Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs Nirdesh Kumar on 28 January, 2026

      In the Court of Dr. Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani : Special Judge
           (PC Act) (ACB)-02 Rouse Avenue Courts, Delhi




CNR No. DLCT11-000726-2022
CC No. : 65/2022
FIR No.: 01/2020
Police Station: Vigilance
U/s. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 384
of the Indian Penal Code.

State

Vs.

Nirdesh Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Rajbir Singh,
R/o 1/2, Shankar Vihar Colony,
Murad Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP.
                                                          .......Accused


                                      Date of institution : 25.11.2022
                                      Date of arguments : 07.01.2026
                                      Date of judgment : 28.01.2026


                               JUDGMENT

1. The present criminal case has originated from a charge-sheet filed by the State against accused Nirdesh Kumar alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act') and Sections 384 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').

CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 1 of 89 Brief facts:

2. On 03.01.2020, Sh. Varun Channa R/o H. No. 89, Tilak Nagar, Sec-3, Rohtak Permanent Add:- H. No. 16, Sarai Ram Farm House, Sec-86, Faridabad visited Vigilance Branch and submitted a request to ACP/VIU in Hindi, the contents of which are as follows:

To, ACP , Vigilance Branch, Barakhamba Road, Delhi, Subject: Demand for bribe by police officer. Sir, I request that I am Varun Channa S/o Sunil, R/o H.No. 89 Tilak Nagar, Sec. 3, Rohtak and permanent resident of H.No. 16, Sarai Ram Farm House, Sec. 86, Faridabad. I used to do liquor business earlier due to which three cases are pending against me in Jaitpur police station. A police officer named ASI Nirdesh, who has two cases against me, is demanding money from me to get an early date for those cases. When I refused by saying that I do not have money, he said that he will get my liquor business started, you give me some money every month. He sometimes calls me and says that your court summons are here, take them and when I go, he threatens to file a case against me and demands money. He demanded Rs. 30,000/- from me, towards which I paid Rs. 5,000/- on 1/1/2020 and he has demanded Rs. 5,000/- today. I am against giving bribe, please take action against ASI Nirdesh.

3. The complaint was examined by Insp. Mohan Singh. At 11.00 AM, ACP/VIU/Vigilance called Insp. Deveshwari to his office and introduced her to the complainant, Shri Varun Channa, who presented his complaint in the presence of present Panch Witness, Shri Roop Chand R/o T-4- Palika Neele R. K. Ashram, Delhi, Head Assistant Employee Code no 189317, Health Department, NDMC Palika Bhawan, New Delhi (Phone No. 9013088271) by writing the above complaint himself, after CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 2 of 89 reading which, the Panch Witness signed and Insp. Deveshwari attested the complaint.

4. Thereafter, the complainant, Shri Varun Channa, presented the bribe amount of Rs. 5,000/- that he had brought with him to Insp. Deveshwari in which there were two notes of Rs.2,000/- and two notes of Rs 500/- whose numbers were written after checking by the Panch Witness. The numbers of Rs.2,000/- notes were 9BH617765, 4CC757455 and the numbers of Rs 500/- notes were 4FE277118 and 4DA766656. After applying phenolphthalein powder on the above currency notes and touching it with the right hand of the Panch Witness, the wash of the right hand of the Panch Witness was taken in a colourless solution of Sodium Carbonate, after which the colour of the colourless solution changed to pink.

5. The powder-coated notes were handed over to the complainant, who placed them in the right pocket of his pants. The complainant was instructed to keep the Panch Witness with him so that he could clearly hear and understand the conversation and observe the trap proceedings. The complainant was also instructed to pay the bribe only when demanded, otherwise not. The Panch Witness was also instructed to remain with the complainant and carefully listen and observe the conversation between the complainant and the accused, and to signal by waving his right hand twice over his head once he was convinced that the bribe amount had indeed been demanded.

6. The pink solution shown during the illustration was discarded, and the glass was washed with clean water and soap, CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 3 of 89 dried, and the bottle of phenolphthalein powder was closed and handed over to the Duty Officer, Vigilance Branch.

7. Thereafter, the Panch Witness, the complainant and Insp. Deveshwari also washed their hands with clean water and soap. They took Raid Box, laptop and printer with them. At about 4:18 PM, Insp. Deveshwari along with Insp. Mohan Singh No. D-1/297, ASI Narender No. 7654/D, HC Sukhchain No. 100/Vig, ASI Singh Raj No. 85/Vig, HC Sohan Singh No. 39/Vig along with the Panch Witness Shri Roop Chand and complainant, Shri Varun Channa, left for the spot in two government vehicles bearing no. DL-1CJ-5549 with driver CT. Ajeet No. 139/Vig and DL-1CS-9952 with driver ASI Amardeep No. 4037/D.

8. At around 5:10 PM, Insp. Deveshwari, Insp. Mohan Singh along with staff, complainant and Panch Witness reached Ali Mor, Near Mohan Estate Metro Station, Delhi. The government vehicles were parked at some distance and Insp. Mohan Singh stayed in the government vehicle itself. After that, the IO gave appropriate instructions to the staff, complainant and Panch Witness and took their positions at Ali Mor.

9. At around 5:26 PM, the complainant called ASI Nirdesh Kumar on his mobile number 7011771608 from his mobile number 9992486647, to which ASI Nirdesh Kumar said that he was reaching Ali Mor. After some time, ASI Nirdesh Kumar came there and started talking to the complainant and the Panch Witness was also present there.

CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 4 of 89

10. At around 5:40 PM, the Panch Witness signaled by waving his right hand twice over his head upon which, Insp. Deveshwari and the raiding party came into action and ASI Nirdesh Kumar was caught. The Panch Witness pointed towards ASI Nirdesh Kumar and said that this person has received the bribe of Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant and holding the amount with his left hand, he kept it in the left side pocket of his jacket. Insp. Deveshwari showed her Identity Card to that person and introduced herself as Insp. Vigilance Branch and said that since he has taken Rs. 5,000/- as bribe from the complainant, he had to be searched. She also told him that if he wanted, then he could search them and the raiding team. Accused ASI Nirdesh Kumar refused to search the raiding party. After this, Insp. Deveshwari instructed the Panch Witness to search the accused after which the accused himself took out the bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- (2000x2, 500x2) from the left pocket of his jacket and gave it to the Panch Witness.

11. The numbers of the bribe amount notes were compared with the numbers of the notes already recorded in the raid report and the numbers of these notes were found to be the same. The bribe amount notes were taken into police custody by Insp. Deveshwari in the report as evidence. The complainant, Panch Witness and Insp. Deveshwari signed on the said report. Accused ASI Nirdesh Kumar refused to sign on the report. After this, wash of the left hand of accused ASI Nirdesh Kumar was taken in a colourless solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of the colourless solution changed to pink. This pink coloured solution was put in two clean glass bottles, the mouth of the CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 5 of 89 bottles was closed with the help of plastic lids and tied with the help of thread and cloth and was stamped with seal of VK and the bottles were marked Exhibit LHW-I and LHW-II.

12. After this, Insp. Deveshwari took wash of the left side pocket of the jacket worn by accused ASI Nirdesh Kumar in a colourless solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of the colourless solution changed to pink. This pink coloured solution was put separately in two clean glass bottles, the mouth of the bottles was closed with the help of plastic lids and tied with the help of thread and cloth and was stamped with seal of VK and the bottles were marked Exhibit LPJW-I and LPJW-II. The jacket worn by ASI Nirdesh Kumar was also wrapped in a white cloth and tied with the help of a thread and was stamped with the seal VK and pullinda was given the mark Exhibit Jacket. The signatures of the complainant, Panch Witness and Insp. Deveshwari were put on the pullinda Jacket and the above mentioned four sealed glass bottles were pasted with the signed labels of the complainant, Panch Witness and Insp. Deveshwari and a sample Seal of VK was prepared separately on a paper with the help of lac and ink on which the complainant, Panch Witness and Insp. Deveshwari put their signatures. The above mentioned four exhibit bottles, pullinda jacket and sample seal were taken into police custody as evidence in the form of a report. The complainant, Panch Witness and Insp. Deveshwari put their signatures on the report, while accused ASI Nirdesh Kumar refused to put his signature on the exhibits hand wash, pocket wash and phones, the seal was later handed over to the Panch Witness.

CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 6 of 89

13. After this, Insp. Deveshwari interrogated the Panch Witness Shri Roop Chand, who stated that he participated in the raid as a Panch Witness and that around 05:26 PM, the complainant had called accused ASI Nirdesh Kumar from his mobile phone, to which the complainant Shri Varun Channa stated that ASI Nirdesh Kumar had asked him to reach shortly. After some time, ASI Nirdesh Kumar came to Ali Mor and started talking to the complainant. ASI Nirdesh Kumar asked the complainant for money, upon which the complainant took out the bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- from his right pocket and handed it to ASI Nirdesh Kumar, who held the money in his left hand and placed it in the left pocket of his jacket. He further stated that at about 5:40 PM, he made the designated gesture by moving his right hand twice over his head. Raiding party then swung into action and, upon his advice, apprehended ASI Nirdesh Kumar. The Panch witness attempted to search the accused, but he himself took out the bribe amount of Rs. 5,000 from his left jacket pocket and handed it to the Panch Witness, which he handed over to the IO. The numbers of the bribe notes were compared with the notes already recorded in the raid report, and the numbers of these notes were found to be the same.

14. IO took wash of the left hand and wash of the left side pocket of the jacket of accused ASI Nirdesh Kumar and took the exhibits in the police custody and made a separate report of G.C Notes and IO, the complainant and Insp. Deveshwari signed on the phones. ASI Nirdesh Kumar refused to exhibit hand wash and pocket wash and to sign on the reports. After this Insp. Deveshwari also inquired from the complainant, Mr. Varun CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 7 of 89 Channa who confirmed the statement of the Panch Witness in person. After this Insp. Mohan Singh Sahab was also asked to come to the spot.

15. It has been alleged in the chargeseheet that the accused ASI Nirdesh Kumar has committed crime u/s 7/13 (1)

(d) PC Act and section 384 IPC by demanding and receiving a bribe of Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant. Therefore, a written complaint along with the case was sent to HC Sukhchain No.100/Vig. against accused ASI Nirdesh Kumar. After registering the case, the original complaint and copy of FIR was sent to Insp. Mohan Singh who was present at the spot and investigating.

16. On the basis of the above complaint, a case was registered. During the investigation, Insp. Mohan Singh prepared a map of the spot at the instance of the complainant and the Panch Witness. After this, he interrogated the accused and after collecting the evidence, arrested the accused and prepared the relevant documents on which the complainant and Panch Witness signed.

17. In the subsequent investigation proceedings, Insp. Mohan Singh recorded the statements of the complainant, the Panch Witness and other witnesses u/s 161 Cr.PC and the statement of the complainant Varun Chanana was also recorded u/s 164 Cr.PC.

18. Thereafter, the exhibits (hand wash and jacket wash) seized during the investigation in the case were sent to FSL, CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 8 of 89 Rohini vide ref. No. 58/ACP/VIU dated 21.02.2020 vide R/C No. 11/21/2020, dated 21.02.2020 and after getting the result, the report was filed. In FSL Report No. SFSLDLH/1708/CHEM/ 496/2020 dated 29.05.2020, Dr. Yogesh Chandra Pandey has written that "On chemical and TLC examination, exhibits 'LHW- I' 'LPJW-I', & '3' were found to contain phenolphthalein & sodium carbonate".

19. Thereafter, during investigation, Insp. Mohan Singh received the Call Detail record and CAF of complainant Varun Chanana's mobile No. 99992486647 and accused Nirdesh Kumar's mobile No. 7011771608 from the concerned Nodal officer, which was filed and the Call Detail record of both complainant and accused was analyzed.

20. The duty roster and bio-data of the accused Nirdesh Kumar were obtained from PS Sarita Vihar and were filed. According to the record, ASI Nirdesh Kumar was on duty at an arrangement at Aliya Masjid vide DD No. 11-B, dated 03.01.2020 at 9 AM.

21. During investigation, ACP Mohan Singh (since promoted) obtained and filed a list of cases registered against complainant Varun Chanana from PS Jaitpur and according to the record, three cases were registered against the complainant Varun Chanana under Delhi Excise Act, which were pending in the court although the accused was not the IO in any of the cases.

22. During the course of further investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded u/s 161 CrPC. In the CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 9 of 89 present case, all the relevant documents including copy of office order of Panch Witness, Sh. Roop Chand, copy of log book of Maruti Gypsies used during the raid, Register No. 19, copy of Road Certificate and Case Acceptance Receipt and copy of DD Entries of departure and return of staff and copy of posting order of accused Nirdesh Kumar and Bio-Data of accused Nirdesh Kumar were obtained and the letters were filed and the relevant witnesses were cited as witnesses.

II. Framing of charge:

23. Charge under section 7 PC Act and section 384 IPC was framed against accused Nirdesh Kumar on 20.03.2023 to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

III. Prosecution Evidence:

24. In support of its case, prosecution examined total 19 witnesses.

25. PW-1 - Sh. Varun Channa deposed that around December 2019, HC Babu Lal called him saying that there was a summon against him and asked him to come to Madanpur Khadar to take it. When he went to meet him, HC Babu Lal threatened to implicate him in a false case of illicit liquor and extorted Rs.5,000/- from him to release him from there. He further deposed that he also asked him for giving monthly money to avoid any problem in the future. After the aforesaid incident, he again gave Rs.5,000/- to him in January 2020. On that day, Babu Lal gave him a phone number and asked him to talk on that CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 10 of 89 number and give Rs.5,000/- to that person.

