Delhi High Court
Sumer Singh vs State Nct Of Delhi on 15 April, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 02.04.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 15.04.2026
+ CRL.A. 897/2006
SUMER SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Mrs. Rajdipa Behura, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Philomon Kani, Ms. Neha
Dobriyal, Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. This appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the sole accused in
C.C. No. 09/2001 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge,
Delhi challenging the conviction entered and sentence passed
against him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and
Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (the PC Act).
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 1 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
2. The prosecution case is that on 03.04.2000 at about
4:00 PM, the accused, while employed as Head Constable (HC) at
police station Patel Nagar, demanded and accepted ₹300/- from
PW2 as illegal gratification, as reward for returning the registration
certificate (RC) of his motorcycle, which the accused had taken
from PW2 during investigation of crime no. 296/1999 regarding
the theft of the said motorcycle, and thereby committed the
offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read
with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.
3. On 03.04.2000, PW2 lodged a complaint, that is, Ext.
PW2/A, with the Anti-Corruption Branch, CBI, New Delhi, based
on which pre raid proceedings were drawn and the raid was
conducted after which Crime no. 18/2000 was registered alleging
commission of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of
the PC Act.
4. PW5, Inspector, Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB), CBI,
New Delhi, conducted investigation into the crime and on
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 2 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
completion of the same, submitted the charge-sheet/ final report
alleging commission of the offences punishable under the Sections
7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act.
5. Ext. PW1/A Sanction Order for prosecuting the accused
was accorded by PW1, Deputy Commissioner of Police, West
District, New Delhi.
6. When the accused appeared before the trial court, the
court after complying with the formality contemplated under
Section 207 Cr.P.C, on 05.10.2002, framed a charge against the
accused for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section
13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) 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, PW1 to PW11 were
examined and Ext.PW1/A, Ext.PW2/A-G, PW2/E-1, PW2/DA,
PW2/X, PW3/A, PW4/A, PW8/A, PW11/A-B, Mark XI and Mark
Y were marked in support of the prosecution case.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 3 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
8. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused
was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the
incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence
of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and
maintained his innocence. The accused submitted that he has been
falsely implicated in the case and that PW2 is an accomplice.
According to him, PW8 is a tutored witness and has deposed
against him only out of fear of departmental action at the behest of
the ACB.
9. On behalf of the accused, DW1 was examined.
10. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence
on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the
impugned judgment dated 03.10.2006, held the accused guilty of
the offences punishable Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with
Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Vide order on sentence dated
04.10.2006, the accused has been sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for six months along with fine of ₹1,000/-, and in
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 4 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one
month and to rigorous imprisonment for one year along with fine
of ₹2,000/- for the aforesaid offences. The substantive sentence of
imprisonment have been directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved,
the accused has preferred the present appeal.
11. The learned senior counsel for the appellant/accused
submitted that the latter has falsely been implicated in the present
case. There is no evidence of any demand for illegal gratification
by the accused. Ext. PW2/A complaint has been tampered with as
PW2 himself does not support the case stated therein. On the other
hand, PW2 in the box deposed that one Paltu Ram had demanded
the bribe and told him that the same has to be paid to the accused.
It was further submitted that the complaint was made after almost
one year from the date of the alleged demand. There are several
contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses. There was no express demand made by the
accused, which is sine qua non to prove the guilt of the accused
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 5 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
under Section 7 of the PC Act. There are also inconsistencies in
the testimony of PW8, the panch witness. The testimony of PW8
raises doubts as to whether he was actually present when the bribe
is alleged to have been given.
11.1 It was further pointed out that the version of PW8 that
the right-hand wash of the accused had been taken cannot be
believed as the right hand of the accused had been plastered at the
relevant time. It was submitted that PW9, who had lodged the
complaint of PW2 was also part of the raiding team, which is a
procedure contrary to law. There is also delay in lodging the FIR,
which was lodged after the completion of trap-proceedings at
about 07:00 PM on 03.04.2000.
11.2 It was further pointed out that according to PW2, the
hand wash and the pocket wash were taken at the ACB and not in
the local police station. The hand wash and pocket wash samples
were stated to have been deposited in the malkhana on 03.04.2000.
But there is no evidence of the same being sent to the FSL.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 6 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
Reference was made to the dictums in Mir Mustafa Ali Hasm v.
State of A.P., (2024) 10 SCC 489 and Mukhtiar Singh (since
deceased) Through his Legal Representative v. State of
Punjab, (2017) 8 SCC 136.
12. Per Contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submitted that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any
infirmity warranting interference by this court. Even if PW2 is
partially hostile to the prosecution case, the testimony of the other
prosecution witnesses was rightly relied on by the trial court to
conclude regarding the guilt of the accused. It was also pointed out
that Ext. PW11/B, the FSL Report also remains unchallenged.
