New Delhi: The Delhi High Court last week set aside the 2003 conviction of two Delhi Development Authority (DDA) junior engineers in a three-decade-old bribery case, saying the prosecution had failed to prove the essential element of a “demand” for a bribe by the officers.
The court observed that the prosecution’s case was “fraught with blemishes” and relied on a complainant who appeared to be a “stock witness” for the anti-corruption branch.
The single judge bench of Justice Amit Mahajan was hearing an appeal filed by DDA engineers Har Swarup Verma and Ashok Kumar Gupta, who were accused of demanding a bribe of Rs 2,500 in 1991 to process DDA Forms ‘B’ and ‘D’ to prevent the demolition of a house in Rohini.
Acquitting the two, the Bench held that the officers were “entitled to the benefit of the doubt” in the present bribery case as the chain of demand, acceptance and recovery had not been proved through credible evidence.
ThePrint explains the legal provisions involved in a bribery case, the precedent on “demand”, and why the high court overturned the conviction
The bribery case centred around Section 7 and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which deal with illegal gratification and criminal misconduct by public servants.
Section 7 specifically targets public servants who accept or attempt to obtain an “undue advantage” or bribe. It applies when an official accepts gratification as a reward for performing, or dishonestly performing, a public duty or even for not performing such a duty.
Section 13, on the other hand, deals with the broader offence of “criminal misconduct” and covers scenarios where such an official dishonestly misappropriates property entrusted to them or intentionally enriches themselves illicitly during their time in office.
In the context of ‘trap’ cases, this section is often invoked when an official abuses their position to obtain a pecuniary advantage.
The core legal question before the high court was whether the officers’ conviction under these provisions could be sustained solely because treated (marked) currency notes were recovered from them during the ‘trap’ operation.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, including the Neeraj Dutta judgment, the high court reiterated that the actual proof of a demand for illegal gratification was mandatory to establish guilt.
“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 (an essential condition) in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and(ii) of the Act,” the top court had then noted.
In this case, the court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had demanded the money on the alleged dates of 8 April and 11 April 1991.
“Mere acceptance of money is not enough on its own and the proof of such demand is an essential prerequisite… Unless the factum of demand is independently proved, no presumption can be invoked,” Justice Mahajan observed.
The officers also highlighted a violation of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which prescribes specific ranks of officers who can investigate such corruption offences.
The law at the time mandated that corruption cases be investigated by an officer of the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) or Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), unless special permission was granted. In this case, the investigation was conducted by an Inspector, in violation of the rule.
The court acknowledged this was a violation of the rules. However, citing previous judgments, it noted that a procedural error alone does not automatically void a trial unless it causes a “miscarriage of justice”.
“An illegality committed in the course of an investigation does not affect the competence and the jurisdiction of the court… unless miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby,” the court noted.
The court found significant gaps in the prosecution’s case. For instance, the complainant claimed the property in Rohini belonged to his wife and was purchased from an original allottee named Ganga Dhar. However, during the trial, he could not produce a single title document, sale deed, or transfer record to prove ownership. He also admitted the property was never assessed for house tax.
Furthermore, the complainant admitted to filing the DDA forms under forged signatures of the original owner.
The court also flagged the complainant’s credibility, noting he had been involved in multiple other ‘trap’ cases. The judgment noted that in a previous case, a court had even labeled him a “person of shaky and dubious character”.
The court said he emerged from the record as a “stock witness” often used by the anti-corruption branch.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)
Also read: Medical college inspections ‘scam’: How nexus leaked info for bribes, right under NMC body’s nose