‘Death by a thousand cuts’: Delhi HC acquits public servant in 33-year-old bribery case

New Delhi, Jan 9 The Delhi High Court has acquitted a former Section Officer in the Directorate General of Audit in a 33-year-old bribery case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredient of “demand” for illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Allowing the criminal appeal, a single-judge Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri set aside the conviction and sentence awarded by a special court in 2002, observing that the case had “suffered death by a thousand cuts” and that the benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the accused.

The appellant, Tej Narain Sharma, had been convicted in November 2002 for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 15,000.

However, the Delhi High Court had suspended his sentence in December 2002. An FIR was registered by the Anti-Corruption Branch in connection with a 1992 trap laid on the basis of a complaint alleging a demand of Rs 20,000 as a bribe during an excise audit of a private firm.

While tainted currency notes were recovered from the accused during the raid, the Delhi High Court held that mere recovery was not sufficient to sustain a conviction. “Mere proof of acceptance would not by itself be sufficient, and proof of demand is a sine qua non for securing a conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act,” Justice Ohri said.

In its decision, the Delhi High Court noted that, from the very inception of the case, it was the consistent stand of the prosecution that the initial demand for a bribe was allegedly made by Audit Officer R.N. Arora, and not by the appellant.

“The first big question which arises in the mind of this Court is that if the initial demand was made by R.N. Arora, why were no criminal proceedings ever initiated against him. Curiously, R.N. Arora, instead of being an accused, appeared as a defence witness. No question was put to him as to his making the initial demand,” the judgment said.

Terming the sanction for prosecution “mechanical” and lacking application of mind, Justice Ohri observed that the sanction order had incorrectly attributed the demand for a bribe to the appellant, contrary to the prosecution’s own case.

“The sanction order appears to have been made without any application of mind to the specific facts of the present case,” the judgment stated.

Highlighting multiple inconsistencies, the Delhi High Court held that the prosecution’s case was marred by infirmities that collectively made the conviction unsustainable.

“The benefit of the doubt must be extended to the appellant,” concluded Justice Ohri.

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant of all charges, cancelled his bail bonds, and discharged the sureties, ordering that a copy of its judgment be communicated to the trial court and the concerned jail superintendent.

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor