Delhi High Court
Sidharth Jain vs State Of Delhi on 14 July, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of reserve: 18th February, 2026
Date of decision: 14th July, 2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ CRL.A. 536/2007
SIDHARTH JAIN .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Priya Kumar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Swaty Singh Malik, Mr. Rohan
Kumar & Ms. Ekaa Sharma, Advs.
with Appellant-in-person.
versus
STATE OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP
for the State with SI Naresh Kumar,
PS Anti Corruption Branch.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV
JUDGMENT
VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J.
1. By the impugned judgment, the Appellant has been convicted for the
offences under sections 7 & 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act
1998 and by the impugned Order on Sentence, the Appellant has been
sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (‘RI’) for a period of 2 years
and to pay a fine of ₹ 5,000/- and in default, R.I. 6 months under Section 7
of the PC Act 1988 and to RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of ₹7,000/- and
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 536/2007 Sidharth Jain vs. State of Delhi Page 1 of 32
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:22.07.2026
15:23:00
in default, R.I. 9 months under Section 13(2) PC Act read with section
13(1)(d) PC Act 1988, with both sentences to run concurrently.
2. Succinctly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that, in the year
1988, the Appellant herein was posted as a Junior Clerk in the Commercial
Section of Delhi Vidyut board, DVB Hudson Lines Kingsway Camp,
Delhi. The complainant Abdul Hamid was posted as a Head Constable in
the Delhi Police and was the consumer of electricity which was installed at
his government flat No. 17D, located at Police Colony Model Town,
through K No. 412-135967/ DLI. The complainant herein took voluntary
retirement on 31.03.1998 due to which he was required to vacate his
government accommodation as per procedural mandate. It was for this
purpose that the complainant was required to obtain a No Objection
Certificate (NOC) from the DVB for surrendering possession of the
government accommodation which was allotted to him for the duration of
his service under the Delhi Police. The complainant accordingly applied for
the issuance of the aforementioned NOC on 18.09.1998 vide diary No 3202
which has been marked as Ex. PW-5/A and on the same day, he had
deposited an amount of ₹26,028/- for the purpose of settling the
outstanding bill for the electricity consumed.
3. According to the complainant, he had paid several visits to the DVB
subsequent to his initial application for the NOC on 18.09.1998. However,
despite repeated visits to the DVB the complainant’s NOC was not issued
for some or the other reason. However, it was only on 22.12.1998 that the
complainant, while on a visit to the DVB Office Hudson Line, had met the
Appellant herein in connection with the issuance of the NOC. The
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 536/2007 Sidharth Jain vs. State of Delhi Page 2 of 32
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:22.07.2026
15:23:00
Appellant demanded ₹1,000/- as a bribe for the said NOC, which was
subsequently reduced to ₹500/- at the request of the complainant. Once the
amount of ₹500/- was agreed upon, the Appellant instructed the
complainant to meet him with the aforementioned bribe amount on
23.12.1998. It was this conversational negotiation which took place
between the complainant and the Appellant, that the complainant
approached the Anti Corruption branch on 23.12.1998 with his complaint
Ex. PW-9/A. Acting upon the complaint, the Anti-Corruption Branch
organized a trap on 23.12.1998. The complainant produced 5 Government
Currency (GC) notes of Rs. 100/-, which were treated with phenolphthalein
powder. A panch witness (PW-11) was associated, and standard pre-raid
formalities were completed.
4. The raiding party reached the DVB office at around 12:50 PM on
23.12.1998 after which the complainant and the panch witness proceeded
to meet the Appellant at his office which was at the first floor of the DVB
Office Hudson Line. When the agreed upon amount of ₹500/- was offered
by the complainant to the Appellant, the Appellant took the complainant
towards the staircase while asking the panch witness to remain at the first
floor of the office. On reaching the terrace on the fourth floor, the Appellant
directed the complainant to place the bribe amount in some old registers
that had been kept there. At around 1:45 PM the Raid officer, who was
keeping a watchful eye on the Appellant and the complainant as they
moved towards the staircase, noticed the both of them coming down from
the fourth floor to the first floor. It was then that the complainant informed
the Raid officer about the acceptance of the bribe money by the Appellant
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 536/2007 Sidharth Jain vs. State of Delhi Page 3 of 32
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:22.07.2026
15:23:00
and the location of the bribe amount, i.e., in one of the old registers stored
on the fourth floor. Subsequently, the Raid officer apprehended the
Appellant, following which the raiding party went up to the fourth floor
and recovered five GC notes of ₹100/- each which had been kept inside the
register on the fourth-floor terrace. The serial numbers of the recovered GC
notes were tallied with those recorded in the pre-raid proceedings and were
found to match. Thereafter, the wash of the paper of the register which had
come into contact with the tainted currency notes was taken in a colourless
sodium carbonate solution with the help of a cotton piece, which turned
pink, confirming the presence of phenolphthalein.
5. Thereafter, the raid officer prepared the post-raid proceedings and
made an endorsement on the complaint, on the basis of which a rukka was
sent to Police Station Anti-Corruption Branch where FIR (Ex. PW-3/A)
under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was
registered. The investigation was thereafter entrusted to PW-13, Inspector
Y.S. Negi, who formally arrested the Appellant, prepared the site plan (Ex.
PW-13/A), seized the relevant articles including the tainted currency notes,
the register and the wash samples. The learned trial court, vide order dated
08.07.2002, framed charges against the Appellant under Section 7 and
Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, to which the Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. The prosecution examined a total of 13 witnesses, namely PW-1 Sh.
Dev Trivedi, PW-2 Sh. P.P. Singh,PW-3 SI/HC Birju Singh, (registered the
FIR), PW-4 Sh. P.C. Verma (Executive Engineer, DVB), PW-5 Sh. H.C.
