pocket of the accused. He along
with PW2 compared the number on the recovered notes with the
memo and found them to tally. PW6 also witnessed the recovery
and compared the currency note numbers. Subsequently, a solution
was prepared, and the right-hand wash of the accused was taken,
which turned pink. PW3 further deposed that all post-trap
proceedings were recorded in Ext. PW2/C recovery memo, bearing
his signature on all four pages.
17.1. PW3, in his cross-examination, admitted that the labels
on Exts. P38 and P39 bottles do not bear his signature and
admitted that the colour of the solution in both bottles was white.
He admitted that the complaint had not been written in his
presence and that when he saw it, the same had already been typed.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 21 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
PW3 further deposed that he was standing at a distance of
approximately 10 meters during the events. He claimed no
knowledge of the conversation between the accused and the
complainant. PW3 further deposed that he can neither admit not
deny as he could not recall whether the accused was made to count
the tainted currency notes before the latter’s hand wash was taken.
He also deposed that when challenged, the accused objected to his
arrest and questioned what fault he had committed.
18. PW6, Section Officer, CZ-1 Section, Ministry of Home
Affairs, Lok Nayak Bhavan, New Delhi, deposed that he knows
the accused, who was Section Officer in CZ-2. On 11.07.91 at
about 02:00PM, while he was in his office, the CBI officials
apprehended the accused. PW9 disclosed his identity and
challenged the accused for having accepted money, to which the
accused initially remained silent before uttering, “Sahab Inhone De
Diye”. PW6 further deposed that PW3 recovered the tainted
currency notes, consisting of four notes of ₹100/- and 32 notes of
₹50/- each. According to PW6, he thereafter joined the CBI
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 22 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
officials as a witness and that he and the others had counted and
tallied the currency notes. Subsequently, the right hand, left hand,
and right side pant pocket wash of the accused were taken in
separate solutions of sodium carbonate; each solution turned pink
and was transferred into three separate bottles labelled as RHW,
LHW, and RSPW, which were then sealed. PW6 confirmed seeing
Ext. PW2/D recovery memo; Ext. PW2/F search-cum-seizure
memo and Ext. PW2/D personal search-cum-seizure memo. PW6
also identified the material objects in the case. He also identified
the seal used by the TLO for sealing the material objects seized.
18.1. PW6, in his cross examination, admitted that the labels
on Exts. P38, P39, and P40 bottles do not bear his signature. PW6
further deposed that he had informed the CBI Inspector that he had
neither seen anyone giving money to the accused nor heard any
conversation. He denied that the complainant had previously
threatened the accused. PW6 denied the suggestion that the
accused had been made to count the currency notes before the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 23 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
latter’s hand wash had been taken or that no memo had been
prepared in his presence.
19. PW9, the TLO, deposed that on 11.07.1991, he was
posted in the Anti-Corruption Branch of the CBI, Delhi. By around
09:50 AM, he was called by the S.P., CBI to the latter’s chamber,
where he was introduced to the complainant, who had come to
lodge a complaint regarding ademand for bribe of ₹2000/- by the
accused. PW9 deposed that he had seen the complaint, i.e., Ext.
PW2/A, which bore the signature of the complainant. The
complaint was marked to him by R.K. Datta, S.P., for the purpose
of laying a trap, vide Ext.PW9/A endorsement on the basis of
which the crime was registered. By around 10:10AM, he
constituted a trap team and sent Inspector S.K. Arora to the NBCC
office to secure independent witnesses, who subsequently brought
PW2 and PW3 to his cabin. Both the independent witnesses were
introduced to the complainant, who satisfied themselves regarding
the genuineness of the complaint. PW9 deposed in detail regarding
the pre-trap proceedings taken.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 24 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
19.1. PW9 further deposed that PW2, the shadow witness was
instructed to remain close to the complainant and signal the
completion of the transaction by scratching his head with his left
hand. The trap party, carrying an investigation bag with empty
glass bottles, tumblers, CBI seal, sodium carbonate powder and a
sum of ₹200 for meeting the incidental expenses, left the office at
12:30 PM and arrived at Lok Nayak Bhawan at 12:50 PM. The
complainant was asked to proceed and PW2, the shadow witness
was asked to accompany the former. By around 01:40 PM, the
complainant was seen talking to the accused and after sometime,
both of them climbed up the stairs to the B-Wing, Lok Nayak
Bhawan. PW2 accompanied them and the other members of the
trap party followed them. PW2 gave the pre-appointed signal at
02:00 PM. The trap party rushed to the accused’s table, where
Inspectors S.K. Arora and S.K. Sinha apprehended him by the
wrists. When PW9 challenged the accused, he initially kept mum
but subsequently stammered “Sahab Isne Dey Diye”. Thereafter,
PW3, the independent witness was asked to recover the bribe
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 25 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
money from the accused, which was recovered from the accused’s
right-hand pant pocket.
