30 Years On, Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction Of Police ASI For Accepting ₹5,000 Bribe

The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction and sentence of a police Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) in a corruption case dating back nearly three decades.

A bench of Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha held that minor inconsistencies in witness testimony cannot eclipse clear proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

"A whole reading of the entire materials on record would only show that the inconsistencies are minor and not quite material and they have not affected the core prosecution case," the bench noted.

The bench rejected the appeal filed by Baldev Singh, who was convicted and sentenced by a Special Judge in August 2001 for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Briefly put, in 1995, a complaint was filed alleging that the Appellant, while posted as an ASI at Police Post Shakur Basti, had demanded ₹10,000 (later reduced to ₹5,000) from the complainant to stop harassing him over complaints initiated by his brother.

Acting on the complaint, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) laid a trap during which the tainted currency notes were recovered from the accused. The phenolphthalein test on the appellant's hand and in the appellant's jacket pocket yielded a positive result.

The Court noted that no materials had come on record as to how, when, and in what manner the material objects were preserved or in whose custody they remained until they reached the laboratory. However, it noted that the accused "never had a case that the material objects had been tampered with or that they were not kept safely".

Before the High Court, the Appellant argued that contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, specifically the "partially hostile" panch witnesses, and procedural lapses, such as an unexplained delay in sending samples to the forensic laboratory, rendered the prosecution case unreliable.

The Court, however, relied on the principle that the testimony of hostile witnesses remains usable to the extent it supports the prosecution.

Rejecting the submissions regarding procedural errors, the Court held that the essential ingredients of the offence, demand and acceptance of bribe, stood proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court also observed that while the trial court failed to conduct a hearing under Section 232 CrPC, this did not vitiate the proceedings as the accused failed to show serious and substantial prejudice.

Significantly, the HC also criticized the trial court's procedural handling of hostile witnesses. Justice Sudha clarified that the Indian Evidence Act does not provide for declaring a witness hostile nor does it allow a party to cross-examine its own witness.

The Court noted that under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, a court may only permit a party to put questions to its own witness that might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.

The Court added that the strict procedure under Section 145 of the Evidence Act for proving contradictions, noting that a contradiction is only proved if the witness is afforded an opportunity to explain the discrepancy and the Investigating Officer is subsequently questioned on the same.

Furthermore, addressing the argument regarding nearly 30-year delay since the registration of the FIR, the High Court clarified that "mere delay is no reason to disbelieve or discard the entire prosecution case".

Accordingly, the Court upheld the conviction and concurrent sentences, including a maximum of two and half years of rigorous imprisonment, imposed by the trial court.

Appearance: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Riya Kumar, Advocate for Appellant; Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, CGSC with Mr. Ankit Khatri, Ms. Usha Jamnal and Ms. Nyasa Sharma, Advocates for Respondent

Case title: Baldev Singh v. CBI

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 118

Case no.: CRL.A. 567/2001

Click here to read order