Mehta, PW-6 Ct. Mahender Singh, PW-7 HC Surender Singh, PW-8 Sh.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 536/2007 Sidharth Jain vs. State of Delhi Page 4 of 32
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:22.07.2026
15:23:00
Vijay Kumar, PW-9 Abdul Hamid (the complainant), PW-10 ASI R.K.
Pandey, PW-11 K.N. Nigam, (the panch witness), PW-12 Inspector P.S.
Patwal (raid officer) and PW-13 Inspector Y.S. Negi, (Investigating
Officer). The Appellant’s statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was
recorded in which he denied knowing the complainant, or having any
knowledge about the complainant’s application for the NOC or that the
complainant had deposited a sum of ₹ 26,028/- towards the final bill on
18.09.98. He also denied the initial demand of bribe of ₹1,000/- and the
subsequent lowering of said amount to ₹500/- and further stated that it was
not within his duties or his capacity to issue the NOC in the first place,
following which he denied the entire raid procedure as well as the findings/
seizures of the raid.
7. However, in view of the language employed in Explanation 2(i) of
Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the absence of authority to
issue the NOC is not by itself determinative, as the provision extends to
cases where a public servant seeks an undue advantage to perform or cause
performance of a public duty through another public servant, the relevant
portion has been extracted below:
“Explanation 2.–For the purpose of this section,–
(i) the expressions “obtains” or “accepts” or “attempts
to obtain” shall cover cases where a person being a
public servant, obtains or “accepts” or attempts to
obtain, any undue advantage for himself or for another
person, by abusing his position as a public servant or by
using his personal influence over another public servant;
or by any other corrupt or illegal means;”
8. After due consideration of the evidence on record, the learned
Special Judge observed that the prosecution has been able to establish the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 536/2007 Sidharth Jain vs. State of Delhi Page 5 of 32
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:22.07.2026
15:23:00
essential ingredients of demand and obtaining of illegal gratification
beyond reasonable doubt. The court placed primary reliance on the
testimony of PW-9 Abdul Hamid (complainant), who deposed to the prior
demand of bribe by the Appellant, initially for ₹1000/- which was later
settled at ₹500/-, and the arrangement made for payment on 23.12.1998,
pursuant to which the complaint Ex. PW-9/A was lodged before the Anti-
Corruption Branch. The court further noted that the complaint led to pre-
raid proceedings conducted by PW-12 Inspector P.S. Patwal (Raid officer)
wherein the numbers of the five Government Currency (GC) notes of
₹100/- each were recorded and treated with phenolphthalein powder. The
learned Trial Court found that the recovery of the tainted currency notes
from the Register on the fourth-floor terrace stood proved through the
consistent testimonies of PW-11 K.N. Nigam (panch witness) and PW-12
Inspector P.S. Patwal, and that the seizure of the currency notes vide memo
Ex. PW-9/C, as well as the wash of the paper of the register which turned
pink in sodium carbonate solution and was seized vide memo Ex. PW-9/D,
provided scientific corroboration to the prosecution case. The court further
relied upon the FSL report Ex. PW-13/C, which confirmed the presence of
phenolphthalein in the wash samples, thereby substantiating that the
recovered currency notes were the same treated GC notes used in the trap
proceedings. The learned Special Judge further observed that the recovery
was also corroborated by PW-4 Sh. P.C. Verma, Executive Engineer, DVB,
who was associated with the raiding team at the time of recovery from the
terrace. On the cumulative appreciation of the evidence and circumstances,
and upon invoking the statutory presumption under Section 20(1) of the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 536/2007 Sidharth Jain vs. State of Delhi Page 6 of 32
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:22.07.2026
15:23:00
Prevention of Corruption Act, the learned trial court concluded that the
Appellant had demanded and obtained illegal gratification from the
complainant and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 7
and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
9. It would be worth going through the ingredients of section 7 and
section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act; which are required to be
established, as detailed in the cause célèbre of Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT
of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731 and goes as under:
“5. The following are the ingredients of Section 7 of the Act:
(i) the accused must be a public servant or expecting to
be a public servant;
(ii) he should accept or obtain or agrees to or attempts to
obtain from any person;
(iii) for himself or for any other person;
(iv) any gratification other than legal remuneration; and
(v) as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do
any official act or to show any favour or disfavour.
6. Section 13(1)(d) of the Act has the following ingredients
which have to be proved before bringing home the guilt of a
public servant, namely:
(i) The accused must be a public servant.
(ii) By corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for
any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage; or by abusing his position as public servant,
obtains for himself or any other person any valuable
thing pr pecuniary advantage without any public interest.
(iii) To make out an offence under Section 13(1)(d), there is
no requirement that the valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage should have been received as a motive or
reward.
(iv) An agreement to accept or attempt to obtain does not
fall within Section 13(1)(d).
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 536/2007 Sidharth Jain vs. State of Delhi Page 7 of 32
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:22.07.2026
15:23:00
(v) Mere acceptance of any valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage is not an offence under this provision.
(vi) Therefore, to make out an offence under this provision,
there has to be actual obtainment.
(vii) Since the legislature has used two different expressions,
namely, “obtains” or “accepts”, the difference between
these two must be noted.”
10. In addition to this the Apex Court in Neeraj Dutta (supra) had laid
down the guiding principle for an offence under Section 7 or 13 of the PC
Act and held that the factum of prior demand for illegal gratification by the
public servant has to be proved as a fact in issue as has been reproduced
hereunder:
“88. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is
summarised as under:
88.1. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the
prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of
the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)
and (ii) of the Act.
88.2. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal
gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact.
This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which
can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
88.3. (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand
and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by
circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and
documentary evidence.
