Rs 1,000 bribe: Delhi High Court upholds constable’s conviction in 30-year-old case

Conviction under PC Act

The case arose from allegations that the constable demanded and accepted Rs 1,000 as a bribe from the informant for returning his identity card, which had been confiscated during police checking at Aya Nagar in July 1994.

After the informant made a complaint, an FIR was registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

A trap was subsequently laid by the anti-corruption branch, during which tainted currency was allegedly recovered from the constable’s possession.

The trial court convicted the constable in 2004 and sentenced him to one year’s rigorous imprisonment. He challenged the conviction before the high court.

During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant died and his death was verified by the SHO concerned.

As no legal representative came forward to pursue the matter, the court proceeded to decide the appeal on merits.

‘Accused failed to discharge burden’

A key argument raised in the appeal was that the complainant was never examined, as he remained untraceable despite repeated summons. It was argued that this was fatal to the prosecution.

Rejecting the contention, the high court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Neeraj Dutta v State (Government of NCT of Delhi) to hold that where a complainant is unavailable, demand of illegal gratification can still be proved through testimony of other witnesses, documentary evidence or circumstantial evidence.

“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,” the court said.

The court found that the panch witness, who accompanied the complainant during the trap proceedings, fully supported the prosecution’s case and consistently deposed regarding the accused’s demand for money and acceptance of the tainted currency.

“It is a settled principle that evidence has to be weighed and not counted, and conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness if found wholly reliable,” the court said.

It noted that such a witness’s version cannot be disbelieved when there is no material to show that he is an interested or partisan witness.

The court noted that Section 20 of the Act mandates a statutory presumption in favour of the prosecution. It added that such a presumption is not automatic and can only be invoked when the prosecution first establishes the foundational facts, namely, the demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused after which the burden shifts upon the accused.

It observed that the accused failed to discharge the said burden as no plausible or probable explanation has been furnished to rebut the presumption, thereby leaving the prosecution case unrebutted.

Rs 300 bribe

• In another case dating back to 1999, the Delhi High Court recently upheld the one-year sentence of a head constable accused of accepting a bribe of Rs 300 for returning the registration certificate (RC) of a stolen motorcycle, holding that the demand of illegal gratification can also be inferred from the circumstances.
• Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha rejected the constable’s plea of innocence, noting that the sequence of events, from the stolen bike’s recovery to the recovery of tainted notes, formed an unbroken chain of guilt.
• The Delhi High Court was hearing the appeal of head constable Sumer Singh, challenging the conviction and sentence passed in October 2006 against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act.