Reference was made to the dictums in State of U.P. v Zakaullah
AIR1998 SC 1474 and M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P., (2001)
1 SCC 691, in support of the arguments.
13. Heard both sides and perused the records.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 7 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
14. The only point that arises for consideration in the
present appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the impugned
judgment calling for an interference by this Court.
15. I shall first briefly refer to the evidence on record relied
on by the prosecution in support of the case. The gist of Ext.
PW2/A complaint of PW2 dated 03.04.2000, based on which the
crime was registered is:- That his motorcycle, DL-4S-S 6556
Yamaha, registered in his name, was stolen in April 1999,
regarding which FIR No. 296/99 was registered at Patel Nagar
Police Station. His motorcycle was later recovered by the police
from Mathura. The investigation of the case was conducted by
Head Constable (HC) Sumer Singh of Patel Nagar police station.
He had received his motorcycle as per orders of the court.
However, HC Sumer Singh took the motorcycle’s Registration
Certificate (RC) from him, stating that it had to be incorporated in
the case file. He approached HC Sumer Singh several times to get
back the RC. Sumer Singh demanded a bribe of ₹3000/- for
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 8 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
returning the RC. Two days back, he again approached Sumer
Singh and requested the latter to return the RC. This time, Sumer
Singh agreed to return the RC on payment of a bribe of ₹300/-.
Sumer Singh told him that on 03.04.2000, the former would be on
duty at Patel Nagar police station until 08:00 PM and so he could
go to the station with ₹300/- and take back his RC. PW2 has
further stated that he is against taking and giving bribes and hence
necessary action may be taken.
16. PW2, when examined before the trial court, deposed
that after the police had recovered his stolen motorcycle, he had
taken the same on superdari from the Court at which time one HC
Ved Prakash and Constable Paltu Ram of Patel Nagar police
station asked for the RC of his motorcycle on the pretext that some
file/document had to be made. Hence, he gave the RC to the said
police officials. After a few days, when he met Paltu Ram and
asked for his RC, the latter told him that the RC was with the
accused and that he could take it from the accused by giving
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 9 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
₹300/-. Pursuant to the same, he went to the ACB and lodged a
complaint against Paltu Ram and the accused, whom he identified
during the trial. PW2 further deposed regarding the pre-trap
proceedings taken at the ACB office after which, he along with the
panch witness were taken by the officials of the ACB to the Patel
Nagar police station. According to PW2, he along with the panch
witness and the raiding party left the office of the ACB at about
02:00 – 02:30 PM and reached the Patel Nagar police station at
about 03:00 PM. He along with the panch witness went inside the
police station where he met the accused who handed over the RC
to him. He then gave the money to the accused which the latter
accepted. PW2 further deposed that the panch witness perhaps
must have signaled the raiding team, who came and apprehended
the accused and recovered the currency notes given by him from
the shirt pocket of the accused. PW2 further deposed that he could
not recall with which hand the accused had accepted the notes, but
at that time one of the hands of the accused was in plaster. PW2
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 10 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
was unable to say whether the currency notes marked as Exts. X, Y
and Z were the currency notes that had been given by him to the
accused on the said day. As PW2 was resiling from his earlier
statement, the prosecution sought the permission of the court to
“cross-examine” the witness, which request was granted by the
trial court. On further examination by the prosecutor, PW2
deposed that he had not signed Exhibit PW2/A complaint after
reading the same and that the complaint was not lodged in the
presence of the panch witness. PW2 claimed that he had in fact
mentioned the name of Paltu Ram in his complaint. PW2 also
claimed that the police had obtained his signature on blank papers.
16.1 PW2, in his cross-examination, denied the suggestion
that the accused had not taken any money from him. According to
PW2, it was the raid officer who had recovered the money from
the shirt pocket of the accused. PW2 denied the suggestion that no
post-trap proceedings had been conducted in his presence and that
his signature had been obtained on documents, at a later stage.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 11 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
17. PW8, the panch witness when examined before the trial
court, deposed that on 03.04.2000, he was on duty as panch
witness in the ACB. At about 02:10 PM, PW9 called him and
recorded the complaint of PW2 in his presence, in which he had
also affixed his signature. PW8 identified his signature at point B
in Ext. PW2/A. PW8 further deposed that PW2 had handed over
three currency notes of the denomination ₹100/- to PW9, who
noted the serial numbers in Ext. PW2/B pre-raid report and applied
some powder to the currency notes. PW9 made him touch the
currency notes. His hand wash taken turned pink. The currency
notes were then returned to PW2. PW2 was instructed to give the
bribe on a specific demand being made by the accused. PW2 was
also instructed to remain close to PW8, who in turn was directed
by PW9 to give a signal on acceptance of the money by the
accused. PW8 further deposed that he along with PW2 and the
raiding party reached Patel Nagar police station at about 03:30
PM. He along with PW2 went to the room of the accused. PW8
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 12 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
identified the accused in the box. PW2 asked for the RC of his
motorcycle from the accused who stated that the RC had been
taken out from the file the previous day and handed over the same
to the latter, all of which took place inside the room. Thereafter, he
and PW2 came out of the room. The accused approached them
from behind, placed his hand on the shoulder of PW2 and said-
“what has happened to what was settled between us”. PW2 replied
that he had brought the money and took out the money from his
purse and gave it to the accused who received it with his left hand.