88.4. (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand
and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant,
the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 536/2007 Sidharth Jain vs. State of Delhi Page 8 of 32
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:22.07.2026
15:23:00
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe-giver without there
being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply
accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is
a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case,
there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a
demand and the bribe-giver accepts the demand and tenders
the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the
public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of
obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates
from the public servant. This is an offence under Sections
13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe-
giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to
be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words,
mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without
anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or
Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii), respectively of the Act. Therefore,
under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence,
there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe-giver
which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an
offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when
accepted by the bribe-giver and in turn there is a payment
made which is received by the public servant, would be an
offence of obtainment under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the
Act.
88.5. (e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand
and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may
be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the
foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and
documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the
basis of the material on record, the court has the discretion to
raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact
of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of
course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the
accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
88.6. (f) In the event the complainant turns “hostile”, or has
died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial,
demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the
evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence,
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 536/2007 Sidharth Jain vs. State of Delhi Page 9 of 32
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:22.07.2026
15:23:00
either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution
can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does
not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the
accused public servant.
88.7. (g) Insofar as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the
proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to
raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the
purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said
Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as
a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the
said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does
not apply to Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
88.8. (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section
20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to
above in sub-para 88.5(e), above, as the former is a mandatory
presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.”
The prosecution as such is required to bring the evidence to establish
the case within the above parameters.
11. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and sentence, the present
appeal has been filed seeking setting aside of impugned judgment of
conviction dated 13.08.2007 and impugned order on sentence dated
17.08.2007.
12. It is submitted that there is no substantial evidence on record
connecting the Appellant with the alleged offences. Significant gaps exist
in the prosecution case, including in the evidence of the complainant
himself. The complainant admitted that the alleged demand was not made
in the presence of the panch witness, that the tainted money was not
recovered from the Appellant, and that the Appellant never physically
received the money. Consequently, the foundational facts of demand and
acceptance remain unsupported by any independent witness and are sought
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 536/2007 Sidharth Jain vs. State of Delhi Page 10 of 32
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:22.07.2026
15:23:00
to be established solely on the testimony of the complainant, rendering the
prosecution version doubtful and entitling the Appellant to the benefit of
doubt.
13. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the Appellant
that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and unsupported by the
evidence on record, inasmuch as the prosecution has failed to establish the
essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It was contended that it is a settled
principle of law that in order to sustain a conviction under the said
provisions, the prosecution must prove both the demand for illegal
gratification as well as its voluntary acceptance by the accused. In the
present case, however, the evidence led by the prosecution does not
satisfactorily establish either of these foundational facts and therefore the
conviction recorded by the learned trial court cannot be sustained.
14. It was contended that the testimony of the complainant PW-9 Abdul
Hamid itself demolishes the prosecution case on the aspect of demand.
During cross-examination the complainant admitted that the alleged
demand of money by the Appellant was not made in the presence of the
panch witness PW-11 Sh. K.L. Nigam, despite the fact that he had been
specifically instructed by the raid officer to remain with the panch witness
and to conduct the transaction in his presence. The complainant PW-9
further admitted that the alleged tainted money was not recovered from the
possession of the Appellant. According to the Appellant, this admission
strikes at the very root of the prosecution’s case, since the alleged demand
is unsupported by any independent witness and the recovery is also not
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 536/2007 Sidharth Jain vs. State of Delhi Page 11 of 32
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:22.07.2026
15:23:00
from the Appellant. The relevant part of the cross examination of PW-9 is
reproduced hereunder:
“I had not told the police in my statement that the accused had
asked the panch witness to remain in his office and I also asked
the panch witness to remain sitting in the room of the accused and
that panch witness remained there. (Confronted with portion A to
A of his statement Ex. PW9/DA where it is so recorded.) The
accused was arrested on the upper floor and was brought
downwards in his office. It is wrong to suggest that on challenge,
accused denied having demanded or accepted the money. The
accused was searched but the tainted money was not recovered
from his possession”
15. It was further contended that the evidence of the panch witness
PW-11 Sh. K.L. Nigam also does not support the prosecution’s case rather
contradicts the version of the complainant on material aspects. The panch
witness deposed that the complainant merely whispered something in the
ear of the Appellant and thereafter both of them proceeded towards the
terrace, while he was asked to remain behind near the seat of the Appellant.
Significantly, in his cross-examination the panch witness categorically
admitted that the Appellant never demanded any bribe or money from the
complainant in his presence and that no money was accepted by the
Appellant in his presence. It was submitted that this admission from the
independent witness accompanying the complainant during the trap
proceedings seriously undermines the prosecution’s case regarding the
alleged demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
16. It has also been contended that even the surrounding circumstances
relied upon by the prosecution do not support the theory of demand and
acceptance. Reliance was placed on the testimony of PW-4 Sh. P.C.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 536/2007 Sidharth Jain vs. State of Delhi Page 12 of 32
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:22.07.2026
15:23:00
Verma, Executive Engineer, DVB, who in his cross-examination stated that
the Appellant was merely working as a Junior Clerk in the Commercial
Section and was not competent to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC)
to the complainant. PW-4 further stated that there was no complaint
pending in the department regarding any demand of money by the
Appellant, and that the place from where the alleged tainted currency notes
were recovered was an open space on the terrace where old registers were
stored and which was accessible to anyone during office hours. According
to the Appellant, these facts render the alleged recovery doubtful and do
not connect the Appellant with the alleged placement of the currency notes
in the register. The relevant portion of his cross-examination has been
reproduced hereunder:
“it is an open space where the old registers are stacked. There is
no checking therefore, anybody can have access to the place at
anytime during the office hours.”
