New Delhi, April 27 The Delhi High Court on Monday upheld the conviction of a police constable in a corruption case for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs 1,000 for returning an identity card, ruling that credible testimony of the shadow witness and recovery of tainted money were sufficient to sustain the conviction despite the complainant remaining untraceable during the trial.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha upheld the 2004 trial court judgment convicting Constable Satish Kumar under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The trial court had sentenced him to one year rigorous imprisonment on each count along with a fine of Rs 1,000 on each offence, with the sentences directed to run concurrently.
The appeal was decided on merits even though the appellant had died during the pendency of proceedings, and no legal representative came forward to pursue the matter.
As per the prosecution's case, Satish Kumar, while posted at Mehrauli police station in July 1994, had demanded illegal gratification from complainant Narender Kumar for returning his identity card, which had been confiscated during police checking at Aya Nagar.
Following a complaint lodged before the Anti-Corruption Branch, a trap was laid on July 30, 1994, during which the accused was allegedly caught red-handed while accepting the bribe amount.
In its judgment, the Delhi High Court rejected the appellant’s contention that the prosecution's case failed solely because the complainant was not examined during the trial.
"The non-examination of the informant does not, by itself, preclude the prosecution from establishing the offence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant," Justice Sudha observed.
The Delhi High Court relied on the testimony of the panch witness, who had accompanied the complainant during the trap proceedings and fully supported the prosecution's version regarding the demand, acceptance, and recovery of tainted currency notes from the accused.
It further recorded that there was no material to suggest that the shadow witness was unreliable or had any motive to falsely implicate the accused.
The Delhi High Court said that once demand and acceptance were established, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act came into operation, shifting the burden on the accused to rebut the presumption.
"However, the accused has failed to discharge the said burden as no plausible or probable explanation has been furnished," the order stated.
On the challenge to the validity of the sanction for prosecution, Justice Sudha held that the sanction accorded by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police was legally valid, since the authority was competent under the Delhi Police Act to remove a constable from service.
Finding no infirmity in the trial court’s judgment, the Delhi High Court concluded that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused were legally sustainable. “In light of the aforesaid discussion, I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment calling for interference by this court,” Justice Sudha said while dismissing the appeal.
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