26. He also deposed that after being harassed by continuous demand, he met an advocate in Patiala House Court to draft a complaint for him who asked him to go to Vigilance Department to complain against the police official. He then deposed that he went to the Vigilance office with his complaint and met a lady police officer there, who was an inspector. He stated that he told her everything. She asked him to call on that number given by Babu Lal. He called on that number but it was not picked up and when he called in the evening, it was picked up but he refused to talk to him saying that he did not know him. He again went to that lady inspector and told her about this call who asked him to come on the next day with the demanded money and said that if that person gave any response, she will take suitable action.

27. He further deposed that on the next day i.e. 03.01.2020, Babu Lal called him in the morning and asked him to come at Ali More, Mohan Estate Metro Station, Delhi. He went to the Vigilance Department and told the inspector about this call. She took Rs.5,000/- from him which were in two currency notes of Rs. 2,000/- and two currency notes of Rs.500/-. The inspector put some powder type material on those notes and handed over the notes to him and asked him to wash the hands with water. He also deposed that when he washed his hands the water turned pink. Inspector told him that the person who will take money from him, will have this powder on his hand and when he will wash his hand, the water will turn pink. Then, she CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 11 of 89 handed over the notes to him and took some water with her. Then he, the inspector, and 5-6 persons went to Ali More. When they reached there, they could not find any person for 30-45 minutes. There was a building of CISF probably, where one Assistant Sub Inspector of police was standing. He asked him whether he had come from PS Jaitpur and was sent by Babu Lal. He said that he was from PS Sarita Vihar and when he was talking to him, the Vigilance team came there and apprehended that police official. The lady inspector asked him whether that person took money from him or not to which he said that no, the money was with him. She took the money and said that his work was done and asked him to keep himself aside. The vigilance team took him in one vehicle and that official in another vehicle to the vigilance office. After some time, that lady inspector asked him to write a complaint. The name of the police official was written as ASI Nirdesh in that complaint. She told him that he would not be harassed in future.

28. He then deposed that he was made to sit in the vigilance office till around 11:30 PM and the Insp. took his signature on some documents and chits. She then sent him home and said that he may have to come again after 3-4 days.He also deposed that after 3-4 days, he was asked to come to Rouse Avenue Courts for some statement. That lady inspector showed him a complaint and asked him to give a statement like that and his statement was recorded. He identified his signatures on the hand written complaint Ex.P-1/PW1 and stated that it was the same complaint, which was written by him on the dictation of that lady inspector bearing his signature at point A. The witness CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 12 of 89 was also shown one envelope sealed with the seal of SSL from the judicial file whose seal was intact. The envelope was opened and the statement of witness under section 164 Cr.PC were taken out.

29. Ld. PP for the State had submitted that the witness was not supporting the case of prosecution and thus, prayed to cross-examine the witness which was allowed. In his cross- examination, PW-1 deposed that it was correct that on 03.01.2020 at about 10.30 AM, he had gone to the Office of Vigilance Branch but it was wrong to say that there he had first met ACP (Vigilance). He volunteered that he had met a lady Inspector and her name was Insp. Deveshwari and he had told her about his case. It was wrong that at the first instance, he had given a handwritten complaint. He volunteered that he had given a typed complaint. Later, he had given the handwritten complaint Ex.P1/PW1. He volunteered that it was written after the raid. The said complaint was signed by him and Insp. Deveshwari. It was not signed by Sh. Roop Chand, Panch Witness, in his presence. He stated that it was correct that in the said complaint, he had named ASI Nirdesh. He also volunteered that he had done so as per the instructions of Insp. Deveshwari.

30. PW-1 further stated that it was correct that when he had gone to the Office of Vigilance Branch, he had taken Rs.5,000/- with him. It was correct that they were in denominations of 2 currency notes of Rs. 2,000/- and 2 currency notes of Rs. 500/- and that Insp. Deveshwari had put powder on the four currency notes. He did not remember if its name was CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 13 of 89 phenolphthalein and if Insp. Deveshwari had done demonstration of the hands of the Panch Witness, Sh Roop Chand, turning pink before him. He volunteered that his hands had turned pink after he had touched the currency notes and put them in a solution. He could not say if the solution was of sodium carbonate. He also deposed that Insp. Deveshwari had explained to him that the hands of any person, who will touch the currency notes, will turn pink, upon being washed in sodium carbonate solution. He deposed that it was correct that after the demonstration, Insp. Deveshwari had given the four currency notes to him and that he had kept the currency notes in his pant pocket. He did not remember if it was left side or right side. He stated that it was wrong to say that Insp. Deveshwari had instructed him to keep the Panch Witness, Sh. Roop Chand around him so that he was able to hear the conversation he was going to have with the suspect officer. It was correct that Insp. Deveshwari had instructed him to pay the bribe money, only on demand and not otherwise. He denied the suggestion that in his presence, Insp. Deveshwari had briefed/instructed the Panch Witness, Sh. Roop Chand, in any manner. He did not know if Insp. Deveshwari had instructed the Panch Witness, Sh. Roop Chand to waive his right hand over his head, in order to signal the completion of the bribe transaction. He volunteered that she had instructed him to do so.

31. PW-1 also deposed that it was correct that after the demonstration, Insp. Deveshwari had handed over the remaining phenolphthalein powder to a police official and he did not know about the designation of the said police official. He volunteered CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 14 of 89 that Insp. Deveshwari had kept the pink solution of his hands, in her bag.

32. He deposed that he could not specify the exact time but somewhere around 4-5 PM, he alongwith Panch Witness, Sh. Roop Chand, Insp. Deveshwari and other police officials had gone to Ali Mor, Mohan Estate Metro Station, Delhi in a government vehicle. He denied the suggestion that at about 05.26 PM, he had called the accused ASI Nirdesh on mobile number 7011771608 from his mobile number 9992486647. He also volunteered that he was using the mobile number 9992486647. He had made the call to a mobile number which he did not recollect, at the instance of HC Babu Lal. HC Babu Lal did not tell him the name of the person who would receive the call. He had simply told him to pay the money to the said person. He denied the suggestion that the person he had spoken to, had told him that he was about to reach Ali Mor and that thereafter, the accused, ASI Nirdesh Kumar had come to him and asked for the bribe money of Rs.5,000/-.

33. The witness was shown point X to X1 of his statement u/s 161 of CrPC, 1973, Mark-P1 after which he stated that none of the said proceedings had happened in his presence. He identified his signatures X1 to X4 on the raid report, Mark P2 and also, his signatures on the seizure memos, Mark P3 to P6 at point X. He further deposed that he could not say if the accused was arrested by Insp. Deveshwari in this case on 03.01.2020. He also stated that the person arrested by Insp. Deveshwari was wearing a muffler and he had not seen his face. He identified his CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 15 of 89 signatures at point X on the arrest memo, Mark P7 and personal search memo, Mark P8. Then, he was shown point X2 to X3 of his statement u/s 161 of Cr.P.C., 1973, Mark P1 to which he stated that none of the said proceedings had happened in his presence. He volunteered that they had left for the Office of Vigilance Branch immediately from Ali Mor and he was permitted to leave by 11.30 PM.

34. PW-1 also deposed that the numbers of the four currency notes taken from him were noted and that it was wrong to say that after the bribe transaction, they were tallied. He volunteered that the currency notes were taken back from him only. He further deposed that it was correct that he had three cases against him, registered at PS Jaitpur and he did not remember the details viz. FIR No. etc. He did not know if the accused was ever associated with PS Jaitpur and he stated that it was correct that the name of his grandmother was Smt. Kamla Devi and also that the mobile number 9992486647 was registered in her name and was being used by him. He verified the photograph of his grandmother at point X on the application form Ex.P3/PW-2. He stated that it was correct that he had made a number of calls from 9992486647 to 7011771608 but could not confirm if it was done between 26.12.2019 to 03.01.2020. He had asked the person taking the call on 7011771608 about his name but he had not disclosed it. It was correct that on 03.01.2020, he had made four calls from 9992486647 to 7011771608 but he could not tell the exact timings of the said calls.

CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 16 of 89

35. He was shown four transparent containers exhibited as LHW-I, LHW-II, LPJW-I and LPJW-II, duly sealed with the seal of VK and the seal of FSL, respectively which were found containing pink liquid. He stated that the said bottles were wrapped with papers which bear his signatures. The bottles were Ex.A1 to A4.

36. During evidence, PW-1 was shown one sealed envelope, sealed with the seal of FSL. Upon opening/cutting, it was found to contain a pullanda, which in turn, contained a jacket of Delhi Police with the name plate of ASI Nirdesh Kumar and he stated that the pullanda bear his signatures at point X. The jacket was Ex.A5. He stated that it was wrong to suggest that the aforesaid case property was sealed in his presence. He volunteered that he was made to sign chits.

37. He did not identify the two currency notes of Rs.2000/- and two currency notes of Rs.500/- that were shown to him. He deposed that it was wrong to suggest that he knew that the accused was earlier posted in PS Jaitpur and he had knowledge about the Excise Cases against him, in which HC Babu Ram, HC Ram Kesh and HC Ram Avtar were the IOs and that the accused was asking money/bribe from him, for settling the matters and also threatening him that if bribe money was not given to him, he would file false cases against him. Further, he stated that it was wrong to suggest that he was deliberately not disclosing the true facts of this case, recoveries effected from the possession of the accused, arrest of the accused and other facts, as he had been won over by him. He denied the suggestion that CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 17 of 89 he was deliberately not identifying the accused in the Court, in order to save him, after arriving into a compromise/consultation with him and that he had deposed falsely in this Court. The witness was asked to identity his signature on the same. The witness stated that this was the same statement, which he gave in the Court. He stated that it bears his signature at point-A on each page. The same was Ex. P-2/PW1. He was asked to identify the accused in the Court that day to which he stated that he could not identify the accused/the person, who was apprehended by the vigilance as he stated above. He volunteered that he was wearing cap and muffler at the time when he was apprehended. He stated that he did not remember anything else regarding this case.

38. PW-2 - Pawan Singh deposed that he was working as Nodal Officer with Vodafone Idea Ltd. A-26/5, Mohan Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi. He had brought the record pertaining to mobile No. 9992486647 for the period 21.12.2019 to 03.01.2020 on that day. He had also brought the Customer Application Form pertaining to the above said mobile number. As per the record, this mobile connection was issued in the name of Kamla Devi W/o Mohan Lal R/o 341/11, K.D. Nagar, Gannuar, Sonipat, Haryana. The certified copy of computer generated EKYC Application Form of a prepaid customer Kamla Devi was Ex. P-3/PW-2 bearing initials of Saurabh Aggarwal at point A, who was the Nodal Officer at that time and stamp of the company at point B. He could identity his signature as he had worked with him in the company. He further deposed that the certificate under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act issued by Mr. Saurabh Aggarwal bearing his signature at point A and CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 18 of 89 stamp of the company at point B was Ex. P-4/PW2.

39. He also deposed that he had also brought the Call Detail Record of the aforesaid mobile phone bearing the stamp of the company at point A and initial of Saurabh Aggarwal at point B was Ex. P-5/PW2 (Colly 21-pages). He also deposed that Mr. Saurabh Aggarwal had left the company then and his whereabouts were not known.

40. PW-3 - ASI Naresh Kumar deposed that on 15.02.2022, he was posted as Legal Officer, Vigilance at PS Vigilance Branch Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. On that day, he had handed over the attested copy of Log Book to IO Amleshwar Rai, who took the same into possession vide seizure memo Ex. P-6/PW3 bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that on that day, he had brought the Log Book register. The attested copy of the Log Book of vehicle bearing registration No. DL 1CJ 5549 was Ex. P-7/PW3 (OSR) bearing his signature at point A. The attested copy of the Log Book of vehicle bearing registration No. DL 1CS 9952 was Ex.P-8/PW3 (OSR) bearing his signature at point A.

41. PW-4 - HC Pawan Kumar Bhati deposed that on 21.02.2020, he was posted as constable at PS Vigilance Branch. He further deposed that on that day, on the directions of the IO, he obtained the case property from MHC(M) vide attested copy of RC no. 11/21/2020 dated 21.02.2020, which was Ex.P-9/PW-4 bearing his signature at point A and went to FSL Rohini where he deposited the said case property. He also obtained an CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 19 of 89 acknowledgment of acceptance receipt, which was Ex.P-10/PW- 4 bearing his signature at point A and came back to Vigilance Office and handed over the same to MHC (M). He also deposed that during the period, the sealed case property was in his possession and the same was not tampered with. He also deposed that the IO of this case recorded his statement in this regard.

42. PW-5 - Sh. Yogesh Chander Pandey deposed that he was posted at FSL Rohini since 2017 and on 21.02.2020, FSL had received three parcels. He stated that two parcels had glass bottles containing wash and the third parcel had a jacket. All the parcels were duly sealed with the intact seal of VK. The first parcel was marked as Ex. LHW-I containing a dark pink colour liquid of volume approx. 100 ml. The second parcel was marked as Ex. LPJW-I containing dark pink colour liquid of volume approx.110 ml. The third parcel was marked as Ex. Jacket and it was found to contain one greenish brown colour Delhi Police Uniform Jacket having a metallic badge of Nirdesh Kumar, Assistant Sub Inspector alongwith a small bottle containing yellowish fragrance liquid.

43. He further deposed that on 11.05.2020, he opened and analyzed the aforesaid exhibits and prepared his report on 29.05.2020. He also deposed that on Chemical and TLC examinations, exhibits 'LHW-I', LPJW-I' & '3' (Exhibit Jacket) were found to contain 'Phenolphthalein' and 'Sodium Carbonate'. After the examination, the remnants of the exhibits were sealed with the seal of 'YCP FSL DELHI', whose impression were given in his report Ex.P11/PW5 bearing his CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 20 of 89 signatures at point A. The witness identified his signatures on the containers, Ex.A1 and Ex.A3, the pullanda containing the jacket as well as the jacket Ex.A5 at point Y.

44. PW-6 - Sh. Roop Chand deposed that in the year 2020, he was working as Head Assistant in Health Department of NDMC. On 03.01.2020 at about 10.00 AM, he received a letter from his department. In pursuance of the said letter, he had gone to the Office of Deputy Commissioner, Vigilance at Minto Road and reached there at about 11.00 AM. He had shown the letter received from his department there and met the officials. The officials had informed him that they have a complainant and he would have to do duty along with the accused. He met one official named Mor who was from Haryana. The said official had called the complainant and recorded his complaint in his presence.

45. The witness identified his signature at Point B on the complaint Ex. P1/PW-1 and stated that this was the complaint which was given by the complainant. He deposed that he was briefed at the aforesaid office during which, he was shown four currency notes viz. two currency notes of Rs.2000/- and two currency notes of Rs.500/-. The official had put some powder on the said currency notes and demonstrated to him that the hands of any person touching the notes will turn pink, upon being put in a solution. The demonstration was done by using his right hand. The powder had an English name, 'phelathine'. He did not remember the exact name. He stated that the solution was sodium something. It was of white colour. He did not remember the CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 21 of 89 exact name. He was also briefed that he had to stay with the complainant, hear his conversation and give a signal when the money transaction got completed. He had to wave his right hand twice over his head to give the signal.

46. He also deposed that after the aforesaid briefing, at about 04.20 PM, he along with the complainant and the team comprising of Insp. Deveshwari had left for a place known as Ali Mor in a Maruti Van. Upon reaching Ali Mor, the complainant had made a call. After some time, the accused had come to the spot at about 05.15-05.30 PM. When the accused had come to the spot, the complainant had introduced him to the accused by saying that he was a relative of the complainant and henceforth, he would do the business of liquor. Thereafter, an argument took place between him, the complainant and the accused during which he had said that why should he do the business of liquor without any backing of a third person. The accused said, "kuch karoge bhi ya khali juban kharch karne aye ho".

47. He could not say with certainty that the accused who had come to the spot at about 05.15 PM to 05.30 PM, was present in Court on that day. He volunteered that he had not got a good look on 03.01.2020 as the said person was in full uniform and wearing a muffler. Also, after suffering from Covid in November 2020, he had lost his ability to duly identify people.

48. He also deposed that after the aforesaid statement, the accused and the complainant had stepped slightly away from him, in a manner where the back of the complainant was towards CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 22 of 89 him and the accused was right in front of the complainant. In this arrangement, he had seen the complainant take out the bribe money from his right side pant pocket but had not seen the accused taking it. On the signal of the complainant that the bribe had been paid, he had twice waved his right hand over his head and signaled the police officers including Insp. Deveshwari. He further deposed that thereafter, the accused had started shouting and abusing. As a result, Insp. Deveshwari had instructed him to not create a scene at the spot and co-operate with the investigation. Since the accused police officer had not co- operated, Insp. Deveshwari had told him to sit in another car and while sitting in the car, he had seen the accused police officer taking out the bribe money from his jacket and handing it over to Insp. Deveshwari.

49. He also deposed that after that, the proceedings of washing the hand of the accused police officer etc. had been done at the spot, in about 30 minutes. He could not give detailed testimony regarding the proceedings of washing of the hand of the accused because at the time, he was terrified and sitting in the car. It was his apprehension that the accused police officer, who had a revolver could do anything. After the proceedings at the spot, all of them, including the accused police officer had left at about 07.00 PM in two cars. He was in a different car and the accused police officer was in another car. Due to traffic jam, it had taken them 2-2.5 hours to reach the office at Minto Road. PW-6 identified his signatures on the papers prepared at the office at Minto Road and stated that no paper work was done at Ali Mor as it had gone dark. He also deposed that the entire CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 23 of 89 proceedings had ended at about 12.30 AM and he reached his house by 02.00 AM.

50. He verified his signatures on the raid report Mark P2 at point Y1 to Y4; on all the seizure memos Mark P3 to P6 at point Y; on the arrest memo Mark P7; personal search memo Mark P8 at point Y; on the containers Ex.A1 to A4 wrapped with papers; and on the pullinda as well as the jacket Ex.A5 at point Y. The witness was shown the currency notes used during the raid and after seeing the currency notes of Rs.2000/- and two currency notes of Rs.500/-, he could not say if they were the same currency notes that were used by the complainant, on 03.01.2020.

51. PW-7 - Sh. Praveen Kumar deposed that he had been working as Alternate Nodal Officer at Reliance Jio Infocom Ltd. since 2018. He further deposed that in response to notice u/s 92 of Cr.PC, 1973 dated 21.02.2022, Mark P9/PW-7, received vide e-mail dated 23.02.2022, Mark P-10/PW-7, he had sent the reply dated 07.04.2022, Ex.P16/PW-7, informing that the Call Data Record of the mobile number 7011771608 for the period 21.12.2019 to 03.01.2020 was no longer available due to lapse of time. He also deposed that he had sent the CAF Form of the said mobile number along with certificate u/s 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872. He deposed that the mobile number 7011771608 was in the name of Sh. Rajveer Singh S/o. D.R.Singh. The CAF Form was Ex.P17/PW-7 and the certificate u/s 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 was Ex.P18/PW-7. Both the said documents bear his signatures and the official seal at point X. CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 24 of 89

52. PW-8 - Sh. Rajveer Singh deposed that his Aadhar card was Ex.P19/PW8(OSR). He stated that he did not remember his mobile number involved in this case. He was called by Vigilance 3-3.5 years back. He further deposed that he had gone there and upon being asked about his mobile number involved in this case, he had told the police officials of Vigilance that the mobile number was being used by the accused, Nirdesh Kumar (present in Court today and correctly identified by the witness), who was the beat officer of his area, posted at PS Kalindi Kunj. His area fell under PS Jaitpur at that time. He had taken the mobile number by using his ID. He stated that he did not remember anything else.

53. He was questioned by the court if he could identify his photograph on the Customer Application Form, Ex.P17/PW7 to which he answered in affirmative.

54. PW-9 - Insp. Deveshwari Rauthan deposed that on 03.01.2020, she was posted as Insp. at PS Vigilance Branch, Barakhamba Road, Delhi. On that day, she was called by the ACP/VIU in his room who had handed her over the complaint, Ex.P1/PW1 of Sh. Varun and told her that Sh. Varun has a complaint against ASI Nirdesh Kumar. Also, the ACP/VIU had told her that she had to do the raid against ASI Nirdesh Kumar. At that time, the panch witness, Sh. Roop Chand was present in the room of the ACP/VIU. She further deposed that she had taken the complainant, Sh. Varun, the panch witness, Sh. Roop Chand and few constables to her room. In her room, the CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 25 of 89 complainant, Sh. Varun had told her that ASI Nirdesh Kumar had demanded Rs.5,000/- from her and on the same day, ASI Nirdesh Kumar would come to collect the said money. In her room, she had attested the complaint, Ex.P1/PW1 at point C.

55. She further deposed that by using the raid kit, she had applied a powder on the currency notes brought by the complainant, Sh. Varun. She did not remember the exact quantum of money that was brought by the complainant, Sh. Varun. But it was perhaps Rs.5000/-. She did not remember what was the denomination of the currency notes that were brought by the complainant, Sh Varun and she also did not remember the name of the powder. After applying the powder on the currency notes brought by the complainant, Sh Varun, she had shown to him that finger prints get noted down. Again said, she had not told him about finger prints. She deposed that she had told him that any person who touches the currency notes laced with the powder, his hands would turn pink when washed in water. She did not remember if she had done the demonstration of the powder on the hands of the complainant, Sh. Varun or the hands of the panch witness, Sh. Roop Chand. After the demonstration, the pink water had been thrown away and the powder laced currency notes had been given to the complainant, Sh. Varun with the instruction that they should be paid to ASI Nirdesh Kumar upon demand.

56. She also deposed that she had briefed the panch witness, Sh. Roop Chand and told him that he should stay with the complainant, Sh. Varun and hear the conversation happening CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 26 of 89 with ASI Nirdesh Kumar at the time of actual raid. Also, she had told the panch witness, Sh. Roop Chand that once the bribe money is paid, he should waive his hands over his head. She then deposed that the raiding team comprising of her, the complainant, Sh. Varun, the panch witness, Sh. Roop Chand and few other police officials, one of whom was a driver, had left for the raid at Ali Mor around 04-04:30 PM.

57. Upon getting questioned by the court that if before leaving for the raid, she had prepared any documents, she replied that she did not remember. She then deposed that one Insp. Mohan Singh had also accompanied them for doing the investigation, in case the raid succeeds. She did not remember if he had left in the vehicle in which she and other members of the raiding team had left. She remembered that two vehicles had gone for the raid. Upon reaching near Ali Mor in about one hour, the vehicle in which she and the other members of the raiding team had left, was stopped in a gali. There, the complainant, Sh. Varun had told her that he would telephonically call ASI Nirdesh Kumar. After the said call, which had been made in her presence, the complainant, Sh. Varun had told her that ASI Nirdesh Kumar would come at the nearby bus stand. Then, she told the complainant, Sh. Varun, the panch witness, Sh. Roop Chand and 1-2 constables to go to the bus stand.

58. A court question was put to PW-9 asking where she was when they had left for the bus stand to which she answered that she had remained at the spot and was seeing them going towards the bus stand.

CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 27 of 89

59. Thereafter, she deposed that after about 10-15 minutes, ASI Nirdesh Kumar had come to the bus stand and from a distance of 50-60 steps, she had seen the complainant, Sh. Varun talk to the accused, ASI Nirdesh Kumar. She further deposed that the complainant, Sh. Varun had given a typed complaint to the ACP/VIU and upon being told by her, he had written down his version in the complaint, Ex.P1/PW1. She volunteered that she was not so sure about this. After seeing the signal of the panch witness, Sh. Roop Chand of waiving of his hands, she had gone to the exact spot where the complainant, Sh. Varun and the accused, ASI Nirdesh Kumar were talking. At that spot, the panch witness, Sh. Roop Chand had told her that the accused, ASI Nirdesh Kumar had demanded money from the complainant, Sh. Varun and the complainant, Sh. Varun had paid the money to the accused, ASI Nirdesh Kumar. Also, the panch witness, Sh. Roop Chand had told her that the accused, ASI Nirdesh Kumar had kept the money in the pocket of his jacket.

60. She also deposed that she had introduced herself to the accused and told him about the allegation against him and that she would be doing the further proceedings against him. Since, a lot of people had gathered at the spot, she had taken the raiding team and the accused to compound of an office of DMRC, located next to the spot (5-6 steps away). Inside the said compound, the powder laced currency notes were recovered from the accused.

CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 28 of 89

61. She was questioned by the court about who had recovered the money to which she replied that she did not remember correctly but it was either that the accused, ASI Nirdesh Kumar had handed over the money or the panch witness or one of the constables had taken out the money from the pocket of the accused.

62. She then deposed that she had taken the wash of the hands of the accused, ASI Nirdesh Kumar in water and the said water had turned pink. She had put the hands of the accused, ASI Nirdesh Kumar in a mug containing water and the said water had turned pink. Then, she had dipped the pocket of the jacket of the accused, ASI Nirdesh Kumar in a separate mug of water and the said water had also turned pink. She did not remember which side pocket it was. She deposed that she had seized the wash of the hands of the accused, ASI Nirdesh Kumar and the wash of the pocket of the jacket of the accused, ASI Nirdesh Kumar in separate bottles and then seized the said bottles. She had also seized the jacket of the accused, ASI Nirdesh Kumar and the currency notes recovered from the accused, ASI Nirdesh Kumar.

63. The witness identified her signatures on the seizure memo of the bottles of hand wash Ex.P20/PW9 of the accused at point Z; on the seizure memo of the jacket Ex.P21/PW9 of the accused, ASI Nirdesh Kumar at point Z; on the seizure memo of the bottles of the pocket wash of the jacket Ex.P22/PW9 of the accused at point Z; on the seizure memo of the currency notes Ex.P23/PW9 at point Z. CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 29 of 89

64. She then deposed that she had prepared the tehrir for registration of the FIR of this case and sent it through a constable, for registration of the FIR of this case at PS Vigilance, Barakhamba Road, Delhi. The witness was shown the tehrir Ex.P24/PW9, possibly prepared by her, on 03.01.2020, available at page 20 of the charge-sheet. She stated that this is the tehrir, she had prepared on 03.01.2020 and sent for registration of an FIR at PS Vigilance, Barakhamba Road. It bears her signatures at point A.

65. She further deposed that thereafter, Insp. Mohan Singh had come to the compound of the office of DMRC, upon being called by her or some other member of the raiding team. Upon his arrival, she had handed over to him, the custody of the accused, ASI Nirdesh Kumar. The subsequent proceedings were done by him. She remembered helping him in preparing a site plan. Thereafter, she had left the spot. Either her or some other member of the raiding team had deposited the case properties in the malkhana of PS Vigilance, Barakhamba Road. She stated that she could identify the case properties if shown to her.

66. The witness was shown the four bottles, already Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 and she stated that these were the four bottles which she had prepared on 03.01.2020 and they bear her signatures at point X. The witness was also shown an envelope, sealed with the seal of Sh. Vikas Dhull, the then Ld. Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-23, on 04.09.2023. Upon opening the said envelope it was found to contain a pullinda, which in turn CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 30 of 89 contained a jacket of Delhi Police with the name plate of ASI Nirdesh Kumar Ex.A5. This was the jacket she had seized on 03.01.2020 vide the seizure memo, Ex.P21/PW9. She stated that the white pullinda Ex.A6 containing the jacket bears her signatures at point Z.

67. She was then shown an unsealed envelope, found to be containing two currency notes of Rs.2000/- and two currency notes of Rs.500/- Ex.A7(colly). She stated that she could identify the said currency notes to have been recovered from the accused, ASI Nirdesh, on 03.01.2020 and seized vide seizure memo Ex.P23/PW9.