On seeing the amount, the accused responded that he was
accepting the amount though it was less and walked back to his
room. The handing over of the money took place in the corridor
outside the room of the accused. PW8 further deposed that he then
came out to the gate of the police station and gave the pre-
determined signal, where upon the raiding team came along with
him inside the police station and apprehended the accused. The
raid officer challenged the accused. On the directions of the raid
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 13 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
officer, he recovered the currency notes from the shirt pocket ofthe accused. The number in the currency notes seized from the
shirt pocket of the accused tallied with the number mentioned in
Ext. PW2/B memo. The left hand and pocket wash of the accused
also turned pink. PW8 identified the seized currency notes shown
to him. According to PW8, Exts. P1 to P4 are the bottles
containing the samples of the hand and pocket watch of the
accused.
17.1 PW8, in his cross-examination, denied the suggestion
that there was no demand of any money by the accused and that no
money was offered by PW2 when the RC was given by the
accused. He also denied the suggestion that no pre-trap
proceedings were conducted in the office of the ACB. He also
denied the suggestion that the pre-trap report had been prepared at
a later stage. PW8 admitted that he is aware that department action
would be initiated against a government employee if he does not
depose as per the statement recorded by the raid officer.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 14 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
18. PW9, Inspector, ACB, Delhi, deposed that on
03.04.2000 he had recorded Ext. PW2/A complaint of PW2 in the
presence of the panch witness. The complaint was regarding the
demand of bribe of ₹300/- by the accused HC Sumer Singh of
Patel Nagar police station for returning the RC of the stolen
motorcycle of PW2. PW2 brought the bribe amount of ₹300/-, that
is, three currency notes of the denomination of ₹100/- each. He
noted the serial number of the notes in Ext. PW2/B pre-raid report
and smeared them with phenolphthalein powder. The panch
witness was directed to touch the notes after which his hand wash
taken turned pink. PW9 further deposed that the characteristics of
the powder and solution had been explained to the panch witness
and PW2 through the said demonstration. The treated currency
notes were given to PW2, who was instructed to remain close to
PW8, the panch witness, and to carry out the transaction in a
manner which would be visible and the conversation audible to the
latter. PW8 was also instructed to remain close to PW2 and to
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 15 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
signal the raiding team once the transaction was complete. Theraiding team along with PW2 and PW8 reached the police station.
PW2 and PW8 were sent inside the police station while he along
with the other members of the raiding team took suitable positions
inside the police station. PW11 however, remained in the vehicle
parked some distance away from the police station. At about 04:00
PM, he saw PW2, PW8 and one person having a plaster on his
right hand coming outside from a room and talking for a while in
the corridor. The person with plaster went inside the room at which
time PW8 gave the pre-determined signal. Then he along with the
members of the raiding party rushed to the spot. PW8 informed
them that the accused had demanded and accepted the bribe from
PW2 and had kept the same in his left-side shirt pocket. He went
inside the room, disclosed his identity to the accused and
challenged the accused as to whether he had accepted the bribe. On
his directions, PW8 recovered the treated currency notes from the
shirt pocket of the accused. The serial numbers of the said notes
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 16 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
tallied with the number recorded in the pre-raid report. PW9further deposed that he took the left hand and shirt pocket of the
accused, which turned pink. The solution was transferred into four
small empty clean bottles which were sealed and marked as
LHWI, LHWII, LSSPWI and LSSPWII. The shirt of the accused,
the bottles of the RC were seized and he prepared Ext. PW-8/A,
the post-raid report and also prepared PW-9/A rukka and sent the
same to the ACB for registration of the case. PW11 was then
called to the spot, to whom the custody of the accused and the
material objects of the case were handed over.
19. PW6, who was also then posted at the ACB, Delhi,
deposed that on 03.04.2000, PW11 Inspector Suresh Chand
handed over to him two sealed bottles marked as LHWI and
LSSWI duly sealed with the seal of NS along with the sample seal
pasted with the slips bearing particulars of the case. He kept the
bottles in safe custody in his almirah which was duly locked and
the keys were kept by him. On 06.04.2000, he handed over the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 17 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
bottles to PW11 for sending the same to the FSL for analysis.According to PW6, during the period the material objects remained
in his custody, the same had not been tampered with by anyone.
19.1 In the cross-examination, PW6 deposed that that the
ACB is not a notified malkhana and that no register about the
deposit or return of exhibits had been maintained in his office at
the relevant time. He denied the suggestion that any tampering had
been done during the period the exhibits remained in his custody.
He also denied the suggestion that the exhibits had never been
deposited with him by PW11.
