Non-Examination Of Informant Not Fatal In Corruption Cases If Demand & Acceptance Proved Through Other Evidence: Delhi High Court

"Where the complainant/informant is unavailable, or is dead, or turns hostile, the demand of illegal gratification can still be proved through the testimony of other witnesses, documentary evidence, or even by circumstantial evidence," Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling dated April 27, 2026, held that the non-examination of an informant does not preclude the prosecution from establishing the offence of bribery if the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are proved through other reliable evidence.

A single-judge bench of Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha observed that once the foundational facts of a bribe are established, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) is invoked, shifting the burden of proof to the accused.

The case originated in 1994 when the appellant, a Constable at Police Station Mehrauli, allegedly demanded ₹1,000 from an informant to return an identity card confiscated during a police check. Following a complaint, the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) conducted a trap where the appellant was apprehended while accepting the tainted currency. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act in 2004, leading to this appeal. Although the appellant passed away during the pendency of the appeal, the High Court proceeded to decide the matter on merits.

The primary question before the court was whether the prosecution case must fail due to the non-examination of the informant who lodged the complaint. The court was also called upon to determine if the testimony of a single panch (witness) was sufficient to prove demand and acceptance, and whether the sanction for prosecution accorded by an Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police was legally valid.

Non-Examination Of Informant Not A Ground For Automatic Acquittal

The Court addressed the appellant’s contention that the failure to examine the informant, Narinder Kumar, created a fatal lapse in the prosecution's case. It noted that despite repeated summons, the informant remained untraceable and was thus not examined during the trial. Relying on the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench judgment in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), the Court held that the absence of the complainant does not lead to an automatic acquittal.

The bench emphasized that the demand for illegal gratification can be proved through the testimony of other witnesses or circumstantial evidence. It observed that the prosecution’s case "does not abate" merely because the primary informant is unavailable. If the surrounding circumstances and other witnesses provide a credible account of the demand, the legal requirements for conviction are met.

"The non-examination of the informant does not, by itself, preclude the prosecution from establishing the offence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant."

Foundational Facts Proved Through Testimony Of Panch Witness

The Court highlighted the testimony of PW5, the panch witness, who accompanied the informant during the trap proceedings. PW5 provided a detailed account of the pre-raid formalities, the demand made by the accused at the police check post, and the subsequent acceptance of the phenolphthalein-treated notes. The Court found his testimony to be wholly reliable and consistent with the prosecution's narrative.

Justice Sudha reiterated the settled principle that evidence must be weighed and not counted. The Court noted that a conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness if that witness is found to be credible. In this case, there was no material to suggest that PW5 was a partisan or interested witness, and his version was sufficient to prove the demand for the bribe.

Statutory Presumption Under Section 20 Of PC Act

The Court then dealt with the recovery of the tainted money, which the appellant did not effectively dispute. It observed that once the demand and acceptance are established through cogent testimony, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act is triggered. This mandate requires the court to presume that the gratification was accepted as a motive or reward for an official act.

The bench noted that once this presumption is invoked, the burden shifts to the accused to rebut it by providing a plausible explanation on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. In the present case, the accused failed to furnish any such explanation. The Court found that the prosecution case remained unrebutted as the appellant's defense was mere denial.

"Once the demand and acceptance stand duly proved from the cogent testimony of PW5 coupled with the recovery of the tainted currency, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act stands invoked."

Additional DCP Competent To Grant Sanction For Subordinate Officers

Regarding the challenge to the validity of the sanction order, the Court examined Sections 12 and 21 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978. The appellant had argued that the sanction was invalid because it was granted by an Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) rather than the DCP. The Court rejected this, noting that the law empowers the Additional DCP to appoint and remove officers of subordinate rank, including Constables.

The Court clarified that the test under Section 19(1)(c) of the PC Act is whether the sanctioning authority is competent to remove the accused from office. Since this power expressly vests in the Additional DCP under the Delhi Police Act, the sanction order was held to be legally valid. The Court concluded that there was no infirmity in the trial court's judgment.

The High Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully established the demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification. It held that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence and that the death of the appellant did not prevent the court from affirming the conviction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and all pending applications were closed.

Date of Decision: 27 April 2026