68. After seeing the site plan Mark P11, she stated that this is the site plan qua which she had assisted Inspector Mohan Singh.

69. PW-10 - SI Sukhchain deposed that on 03.01.2020, he was posted at PS Vigilance Branch as Head Constable. On that day, he joined the raiding party in this case with raiding in- charge Insp. Deveshwari. At about 8/8:30 PM, Insp. Deveshwari prepared the rukka and handed it over to him for registration of FIR at PS Vigilance Barakhamba Road. He further deposed that he reached PS Vigilance at about 9:45 PM and handed over the original rukka to the Duty Officer on which the present case FIR No. 01/2020 was registered. The further investigation was assigned to Insp. Mohan Singh. He stated that his statement was recorded by IO Insp. Mohan Singh.

CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 31 of 89

70. PW-11 - ACP Mohan Singh Rawat deposed that on 03.01.2020, he was posted as Insp. at PS Vigilance, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. On that day, at about 4:00 PM, Insp. Deveshwari informed him that at PS Vigilance one police personnel namely, ASI Nirdesh Kumar had demanded bribe money from complainant Sh. Varun Chanana. Insp. Deveshwari further informed him that panch witness Sh. Roop Chand had also come and that a raid has to be carried out and a raiding team was to be constituted after preparing the pre-raid report. The raiding team consisted of Insp. Deveshwari, ASI Narender, HC Sukhchain Singh Raj, HC Sohan Singh, driver Ct. Ajit, ASI Amardeep, panch witness and complainant. Insp. Deveshwari requested him to join the raiding team and asked him to carry out further investigation if the raid is successful.

71. He further deposed that they left PS Vigilance between 4:15 and 4:20 PM in two police vehicles for the spot and reached at about 5:10 PM at Ali More, Near Mohan Estate Metro Station, Delhi. The government vehicles were parked at a small distance from the park. He was left with driver ASI Amardeep in police vehicle gypsy no. 9952. Insp. Deveshwari, the raiding team incharge, briefed the staff, complainant and panch witness. The raiding team and Insp. Deveshwari took position at Ali Mor, Near Mohan Estate Metro Station, Delhi. Before taking position, Insp. Deveshwari told him that she will call him if the raid was successful. He remained in his vehicle along with driver ASI Amardeep. He also deposed that at about 8:15/8:30 PM, he was called by Insp. Deveshwari to the spot and when he reached the spot, he met Insp. Deveshwari, complainant CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 32 of 89 Sh. Varun Chanana, panch witness Sh. Roop Chand, accused ASI Nirdesh and other remaining raiding team member inside DMRC Office Compound which was adjacent to the place of occurrence i.e. Ali Mor, Near Mohan Estate Metro Station, Delhi. Insp. Deveshwari informed that the raid had been successful and that the accused had been apprehended while demanding and accepting Rs.5,000/- as bribe money from the complainant in the presence of the panch witness and Rs.5,000/- had been recovered from accused ASI Nirdesh Kumar.

72. Insp. Deveshwari handed over the case properties as per the seizure memo and sealed with the seal of VK i.e. two sealed glass bottles of left hand wash and two sealed glass bottles of left side pocket wash of jacket, pullanda containing jacket (worn by accused ASI Nirdesh Kumar at the time of incident). She also handed over a sample seal of VK. Insp. Deveshwari handed over the envelope containing currency notes of Rs. 5,000/-. He did not remember whether the said envelope was sealed or not.

73. He then deposed that Insp. Deveshwari handed over to him the custody of accused ASI Nirdesh Kumar. HC Sohan Singh who had the official weapon 9 mm pistol issued to accused alongwith 10 live rounds, PS Sarita Vihar, which was recovered during the raid from accused was continuously kept in the safe custody of HC Sohan Singh for its deposit in the Malkhana. Insp. Deveshwari prepared a rukka for registration of this case and handed over the rukka to HC Sukhchain, who took the rukka to the police station.

CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 33 of 89

74. He also deposed that he prepared the site plan at the instance of Insp. Deveshwari, complainant and panch witness. The site plan was Ex.P30/PW11 bearing his signatures at point A. He made inquires from the accused and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.P31/PW11 bearing his signatures at point Z and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.P32/PW11 bearing his signatures at point Z. The aforesaid 9 mm pistol and 10 live rounds already recovered in cursory search of accused was also shown in the personal search memo at that time.

75. Thereafter, he along with Insp. Deveshwari, complainant, panch witness, accused and other raiding team members alongwith case properties and documents departed from the place of occurrence and reached the office of PS Vigilance, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, where he obtained the FIR number 01/2020 and filled the FIR number on all above mentioned documents. He also collected the original rukka. Thereafter, all case properties were handed over to the Incharge, Malkhana Moharer, PS Vigilance alongwith 9 mm pistol and 10 live rounds. Accused was medically examined. He deposed that he made inquires from the complainant Varun Chanana and panch witness Sh. Roop Chand and recorded their statements. Accused was lodged in lockup and he recorded the statement of raiding team staff, HC Sukhchain, Duty Officer ASI Ten Singh, HC Rakesh Kumar, MHC(M) PS Vigilance and HC Sohan Singh. He also collected certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act from Duty Officer ASI Ten Singh.

CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 34 of 89

76. On the next day, accused was produced in the concerned Court after his medical examination with a request of one day's PC remand, on which he was remanded to JC. FIR No. 01/2020 dated 03.01.2020 PS Vigilance was marked as Mark P-13/PW11. The certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act of correctness of the FIR, was Mark P-14/PW11. The DD No.1A PS Vigilance Branch dated 04.01.2020 made by him on arrival at PS Vigilance after the arrest of accused ASI Nirdesh Kumar, deposit of the case property with the MHC(M), medical examination of the accused, and after keeping the accused in lockup, DD No. 1A was Ex.P33/PW11 bearing his signatures at point A.

77. He then deposed that he gave notice under section 91 Cr.PC to SHO PS Sarita Vihar to provide the details pertaining to the accused and to SHO PS Jaitpur to provide the details pertaining to cases registered against complainant Varun Chanana in PS Jaitpur till date with relevant details. He also deposed that on 08.01.2020, accused was granted bail by the Hon'ble Court. He moved application before the Court to record the statement of complainant Sh. Varun Chanana under section 164 of Cr.PC and for a copy of the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.PC, which was Ex.P34/PW11 bearing his signatures at point A. The statement under section 164 Cr.PC of the complainant Sh. Varun Chanana already Ex.P2/PW1 was recorded by Ld. ACMM and he identified complainant Sh. Varun Chanana. The proceedings of recording the statement under Section 164 Cr.PC of complainant Varun Chanana dated 08.01.2020 was Ex.P35/PW11 bearing his signatures at point A. CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 35 of 89 After the recording, a copy of the statement under section164 Cr.PC of the complainant was obtained.

78. He further deposed that he also made a request to obtain the online detail of CAF and CDR of the mobile number of complainant Varun Chanana. The last four digits of his mobile phone number are 6647 IDEA/Vodafone. He also made a request to obtain online detail of CAF and CDR of accused. The last four digits of his mobile phone number are 1608/Reliance/Jio. Applications were also moved addressed to the concerned Nodal Officers to provide certified copies under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act for CDR, CAF and Cell IDs of the aforesaid mobile numbers.

79. The letter dated 06.03.2020 written to SHO PS Sarita Vihar for details of accused ASI Nirdesh Kumar was Ex.P36/PW11 bearing his signatures at point A. The letter dated 06.03.2020 written to SHO PS Jaitpur for the cases registered against Varun Chanana @ Jatta with the names of the IOs and the present status of the case, date of filing of charge-sheet and decision of any case was now Ex.P37/PW11 bearing his signatures at point A. Reply was received from PS Jaitpur at PS Vigilance on 06.05.2020 showing details of the cases and other details asked for, which was Ex.P14. Reply was received from PS Sarita Vihar at PS Vigilance on 13.03.2020 showing the details of accused relevant to this case, which was Ex.P38/PW11.

80. Copy of the request letter dated 21.01.2020 given to Nodal Officer IDEA/Vodafone for details of the mobile phone, CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 36 of 89 of which the last four digits were 6647, of complainant Varun Chanana was Mark P-15/PW11 bearing his signatures at point A. Request letter dated 21.01.2020 given to Nodal Officer Reliance/Jio for details of the mobile phone, of which the last four digits were 1608, of accused was Ex.P39/PW11 bearing his signatures at point A. The reply of online request regarding CAF of mobile phone of complainant and accused revealed that the mobile number of accused issued in the name of Rajveer Singh and the mobile phone of complainant Varun Chanana was issued in the name of Kamla Devi (his grand mother).

81. He then deposed that on 21.02.2020, the exhibits of the present case along with sample seal were sent to FSL, Rohini vide Road certificate No. 11/21/2020 through Ct. Pawan Bhati, who after depositing the same handed over the receipt to the MHC(M). He pointed out from the judicial file that Road Certificate No. 11/21/2020 and the acknowledgment of case acceptance were Ex.P9/PW4 and Ex.P10/PW4 respectively. Copy of the forwarding letter dated 21.02.2020 was Mark P-16/PW11. Copies of the register No. 19 consisting of details of the deposit of case property and dispatch of the case properties to the FSL was Mark P-17/PW11. He recorded statements of MHC(M) HC Rakesh Kumr and Ct. Pawan Bhati under section 161 Cr.PC.

82. On 24.02.2020, he recorded the statement of Rajveer Singh in whose name the phone number, of which the last four digits were 1608, was issued and used by accused. During the course of investigation, the CDRs of the phone number used by CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 37 of 89 the complainant and accused ASI Nirdesh Kumar were obtained. The Call Detail Record, CAF and certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act for correctness of record of the mobile phone of complainant Varun Chanana were Ex.P5/PW2, Ex.P3/PW2 and Ex.P4/PW2 respectively. The CAF and Certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act of the correctness of record of mobile phone of accused were Ex.P17/PW7 and Ex.P16/PW7 respectively. The CDR of the mobile phone, of which the last four digit were 1608 of accused was Mark-P18/PW11.

83. He then deposed that during the course of investigation, in the first week of February 2020, he was promoted to the post of ACP from Inspector. In July, 2020, he was transferred to Special Branch and he handed over the case file to MHC(R). He stated that he could identify the currency notes, if shown to him, which was the bribe money of Rs.5000/- consisting of two currency notes of Rs.2000/- and two currency notes of Rs.500/-, which were matched by him with the raid report when Insp. Deveshwari handed over the same to him.

84. When two currency notes of Rs.2,000/- each having distinctive numbers 9BH617765 & 4CC757455 and two currency notes of Rs.500/- each having distinctive numbers 4DA766656 & 4FE277118 were shown to him, he had identified the currency notes as being the bribe money handed over to him by Inspector Deveshwari which were recovered from accused ASI Nirdesh Kumar. The aforesaid currency notes were Ex.A7/PW9 (Colly).

CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 38 of 89

85. PW-12 - ACP Rakesh Kumar Sharma deposed that on 19.11.2020, he was posted at PS Vigilance as Inspector. On that day, he carried out further investigation in this case. He examined the case file on 16.12.2020. The FSL result dated 29.05.2020 Ex.P11/PW5 which had already been received from FSL was placed on the file. He understood that Smt. Kamla Devi to whom SIM of mobile number 9992486647 which was used by the complainant, was found issued as per CAF. He further deposed that he made efforts to contact the complainant on the given mobile number to record the statement of Smt. Kamla Devi, grand mother of the complainant but the same could not be recorded.

86. He also deposed that on 01.09.2021, he prepared the draft charge-sheet pending sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988. Thereafter, he was transferred on 12.10.2021 from PS Vigilance to SHO Sarita Vihar and he handed over the case file to MHC(R).

87. PW-13 - ASI Kuldeep Singh deposed that in the year 2022, he was posted at PS Vigilance, Barakhamba Road. On 15.02.2022, ASI Naresh was looking after the work of Line Officer Vigilance. On that day, IO Insp. Amleshwar Rai came to the office of Vigilance. In his presence, ASI Naresh Kumar produced the copy of log book pertaining to government vehicles bearing no. DL1CJ5549, Maruti Gyspy and DL1CS9952, Maruti Gyspy for the movement of vehicles dated 03.01.2020. IO seized the same vide memo Ex. P6/PW3 bearing his signatures at point CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 39 of 89 B. The attested copy of the said log books were Ex. P7/PW3 and P8/PW3. He further deposed that IO Insp. Amleshwar Rai had directed him to visit Gannaur, District Sonipat Haryana for recording of statement of Smt. Kamla Devi W/o Late Sh. Mohan Lal and on his instructions, he went there on 29.03.2022 and recorded the statement of Smt. Kamla Devi.

88. PW-14 - Retd. SI Ten Singh deposed that in the year 2020, he was posted at PS Vigilance as ASI. On 03.01.2020, he was working as duty officer from 8:00 PM on 03.01.2020 to 8:00 AM on 04.01.2020. On 03.01.2020, at around 9:45 PM, HC Sukhchain brought a rukka sent by Insp. Deveshwari on the basis of which he registered the present FIR u/S 7/13 P.C. Act and 384 IPC by using the computerized system installed at the police station. Printout of the FIR was Mark-P13/PW11 bearing his signatures at point A. The same was Ex.P40/PW14. After registration of FIR, he gave copy of FIR along with rukka to HC Sukhchain to further handover the same to the person who had sent the rukka. Investigation was assigned to Insp. Mohan Singh. He had issued certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of registration of the FIR, which was Mark- P14/PW11 bearing his signatures at point A and same Ex.P41/PW14.

89. He also deposed that he had also recorded DD no. 7A as kayami DD entry regarding receiving of rukka and registration of the FIR.

90. PW-15 - Retd. Insp. Ajab Singh deposed that he was posted as SHO, PS Sarita Vihar from September 2018 to CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 40 of 89 September 2020 and accused Nirdesh (correctly identified) was posted at PS Sarita Vihar in January 2020. He further deposed that in the present case, a notice u/s 91 Cr.PC was received from ACP Mohan Singh, addressed to SHO PS Sarita Vihar seeking some information and documents pertaining to the accused ASI Nirdesh Kumar. The said notice was Ex.P36/PW11. He further deposed that he provided available requisite information and documents to the IO vide his reply Ex.P38/PW11 bearing his signatures at point A. The documents annexed with the reply were attested copies of the DD no. 11B dated 03.01.2020, attested copy of the Register No. 16 containing the details of ASI Nirdesh and the Duty Roster dated 03.01.2020 of PS Sarita Vihar. Same were Ex.P42/PW15 (colly) (seven sheets). (Original of the abovesaid document i.e. Ex.P42/PW15 were brought by HC Subhash, No. 2906/South East, PS Sarita Vihar.) (OSR)

91. PW-16 - Ms. Anita Roy deposed that in the year 2022, she was posted as DCP Security (Head Quarter) New Delhi. A letter no. 210/ACP/Vigilance dated 12.04.2022 was received in the office with a request to grant prosecution sanction under Section 19 of PC Act against ASI Nirdesh Kumar No. 4579/SEC(PIS No. 28902739) alongwith a draft charge-sheet, statement of witnesses, FSL result, seizure memos, CDRs and other documents.

92. She further deposed that she went through the file and the aforesaid documents annexed to the file. After applying her mind, she being the competent authority to accord sanction against ASI Nirdesh Kumar, accorded sanction under Section 19 CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 41 of 89 of PC Act for his prosecution for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(i)(d) of PC Act. The said sanction was Ex.P-43/PW16 bearing his signatures at point A. The aforesaid sanction was sent to DCP, Vigilance vide her letter no.16687/HAP(P.IV) Security dated 10.11.2022 which was now Ex.P-44/PW-16.

93. PW-17 - Insp. Amleshwar Rai deposed that on 28.01.2022, he was posted as PS Vigilance as Inspector. On that day, the present case file was marked to him for further course of action by DCP. He had perused the file and found that the draft chargesheet had already been prepared. Then, he collected photocopies of log books of the vehicles used in the raid proceedings on 03.01.2020 for corroboration and he prepared seizure memo Ex. P-6/PW-3 bearing his signature at point A and the copies of log books Ex.P-7/PW-3 and Ex.P-8/PW-3 respectively. He then deposed that he collected the panch witness duty order from NDMC vide my notice u/s 91 Cr.PC as Ex.P-45/PW-17 bearing his signature at point A. The copy of the office order dated 02.01.2020 provided by NDMC was Ex. P-15.

94. He further deposed that he sent notice u/s 92 Cr.PC through DCP concerned via official mail of DCP to Jio Reliance Ltd. and the same notice was Mark P-9/PW-7 and the copy of mail extract was Mark P-10/PW-7. In response to the above notice, correspondence was received from Jio Reliance Ltd. which was Ex. P-16/PW-7 alongwith certificate u/s 65-B Indian Evidence Act in support of CAF of mobile number 7011771608, which was Ex. P-18/PW-7. The certificate of CAF was Ex. P-17/PW-7.

CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 42 of 89

95. He then deposed that on 29.03.2022, he deputed ASI Kuldeep to go and record the statement of grandmother of complainant namely Smt. Kamla Devi, in whose name mobile no. 9992486647 was registered. ASI Kuldeep visited Gannaur, Haryana and recorded a statement of Smt. Kamla Devi as per his instructions. He placed the said statement of Smt. Kamla Devi on record. He also deposed that he analysed both the abovesaid mobile numbers belonging to the complainant and the accused. Then, he found that on 21.12.2019 till 03.01.2020 there were 20 phone calls and 02 SMS between two numbers. The chart prepared by him in this regard was Mark P-18/PW-11 running into 02 sheets which bears his signature and official seal at Point A on both the sheets.

96. He further deposed that he had also collected posting record and biodata of accused and placed them on record. After completion of investigation, he had applied for obtaining sanction u/s 19 PC Act through ACP concerned which was duly received. Thereafter, he filed the chargesheet before this court.

97. PW-18 - ASI Rakesh deposed that in the year 2017, he was posted at PS Vigilance and later on worked as MHC(M), CP in the year 2020. He stated that he had seen both the register no.19 and 21 and these were the same registers that were maintained at the Malkhana of PS Vigilance in 2020. The relevant entries regarding case FIR No. 01/2020 were made at serial no. 145 of register no. 19 by the then MHC(M). The copy of the relevant entry at serial no. 145 which was Mark P-17/PW-

CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 43 of 89 11 was Ex. P-46/PW-18 (OSR). (Not objected to by the Ld. Defence Counsel regarding mode of proof).

98. He further deposed that on 21.02.2020, the sealed case properties alongwith sample seal were got deposited at FSL, Rohini through Ct. Pawan Kumar vide RC No. 11/21/20. After depositing the same, Ct. Pawan returned back and handed over the acknowledgment of case acceptance alongwith copy of RC to him and he made entry to the said effect on Ex. P-46/PW-18 at Point X bearing his signature at Point A. The acknowledgment of case acceptance was Ex. P-10/PW-4 and copy of RC was Ex. P-9/PW-4.

99. He further deposed that on 21.09.2020, the sealed case properties of the present case along with one sealed envelope with the seal of FSL, Rohini, Delhi was deposited in the present case in the Malkhana of PS Vigilance by Ct. Pawan Kumar and the said entry was at Point Y of Ex. P-46/PW-18.

100. PW-19 - Mr. Satvir Singh Lamba deposed that on 08.01.2020, he was posted as Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-2-Cum ACJ, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi. An application for recording of statement u/s 164 Cr.PC of Sh. Varun Chanana was marked to him being link MM by Ld. CMM/RADC. The witness Varun Chanana was produced before him by IO Insp. Mohan Singh, Vigilance, New Delhi and the witness was duly identified by the IO. After the identification of the witness, he had asked him to leave the chamber and he left accordingly. He asked the witness questions to know whether he CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 44 of 89 was giving his statement voluntarily. After putting the questions to the witness, he was satisfied that he was giving his statement voluntarily and out of his own freedom. After that, he recorded the statement of the witness u/s 164 Cr. PC. The statement was Ex. P-2/PW-1 and bears his signature on each page at Point A. The certificate regarding the true and correct account of his statement was at Point X of Ex. P-2/PW-1.

101. Ld. PP for the State put one question to the witness for clarification of the name of the person whose statement was recorded in the certificate appended to the statement u/s 164 Cr.PC. He asked to clarify that the certificate on the aforesaid statement at Points X1 and X2 bears the name of Gautam as witness whereas the name of the witness was Varun Chanana to which the witness stated that the abovesaid statement recorded by him was of the witness, Varun Chanana S/o Mr. Sunil Chanana, however, it was correct that the name appearing in the certificate at Points X1 and X2 was of Sh. Gautam which seemed to be a typographical error.

IV. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.PC:

102. Upon completion of the prosecution evidence, all incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused were put to him in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused denied the allegations in general and asserted that he had been falsely implicated by the complainant and he had never demanded or accepted any money from the complainant at any point of time. He also submitted that CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 45 of 89 no money was recovered from him and the same was planted. He submitted that all the witnesses had deposed falsely against him.

V. Defence Evidence:

103. Accused Nirdesh Kumar did not lead DE.

VI. Final Arguments:

104. Heard arguments on behalf of the State as well as the accused and perused the record. Ld. Counsel for the accused had also filed written submissions.

VII (a). Submissions on behalf of the State:

105. Ld. Public Prosecutor for the State argued that the prosecution has clearly established the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused. It was submitted that the bribe amount was duly recovered from the possession of the accused, and this recovery, when read in conjunction with the FSL report, which confirmed the presence of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate in the hand wash and pocket wash samples of the accused, conclusively proves the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

VII (b). Submissions on behalf of the accused:

106. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the accused has been charged for the offences punishable u/s 7 P.C. r/w sec. 384 IPC, vide order dated 20.03.2023. He argued that presumption u/s 20 P.C. Act cannot be raised in this case as CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 46 of 89 demand is not proved at all beyond reasonable doubts. He further argued that it is well settled law that all the ingredients of the offence i.e. demand, acceptance and recovery should be proved to bring home the guilt of the accused.

107. Ld. Counsel for the accused also pointed out that even otherwise the prosecution sanction Ex.P-44/PW-16 was invalid as it was accorded by PW-16 Ms. Anita Roy, DCP without application of mind as sanction was accorded u/s 13 (1)

(d) P.C. Act which had been repealed in the amendment of 2018 to P.C. Act and was not applicable to the facts of the present case. He also contended that further, prosecution did not obtain any sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. for prosecution of accused u/s 384 IPC though cognizance u/s 384 IPC was taken and charge was also framed. Ld. Counsel for the accused also argued that even otherwise PW-16 was not competent to accord sanction as per section 19 (2) P.C. Act as PW-16 was not posted as DCP, South East, on 03.01.2020.

108. Ld. Counsel for the accused also pointed out certain procedural lapses and contended that the RO had not verified the complaint which is mandatory to ascertain the prime facie truthfulness of the contents of the complaint. He further submitted that even the work profile of the complainant was not verified.

109. Ld. Counsel for the accused also argued that on merits also, the prosecution has failed to prove its case as the complainant, Varun Channa, who was examined as PW-1 or the CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 47 of 89 panch witness, Roop Chand, who was examined as PW-6 could not identify the accused. He also submitted that the depositions of PW-1 and PW-6 are full of contradictions thus, damaging the case of the prosecution. He further argued that there is no evidence on record to prove initial demand as well as demand at the spot except the complaint P-1/PW-1 and statement Ex.P- 2/PW-2.

110. Ld. Counsel for the accused also submitted that the prosecution could not even prove the acceptance and recovery of bribe. He submitted that neither has the complainant deposed that the accused accepted money nor has the panch witness deposed on these lines. While the RO (PW-9) is talking about recovery, but she is not a witness to demand and acceptance and as such her statement to this effect though falsified by PW-1 and PW-6, is of no help.

111. Ld. Counsel for the accused further argued that it is well settled law that mere recovery of bribe amount, devoid of demand and acceptance, is valueless.

112. Ld. Counsel for the accused also submitted that even the testimony of the Raiding Officer PW-9 is not reliable as it is full of material contradictions.

VIII. Law:

113. The accused Nirdesh Kumar has been charged with the offence under section 7 PC Act and section 384 IPC. Section 7 of the PC Act provides as under:

CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 48 of 89 "7. Offence relating to public servant being bribed.- Any public servant who,-

(a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such duty either by himself or by another public servant; or

(b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage from any person as a reward for the improper or dishonest performance of a public duty or for forbearing to perform such duty either by himself or another public servant;

or

(c) performs or induces another public servant to perform improperly or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear performance of such duty in anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an undue advantage from any person, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation 1.--For the purpose of this section, the obtaining, accepting, or the attempting to obtain an undue advantage shall itself constitute an offence even if the performance of a public duty by public servant, is not or has not been improper.

Illustration.--A public servant, 'S' asks a person, 'P' to give him an amount of five thousand rupees to process his routine ration card application on time. 'S' is guilty of an offence under this section.

Explanation 2.--For the purpose of this section,--

(i) the expressions "obtains" or "accepts" or "attempts to obtain" shall cover cases where a person being a public servant, obtains or "accepts" or attempts to obtain, any undue advantage for himself or for another person, by abusing his position as a public servant or by using his personal influence over another public servant; or by any other corrupt or illegal means;

CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 49 of 89

(ii) it shall be immaterial whether such person being a public servant obtains or accepts, or attempts to obtain the undue advantage directly or through a third party."

114. Section 7 PC Act was explained and the ingredients required to prove section 7 were laid down in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) 2023 4 SCC 731, by the Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was held as follows:

"88. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under:

88.1(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and(ii) of the Act.

88.2(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.

88.3(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.

88.4 (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:

(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.

CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 50 of 89

(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13(1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act.

Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and inturn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13(1)(d) and

(i) and (ii) of the Act.

88.5 (e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. 88.6 (f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 51 of 89 nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.

88.7 (g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

88.8 (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature."

115. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant is a sine qua non for establishing the guilt of an accused under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. To bring home the charge, the prosecution must first prove, as a matter of fact, both the demand for illegal gratification and its subsequent acceptance. Such proof may be established through direct oral or documentary evidence, or, in the absence thereof, by cogent circumstantial evidence.

116. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further clarified that a presumption of fact regarding the demand or acceptance or obtainment of illegal gratification may be drawn only when the foundational facts have been duly established by oral and documentary evidence, and not in their absence. It has also been emphasized that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 52 of 89 Act is distinct from a presumption of fact, and such presumption under law is rebuttable by the accused.

117. After the legal position was settled by the Constitution Bench, another bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court, while disposing of the appeal in that very case of Neeraj Dutta case (Supra), held as follows:

"9 ...The demand for gratification and the acceptance thereof are sine qua non for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act.

10. xxxxxxxxxxxxx

11. Even the issue of presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act has been answered by the Constitution Bench by holding that only on proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the Court to raise a presumption that illegal gratification was for the purpose of motive or reward as mentioned in Section 7 (as it existed prior to the amendment of 2018). In fact, the Constitution Bench has approved two decisions by the benches of three Hon'ble Judges in the cases of B. Jayaraj1 and P. Satyanarayana Murthy. There is another decision of a three Judges' bench in the case of N.Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu5, which follows the view taken in the cases of B. Jayaraj 1 and P. Satyanarayana Murthy2. In paragraph 9 of the decision in the case of B. Jayaraj1, this Court has dealt with the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act. In paragraph 9, this Court held thus:

"9. Insofar as the presumption permissible to be drawn under Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such presumption can only be in respect of the offence under Section 7 and not the offences under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. In any event, it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 53 of 89 proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the present case the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent." (emphasis added) The presumption under Section 20 can be invoked only when the two basic facts required to be proved under Section 7, are proved. The said two basic facts are 'demand' and 'acceptance' of gratification. The presumption under Section 20 is that unless the contrary is proved, the acceptance of gratification shall be presumed to be for a motive or reward, as contemplated by Section 7. It means that once the basic facts of the demand of illegal gratification and acceptance thereof are proved, unless the contrary are proved, the Court will have to presume that the gratification was demanded and accepted as a motive or reward as contemplated by Section 7.