20. PW7, the then Inspector, ACB, Delhi, deposed that on
07.08.2000 he had gone to FSL Malviya Nagar to collect the FSL
report and the bottles containing the remnants of Exts. LHWI and
LSSPWI, which were handed over to PW11. PW7 also deposed
that as long as the said articles were in his custody, the same
remained intact and no tampering had taken place.
20.1 PW7 was never cross-examined.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 18 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
21. PW11, Inspector ACB, Delhi deposed that on
03.04.2000, he was one of the members of the raiding party which
was led by PW 9. At about 02:30 pm, he along with the raiding
party left the ACB in a government vehicle for Patel Nagar police
station and reached the station by about 03:30 pm. The vehicle was
parked near the depot, DTC Patel Nagar and he remained in the
vehicle. At about 06:10 PM, he was called inside the police station
by PW9, who handed over to him the custody of the accused along
with the material objects of the case, that is, 3 currency notes of
the denomination of ₹100/- each, Exts. LHWI, LHWII, LSPPWI,
LSPPWII, pulanda of the shirt sealed with the seal of NS as well
as Ext. PW2/C seizure memo of the currency notes, Ext. PW2/D
seizure memo of the bottles containing the wash and Ext. PW2/F
seizure memo relating to the RC of the motorcycle. He then
prepared Ext. PW11/A site plan at the site in the presence of PW2
and PW8. He also recorded their statements and interrogated the
accused. He thereafter arrested the accused. He then collected a
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 19 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
copy of Ext. PW3/A, copy of FIR no. 296/1999 from MoharrirHead Constable (Record) [MHC(R)] Patel Nagar police station.
Thereafter, he took the accused and the material objects to the
Civil Lines police station, where the accused was put in lock up.
He deposited the seized currency notes, Ext. LHWII and
LSSPWII, the articles of personal search of the accused with the
Moharrir Head Constable (Malkhana) [MHC(M)], Civil Lines
police station. Thereafter, he went to the ACB and deposited
Ext.LHW1 and LSSPW1 with PW6 ACP R.K. Joshi, who kept the
same in his almirah and locked the same. On 06.04.2000, he
collected exhibits LHWI and LSSPWI along with the sample seal
from PW6 for depositing the same in the FSL Malviya Nagar.
Later, he collected Ext. PW11/B FSL report along with the
remnants of the samples. Thereafter, he was transferred and hence
he handed over the file to the DCP.
21.1 PW11 in his cross-examination deposed that when the
accused had been taken into custody, the latter’s right hand had
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 20 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
been plastered. He denied the suggestion that he had not conducteda proper or fair investigation in the case.
22. I also make a brief reference to the defence evidence.
DW1, the then Moharrir Head Constable (Record), Patel Nagar
police station, produced FIR no. 296/1999 registered for the
commission of the offence punishable under Section 379 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860, pertaining to theft of motorcycle of
PW2. According to DW1, the charge-sheet/final report in the said
case was submitted before the trial court on 09.06.1999.
23. The question that arises is whether the prosecution has
established the foundational facts of demand and acceptance of the
bribe by the accused while discharging his official duty and
thereby attracting the offences punishable under Sections 7 and
13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. It is well-settled
that both the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public
servant constitute foundational facts which must be proved by the
prosecution. Mere acceptance of illegal gratification without proof
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 21 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
of offer by the bribe giver and demand by the public servant wouldnot constitute an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC
Act, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta v.
State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731.
24. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant/accused, the essential ingredient of demand by the
accused, being a public servant, has not been established. PW2 in
Ext. PW2/A complaint stated that the accused had demanded bribe
from him for returning the RC of his motorcycle. However, when
examined before the trial court, PW2 resiled from this version and
attributed the initial demand to one Paltu Ram. The said Paltu Ram
is alleged to have told PW2 to pay the money to the accused for
the return of the RC. Referring to this part of the testimony of
PW2, it was contended that no demand had been proved against
the accused. It is indeed true that PW2 turned partially hostile
regarding the initial demand. However, he did not deny the crucial
fact that he had paid ₹300/- to the accused. He admitted that he
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 22 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
handed over the money to the accused and that the same wasrecovered from the accused’s pocket. Though PW2 claimed that he
was unable to recall wash of which hand of the accused had been
taken, he admitted that the wash turned pink. Thus, his testimony
supports the prosecution case on several important aspects of the
transaction. It is well settled that evidence of a hostile witness is
not to be discarded in toto and the Court may rely upon those
portions of the testimony which appears credible and inspires
confidence in the mind of the Court. (Mohan Lal v. State of
Punjab; AIR 2013 SC 2408, Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P.;
AIR 2012 SC 1979, Prithi v. State of Haryana; (2010) 8 SCC
536, Lella Srinivasa Rao v. State of A.P.; AIR 2004 SC 1720,
Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai v. State of Gujarat; AIR 2000
SC 210). Therefore, despite some inconsistency regarding the
initial demand, the testimony of PW2 when read with the
remaining evidence on record remains consistent and does inspire
confidence.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 23 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
25. PW8, the panch witness, whose testimony I have
already referred to in detail, fully supports the prosecution case on
both demand and acceptance. PW8 deposed that after PW2, and he
had come out of the room of the accused, the accused followed
them into the corridor of the police station. In the corridor, the
accused placed his hand on the shoulder of PW2 and asked, “what
has happened to what was settled between us.” This statement was
made immediately before the transaction and in the presence of
PW8. Such words indicate a prior understanding regarding
payment and amount to an implied demand for illegal gratification.
