Delhi High Court Upholds Police Constable's Conviction For Accepting ₹1,000 Bribe 32 Years Ago
The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of a police constable under the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹1,000 in 1994, holding that the prosecution had successfully proved both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused challenging his conviction and sentence...
The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of a police constable under the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹1,000 in 1994, holding that the prosecution had successfully proved both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused challenging his conviction and sentence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The trial court had sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment on each count along with fine, with sentences to run concurrently.
As per the prosecution case, the constable, posted at Mehrauli Police Station, had demanded ₹1,000 from a complainant for returning his identity card, which had been seized during a police checking operation. A trap was laid by the Anti-Corruption Branch, during which the accused was caught accepting the bribe amount.
Before the High Court, it was argued that the conviction could not be sustained as the complainant was not examined during trial, having remained untraceable despite repeated summons.
Rejecting this contention, the Court held that non-examination of the complainant is not fatal if demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can be proved through other reliable evidence.
Reliance was placed on Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2023) where the Supreme Court held that where the complainant/informant is unavailable, or is dead, or turns hostile, the demand of illegal gratification can still be proved through the testimony of other witnesses, documentary evidence, or even by circumstantial evidence.
The Court found that the testimony of the panch witness clearly established the demand and acceptance of bribe and there was no reason to disbelieve the witness.
The Court also rejected the challenge to the sanction for prosecution, holding that the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police was competent to grant sanction as he had the authority to remove the accused from service.
Finding no infirmity in the trial court's judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.
Appearance: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with SI Bheem Singh, P.S. ACB, GNCT Delhi
Case title: Const. Satish Kumar v. State Of Delhi
Case no.: CRL.A. 862/2004