However, this presumption is rebuttable. Even on the basis of the preponderance of probability, the accused can rebut the presumption.

12. In the case of N. Vijayakumar5, another bench of three Hon'ble Judges dealt with the issue of presumption under Section 20 and the degree of proof required to establish the offences punishable under Section 7 and clauses (i) and

(ii) Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act. In paragraph 26, the bench held thus:

"26. It is equally well settled that mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused. Reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI [C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, (2009) 3 SCC 779: (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] and in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. [B.Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55: (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 543] In the aforesaid judgments of this Court while considering the case under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 it is reiterated that to prove the charge, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe. Absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 54 of 89 constitute such offence. In the said judgments it is also held that even the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. It is also fairly well settled that initial presumption of innocence in the criminal jurisprudence gets doubled by acquittal recorded by the trial court." (emphasis added) Thus, the demand for gratification and its acceptance must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

13. Section 7, as existed prior to 26th July 2018, was different from the present Section 7. The unamended Section 7 which is applicable in the present case, specifically refers to "any gratification". The substituted Section 7 does not use the word "gratification", but it uses a wider term "undue advantage". When the allegation is of demand of gratification and acceptance thereof by the accused, it must be as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act. The fact that the demand and acceptance of gratification were for motive or reward as provided in Section 7 can be proved by invoking the presumption under Section 20 provided the basic allegations of the demand and acceptance are proved. In this case, we are also concerned with the offence punishable under clauses (i) and

(ii) Section 13(1)(d) which is punishable under Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Clause (d) of sub- section (1) of Section 13, which existed on the statute book prior to the amendment of 26th July 2018, has been quoted earlier. On a plain reading of clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 13(1)(d), it is apparent that proof of acceptance of illegal gratification will be necessary to prove the offences under clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 13(1)(d). In view of what is laid down by the Constitution Bench, in a given case, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant can be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral or documentary evidence. While answering the referred question, the Constitution Bench has observed that it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability and/or guilt of the public servant for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 55 of 89 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The conclusion is that in absence of direct evidence, the demand and/or acceptance can always be proved by other evidence such as circumstantial evidence.

14. The allegation of demand of gratification and acceptance made by a public servant has to be established beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision of the Constitution Bench does not dilute this elementary requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Constitution Bench was dealing with the issue of the modes by which the demand can be proved. The Constitution Bench has laid down that the proof need not be only by direct oral or documentary evidence, but it can be by way of other evidence including circumstantial evidence. When reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence to prove the demand for gratification, the prosecution must establish each and every circumstance from which the prosecution wants the Court to draw a conclusion of guilt. The facts so established must be consistent with only one hypothesis that there was a demand made for gratification by the accused. Therefore, in this case, we will have to examine whether there is any direct evidence of demand. If we come to a conclusion that there is no direct evidence of demand, this Court will have to consider whether there is any circumstantial evidence to prove the demand."

118. Recently, on 28.10.2025, in the case of P. Somraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh Criminal Appeal No. 1770 of 2014, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that demand and acceptance are sine qua non to prove the guilt of the accused under section 7 of the PC Act. The Hon'ble Court relied upon the judgment of Rajesh Gupta v. State through Central Bureau of investigation 2022 INSC 359 and quoted the relevant paragraph as under:

"17. For an offence under Section 7 of PC Act, the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non to prove the guilt. Mere recovery of currency CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 56 of 89 notes cannot constitute an offence under Section 7 of PC Act, unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused voluntarily accepted the money, knowing it to be a bribe. The proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand."

119. Further, Section 384 of the IPC provides as under:

"Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."

120. Extortion has been defined in Section 383 IPC which is as follows:

"Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits "extortion"."

IX. Examination and Analysis:

121. Ld. Counsel for the accused has put forward multifold defence arguments. The same will be discussed one by one:

IX (a). Faulty Investigation:

IX (a)(i). No verification prior to registration of FIR:

122. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the complaint was not verified prior to the registration of the FIR. He further submitted that thus, the prime facie truthfulness of the contents of the complaint were not verified. This, he contended, is evident from the evidence of the Raiding Officer PW-9, who CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 57 of 89 deposed during cross-examination that she did not inquire from the complainant about date, time and place of initial demand and straightaway proceeded for the raid on the basis of the complaint.

He argued that the version of the complainant cannot be accepeted on the face of it and the complaint should have been verified especially in light of the fact that the date, time and place of demand of bribe was not mentioned in the complaint.

123. Perusal of record reveals that upon being questioned if the Raiding Officer has questioned the complainant about the date, time and place of demand of money, she deposed that "No, Vol. I had proceeded on the basis of the information available in the complaint, Ex. P1/PW1." She also deposed that "I had not done any inquiry to find out if any police official by the name of Nirdesh was capable of inlfuencing the dates of hearing of the cases against the complainant or was capable of facilitating the complainant in running a liquor business."

124. The accused placed reliance upon the judgment of Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi Vs. State of AP 2024 (3) RCR (Cr.) 562 SC wherein it was observed that "A prudent and unbiased police officer would be persuaded to make at least a basic enquiry into these facts rather than following the dicta of the complainant (PW-1)". While it may be correct that the Raiding Officer should have verified the contents of the complaint before proceeding for the raid, however, non-conducting of a preliminary inquiry before registration of the FIR cannot be treated as a ground to dismiss the prosecution case altogether against the accused. While conducting a preliminary inquiry in such cases may be CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 58 of 89 desirable, it is not mandatory. Reliance is placed on the judgments of CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi alias T.H. Vijayalakshmi and Another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 923.

IX (a) (ii) The contradiction in handing over of FIR and Rukka:

125. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that PW-10 has destroyed the prosecution case as he deposed that he had handed over the copy of the FIR and the original Rukka to Insp. Mohan Singh at the spot which is not the case of prosecution. Ld. Counsel for the accused pointed out that as per PW-11, Mohan Singh, he collected the original Rukka after reaching P.S. Vigilance. He further pointed out that PW-11 further affirmed in his cross examination that "H.C. Sukhchain did not hand over rukka and copy of FIR to me at the spot. Vol. It was received by me at PS Vigilance."

126. From the testimony of PW-10 HC Sukhchain recorded in his cross-examination, it is clear that as per him, he had handed over the rukka and FIR to Inspector Mohan Singh at the spot. Further, the testimony of PW-11 ACP Mohan Singh, reveals that he deposed that "Thereafter, I alongwith Inspector Deveshwari, complainant, panch witness, accused ASI Nirdesh Kumar and other raiding team members alongwith case properties and documents departed from the place of occurence and reached the office of Vigilance Branch, PS Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, where I obtained the FIR number which is 01/2020 and filed the FIR number on all above mentioned documents. I also colleected the original rukka."

CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 59 of 89

127. Thus, there is clear contradiction in the testimonies of PW-10 and PW-11 as to the place where the rukka and FIR were handed over by PW-10 to PW-11. It is a material contradiction that goes to the root of the matter.

IX (a) (iii) The owner of the seal:

128. It is the case of the prosecution that after the raid, the Raiding Officer PW-9 had sealed the two bottles containing the solution as well as the bottles containing the handwash and the pocketwash and also the jacket with the seal of VK. However, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that in her evidence as PW-9, the RO could not tell exactly about the owner of the seal "VK". He further pointed out that she stated that the seal of "V.K." might be of Inspector/Sub Inspector Virender Kumar. Ld. Counsel for the accused vehemently argued that there was no person with initial "V.K." in the raiding party.

129. Ld. Counsel for the accused also argued that even the I.O. did not make any enquiry from the RO about the owner of seal of "VK". He also pointed out that the RO has testified that she had handed over the seal of "VK" to the panch witness but the panch witness has denied receiving any such seal in his evidence as he deposed that "No brass seal was given to me by Inspector Deveshwari at Ali Mor, on 03.01.2020." It is the case of the accused that from the above, it is clear that the case property was tampered with.

130. The averments raised on behalf of the accused do raise a doubt in the mind of the court as to whose seal was used CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 60 of 89 to seal the case properties and where was the seal really procured from. Also, damaging is the contradictory version of PW-9 and PW-6 regarding the sample seal being handed over to the panch witness.

IX (b) Identity of the accused:

131. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that as per the complainant, accused is not the person who demanded bribe from him. He also argued that even otherwise the complainant as well as the panch witness have failed to identify the accused in the court as a person who allegedly demanded the bribe money, accepted it or from whom it was recovered.

132. Perusal of the complaint reveals that the allegations are against accused Nirdesh while perusal of the testimony of the complainant as PW-1 reveals that the allegations are against one HC Babu Lal. This contradiciton in the version of the complainant himself is enough to shake the case of the prosecution. However, it is important to mention that the complainant has also deposed that HC Babu Lal had demaded bribe from him and later told him to call on one unknown mobile number but he has again deposed that on the morning of 03.01.2020, Babu Lal called him and asked him to come to Aali More i.e. the place of occurence. When they reached the spot, one Assistant Police Inspector was there who on inquiry revealed that he had come from PS Sarita Vihar. Thus, even as per the deposition of the complainant, one more police official of the rank of ASI was involved who had apparently come to collect the bribe money. However, the complainant has neither revealed his CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 61 of 89 name nor identified him in the court. He deposed that he could not identify the person who was apprehended by the vigilance as the accused was wearing a muffler and a cap. Be that as it may, the accused Nirdesh Kumar has not been identified by the complainant.

133. Even the panch witness PW-6 has not identified the accused Nirdesh, He deposed that "I cannot say with certainty that the accused who had come to the spot at about 05.15 pm to 05.30 p, is present in the court." He volunteered that he had not got a good look on 03.01.2020 as the said person was in full uniform and wearing a muffler. Thus, even PW-6 panch witness did not identify the accused.

134. There were two witnesses present on the spot when the accused allegedly accepted the bribe money and both of them have refused to identify the accused Nirdesh Kumar. The person who came to the spot could have been accused Nirdesh Kumar or HC Babu Lal or some other police officer. Thus, the identity of the person who came to the spot has not been proved.

IX (c) The veracity of the complaint:

135. Ld. PP for the State has placed heavy reliance on the complaint Ex. P-1/PW-1 to show that the allegations in the complaint are categorical and straight away hint at the guilt of the accused. However, Ld. Counsel for the accused questioned if that alone is sufficient to prove the accused guilty. He argued that the complainant has in fact disowned the complaint when he deposed that he had written the same on the dictation of the CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 62 of 89 Raiding Officer. He also submitted that the complainant has stated that he had given a typed complaint while the complaint Ex. P-1/PW-1 is a handwritten one. He argued that thus, the complaint Ex. P- 1/PW-1 cannot be said to have any value in the eyes of law. Further, he had also deposed in cross-examination by Ld. PP for the State that "It is correct that in the said complaint, I had named ASI Nirdesh. Voltd. I had don so as per the instructions of Inspector Deveshwari." Thus, the complainant has categorically stated that the name of the accused was mentioned in the complaint at the instance of the Raiding Officer.

136. The testimony of the complainant as PW-1 makes it clear that he had first given a typed complaint and then a handwritten complaint but he deposed that he had written the handwritten complaint Ex. P-1/PW-1 on the dictation of a lady inspector and had mentioned the name of ASI Nirdesh as accused also at her instance. Thus, it stands established that the complaint was written on the dictation of Insp. Deveshwari.

IX (d) Statement under section 164 Cr.P.C:

137. Another piece of evidence heavily relied upon by the prosecution is the statement of the complainant under section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. P-2/PW-1. However, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the same cannot be relied upon as the complainant has disowned this statement.

138. Perusal of the deposition of PW-1 shows that in his examination in chief, he has deposed that "After 3-4 days, I was CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 63 of 89 asked to come to the Rouse Avenue Courts for some statement. That lady inspector showed me a complaint and asked to give a statement like that. My statement was recorded."

139. This deposition shows that the complainant had allegedly made the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. before Ld. ACMM (Ex. P-2/PW-1) upon instructions from the lady inspector and not voluntarily.

X. Essential ingredients of Section 7:

140. It is well-settled law that to establish a case under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must prove two essential ingredients beyond reasonable doubt:

(i) the demand for illegal gratification, and (ii) the subsequent acceptance of the same. The facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence adduced by the witnesses, and the arguments advanced on behalf of the State and the defence will be carefully examined to determine whether the prosecution has successfully established these two essential elements.

X (a) Demand:

141. As per the complaint, the accused had demanded a bribe for getting early hearing in two of legal cases pending with him and when the complainant refused to give him the money, he said that he will get his liquor business restarted if he gives him some money on monthly basis. As per the complaint, the accused also called him on the pretext that there is a summon against him and then threatened him to implicate him in false cases. It was CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 64 of 89 averred in the complaint that the accused had demanded Rs.5,000/-. Further, the prosecution contends that the accused demanded the bribe even at the time of the trap proceedings and accepted the amount from the complainant. Accordingly, the prosecution was required to establish the demand both prior to and on the date of the trap.

