The Delhi High Court held that non-examination of the complainant does not automatically weaken a corruption case if demand and acceptance of bribe are proved through other reliable evidence.
The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of a police constable in a 1994 corruption case involving acceptance of ₹1,000 as illegal gratification for returning an identity card.
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha dismissed the appeal filed by Constable Satish Kumar against his conviction under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The judgment was pronounced on April 27, 2026, in Const. Satish Kumar v. State of Delhi, CRL.A. 862 of 2004.
The appellant filed the appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
He challenged the conviction and sentence passed in C.C. No.56 of 1998 by the Special Judge, Delhi.
The Special Judge had convicted him for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
According to the prosecution, the incident took place on July 26, 1994.
At that time, the accused was posted as a constable at Police Station Mehrauli, Delhi.
The prosecution alleged that he demanded and accepted ₹1,000 from Narender Kumar. The amount was allegedly demanded for returning Kumar’s identity card.
A Head Constable had earlier taken the identity card during police checking on the intervening night of July 26 and July 27, 1994, at Aaya Nagar, Delhi.
On July 30, 1994, Narender Kumar lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Branch, New Delhi.
Based on the complaint, the Anti-Corruption Branch registered Crime No.20 of 1994 for offences under Section 7 and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Inspector, Anti-Corruption Branch, New Delhi investigated the case and filed the charge-sheet.
Vivek Gogia, IPS, Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-I, South District, New Delhi, granted sanction to prosecute the accused.
Thereafter, the Trial Court framed charges on July 8, 1999 under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The accused pleaded not guilty.
By judgment dated October 26, 2004, the Special Judge convicted him.
The Court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year for each offence. It also imposed a fine of ₹1,000 on each count.
In default of fine payment, the Trial Court directed him to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. The Court ordered both sentences to run concurrently.
When the High Court took up the appeal, the Court received information that the appellant had died.
The SHO concerned verified the death. Although the Court granted an opportunity, the legal representatives did not come forward to contest the appeal.
Therefore, the High Court relied on Bani Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P., (1996) 4 SCC 720 and considered the appeal on merits after examining the record.
In the appeal memorandum, the appellant argued that the Trial Court erred in convicting him.
He submitted that the prosecution did not examine Narender Kumar, the informant and material witness for proving demand and acceptance.
He also argued that the shadow witness did not corroborate the prosecution case.
Additionally, the appellant challenged the sanction order. He claimed that the competent authority had not granted sanction.
The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal.
The State submitted that the Trial Court judgment did not suffer from any infirmity.
It argued that the Trial Court had considered the grounds raised by the accused and decided the case on the basis of the material on record.
The High Court considered the evidence of PW5, the panch witness.
PW5 deposed about the pre-raid proceedings and the phenolphthalein-treated currency notes.
He also stated that the raiding team visited Aaya Nagar Check Post.
According to PW5, the accused accepted the money with his left hand and kept it in the left pocket of his pant.
PW5 further stated that the officials recovered the tainted money. He also deposed that the hand wash and pant pocket wash turned pink.
The Court noted that the prosecution could not examine Narender Kumar because he remained untraceable despite repeated summons.
However, the High Court relied on Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731.
It held that demand of illegal gratification can still be proved through other witnesses, documents or circumstantial evidence when the complainant is unavailable, dead or hostile.
The Court held that PW5’s testimony clearly established the demand made by the accused.
It found that the demand related to the return of the informant’s identity card.
The Court also held that the accused accepted the bribe amount for returning the card.
Justice Sudha found no material to show that PW5 was an interested or partisan witness. Therefore, the Court found no reason to disbelieve him.
The High Court observed that Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act creates a statutory presumption in favour of the prosecution.
This presumption applies once the prosecution proves the foundational facts of demand and acceptance.
In the present case, the Court found that PW5’s cogent testimony and recovery of tainted currency proved those facts.
The accused, however, failed to give any plausible explanation to rebut the presumption.
The High Court rejected the challenge to the sanction order.
It noted that Vivek Gogia, IPS was serving as Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police when he granted sanction.
The Court referred to Sections 12 and 21 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978.
It held that the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police had the power to appoint and remove officers of subordinate rank, including constables.
The Court explained the test under Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
It said the relevant question is whether the sanctioning authority can remove the accused from office.
Since the Additional DCP had that power, the Court held that Vivek Gogia, IPS, was competent to accord sanction.
The Delhi High Court found no infirmity in the Trial Court judgment.
It held that the prosecution had proved demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
The Court also held that the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Accordingly, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal as without merit. It also closed all pending applications, if any.