17. It was also vehemently contended that the complainant himself had
served as a Head Constable in Delhi Police for nearly twenty-five years,
having worked in various police stations under several Sub-Inspectors and
Inspectors, and therefore was well acquainted with the procedure of trap
proceedings conducted by the Anti-Corruption Branch, which gave him the
benefit of having a ‘trained mind’ with regard to the subject matter. It was
contended that the complainant, being familiar with such procedures,
falsely implicated the Appellant, who was merely performing clerical
duties relating to receipt and dispatch of applications and had no authority
either to process or issue the NOC sought by the complainant. However
there was no evidence brought on record either in the form of
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 536/2007 Sidharth Jain vs. State of Delhi Page 13 of 32
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:22.07.2026
15:23:00
documentation or official records to substantiate the contention to the
extent of the complainant’s service record from which he would have
gained such knowledge and experience. As such, this argument is brushed
aside.
18. According to the Appellant, the evidence of PW-4 P.C. Verma
clearly establishes that the Appellant had no role in issuing the NOC and
therefore had no motive to demand any illegal gratification. It was further
submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the complete chain of
circumstances necessary for sustaining a conviction under the PC Act.
According to the Appellant, the law requires that the prosecution must
prove demand, acceptance and recovery in a coherent and reliable manner.
In the present case, the alleged demand itself is doubtful and unsupported
by independent evidence. The alleged acceptance has also not been proved,
and the recovery of the tainted currency notes was not effected from the
possession of the Appellant. It was, therefore, contended that when the
foundational fact of demand itself remains unproved, the statutory
presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot
be invoked.
19. It is further noteworthy that, even assuming for the sake of argument
that the possibility of false implication is to be considered, no material has
been brought on record to demonstrate any motive on the part of the
complainant to falsely implicate the Appellant. The defence itself has
consistently maintained that the Appellant was merely a Junior Clerk with
no authority to process, approve or issue the NOC sought by the
complainant. If that indeed was the position, it remains unexplained as to
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 536/2007 Sidharth Jain vs. State of Delhi Page 14 of 32
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:22.07.2026
15:23:00
why the complainant would single out the Appellant from amongst the
various officials and employees present in the office and expose himself to
the rigours of criminal proceedings by making a false complaint against a
person who, according to the defence, was incapable of either advancing or
obstructing his request. In the absence of any prior animosity, personal
dispute, or other discernible reason for such false implication, the
contention remains a mere suggestion unsupported by any evidence on
record and does not, by itself, create a reasonable doubt regarding the
prosecution’s case.
20. It was lastly argued that the learned trial court erred in invoking the
presumption under Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, and in concluding that the Appellant had demanded and obtained
illegal gratification from the complainant as a motive or reward for issuing
the NOC. According to the Appellant, the presumption under Section 20
arises only after the prosecution proves the foundational facts of demand
and acceptance, which have not been established in the present case either
through oral testimony or documentary evidence. It was therefore
submitted that the impugned judgment dated 14.08.2007 suffers from
serious infirmities and that the Appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt
at least.
21. In order to support the arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant
has relied on the following judgments:
In Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2023)
4 SCC 731, It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that proof
of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is the essential
and indispensable requirement for establishing offences under
Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention ofSignature Not Verified
CRL.A. 536/2007 Sidharth Jain vs. State of Delhi Page 15 of 32
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:22.07.2026
15:23:00
Corruption Act. The prosecution must first establish, as a
foundational fact, that illegal gratification was either demanded
by the public servant or offered by the bribe-giver and
subsequently accepted, and such fact may be proved through
direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. Mere recovery of
tainted money, in the absence of proof of demand or offer, is
insufficient to sustain conviction. Once these foundational facts
are established, a presumption under Section 20 of the Act may
arise in respect of offences under Section 7, though such
presumption remains rebuttable by the accused, while the
presumption of fact regarding demand and acceptance may also
be drawn by the court based on the evidence on record. The
Court further clarified that even if the complainant turns hostile,
dies, or becomes unavailable, the prosecution may still prove the
demand and acceptance through other evidence, including
testimony of witnesses or circumstantial material.
In Jagtar singh v. State of Punjab, (2023) 19 SCC 498, It was
held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, relying upon the
Constitution Bench judgment in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of
Delhi), that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification is an indispensable requirement for sustaining
conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere
recovery of tainted currency notes is not sufficient in the absence
of evidence establishing demand. The Court observed that
although recovery of phenolphthalein-treated currency notes
may raise suspicion, such recovery by itself cannot lead to an
inference of demand unless the foundational facts relating to
demand and acceptance are proved either through direct or
circumstantial evidence. In the present case, both the
complainant and the shadow witness had turned hostile and
there was no independent evidence to prove that the accused had
demanded illegal gratification. The Court further noted that the
High Court erred in presuming demand merely on the basis of
recovery of money, particularly when the prosecution failed to
establish any circumstantial chain indicating such demand.
Consequently, it was reiterated that conviction under the Act
cannot be sustained solely on proof of recovery without proof of
demand.
In State of Lokayuktha Police, Davanagere v. C.B. Nagaraj,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1175, It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 536/2007 Sidharth Jain vs. State of Delhi Page 16 of 32
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:22.07.2026
15:23:00
Court that for sustaining conviction under the Prevention of
Corruption Act the prosecution must establish an unbroken
chain consisting of demand, acceptance and recovery of illegal
gratification, and mere proof of payment or recovery of money
cannot by itself lead to a presumption that the amount was paid
pursuant to a demand for bribe. The Court observed that where
the alleged demand itself appears doubtful or suspicious, the
chain of proof remains incomplete even if payment and recovery
are established. It was further held that penal statutes must be
strictly construed and that the presumption under Section 20 of
the Act can arise only after the foundational fact of demand is
proved; in the absence of such proof the statutory presumption
does not operate. The Court also held that where the testimony
of the complainant is inconsistent, unreliable or does not inspire
confidence, the prosecution case regarding demand cannot be
accepted, thereby rendering the conviction unsustainable.