PW8 further deposed that in response, PW2 stated that he had
brought the money and handed over ₹300/- to the accused, which
the accused accepted with his left hand. The accused even
remarked that he was accepting the amount, though it was less, and
thereafter went back to his room. The sequence of events, as
narrated by PW8, establishes both the demand and acceptance of
bribe by the accused.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 24 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
26. The learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant/accused argued that there are inconsistencies in the
testimony of PW8 and that these inconsistencies raise doubts
regarding the prosecution case. It was pointed out that if PW8 is to
be believed, it was the right hand wash of the accused that was
taken, whereas the materials on the record shows that the right
hand of the accused was in plaster at the relevant time. The
arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel against the
prosecution case at first blush appeared indeed appealing. But a
closer or careful scrutiny of the evidence on the record shows that
they are incorrect. PW8 never deposed that it was the right hand
wash of the accused that had been taken. On the other hand, the
relevant portion of his examination-in-chief on this aspect reads:-
“…thereafter, the left hand wash and left pocket wash of the
accused were taken in some water like solution which turned into
pink…” However, further down in his examination, the trial court
is seen to have recorded thus:- “…At this stage, four sealed bottles
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 25 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
marked RHW-I, RHW-II, LSSPW-I and LSSPW-II out of which twobottles are sealed with the seal of NS and two bottles sealed with
the seal of FSL are produced from malkana and shown to the
witness who after identifying the signature at point B on the
marked paper slips, states that these are the same bottles which
were prepared in his presence by the raid officer. Those bottles are
Ex. P1 to P4…” This appears to be a mistake committed by the
trial court while recording evidence because none of the witnesses
including PW2, who is partially hostile, has a case that it was the
right hand wash of the accused that had been taken. As referred to
earlier, PW2 only feigned lack of memory and deposed that he is
unable to recall which hand wash of the accused had been taken.
PW8 has categorically deposed in his examination-in-chief that it
was the left hand wash of the accused that had been taken. This
part of his testimony has not been discredited in cross-
examination. PW9, the Trap Laying Officer (TLO), also deposed
that he had taken the left hand and shirt pocket wash of the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 26 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
accused, which had turned pink. According to PW9, the solutionhad been transferred into four small empty clean bottles which
were sealed and marked as LHWI, LHWII, LSSPWI and
LSSPWII. PW9 also deposed that immediately after the raid and
completion of formalities, he had handed over the custody of the
accused as well as the material objects of the case to PW11. PW11
corroborates this testimony when examined and deposed that on
03.04.2000, he had received the aforesaid exhibits from PW9.
PW11 also deposed that on 03.04.2000 after receipt of the material
objects from PW9, he had handed over two sealed bottles marked
as LHWI and LSSWI to PW6, who kept the same in his almirah
and locked the same. The trial court in the impugned judgment has
recorded thus:- “…It transpires from the evidence of the panch
witness (PW8) that left hand wash and left pocket wash of shirt of
the accused was taken in some water solution which turned into
pink. However, while exhibiting the case property in the evidence
of the panch witness, the sealed bottles containing the hand wash
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 27 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
of the accused have been inadvertently referred to as a right handwash instead of left hand wash. To my mind, this would not in any
way adversely affect the prosecution case because admittedly, no
right hand wash of the accused was taken as his right hand was
under plaster…..” Therefore, the materials on record make it clear
that it was only a mistake that was committed by the trial court in
referring to the exhibits and that there was no right hand wash of
the accused taken at any point of time.
27. Further, PW8’s presence at the scene cannot be
doubted. He was part of the pre-trap proceedings, accompanied
PW2 to the police station, witnessed the transaction, and gave the
signal to the raiding team. He further described how the raiding
party came and recovered the tainted money from the accused.
Minor inconsistencies, such as whether the exact transaction took
place inside the room or just outside in the corridor, do not affect
the core of the prosecution case. What matters is whether the
witness is consistent on the important aspects of the case. PW8 has
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 28 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
remained clear and consistent on the crucial points. His testimonyis also supported by the evidence of PW9, the TLO as well as
PW11, the IO.
28. PW9, the TLO, proved the recording of Ext. PW2/A
complaint, the pre-trap proceedings, the application of
phenolphthalein powder, and the conduct of the trap, including the
recovery of the marked currency notes from the accused. PW11,
the IO, supported the prosecution by deposing about the
subsequent steps taken in the investigation, including taking
custody of the accused and the material objects in the case. Thus,
the evidence of PW8, PW9, and PW11 consistently support the
prosecution case and corroborates the version of PW2.