19.2. PW9 further deposed regarding the post trap
proceedings. Both the witnesses were asked to tally the number of
the currency notes recovered from the accused with those recorded
in the Annexure to the handing over memo dated 11.07.1991. The
number of the tainted currency notes recovered from the accused
tallied with the number mentioned in the memo. Upon dipping the
accused’s right-hand fingers into a fresh sodium carbonate
solution, it turned pink (marked RHW); a similar test on his left
hand turned the solution slightly pink (marked LHW). The inner
lining of the right-hand pant pocket was also washed in the
solution, which turned pink (marked RSPW). All three bottles and
the recovered notes were sealed. During the proceedings, another
Section Officer, PW6, joined as an eyewitness, who desired to
count the recovered money, which request was allowed. PW9
further deposed that a site plan vide Ext. PW2/F was prepared and
various documents, including the recovery memo vide Ext. PW2/C
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 26 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
and search-cum-seizure memos vide Ext. PW2/E and Ext. PW2/D,
were prepared. PW9 also deposed that the file relating to the
pension of the complainant’s father, Brham Dev Singh, was seized
from PW7 vide seizure memo Ext. PW3/D. Thereafter he recorded
the statements of the complainant and witnesses. PW9 further
deposed that the proceedings concluded by about 03:15PM and
that the trap team along with the accused reached the office of the
CBI at around 03:30PM.
19.3 PW9, when cross examined, stood by his version in the
examination-in-chief. He denied the suggestion that the accused
had never accepted any money from the complainant and thatthe
accused had been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of
PW6. PW9 also denied the suggestion that as soon as he had
apprehended the accused, the complainant ran away from the hall
saying that it was all false. He also denied the suggestion that the
signature of the complainant had not been obtained on the recovery
memo as the latter ran away before the trap was completed and
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 27 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
that his signature had been obtained much later in the office of the
CBI after much persuasion.
20. PW7, Assistant, Freedom Fighter Division, CZ Section,
Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi, deposed that he was the Assistant
dealing with the files relating to the Freedom Fighters Samman
Pension Scheme. PW7 deposed that on 11.07.1991, he was
working under the accused. According to him, the letter marked
‘A’ is Bihar Government’s recommendation for the sanction of
Samman Pension for Brham Dev. PW7 admitted that while the
pension for Brham Dev Singh was initially sanctioned, it was
subsequently discovered that the documents submitted by him,
were forged, leading to the suspension of the pension.
21. PW8, Under Secretary, MHA Freedom Fighter Division,
New Delhi deposed that Samman Pension is sanctioned only if
only if an applicant is able to satisfy specific conditions, namely,
that there should be a recommendation by the State Government
and that the applicant should be able to produce documentary
evidence in support of his claim. PW8, in his cross-examination,
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 28 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
admitted that PW6 and the accused did not share good relations
and were always at loggerheads. PW8 further deposed that the CBI
had recommended the case of Brham Dev Singh for grant of
sanction.
22. PW4, the then CFSL officer, deposed that the solution in
the bottles marked Exts. RHW, LHW and RSPW on being
examined by him tested positive for the presence of
phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate. Ext. PW4/A is the report
of his examination. PW4 identified his signature at point A in Ext.
PW4/A.
23. On behalf of the accused, DW1, Under Secretary, C.Z.
Branch was examined. He produced the pension file of Brham Dev
Singh, the father of the complainant. According to DW1, the CBI
had written a letter to his department seeking consideration of the
pension of Brahm Dev Singh. But the pension was sanctioned
based on the recommendation of the State Government and not on
the recommendation of the CBI. However, the documents
supporting the request for pension were subsequently discovered to
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 29 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
be forged and fake, leading to the cancellation of the sanction.
DW1 further deposed that he had no personal knowledge of the
case and that he was deposing based on the contents of the file.