In Ram Chander v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Another,
2025 SCC OnLine Del 9276, It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court that for establishing offences under Sections 7 and
13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution
must prove both the demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification, as proof of demand constitutes the sine qua non for
securing conviction and mere recovery or possession of currency
notes is insufficient in the absence of such proof. The Court
reiterated that demand and acceptance may be proved through
direct or circumstantial evidence, but the foundational fact of
demand must be established before any inference of guilt can be
drawn. It was further clarified that the expression
“gratification” under Section 7 denotes a demand for illegal
gratification and not merely a demand for money. Where the
testimonies of the complainant, accompanying witnesses and
panch witness are inconsistent or fail to support the prosecution
case on the aspect of demand and acceptance, the essential
ingredients of the offences remain unproved and the conviction
cannot be sustained.
22. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
supported the impugned judgment and contended that the learned Special
Judge had rightly appreciated the evidence on record and had correctly
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 536/2007 Sidharth Jain vs. State of Delhi Page 17 of 32
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:22.07.2026
15:23:00
concluded that the prosecution has proved the demand and acceptance of
illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. It has been submitted that the
testimony of the complainant PW-9 Abdul Hamid clearly establishes that
the Appellant had demanded a bribe of ₹1000/-, which was later reduced to
₹500/-, for issuance of the No Objection Certificate. The learned APP
argued that the said testimony remained substantially unshaken during
cross-examination and was sufficient to prove the factum of prior demand
which led to the organisation of the trap on 23.12.1998.
23. It was further contended that the prosecution case is duly
corroborated by the testimony of the panch witness PW-11 K.N. Nigam as
well as the raid officer PW-12 Inspector P.S. Patwal, who have deposed
regarding the trap proceedings, recovery of the tainted currency notes and
the subsequent steps taken during the investigation. It was submitted that
the evidence on record establishes that the complainant and the Appellant
had gone towards the terrace and that the Appellant had directed the
complainant to place the tainted currency notes inside a register lying on
the fourth-floor terrace. According to the prosecution, the recovery of the
five GC notes of ₹100/- each from the said register, whose serial numbers
matched those recorded during the pre-raid proceedings, conclusively
establishes the involvement of the Appellant in the transaction.
24. The learned APP further submitted that the recovery of the tainted
currency notes was duly proved through the seizure memo Ex. PW-9/C,
and that the wash of the paper of the register which had come into contact
with the tainted notes was taken in sodium carbonate solution and seized
vide memo Ex. PW-9/D. It was contended that the said wash turned pink,
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 536/2007 Sidharth Jain vs. State of Delhi Page 18 of 32
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:22.07.2026
15:23:00
thereby confirming the presence of phenolphthalein powder, and the same
was further corroborated by the FSL report Ex. PW-13/C, which
scientifically confirmed the presence of phenolphthalein and sodium
carbonate. It was, therefore, argued that the recovery proceedings and
scientific evidence lend complete assurance to the prosecution’s version. It
was also submitted that the evidence of PW-4 Sh. P.C. Verma, Executive
Engineer, DVB, further corroborates the prosecution case to the extent that
he was associated with the raiding party and was present at the time when
the Register containing the tainted currency notes was recovered from the
terrace. According to the prosecution, the presence of an independent
officer during the recovery proceedings adds credibility to the trap
proceedings and dispels the allegation that the recovery was planted or
manipulated.
25. The learned APP further argued that the contention of the defence
that the Appellant was not competent to issue the No Objection Certificate
is legally untenable. It was submitted that even if the Appellant was not the
final authority to issue the NOC, the offence under the Prevention of
Corruption Act would still be made out if a public servant demanded or
accepted illegal gratification by holding himself out as capable of
facilitating or influencing the official act.
26. In this regard the observations by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sita
Soren v. Union of India, (2024) 5 SCC 629, can be relied upon as
reproduced hereunder:
“IV. Delivery of results is irrelevant to the offence of bribery
119. Another aspect that arises for consideration is the stage at
which the offence of bribery crystallises. It has been urged bySignature Not Verified
CRL.A. 536/2007 Sidharth Jain vs. State of Delhi Page 19 of 32
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:22.07.2026
15:23:00
the Solicitor General that the offence is complete outside the
legislature and is “independent” of the speech or the vote.
Therefore, the question of privilege does not arise in the first
place and the question is answered by the provisions of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Similarly, Mr Gopal
Sankarnarayanan, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that
the offence of bribery is complete on receipt of the bribe well
before the vote is given or speech made in Parliament. It has
been urged that the performance of the promise is irrelevant to
the offence being made out, and hence, the distinction made
in P.V. Narasimha Rao [P.V. Narasimha Rao v. CBI, (1998) 4
SCC 626 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1108] is entirely artificial.
This extract is taken from Sita Soren v. Union of India, (2024) 5
SCC 629 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 229 at page 709
120. Interestingly, the judgment of the majority in P.V.
Narasimha Rao [P.V. Narasimha Rao v. CBI, (1998) 4 SCC
626: 1998 SCC (Cri) 1108] did not consider this question at
all. The minority judgment, on the other hand, discusses this
aspect and notes that the offence is complete with the
acceptance of the money or on the agreement to accept the
money being concluded and is not dependent on the
performance of the illegal promise by the receiver. Agarwal, J.
observed : (P.V. Narasimha Rao case [P.V. Narasimha
Rao v. CBI, (1998) 4 SCC 626 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1108], SCC
pp. 675-76, para 50)“50. The construction placed by us on the expression “in
respect of” in Article 105(2) raises the question: Is the
liability to be prosecuted arising from acceptance of
bribe by a Member of Parliament for the purpose of
speaking or giving his vote in Parliament in a particular
manner on a matter pending consideration before the
House an independent liability which cannot be said to
arise out of anything said or any vote given by the
Member in Parliament? In our opinion, this question
must be answered in the affirmative. The offence of
bribery is made out against the receiver if he takes or
agrees to take money for promise to act in a certain way.