29. It was also argued that Ext. PW2/A complaint of PW2
has been tampered with. According to the learned Senior Counsel
for the appellant/accused, the testimony of PW2 shows that that
the latter is unaware of the contents of Ext. PW2/A complaint
because while examined he deposed that he had not signed Ext.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 29 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
PW2/A complaint after reading the same and that the complainthad not been lodged in the presence of PW8. PW2 claimed that he
had in fact mentioned the name of Paltu Ram in his complaint.
PW2 also claimed that the police had obtained his signature on
blank papers. Therefore, referring to this part of the testimony of
PW2, the argument advanced is that that it is a clear case of
tampering of Ext. PW2/A complaint, which aspect alone is
sufficient to throw out the entire prosecution case. This argument
also at first blush appeared quite appealing. But a closer scrutiny of
the materials on record show that the argument is also not correct.
PW8, the independent panch witness, deposed that the complaint
of PW2, that is, Ext. PW2/A had been recorded by PW9 in his
presence, at which time PW2 was also present. PW8 also deposed
that he had affixed his signature in Ext. PW2/A complaint and
PW8, while in the box, identified his signature at point ‘B’ in Ext.
PW2/A complaint. This aspect of the testimony is corroborated by
the testimony of PW9, the TLO, deposed that on 03.04.2000, he
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 30 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
had recorded Ext.PW2/A complaint of PW2 in the presence ofPW8. PW9 also deposed that the complaint was regarding the
demand of bribe of ₹300/- by HC Sumer Singh (the accused) of
Patel Nagar police station for returning the RC of the stolen
motorcycle of PW2. The testimony of PW8 and PW9 on these
aspects has not been discredited in any manner and, therefore, I
find no reasons to disbelieve them. Their testimony will also show
that PW2 was clearly resiling from his version in Ext. PW2/A
complaint and therefore, the trial court was quite justified in
initiating proceedings under Section 344 Cr.P.C against him.
30. Here it would be apposite to refer to the dictum in M.
Narsinga Rao (supra) relied on by the learned prosecutor to
substantiate the argument that despite PW2 partially turning
hostile, the Court can rely on the remaining evidence on record and
conclude regarding the guilt of the accused. In M. Narsinga Rao
(supra) the appellant, therein, Manager of a Milk Chilling Centre
attached to Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Corporation
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 31 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
Federation was alleged to have received bribe from a milktransporting contractor for recommending the payment of an
amount due to the latter. Pursuant to a complaint being made, the
trap was laid and the appellant was caught red-handed and the
tainted currency notes were recovered from his pocket. The trial
commenced after four long years. During the trial, the main
prosecution witnesses turned hostile and did not support the
prosecution case. The appellant took up a defence that one “K” had
orchestrated a false trap against him by employing PW1 and PW2
therein and that the tainted currency notes had been forcibly
stuffed into his pocket. The trial court convicted the appellant
under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the PC
Act, which was upheld by the High Court. The High Court held
that even in the absence of direct evidence, the rest of the evidence
and circumstances were sufficient to establish that the accused had
accepted the amount and that it gave rise to a presumption under
Section 20 of the PC Act that he had accepted the same as illegal
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 32 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
gratification. When the matter came up before the Hon’bleSupreme Court, the appellant contended that the presumption
under Section 20 of the PC Act could be drawn only when
acceptance or obtaining of gratification was established by direct
evidence and not on the basis of an inference to that effect. It was
contended that unless the prosecution proved that what was paid
amounted to gratification, the mere handing over of some currency
notes to the public servant would not be sufficient to make the
same as an acceptance of gratification.
30.1 Rejecting the above said contention, it was held by the
Apex Court that when Section 20(1) of the PC Act deals with legal
presumption, it is to be understood as in terrorem, i.e. in the tone
of a command that it has to be presumed that the accused accepted
the gratification as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to
do any official act etc., if the condition envisaged in the former
part of the Section is satisfied. The only condition for drawing
such a legal presumption under Section 20 is that during the trial, it
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 33 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
should be proved that the accused had accepted or agreed to accept
any gratification. The Section does not say that the said condition
should be satisfied through direct evidence. The word “proof”,
needs to be understood in the sense in which it is defined in the
Evidence Act. What is required by the definition of the word
“proof” is the production of such materials on which the Court can
reasonably act to reach the supposition that a fact exists. Proof of
the fact depends upon the degree of probability of its having
existed. The standard required for reaching the supposition is that
of a prudent man acting in any important matter concerning him.
