The Delhi High Court has observed that the functioning of “touts” in government offices cannot continue without the involvement, protection or encouragement of government officials, who are entrusted with performing those functions themselves.

Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav made the observations while dismissing an appeal filed by one Rajinder Singh @ Babloo, who was convicted under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for accepting Rs. 1,300 from a person seeking a duplicate driving licence.

The Court, at the outset, posed the question: “Who were the pawns and who were the players?” It observed that while persons may be controlled by factors such as power, information, fear, reward and self-interest, the functioning of touts in government offices raised a more specific concern.

The Court observed, “It is not possible for touts to have a field day and wield such influence in any office unless they are engaged, protected and encouraged by the government officials sitting behind the bureaucratic shield, allowing the touts to facilitate work, which they as 'Public Servants' were supposed to perform themselves.”

It further observed that some public servants often fail to perform their duties with a sense of responsibility and instead, “blinded by materialistic desires, sacrifice their public functions at the altar of greed, selfishness and materialism.”

The case arose from an incident at the Transport Authority office in Janakpuri in December 2006. The complainant had misplaced his driving licence and approached the Transport Authority for a duplicate licence.

According to the prosecution, Singh approached him and offered to get the duplicate licence issued and complete the necessary formalities for a total payment of Rs. 1,300, including the government fee.

The complainant subsequently approached the Anti-Corruption Branch, following which a trap was laid. The tainted currency notes were handed over during the transaction and were subsequently recovered from Singh and his associate.

The Trial Court convicted Singh under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to one year and six months' rigorous imprisonment along with a Rs. 10,000 fine.

Before the High Court, Singh argued that the complainant and other material witnesses had turned hostile and that the prosecution had failed to establish demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

The Court noted that although the complainant and another witness had not supported the prosecution, the panch witness had consistently supported the prosecution's case and testified to witnessing the demand and transaction. The Court also relied upon the testimony of the raiding officer and other police officials.

The Court held that the testimony of the panch witness and raiding officer was sufficient to establish Singh's complicity, observing that their evidence was “strong, unwavering and unflinching.”

The Court also took note of receipts relating to licence fees recovered from Singh and his previous conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, observing that the said circumstances further substantiated the prosecution case and indicated his involvement in touting activities.

As such, the Court dismissed the appeal and directed him to surrender forthwith to serve his sentence.

Appearance: Mr. Davesh Vashishtha and Mr. Himanshu Khulbe, Advocate, with Appellant-in-person; Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP for the State.