X (a) (i) Demand Prior to the Trap Proceedings:

142. Ld. PP for the State argued that the complainant had categorically stated in his complaint (Ex.P1/PW-1) that the accused had demanded a bribe for getting early hearing in two of his legal cases pending with him and when the complainant refused to give him the money, he said that he will get his liquor business restarted if he gives him some money on monthly basis. As per the complaint, the accused also called him on the pretext that there is a summon against him and then threatened him to implicate him in false cases. Ld. PP for the State further submitted that the panch witness, PW-6, who is a government servant and an independent witness to the trap proceedings, had also specifically deposed that the accused demanded the bribe from the complainant at the time of the trap. On this basis, he contended that the element of 'demand' stands proved beyond reasonable doubt.

143. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the accused raised certain objections regarding the element of 'demand', which are considered below:

CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 65 of 89 Date of demand:

144. So far as the demand for bribe prior to the trap proceedings is concerned, the complainant is the sole witness to allege and prove the same. Although, he mentioned the factum of demand for a bribe by the accused in his complaint (Ex. P1/PW-

1), he did not specify any date or dates on which the accused made such demand. However, in his examination-in-chief as PW-1, the complainant deposed that Head Constable Babu Lal had demanded bribe of Rs. 5,000/- from him in December, 2019.

145. Therefore, while in the complaint, no date of demand of bribe by accused Nirdesh has been specified, but in his examination in chief, PW-1 has mentioned that the demand of bribe was made in December, 2019 but by HC Babu Lal and not accused Nirdesh. While, the identity of the accused in under cloud but even the mentioning of the month and year of demand of bribe is a material improvement in the testimony of PW-1.

Who demanded the bribe:

146. It is the case of the prosecution that accused ASI Nirdesh Kumar demanded bribe from the complainant. However, perusal of record reveals that as per the complainant as PW-1, it is HC Babu Lal who demanded bribe and not accused ASI Nirdesh. Though, it is mentioned in the complaint Ex.P1/PW-1 that accused ASI Nirdesh Kumar had demanded bribe from him, but in his cross-examination by Ld. PP for the State, the complainant deposed that he had mentioned the name of accused ASI Nirdesh on the instructions of Insp. Deveshwari.

CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 66 of 89 It has already been observed in the preceding paragraphs that the prosecution has not been able to establish the identity of the accused.

Nexus between proposed work and demand:

147. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that though it is a matter of record that three cases were pending against the complainant in PS Jaitpur but the accused was neither the IO nor a witness in any of these cases. He also argued that the accused had no capacity to either serve a summon upon the complainant or get him early hearings in the matter. He also relied upon the testimony of the complainant wherein he has not levelled any such allegation against the accused but against HC Babu Lal.

148. From the evidence of the complainant, it is clear that he has not levelled any allegation against the accused that the accused had offered or promised him to perform some work for illegal gratification.

149. It was held in the case of S.C. Jain vs. State, 2018 SCC Online Mad 9081, that "...at 10:20 am, no bill was pending before him. The same also clearly shows that at the time of alleged demand, no paper/bill was pending before the appellant. Hence, the demand of bribe itself is doubtful." Similarly, in Wilson Vijayakumar vs. State, 2018 SCC Online KAE 2393, the Court observed "...the basic fact that the bill was pending with the accused and he was in a position to show official favour to the complainant is not proved beyond reasonable doubt."

CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 67 of 89

150. These judgments establish that the absence of a nexus between the alleged bribe demand and the official act purported to be performed raises a serious doubt regarding the fact of demand itself. In the case at hand, in fact the complainant has not levelled any allegation against the accused that he had promised him performance of a certain official duty in lieu of illegal gratification.

151. Further, in the present case, the testimony of the complainant is full of contradictions and even the complaint does not inspire any confidence. The date of demand of bribe has not been mentioned in the complaint and mentioned as afterthought in the evidence. There is clear contradiction as to who really demanded the bribe. The nexus between the proposed work and demand bribe has also not been proved. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this court is of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove "demand" prior to the trap beyond reasonable doubt.

X (a) (ii) Demand at the time of trap:

152. Ld. PP for the State argued that the accused has been apprehended red handed demanding and accepting bribe from the complainant. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the complainant as PW-1 has not supported the prosecution case on the point of demand of bribe amount at the spot, and he has categorically stated about no money talks were held and no money transaction took place between him and the person available at the spot.

CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 68 of 89

153. Perusal of the evidence of PW-1 shows that he has not mentioned anywhere in his examination in chief that the 'person whom he met at the spot' demanded money from him. The only conversation he has mentioned is that the complainant asked him if HC Babu Lal had sent him and he responded that he has come from PS Sarita Vihar. In fact, even in the cross examination by Ld. PP for the State, PW-1 deposed that "It is wrong to say that thereafter, the accused, ASI Nirdesh Kumar (present in the court today) had come to me and asked for the bribe money of Rs. 5000/-."

154. Further, the panch witness, PW-6, also did not support the case of the prosecution on the point of demand of bribe by the accused at the spot. He deposed that the police officer whom the complainant had met had asked the complainant, "Kuch Karoge Bhi Ya Khali Juban Kharch Karne Aaye Ho". There is no explicit or implicit demand of money in this statement. It is settled law that proof of demand must be clear, cogent and unequivocal (P. Satyanarayana Murthy case (supra)). The alleged words attributed to the accused are ambiguous and cannot be construed as a clear demand for illegal gratification.

155. Moreover, in his cross-examination by Ld. PP for the State, PW-6 deposed that "It is wrong to say that in front of me, the accused, ASI Nirdesh Kumar had demanded the sum of Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant and upon such demand, the complainant had paid the Rs.5,000/- to the accused." Thus, PW-6 CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 69 of 89 has also not proved demand of bribe money by the accused from the complainant.

156. Thus, materially different versions of what transpired at the spot do create a serious doubt. After all, it is the prosecution's own Panch witness who did not support the case of the prosecution. In the case of State of Punjab Vs. Sohan Singh 2009 (3) RCR (Criminal), it was held that generally an independent Panch witness working in Government Department cannot be won over easily and therefore, his evidence was crucial. However, where the version of the Panch Witness is contradictory to the case of the prosecution, the law is settled that where there are two views possible, the one in favour of accused has to be accepted.

157. From the above, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the aspect of demand of bribe by the accused either during trap proceedings or prior thereto.

X (b). Acceptance:

158. It was contended on behalf of the State that the accused had obtained the bribe amount from the complainant, which was also recovered from his possession, and therefore, the case against him is clear. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the acceptance of the alleged bribe beyond reasonable doubt.

159. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant made a call from his mobile no. 9992486647 to the mobile CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 70 of 89 number of the accused bearing no. 7011771608 to call him to the place of occurrence. While in his cross examination by Ld. PP for the State, the complainant as PW-1 has admitted that he was using the mobile no. 9992486647 but with respect to the number on which he called, he deposed that "I had made the call to a mobile number which I do not recollect."

160. Furthermore, the prosecution examined Sh. Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd. as PW-2 who proved that the mobile no. 9992486647 was in the name of Smt. Kamla Devi. It has come on record that Smt. Kamla Devi was the grandmother of the complainant. PW-2 also proved the call detail record of the said number which is Ex. PW-5/PW-2. As per the call detail record, the complainant had made calls on and received calls from mobile number bearing 7011771608 on many occasions i.e. on 28.12.2019, 30.12.2019, 31.12.2019, 01.01.2020, 02.01.2020 and 03.01.2020. Thus, the call detail record shows that the complainant was in constant touch with the person who was using mobile no. 7011771608.

161. Prosecution also examined Sh. Praveen Kumar, Alternate Nodal Officer, Reliance Jio as PW-7 who deposed that the call detail record of mobile no. 7011771608 was no longer available, however, as per CAF Ex. P-17/PW-7, the mobile number was in the name of Sh. Rajveer Singh, S/o D. R. Singh. Prosecution also examined Sh. Rajveer Singh as PW-8 who deposed that "I do not remember my mobile number involved in this case. I was called by Vigilance 3-3.5 years back. I had gone there. Upon being asked about my mobile number involved in CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 71 of 89 this case, I had told the police officials of Vigilance that the mobile number was being used by the accused, Nirdesh Kumar (present in Court today and correctly identified by the witness), who was the beat officer of my area, posted at PS Kalindi Kunj. Now, my area falls in PS Jaitpur. I had taken the mobile number by using my ID. I do not remember anything else." Further, in his cross examination by Ld. PP for the State, he deposed that "I cannot say if the mobile number, which I had given to the accused, Nirdesh Kumar was 7011771608 because I had not used it for a day."

162. Though, the prosecution proved that the mobile number 7011771608 belonged to Sh. Rajveer Singh but Sh. Rajveer Singh as PW-8 could not prove that he had given mobile no. 7011771608 only to accused Nirdesh Kumar. While it is true that he deposed that he had given one number to the accused but which number was given to him has not been proved. In fact, he has also deposed that he has 4 numbers and he is using one, one another number is being used at his house, one number he had given to accused Nirdesh and one number, he had given to Ct.Rakesh.

163. Although, PW-8 remembered the mobile number being used by him, he did not remember the other three mobile numbers. Thus, it could not be proved if mobile number 7011771608 was being used by accused Nirdesh only or at the house of PW-8 or Ct. Rakesh.

CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 72 of 89 Actual acceptance?:

164. PW-1 deposed in his examination in chief that "When we reached there, we could not find any person for 30-45 minutes. There was a building of CISF probably, where one assistant sub inspector of police was standing. I asked him whether he has come from PS Jaitpur and was send by Babu Lal. He said that he has come from Sarita Vihar police station. When I was talking to him, the Vigilance team came there and apprehended that police official. The lady inspector asked me whether that person took money from me or not. I said - "No", the money was with me. She took the money and said that my work was done and asked me to keep myself aside."

165. Further, in his cross-examination by Ld. PP for the State, PW-1 deposed that "It is wrong to say that thereafter, the accused, ASI Nirdesh Kumar (present in court today) had come to me and asked for the bribe money of Rs. 5,000/-."

166. Besides the complainant PW-1, panch witness PW-6 was also present on the spot. He deposed that "When the accused had come to the spot, the complainant had introduced me to the accused by saying that I am a relative of the complainant and henceforth, I will do the business of liquor. Thereafter, a 'kaha suni' had happened between me, the complainant and the accused where I had said that why should I do the business of liquor without any backing of a third person. The accused who was the police officer had said, "kuch karoge bhi ya khali juban kharch karne aye ho". He further deposed that "After the CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 73 of 89 aforesaid statement, the accused and the complainant had stepped slightly away from me, in a manner where the back of the complainant was towards me and the accused was right in front of him. In this arrangement, I had seen the complainant take out the bribe money from his right side pant pocket but not seen the accused taking it. On the signal of the complainant that the bribe has been paid, I had twice waved my right hand over my head and signaled the police officers including Inspector Deveshwari."

167. PW-1 has categorically denied in his testimony that the accused had accepted any bribe amount from him. He specifically deposed that the person whom he met at the spot did not take any money and that the money was still with him. Also,from the testimony of PW-6 also, it is clear that he had not seen the accused accepting any money. He deposed that he sent the signal to the police officers when the bribe had been paid but he has not deposed that the bribe amount was paid to the accused.

168. There were only two witnesses to prove that the accused had accepted the bribe money and both of them have not supported the case of the prosecution.

169. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused Nirdesh was using the mobile phone number 7011771608; or that the complainant had called accused Nirdesh on the date of occurence; or that the person who met the complainant had accepted the bribe money from the complainant; or that the person who met the complainant at the CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 74 of 89 spot was the accused. Thus, the acceptance of the alleged bribe by the accused cannot be said to have been established beyond reasonable doubt.

X (c). Recovery of the bribe money:

170. Ld. PP for the State submitted that the recovery of the bribe money has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the hand wash and pocket wash of the jacket of the accused show presence of Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate as per the FSL Report. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the recovery of the bribe money is highly doubtful as there are material contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses and major lapses in the investigation.

171. Perusal of record reveals that regarding recovery, PW-9 deposed that "Inside the said compound, the powder laced currency notes were recovered from the accused, ASI Nirdesh Kumar."' Upon being questioned by the court regarding who had recovered the money, PW-9 evasively replied that "I do not remember correctly. But either the accused, ASI Nirdesh Kumar had handed over the money or the panch witness or one of the constables had taken out the money from the pocket of the accused." In contrast, the Panch Witness, PW-6, deposed that "Then, while sitting in the car. I had seen the accused police officer taking out the bribe money from his jacket and handing over to Inspector Deveshwari." Further, PW-1 deposed that he had not given the bribe money to the person who met him at the spot and that he had himself given the money to PW-9.

CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 75 of 89

172. Thus, the testimonies of all the three witnesses are in contradiction with each other. While the complainant says, he did not hand over the money at all, Raiding Officer Insp. Deveshwari deposed that either the money was handed over by the accused himself, or the panch witness recovered it or one of the constables recovered it from the pocket of the accused and PW-6 deposed that the accused took out the money himself from his jacket pocket. Such contradictions in the testimonies of the material witnesses as to the most material aspect of the case i.e. recovery of bribe money, completely shake the case of the prosecution. The fact of recovery of the bribe money is replete with contradictions.

173. Besides the above mentioned facts, the only evidence left with the prosecution is the hand wash of the accused and the pocket wash of the accused. Ld. Prosecutor strongly relied upon the FSL result Ex. P11/PW-5, which confirms the presence of Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate in the sample of hand wash of accused as well as the pocket wash of the accused. PW-5 Yogesh Chandra Pandey, Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL, Rohini, Delhi was examined and he proved the FSL Report. Nothing adverse came out in his cross examination.

174. Thus, all the prosecution has proved is that the hand wash and jacket pocket of the accused showed presence of Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate but the factum of recovery of bribe money is under a dense cloud of doubt as the CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 76 of 89 place of recovery of bribe money has not been proved by the prosecution.