30.2 After referring to the law on the point, the Apex Court
observed that from the materials on record, it was clear that when
the appellant was caught red handed with the currency notes, he
never demurred to the trap laying officer that those notes had not
been received by him. The story that the currency notes were
stuffed into his pocket was found to have been concocted by the
appellant only after lapse of about 4 years and that too when the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 34 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
appellant faced trial in the Court. Though the silence of the
accused/appellant by itself may not or need not necessarily lead to
the presumption that he accepted the amount from somebody else,
the other circumstances which were proved in the case and those
preceding and succeeding the searching out of the tainted currency
notes were found to be relevant and useful to help the Court to
draw a factual presumption that the appellant therein had willingly
received the currency notes. From the proved facts of the said case,
it was held that the Court could legitimately draw a presumption
that the appellant received or accepted the said currency notes on
his own volition. It was also held that the said presumption is not
an inviolable one, as the appellant could rebut it either through
cross-examination of the witnesses cited against him or by
adducing reliable evidence.
31. In the case on hand, the recovery of tainted currency
notes from the accused is a strong and important circumstance
against him. The materials on record clearly show that the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 35 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
currency notes, whose numbers were already recorded during the
pre-raid proceedings, were recovered from the shirt pocket of the
accused immediately after the trap. Further, the phenolphthalein
test conducted on the hand and pocket wash of the accused turned
pink, which confirms that he had handled the tainted notes. Once
the prosecution has proved that the accused accepted the tainted
money, the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act arises. As
laid down in M. Narsinga Rao (supra), the presumption under
Section 20 is a mandatory legal presumption, and once the
foundational fact of acceptance of illegal gratification is
established, the Court is bound to presume that such acceptance
was as a motive or reward for an official act. The Section does not
say that the said condition should be satisfied through direct
evidence. Its only requirement is that it must be proved that the
accused accepted or agreed to accept gratification. Direct evidence
is one of the modes through which a fact can be proved. The word
“proof”, needs to be understood in the sense in which it is defined
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 36 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
in the Evidence Act. What is required by the definition of the word
“proof” is the production of such materials on which the Court can
reasonably act to reach the supposition that a fact exists. Proof of
the fact depends upon the degree of probability of its having
existed. The standard required for reaching the supposition is that
of a prudent man acting in any important matter concerning him.
31.1 Here, even if certain aspects of direct evidence, such as
PW2 partially turning hostile, are not fully consistent, the
circumstantial evidence clearly establishes acceptance of money.
The recovery of tainted currency notes from the accused, the
positive phenolphthalein test, the presence of the accused at the
spot, and the sequence of events immediately before and after the
transaction together form a complete chain of circumstances.
These circumstances lead to a clear and reasonable inference that
the accused had voluntarily accepted the money. As further
explained in M. Narsinga Rao (supra), the Court is entitled to
draw factual presumptions from proved circumstances, and once
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 37 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
such an inference of acceptance is drawn, it becomes the basis for
invoking the legal presumption under Section 20. The accused
herein has failed to rebut the presumption by offering any
convincing or plausible explanation. He has simply denied the
allegations without explaining how the marked currency notes
came into his possession. Further, no enmity or plausible motive
has been shown by the defence as to why PW2 or PW8 would
falsely implicate the accused.
32. Further, the materials on record show that when the
accused was apprehended immediately after the trap, he did not
raise any protest or claim that he was innocent. He did not offer
any explanation at that time as to how the tainted money came into
his possession. When tainted money is recovered from the
accused, and he fails to give any explanation, a presumption arises
that the money was accepted as illegal gratification [See M.
Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P., 2001 SCC (Cri) 258].
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 38 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
33. It was further contended that PW9, who recorded the
complaint of PW2, was also a member of the raiding team, and
that the same is contrary to law. This argument, however, is
without any legal basis. At the outset, it must be noted that no
provision of law has been pointed out that prohibits the officer
who records the complaint from being part of the trap or raiding
team. The mere fact that PW9 recorded the complaint and
participated in the raid does not make the proceedings illegal.
Further, it is important to distinguish between a detecting officer
and an investigating officer. In the present case, PW9 acted
primarily as the officer who organised and conducted the trap. The
investigation was not carried out by him. The evidence shows that
PW11 took over the investigation immediately after the trap,
including custody of the accused and material objects, preparation
of the site plan, and further procedural steps. Thereafter, the charge
sheet was ultimately filed by PW5 after completion of the
investigation. There is no absolute rule that the officer who lays
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 39 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
the trap cannot be involved in the investigation at all. What is
required is that no prejudice should be caused to the accused and
that the investigation should remain fair. No material has been
produced to show any bias, mala fide intention, or unfair
investigation on the part of PW9.
34. Now, coming to the argument that there is no evidence
to show that the samples had been sent to the FSL. This argument
is also not correct because PW9, the TLO, deposed that after
completing the post-raid formalities, he had handed over the
material objects which included the bottles containing the hand
wash and pocket wash of the accused to PW11. PW11 admitted
that he had received the sealed bottles marked as LHWI, LHWII,
LSSPWI and LSSPWII along with the seized currency notes.