24. The primary contention advanced on behalf of the
appellant/accused is that the prosecution has failed to establish the
essential ingredient of demand of illegal gratification, which is a
sine qua non for sustaining a conviction under Sections 7 and
13(1)(d) of the PC Act. It was further urged that the trial court has
erroneously invoked the presumption under Section 20 of the Act
solely on the basis of recovery of tainted money, in the absence of
proof of demand. The appellant has also sought to draw support
from the death of the complainant prior to trial; alleged
inconsistencies in the testimony of PW2; absence of prior
verification of the complaint; and the discrepancy regarding the
colour of the wash solutions to contend that the prosecution case is
doubtful. This Court is unable to accept the submission that the
death of the complainant is fatal to the prosecution. A Constitution
Bench of the Apex Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 30 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
Delhi), (2023) 18 SCC 251 has held that even in the absence of the
complainant, the prosecution can establish demand and acceptance
of illegal gratification on the basis of other evidence, including
circumstantial evidence. It has been further clarified that the trial
does not abate on account of the death of the complainant and that
the Court is required to examine whether the foundational facts
stand proved from the materials available on record. Thus, the
argument of the appellant premised on the non-examination of the
complainant does not merit acceptance.
25. In the present case, the prosecution has led cogent and
reliable evidence through PW2, the shadow witness, PW3, the
independent recovery witness, and PW9, the Trap Laying Officer,
which, when read conjointly, establish the demand and acceptance
of illegal gratification by the appellant. Their testimony is further
corroborated by the testimony of PW6. It was submitted by the
learned counsel for the appellant/accused that PW6 can never be
believed because he himself admitted that he was not in good
terms with the accused. It is true that PW6 has admitted that he
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 31 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
was not in good terms with the accused. The sour relationship
between PW6 and the accused is spoken to by PW8 also. But that
alone cannot be made a ground to reject his testimony because
though PW6 was admittedly sitting in a seat adjacent to the seat of
the accused he denied having heard the conversation between the
accused and the complainant regarding the demand and payment
of money. PW6 also did not claim to have seen the complainant
paying the money to the accused. PW6’s only case is that he saw
the accused being apprehended by the officials of the CBI. On
enquiry, he came to know of the facts and hence he volunteered to
be a witness, pursuant to which he saw the money being recovered.
He also claimed that he, as instructed by the Inspector, had
counted the currency notes that had been seized from the accused.
These aspects of his testimony are supported by the version of
PW9, the TLO as well as by PW2. If PW6 had volunteered to be a
witness, only due to his enmity with the accused, he could have
even claimed to have heard the demand as well as witnessed the
acceptance of money. However, he never claimed so. On going
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 32 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
through his testimony, I do not find any reason(s) to disbelieve
him, though I find his enthusiasm and eagerness to join the
proceedings voluntarily quite unusual, as normally people avoid to
the extent possible from associating themselves with proceedings
of such nature. Now, even assuming for argument sake, that the
testimony of PW6 is liable to be ignored, there are still other
materials on record in support of the prosecution case. The
narration of events by PW2, to which I have referred to in detail,
clearly establishes both the demand and conscious acceptance of
the bribe amount. The aforesaid version stands duly corroborated
by PW3, who has deposed that the tainted currency notes were
recovered from the right-side pant pocket of the accused and that
upon being challenged, the accused initially remained silent and
thereafter stated that the money had been given to him by the
complainant. PW3 has further supported the prosecution case with
regard to the post-trap proceedings and recovery.
26. The attempt on the part of the appellant to discredit PW2
on the basis of certain answers elicited in cross-examination does
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 33 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
not persuade this Court to discard his testimony. It is well settled
that the evidence of a witness has to be appreciated as a whole, and
not by isolating stray answers. [See Mustak v. State of Gujarat,
(2020) 7 SCC 237]. Though PW2, in his cross-examination, stated
that he did not hear certain parts of the conversation, the same does
not demolish his categorical version in examination-in-chief
regarding the demand and acceptance, particularly when read in
conjunction with the surrounding circumstances and corroborative
evidence. A careful reading of the deposition of PW2 shows that
the core of his testimony regarding the demand and acceptance of
illegal gratification remains intact. The minor variations with
respect to distance, presence of other persons in the room, or the
sequence of movements do not go to the root of the prosecution
case. On the contrary, his presence at the spot, his role as a shadow
witness, and his consistent account of the transaction inspire
confidence and lend credibility to the prosecution version. The
testimony of PW2 stands duly corroborated by PW9 TLO who has
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 34 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
given a detailed account of the pre-trapand post-trap proceedings
to which also I have referred to.