The offence is complete with the acceptance of the money
or on the agreement to accept the money being concluded
and is not dependent on the performance of the illegalSignature Not Verified
CRL.A. 536/2007 Sidharth Jain vs. State of Delhi Page 20 of 32
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:22.07.2026
15:23:00
promise by the receiver. The receiver of the money will be
treated to have committed the offence even when he
defaults in the illegal bargain. For proving the offence of
bribery all that is required to be established is that the
offender has received or agreed to receive money for a
promise to act in a certain way and it is not necessary to
go further and prove that he actually acted in that way.”
(emphasis supplied)
121. Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reads
as follows:
“7. Offence relating to public servant being bribed.–Any
public servant who–
(a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person,
an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause
performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to
forbear or cause forbearance to perform such duty either by
himself or by another public servant; or
(b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue
advantage from any person as a reward for the improper or
dishonest performance of a public duty or for forbearing to
perform such duty either by himself or another public
servant; or
(c) performs or induces another public servant to perform
improperly or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear
performance of such duty in anticipation of or in
consequence of accepting an undue advantage from any
person,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than three years but which may extend to seven
years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1.–For the purpose of this section, the
obtaining, accepting, or the attempting to obtain an undue
advantage shall itself constitute an offence even if the
performance of a public duty by public servant, is not or has
not been improper.
Illustration.–A public servant, S asks a person, P to give him
an amount of five thousand rupees to process his routine
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 536/2007 Sidharth Jain vs. State of Delhi Page 21 of 32
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:22.07.2026
15:23:00
ration card application on time. S is guilty of an offence under
this section.
Explanation 2.–For the purpose of this section–
(i) the expressions “obtains” or “accepts” or “attempts to
obtain” shall cover cases where a person being a public
servant, obtains or “accepts” or attempts to obtain, any
undue advantage for himself or for another person, by
abusing his position as a public servant or by using his
personal influence over another public servant; or by any
other corrupt or illegal means;
(ii) it shall be immaterial whether such person being a
public servant obtains or accepts, or attempts to obtain the
undue advantage directly or through a third party.”
(emphasis supplied)
122. Under Section 7 of the PC Act, the mere “obtaining”,
“accepting” or “attempting” to obtain an undue advantage
with the intention to act or forbear from acting in a certain way
is sufficient to complete the offence. It is not necessary that the
act for which the bribe is given be actually performed. The
First Explanation to the provision further strengthens such an
interpretation when it expressly states that the “obtaining,
accepting, or attempting” to obtain an undue advantage shall
itself constitute an offence even if the performance of a public
duty by a public servant has not been improper. Therefore, the
offence of a public servant being bribed is pegged to receiving
or agreeing to receive the undue advantage and not the actual
performance of the act for which the undue advantage is
obtained.”
27. It was lastly contended that the learned trial court had rightly
invoked the statutory presumption under Section 20(1) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, once the recovery of the tainted currency notes connected
with the trap proceedings stood proved. According to the prosecution, the
Appellant failed to offer any plausible explanation either in his statement
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through defence evidence regarding the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 536/2007 Sidharth Jain vs. State of Delhi Page 22 of 32
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:22.07.2026
15:23:00
circumstances in which the tainted currency notes came to be placed in the
register on the terrace. In these circumstances, it was argued that the
presumption under Section 20 of the Act squarely applied and the
conviction recorded by the learned Special Judge under Sections 7 and
13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
was fully justified.
28. Having considered the contentions raised by the contesting sides and
after perusing the material placed on record, the inferences and findings, in
addition to those dealt with in preceding paragraphs are as under:
29. White collar crime and criminals stand on a different footing as
compared to the ordinary and conventional offences, as given in the Indian
Penal Code. The evidence in such cases is not easily forthcoming inasmuch
as the offence, like the one in hand, takes place in the close confines, in
privacy and invariably there are only two persons involved i.e. the
perpetrator of the crime and the victim. In such circumstances, there is
practically one witness and, therefore, for the offences under P.C. Act and
such like other offences, investigation takes a different path altogether in
which scientific and technical apparatus is involved and attempts are made
to join some independent public witness in order to give credibility to the
case. The evidence brought on record by the prosecution and the
contentions raised are required to be appreciated keeping in view the
aforesaid circumstances and ground realities of life, situation and
circumstances.
30. It has come on record that the complainant, examined as PW-9 i.e.
Abdul Hamid, was an employee of Delhi Police and took Voluntary
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 536/2007 Sidharth Jain vs. State of Delhi Page 23 of 32
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:22.07.2026
15:23:00
Retirement Scheme (VRS) w.e.f. 31.05.1998. Since he was occupying an
official accommodation, therefore, for his pensionary and retiral benefits,
he was supposed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the
premises with all dues paid including water and electricity charges. In this
context, he required the No Objection Certificate (NOC) or say No Due
Certificate from the then electricity provider i.e. Delhi Vidyut Board
(DVB). He initiated the process in this context from 31.03.1998, but till the
date of the raid i.e. 23.12.1998, despite repeated visits, the requisite NOC
was not forthcoming. Since he had retired w.e.f. 31.05.1998 and therefore,
he was supposed to hand over the physical possession of the official
accommodation within a specified time, which normally is four months
extendable by another two months on normal licence fee. Thereafter, the
Employer would start charging revised and higher licence fee. Since the
Appellant herein was also a government servant, fully aware of this
situation and that seems to be the reason why he was able to visualize the
vulnerability of the complainant Abdul Hamid and sought to make some
quick money. The complainant Abdul Hamid had applied for NOC on
18.09.1998, the harassment meted out to him in a way forced him to
approach the Anti Corruption Branch of Delhi Police, where he lodged the
complaint on 23.12.1998. A period of about 8 months and 23 days had gone
in between since the day of initiation of the process and more than 3
months from, the date of application for NOC. In such circumstances, one
can easily visualize that the complainant was driven to the wall and had no
option but to resort to measures he had fallen back upon.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 536/2007 Sidharth Jain vs. State of Delhi Page 24 of 32
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:22.07.2026
15:23:00
31. Apart from the complaint lodged by Abdul Hamid, examined as PW-
9, his testimony is there which is indicative of the fact that he was made to
run from pillar to post in order to obtain the NOC and it was not provided
to him. This brought the Appellant into the picture, who demanded, as per
the deposition of PW-9 Abdul Hamid, a sum of ₹1,000/-, which was later
negotiated down to ₹500/-.