Thereafter, he took the accused as well the material objects to the
Civil Lines, police station. He deposited the seized currency notes,
Ext. LHWII and LSSPWII and the articles seized from the
personal search of the accused with MHC(M) of the said station.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 40 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
He proceeded to the office of the ACB and deposited Ext. LHWI
and LSSPWI with PW6, who kept the same in the latter’s almirah
under lock and key. On 06.04.2000, he collected Ext. LHWI and
LSSPWI from PW6 for the purpose of sending it for the FSL
examination. The version of PW11 is corroborated by PW7, who
deposed that on 03.04.2000 he had received the bottles from PW11
and had kept them in his safe custody. On 06.04.2000, the bottles
were handed over to PW11 for sending the same for FSL
examination. Further, PW7 deposed that on 07.08.2000, he had
gone to the FSL, Malviya Nagar to collect the FSL report and the
bottles containing the remnants of Exts. LHWI and LSSPWI,
which he then handed over to PW11. Ext. PW11/B is the FSL
report which supports the prosecution case. PW7 was never cross-
examined. Ext. PW11/B was never challenged by the accused.
Therefore, the argument that the samples had not been sent to the
FSL for examination is apparently incorrect.
35. As regards the contention of delay in lodging the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 41 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
complaint, the evidence on record shows that the demand for
money was not a one-time demand but continued over a period of
time. PW2 stated that the accused had initially demanded ₹3000/-.
He had approached the accused several times and that the latter
finally agreed to accept ₹300/-. It was only when the accused
finally asked him to come on 03.04.2000 with ₹300/- to get back
his RC that PW2 approached the ACB. The complaint was
therefore made immediately after this final demand, and the trap
was arranged on the same day without any delay. This shows that
there was no unexplained or unreasonable delay in lodging the
complaint. It is also necessary to bear in mind, as observed by the
Apex Court in State of UP v. GK Ghosh (1984) 1 SCC 254, that
a citizen is ordinarily reluctant to approach the Vigilance
authorities and undergo such a burdensome process of laying a trap
and facing trial. Such action is taken only when one feels
genuinely aggrieved.
36. Yet another argument was advanced that there was
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 42 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
delay in registering the FIR, which was registered only at 07:00
PM, apparently after the trap and completion of post-trap
formalities. It is true that though the complaint was given in the
morning, the FIR is seen registered only in the evening. But all
delay is not fatal. Here, nothing has been brought on record to
doubt the prosecution case because of the delay in registering the
FIR.
37. The defence has strongly relied on the testimony of
DW1 HC Dharambir Singh to argue that since the challan in the
theft case was filed in court on 09.06.1999, the RC of the
motorcycle would have remained on the judicial file. Therefore,
the accused could not have taken the RC from the file on
03.04.2000 and given it to PW2. This argument also does not
appear to be correct. PW2 deposed that the motorcycle along with
its RC had earlier been released to him on superdari. Thereafter
the police officials of Patel Nagar police station took the RC from
him on the pretext of preparing some document/file. This part of
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 43 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
his testimony has not been challenged or discredited during his
cross-examination. Further, merely because the chargesheet/final
report is submitted before the trial court, that does not mean that
no paper or file connected with the crime would remain in the
police station. The case diary of the crime would always be with
the police. Therefore, there is nothing to disbelieve the prosecution
case that the RC was returned from the file.
38. Reliance has been placed by the defence on the dictum
in Mir Mustafa (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court set
aside the conviction in a trap case on the ground that the
prosecution failed to prove the foundational facts of demand and
acceptance of illegal gratification. The Court found serious
inconsistencies in the prosecution case, including lack of
corroboration between the complainant and the panch witness,
contradictions in the trap proceedings, and the absence of reliable
scientific evidence to show that the accused had actually handled
the tainted currency notes. It was also noted that there was a
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 44 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
possibility of the complainant planting the money, as he had access
to the bag of the accused. In such circumstances, the Apex Court
held that when the foundational facts are doubtful, the presumption
under Section 20 of the PC Act cannot be raised. However, the
said dictum has no application to the facts of the present case. In
the case on hand, the prosecution has clearly established the
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification through the
consistent testimony of PW8 and the admission of payment by
PW2. The recovery of tainted currency notes from the accused,
along with the positive phenolphthalein test, further strengthens
the prosecution case. There is no material(s) to suggest any
possibility of planting of money or any serious inconsistency
affecting the core of the case.
39. In Mukhtiar Singh (supra), the evidence regarding
demand was not clear or properly proved. There were
contradictions between witnesses and lack of proper corroboration.
Therefore, the Court held that mere recovery of money was not
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 45 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
sufficient, and since demand was not proved, the conviction was
set aside. On the other hand, in the present case, the demand is
clearly established through the testimony of PW8, whom I find no
reason(s) to disbelieve. This is further supported by the conduct of
the accused, the acceptance of money as admitted by PW2, and the
recovery of tainted currency notes from his possession.
40. In the light of the materials on record, I find no
infirmity in the impugned judgement calling for an interference by
this court.
41. In the result, the appeal, sans merit, is dismissed.
42. Application(s), if any, pending shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 15, 2026
rs/p’ma/mj/kd
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 46 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24