27. The scientific evidence also lends corroboration to the
prosecution version. PW2, PW3, PW6 and PW9 have deposed that
upon dipping the fingers of the accused in the sodium carbonate
solution, the same turned pink, and similar results were obtained
with respect to the wash of the pant pocket. Ext. PW4/A FSL
report has not been challenged or discredited. The positive
phenolphthalein test establishes that the accused had handled the
tainted currency notes. The contention of the appellant regarding
the colour of the wash solution appearing white at the time of trial
does not discredit the prosecution case. The evidence on record
clearly establishes that at the time of the trap proceedings, the
solutions had turned pink. The subsequent fading of colour is a
well-recognised chemical phenomenon, as phenolphthalein acts as
an indicator which may lose its colour over time depending upon
the pH level of the solution. The prosecution has rightly relied
upon the decision in Ram Naresh Pandey (supra), wherein it has
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 35 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
been held that such fading of colour does not negate the positive
result obtained during the trap proceedings when contemporaneous
evidence establishes the same.
28. Significantly, PW9 has further deposed that when the
accused was challenged, he initially kept silent and thereafter
stammered, “Sahab isne de diye”. This version is supported by
PW3 and PW6 also. PW2 deposed that the accused when
challenged remained silent. The said conduct of the accused,
immediately upon apprehension, constitutes a relevant
incriminating circumstance clearly indicative of the acceptance of
the tainted money. The recovery of tainted currency notes from the
possession of the accused is a circumstance of considerable
significance. It is well settled that when tainted currency notes are
recovered from the possession of the accused and no plausible
explanation is offered for their presence, such recovery constitutes
a strong incriminating circumstance supporting the prosecution
case regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. In
this regard, reference may be made to the decision of the Apex
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 36 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
Court in M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P., 2001 SCC (Cri) 258.
In the present case, the appellant has failed to furnish any plausible
explanation as to how the tainted money came to be found in his
possession.
29. The submission regarding absence of prior verification of
the complaint also does not persuade this Court to discard the
prosecution case. While prior verification may be desirable as a
matter of prudence, its absence is not fatal where the prosecution
has otherwise been able to establish its case through reliable
evidence. In the present case, the complaint was promptly acted
upon, independent witnesses were associated, pre-trap proceedings
were duly conducted, and the trap was executed in a systematic
and fair manner. No material has been brought on record to show
that the investigation was tainted or biased. The argument that the
sanction for pension to the father of the complainant being
cancelled on the ground that the claim was based on forged
documents is wholly irrelevant to the determination of the guilt of
the accused in the case on hand. Even if the said claim was false,
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 37 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
the same cannot justify or legitimise the demand or acceptance of
illegal gratification by a public servant. The culpability of the
accused has to be assessed independently on the basis of evidence
relating to the offence under the PC Act.The accused when
questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.PC put forward a case that
he has been falsely implicated at the instance of PW6. Such a
suggestion was put to PW9 also, but quite strangely PW6 was
never asked about the same while the latter was in the box. Not
even a suggestion is seen put to PW6 that he had a role in
implicating the accused.
30. It is true that since the complainant died before he could
be examined and so the demands that were alleged to have been
made by the accused on 08.07.1991 and 10.07.1991 could not be
proved. Ext. PW2/A is the information given by the complainant
under Section 154 Cr.PC which led to the registration of the crime.
The said information or the FIS/FIR can be used to corroborate or
contradict the maker only, that is, the complainant.But here, the
complainant died before the trial. The same cannot be used to
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 38 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
corroborate or contradict the other prosecution witnesses. But the
fact that the complainant had approached the officials concerned
and had given a complaint regarding demand of bribe by the
accused is spoken to by PW9, whose version is corroborated by the
testimony of PW2 and PW3. The said witnesses also deposed that
they had seen the complaint and after interacting with the
complainant, they were convinced of the genuineness of the
complaint.
31. Hence, applying the principles laid down by the
Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta (supra), this Court finds that
the prosecution has succeeded in proving the foundational facts of
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification through reliable oral
evidence and corroborative circumstances. Once these
foundational facts are established, the presumption under Section
20 of the PC Act necessarily arises that the gratification was
received as a motive or reward for performing an official act. The
appellant has failed to rebut the statutory presumption even on the
standard of preponderance of probability. No material has been
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 39 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21
brought on record to probabilise the defence version or to explain
the recovery of the tainted amount. The presumption under Section
20, therefore, operates against the appellant with full force.
32. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the trial Court has correctly appreciated
the evidence on record and has rightly recorded the conviction of
the appellant. The findings do not suffer from any perversity or
illegality warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction.
33. In the result, the appeal, sans merit, is dismissed.
34. Applications, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 16, 2026
p’ma
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 789/2003 Page 40 of 40
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:17.04.2026
17:35:21