32. It has also come in evidence that pre raid proceedings were
conducted in the presence of the complainant and panch witness. It has also
come in evidence that the numbers of five currency notes of ₹100/- were
noted which were treated with the phenolphthalein powder were given to
the complainant. Those very currency notes were recovered from a register,
which was kept on the terrace where old records were lying.
33. The contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant revolves
around three essential aspects that there is no clear cut evidence of demand
of bribe from the complainant, there is no evidence that the bribe was
offered by the complainant and was accepted by the Appellant and that
there was no recovery from the Appellant. Thus, it is emphasized that none
of the essential ingredients of demand, acceptance or recovery could be
established by the prosecution and, therefore, the impugned judgment is
bad in law and on facts as well, and is required to be set aside.
34. However, as noted earlier also, no reason has been put forth on
behalf of the Appellant as to why, if at all, he has been falsely implicated by
the complainant. Why the Appellant has been chosen out of the several
employees at that particular office to be falsely implicated, if he had no
concern and that he was not involved in the manner as deposed by the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 536/2007 Sidharth Jain vs. State of Delhi Page 25 of 32
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:22.07.2026
15:23:00
complainant. It is though contended on behalf of the Appellant that he was
merely a Junior Clerk and was not in a position to influence the system in
respect of issuance of NOC to the complainant.
35. Apart from the deposition of the complainant, the panch witness and
the members of the raiding team, there are certain circumstances, which are
heavily loaded against the Appellant. The Appellant, as anybody else would
have, easily visualised the vulnerable position of the complainant who had
taken voluntary retirement from service and was hard-pressed to hand over
the official accommodation in order to avoid the penal licence fee. The
NOC by the electricity provider was an integral part of that process. In such
circumstances, when he failed to obtain the requisite documents and a
demand was raised from him by the Appellant, he approached the ACB.
There appears no reason to disbelieve him as there was no enmity between
the complainant and the Appellant and no other reason or motive has been
assigned to the complainant to falsely implicate the Appellant. This
becomes all the more relevant when the plea of the Appellant is taken into
account that he was not in a position to influence the issuance of NOC.
Then in these circumstances, why the complainant would name him and
allege something harming the service and reputation of the Appellant. He
was not the only employee in that office as it was a full-fledged office of
the Delhi Vidyut Board. In the absence of any answer coming about false
implication, the complainant is required to be believed.
36. The complaint is specific together with the amount/demand specified
and that very amount has been recovered from the file and those very
currency notes, which were treated with the phenolphthalein powder, were
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 536/2007 Sidharth Jain vs. State of Delhi Page 26 of 32
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:22.07.2026
15:23:00
recovered as has come in evidence. Again, there is no answer with the
Appellant as to in what context, the complainant met him on 23.12.1998
and for what reason, the Appellant took the complainant on the fourth floor
terrace from his first floor office. It is not the case of the Appellant that he
had gone to the terrace where the old records were lying to fetch some
record in respect of the NOC of the Appellant. Again, there is no answer
with the Appellant as to why the panch witness was asked to stay back and
was asked not to follow them to the terrace. It has come in the testimony of
PW-4 P.C. Verma, in whose presence seizure memo of the register Ex.
PW4/A was prepared that on the terrace, only old and discarded records
were lying, no branch or office/sub-office of the DVB was there on the
terrace. Therefore, there appears no reason with the Appellant to take the
complainant to the terrace from where the bribe money was recovered,
lying in the register, purportedly kept there at the instance of the Appellant.
37. The contention on behalf of the Appellant that there was no
hindrance to anyone from going to the terrace and, therefore, it cannot be
presumed that the currency notes recovered from the register, was kept
there at the instance of the Appellant or was construed to be in his
possession. However, there has to be a cogent answer as to how come the
place i.e. the terrace which has no office or branch except old records, was
visited by the complainant and the Appellant together. The recovery of the
currency notes, in the register, immediately after their visit, lends credence
to the case of the prosecution and the testimony of the complainant. Merely
saying that it was accessible to all and sundry, is not enough to save the
Appellant. It rather goes against the Appellant, when the entire facts and
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 536/2007 Sidharth Jain vs. State of Delhi Page 27 of 32
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:22.07.2026
15:23:00
circumstances are visualised. The office/cabin/room of the Appellant is at
the first floor where the complainant had gone to meet him. If there was
nothing to hide or nothing wrong was to be done, then the Appellant would
not have not asked the complainant to follow him to the terrace. Whatever
was to be talked, could have been talked there at the first floor office of the
Appellant. Then the panch witness was consciously asked not to follow.
The Appellant was fully aware that terrace was the least visited place of the
office, where privacy is there, giving room for him to accept the bribe. He
seems to be smart enough not to touch the currency notes and asked the
complainant to put those notes into the register. But the circumstances
unequivocally and conclusively points out that it was all at his instance.
Thus, the constructive as well as the conscious possession of the currency
notes, can very well be attributed to him.
38. Possession is a state of mind, where it is not necessary that the
physical possession should be there with a person. There are certain things
which one may not possess physically like putting a currency note in his
pocket, but then it is still assumed and considered to be in possession, for
example: a large vehicle may be standing stationary on a public road, but
that does not mean that the possession is with somebody else. The
possession still remains with the person who owns it and holds the keys,
etc. On these parameters, the possession of the currency notes has been
rightly attributed to the Appellant by the learned Trial Court despite the fact
that it was not recovered directly from his person.