XI. Offence under section 384 IPC:

175. To prove the charge under section 384 IPC, the prosecution is required to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally put the complainant in fear of injury and thereby dishonestly induced him to deliver property or money. In the present case, the complainant PW-1, who is the star witness of the prosecution, has not supported the case on material particulars. He has categorically denied that any demand of money was made by the accused or that any amount was paid to him pursuant to any threat or coercion. The complainant has also failed to identify the accused in Court and has disowned the prosecution version regarding demand, threat, inducement or delivery of money. His testimony does not inspire confidence and demolishes the prosecution case.

176. The remaining evidence, including that of the panch witness and the police officials, cannot by itself establish the offence of extortion in the absence of credible and cogent proof of demand and inducement by threat, which are sine qua non for an offence under section 384 IPC. Mere recovery of currency notes or procedural compliance during the trap proceedings, even if assumed to be proved, cannot substitute the foundational requirement of proof of extortion. In the absence of trustworthy evidence showing that the complainant was put in fear of injury and dishonestly induced to part with money, the essential ingredients of section 384 IPC remain unproved.

CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 77 of 89 XII. Prosecution sanction

177. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution sanction Ex. P-44/PW-16 accorded by Ms. Anita Roy, DCP PW-16 against the accused in the present case is defective and invalid.

(a) Defective sanction:

178. It is the case of the accused that PW-16 had granted the sanction mechanically without application of mind as it was accorded for the offence u/s 13 (1) (d) P.C. Act also, which had already been repealed by the Amendment Act of 2018. He also argued that prosecution sanction was neither sought nor granted u/s 384 IPC while charge has been framed u/s 384 IPC also.

179. Perusal of the sanction order Ex. P-44/PW-16 shows that prosecution sanction was granted against the accused under section 7/13(1)(d) while section 13(1)(d) PC Act stood repealed in the year on 26.07.2018 vide The Prevention of Corruption Act (Amendment) Act, 2018. PW-16 has also admitted in her cross- examination that "I was not aware, as on the date of signing sanction order Ex. P43/PW16, that Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act had already been repealed." It is a settled dicta that ignorance of law is no excuse. The sanctioning authority ought to be aware of the prevalent law especially being a senior officer in the police and more so when she is granting prosecution sanction with respect to a particular (since repealed) offence. The sanctity attached to the prosecution sanction is extremely high and an CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 78 of 89 employee of the department is subjected to an entire trial on the basis of the sanction granted by its senior authority. The same should be done with utmost caution upon considering all the documents and statements on record. Not only has the sanctioning authority granted sanction with respect to a repealed sanction, it has not been mentioned in the sanction order Ex. P- 44/PW-16 as to which all documents did she rely upon while considering the grant of sanction.

180. The legal propositions regarding prosecution sanction were laid down in the case of CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2014) 14 SCC 295 as follows:

"(a) The prosecution must send the entire relevant record to the sanctioning authority including the FIR, disclosure statements, statements of witnesses, recovery memos, draft charge sheet and all other relevant material. The record so sent should also contain the material/document, if any, which may tilt the balance in favour of the accused and on the basis of which, the competent authority may refuse sanction.

(b) The authority itself has to do complete and conscious scrutiny of the whole record so produced by the prosecution independently applying its mind and taking into consideration all the relevant facts before grant of sanction while discharging its duty to give or withhold the sanction.

(c) The power to grant sanction is to be exercised strictly keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought.

(d) The order of sanction should make it evident that the authority had been aware of all relevant facts/materials and had applied its mind to all the relevant material.

CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 79 of 89

(e) In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that the entire relevant facts had been placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same and that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law."

181. Thus, it is settled law that the sanctioning authority must apply its mind independently and not just reiterate the investigation findings. In the case at hand, it is evident that prosecution has failed to establish that the entire material collected during investigation, including statements of witnesses, trap proceedings and relevant documents were placed before the sanctioning authority for due consideration. The sanction order is cryptic and mechanical production of the allegations which is clear from the fact that neither does it specify the documents relied upon by the sanctioning authority to consider the grant of sanction nor does it mention valid effective section. Therefore, this court is of the view that the sanctioning authority has not applied its mind while granting sanction against the accused.

(b) Competence to accord sanction:

182. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that PW-16 was not competent to accord sanction as per s 19 (2) P.C. Act as she was not posted as DCP, South East as on 03.01.2020 i.e. when the FIR was registered. He also pointed out that the accused had been promoted vide two promotion orders Mark PW-16/D-1 and Mark PW-16/D-2 passed with the orders of Commissioner of Police and were only signed by DCP concerned on behalf of Commissioner of Police, Delhi and thus, PW-16 CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 80 of 89 being DCP, was not competent to accord sanction against the accused.

183. The accused has relied upon its promotion orders Mark PW-16/D-1 and Mark PW-16/D-2 to show that he was promoted by the orders of Commissioner of Police and not Deputy Commissioner of Police who has actually granted the prosecution sanction in this case. Though the promotion orders have been marked and not exhibited but the same have not been disputed by the sanctioning authority. In fact, the sanctioning authority as PW-16 has admitted that "It is correct that the name of ASI Nirdesh Kumar is appearing at serial no. 470 in notification dated 07.10.2019 and serial no. 735 in order dated 28.10.2016. It is correct that both the above orders are issued on the basis of orders passed by Commissioner of Police of Delhi Police and are signed by concerned DCP on behalf of the Commissioner of Police, Delhi."

184. The orders have not been disputed by PW-16 and she has not stated in her deposition that the accused was not promoted by the orders of Commissioner of Police. Further, the perusal of the orders show that the same have been passed by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi and signed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Establishment) on behalf of the Commissioner of Police. It is settled law that the competency of authority to order removal or dismissal should not be subordinate in rank to the authority which appointed that public servant. (Davinder Singh v. State Crl. App. No. 165 of 1971 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court).

CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 81 of 89

185. Since, in the present case, the prosecution sanction has been granted by an authority inferior in rank to the authority that appointed the accused, the sanction is held to be invalid.

(c) Missing section:

186. Perusal of record reveals that the sanction was sought and granted under section 7/13(1)(d) PC Act while the chargesheet has been filed under section 384 IPC also. Section 197 Cr.P.C. makes it mandatory for the investigating agency to seek prosecution sanction when a public servant, not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the government, is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. However, it is also settled law that demanding and accepting bribe are acts that do not fall within the meaning of acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty. As the main allegation against the accused is regarding demanding illegal gratification even though the offence alleged in extortion under section 384 IPC, section 197 Cr.P.C. will not be applicable in the present case as the alleged act cannot be said to have been performed during the discharge of official duties. Thus, it is not mandatory for the investigating agency to seek prosecution sanction thereby making it valid for the courts to take cognizance under section 384 IPC even in the absence of prosecution sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C.

CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 82 of 89 XIII. Conclusion:

XIII (a). Offence u/s 7 P.C. Act:

187. It is a settled position of law that proof of demand of illegal gratification is the foundational requirement for conviction under Section 7 of the PC Act. (B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55). However, in the case at hand, PW-1 Varun Channa, the complainant, did not support the prosecution case. He denied demand of bribe by the accused; denied payment of bribe by him; failed to identify the accused in Court; deposed that the complaint Ex. P-1/PW-1 as well as statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. P-2/PW-1 were written at the instance of Vigilance officials; and has denied witnessing the alleged recovery. Though the testimony of a hostile witness cannot be effaced altogether, but in the present case, PW-1 has not supported the prosecution on any material aspect of demand or acceptance. There is no portion of the testimony of PW-1 which independently establishes demand by the accused.

188. Further, PW-6 Roop Chand, the panch witness, stated that an argument took place and vague words were exchanged. However, he has also deposed that he did not hear any clear or specific demand of bribe; he admitted that he did not see the accused accepting the money; he did not identify the accused in the court; and he admitted being frightened and sitting in a vehicle during crucial recovery proceedings. PW-6 also CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 83 of 89 does not independently and conclusively establish demand or acceptance.

189. While the prosecution has relied upon recovery of Rs.5,000/- and positive phenolphthalein test, however, it is well-

settled law that mere recovery of bribe money cannot sustain a conviction in the absence of proof of both demand and subsequent acceptance. In Neeraj Dutta (supra), the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:

"Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant, as a fact in issue, is a sine qua non to establish the guilt of the accused under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and

(ii) of the Act."

190. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that establishing the guilt of a public servant under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, requires proof of both the demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution must first demonstrate, as a matter of fact, that the accused demanded the gratification and subsequently accepted it. Such proof may be provided through direct oral or documentary evidence, or, in the absence of such evidence, by strong and cogent circumstantial evidence.

191. It was further held in the case of B. Jayraj case (Supra) as follows:

"8. In the present case, the complainant did not support the prosecution case in so far as demand by the accused is concerned. The prosecution has not examined any other witness, present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 84 of 89 to the accused by the complainant, to prove that the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused. When the complainant himself had disowned what he had stated in the initial complaint (Exbt. P-11) before LW-9, and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW-1 and the contents of Exhibit P-11 cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the above material furnishes proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the learned trial court as well as the High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. In fact such possession is admitted by the accused himself. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7. The above also will be conclusive in so far as the offence under Section 13 (1) (d) (i) (ii) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established.

9. In so far as the presumption permissible to be drawn under Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such presumption can only be in respect of the offence under Section 7 and not the offences under Section 13(1)(d)(i) (ii) of the Act. In any event, it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the present case the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent."

192. Most recently, on 28.10.2025, in P. Somraju (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that proof of demand and acceptance is a sine qua non for establishing the CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 85 of 89 guilt of an accused under Section 7 of the PC Act. In this context, the Court relied upon Rajesh Gupta (supra), holding that:

"For an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non to prove the guilt. Mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute an offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money, knowing it to be a bribe. Proof of acceptance can only follow proof of demand."

193. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further clarified that a presumption regarding the demand, acceptance, or obtainment of illegal gratification can be drawn only after the foundational facts have been duly established by oral or documentary evidence, and cannot be inferred in their absence. It has been emphasized that the legal presumption under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from a presumption of fact and is rebuttable by the accused.

194. The Neeraj Dutta (supra), Rajesh Gupta (supra), and P. Somraju (supra) cases make it clear that mere receipt of money by the accused is insufficient to establish guilt in the absence of evidence regarding both the demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. In the present case, it is evident that even the recovery of the alleged bribe amount has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. While the Panch witness (PW-6) deposed that he saw the accused taking out the money from his jacket and handing it over to the Raiding Officer, but the Raiding Officer as PW-9 deposed that she does not remember how the bribe money was recovered. Also, and more damaging is the deposition of PW-1 who testified that he had not handed over the bribe money to any person and had given it to the Raiding Officer.

CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 86 of 89

195. In a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the onus lies on the prosecution to establish the fundamental re- quirement of criminal law: that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. It is well-settled that one of the core principles of criminal jurisprudence is that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Equally well-established is that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot substitute for proof. There is a significant distinction between the fact that the accused "may have committed the offence" and that he "must have committed the offence," the latter of which the prosecution must establish through reliable and cogent evidence. The pre- sumption of innocence is recognized as a fundamental human right, which cannot be disregarded. (Reliance is placed on the cases Narender Singh & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (2004) 10 SCC 699; Ranjtsingh Brahamjeet Singh Sharma Vs. State of Maha- rashtra & Ors. (2005) 5 SCC 294; Ganesan Vs. Rama S. Raghu- raman & Ors. (2011) 2 SCC 83 and; State of U.P. Vs. Naresh & Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 384; State Vs. Gulzari Lal Tandon AIR 1979 SC 1382).

196. In the case of Mousam Singha Roy and Others v. State of West Bengal 2003 (3) JCC 1385 : [(2003) 12 SCC 377], Hon'ble Supreme Court held:

"It is also a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof, since the higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused."

197. While the State contends that the essential ingredients of demand for illegal gratification and its CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 87 of 89 obtainment/acceptance have been established, the foregoing discussion demonstrates that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand for the alleged bribe money and its acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. The contradictions in the testimonies of the three star witnesses on material aspects create a serious doubt in the mind of this Court regarding the commission of the offence by the accused.

XIII (b) Offence under section 384 IPC:

198. To constitute extortion, prosecution must have proved intentional putting in fear of injury, dishonest inducement, and delivery of property as a result. The complainant has denied any threat, fear or inducement or any delivery of property i.e. Rs.5,000/- to the accused. Again, the complainant has not even identified the accused as the person who met him at the spot. Thus, the offence under Section 384 IPC also fails.

XIII (c) Observation:

199. In summary, the prosecution has not been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt the foundational facts that the accused demanded a bribe from the complainant on any day prior to the raid or at the time of the trap, or that the accused voluntarily accepted the alleged bribe during the trap proceedings. Even the recovery of the money is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Merely because presence of phenolphthalein powder and Sodium Carbonate was found in the hand wash and pocket wash of the accused cannot by itself be CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20 State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar Page No. 88 of 89 sufficient to prove the guilt. Prosecution has also failed to establish that the complainant was put in any kind of fear by the accused to deliver to him the money. In view of the above, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused. It is well- settled law that where two interpretations are possible--one favoring the prosecution and the other favoring the accused--the interpretation favorable to the accused must be adopted. Accordingly, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

XIV. Decision:

200. The accused Nirdesh Kumar is acquitted of the charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 384 IPC.

Surety bond in respect of the accused stands discharged. The original documents, if any, be returned after cancellation of endorsement, if any.

Acquitted Mr. Nirdesh Kumar is directed to furnish bail bonds under Section 437-A Cr.PC in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with one surety in the like amount within one week from today.

File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.

Announced in the open court today                            Digitally signed
                                                             by RUCHI
                                                           AGGARWAL
                                                  RUCHI
on this 28th day of January, 2026                          ASRANI
                                                  AGGARWAL Date:
                                                  ASRANI   2026.01.28
                                                             14:34:48
                                                             +0530


                      DR. RUCHI AGGARWAL ASRANI
                    SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB-02)
          ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI



CC No. 65/22 in FIR No. 1/20   State Vs. Nirdesh Kumar     Page No. 89 of 89