39. Learned counsel for the Appellant has also contended that there is no
evidence of demand and acceptance. Again the inference, on conjoint
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 536/2007 Sidharth Jain vs. State of Delhi Page 28 of 32
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:22.07.2026
15:23:00
reading of the evidence led by the prosecution, leads towards only one
conclusion that what has been deposed by the complainant about the
demand, and tacit an implied acceptance followed by recovery, leaves no
doubt about the complicity of the Appellant in not only demanding but
accepting the bribe, as well. Though, the Appellant was very strategic in
planning and executing his escape route. However, that escape route gets
choked and does not allow him to scrape through the allegations in view of
the evidence lead on behalf of the prosecution.
40. The reliance placed by the Appellant on Neeraj Dutta (supra) is
misplaced in so far as it is a settled position in law that the proof of demand
and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for sustaining
conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act. However, the Constitution Bench has itself clarified that such facts
may be proved not only by direct evidence but also through circumstantial
evidence and that a court is competent and well within its powers to draw
an inference from what is brought on evidence and proved on record.
41. In the present case at hand, the prosecution does not rest merely on
recovery of tainted currency notes rather after thorough perusal and
appreciation of the evidence on record, it can be established that the
Appellant separated the complainant from the panch witness and took him
to the terrace where no office work was being carried out and the tainted
currency notes were recovered, immediately thereafter from the very place
to which the Appellant had taken the complainant, and no plausible
explanation has been put forth by the Appellant with regards to these
circumstances which have played a role in establishing a chain of events.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 536/2007 Sidharth Jain vs. State of Delhi Page 29 of 32
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:22.07.2026
15:23:00
Thus, the present case is not one where conviction rests upon direct
evidence i.e. the recovery of the tainted notes but upon a complete chain of
circumstances from which demand and acceptance can legitimately be
inferred in terms of the principles recognised in Neeraj Dutta (supra).
42. The decision in Jagtar Singh (supra) is clearly distinguishable on
facts. In that case, both the complainant and the shadow witness had turned
hostile and the trial court had itself recorded a finding that there was no
evidence proving demand. The Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the High
Court had presumed demand solely from recovery of tainted currency
notes. In the present case in hand however, the complainant has remained
consistent to the case of the prosecution regarding the demand made by the
Appellant. The recovery of the tainted currency notes is not the sole
evidence relied upon by the prosecution. The conduct of the Appellant in
taking the complainant away from his office to the terrace, directing the
panch witness to remain behind, and the immediate recovery of the tainted
notes from the very location visited by the Appellant and the complainant
constitute significant incriminating circumstances which furnish
independent corroboration to the complainant’s version. Therefore this
judgment, does not advance the Appellant’s cause.
43. The judgment in State of Lokayuktha Police (supra) relied upon by
the Appellant also does not assist the Appellant. In that case, the Supreme
Court found the initial demand itself to be doubtful and further held that the
complainant’s testimony was unreliable and did not inspire confidence. It
was in those peculiar circumstances that the Court held that recovery and
payment alone could not complete the chain required for conviction. In the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 536/2007 Sidharth Jain vs. State of Delhi Page 30 of 32
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:22.07.2026
15:23:00
present case, the testimony of the complainant has not been found
unreliable. On the contrary, it has remained consistent on the point of
demand and the circumstances that followed thereafter. There is no material
contradiction that creates any reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case.
The Appellant has also failed to establish any circumstance suggesting false
implication as can be seen from the record that the complainant had no
reason or prior motive to falsely implicate the Appellant especially when
the Appellant himself has admitted that it was not within his official
capacity to issue the NOC. Consequently, the foundational fact of demand
cannot be said to be doubtful. The factual background upon which the said
decision was made is therefore absent in the present case.
44. The reliance on Ram Chander (supra) is equally misplaced for the
Appellant. The said decision merely reiterates the settled principle that
demand and acceptance are essential ingredients of offences under Sections
7 and 13 of the PC Act and that mere recovery of tainted money is
insufficient. Again, the present case in hand does not involve a conviction
founded solely upon recovery. The evidence of the complainant regarding
the demand, coupled with the conduct of the Appellant in taking the
complainant to the spot of recovery, away from the panch witness,
constitute a very unusual type of behaviour especially for someone who
allegedly had nothing to hide. Furthermore, when this type of behaviour
can be and has been proved on record then the only inference that can be
drawn by following the chain of events is that the demand and acceptance
of illegal gratification stands proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 536/2007 Sidharth Jain vs. State of Delhi Page 31 of 32
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:22.07.2026
15:23:00
Consequently, the said decision in Ram Chander (supra) is of no assistance
to the Appellant.
45. In view of these facts and circumstances, the judgments discussed
above which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the
Appellant are not going to come to the rescue of the Appellant. The facts of
the instant case are such which do not attract the judgments as discussed.
As a result, the impugned judgment is upheld.
46. On the aspect of sentence, nothing has been argued and in any case,
the sentence awarded to the Appellant appears already commensurate to
what has been done. Learned Special Judge has considered all the aspects
and took a lenient view as noted in the order on sentence. The Appellant
shall, however, be entitled to the benefit of set off under Section 428
Cr.P.C.
47. As a result, the appeal together with application(s), if any, stands
dismissed. Appellant to surrender forthwith to undergo the remaining
sentence.
48. Copy of the judgment be transmitted to the learned Trial Court and
Prison Authorities for information and necessary compliance.
VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J.
JULY 14, 2026/akc/ij
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 536/2007 Sidharth Jain vs. State of Delhi Page 32 of 32
Signed By:ASHOK
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:22.07.2026
15:23:00
