Once Demand and Acceptance Are Proved, Burden Shifts to Accused: Delhi High Court Affirms Conviction of Police Officer in Bribery Case

“Partial Hostility of Witnesses Does Not Obliterate Prosecution Case if Foundational Facts Are Otherwise Proved” – In a significant ruling Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of a Sub-Inspector of Delhi Police who was convicted for demanding and accepting a bribe, reaffirming the principles of evidentiary sufficiency and the statutory presumption under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and ruled that the foundational facts of demand and acceptance were proven beyond reasonable doubt, warranting no interference.

The Court held: “Once demand and acceptance are proved, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act arises, and the burden shifts to the accused to rebut it. The accused failed to discharge this burden with any probable defence” [Para 39].

Foundational Facts Sufficient, Presumption Unrebutted – Conviction Sustained

The case revolved around an incident in 1995 where the appellant, then a Sub-Inspector at Jama Masjid Police Station, allegedly demanded ₹5,000 from the complainant (PW1) to avoid implicating him in a fake degree racket. The CBI laid a trap based on the complaint and caught Head Constable Prem Pal Singh accepting ₹4,000 on behalf of the appellant in Tis Hazari Court. The trial court convicted the appellant in 2003, sentencing him to four years’ rigorous imprisonment under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.

Challenging the conviction, the appellant raised various procedural and evidentiary objections, including the credibility of witnesses, contradictions in their statements, and alleged violations of investigative protocol. However, the High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that “mere defects in investigation or minor inconsistencies in testimony cannot demolish the prosecution’s core case when the main ingredients are proved.”

Police Officer Accused of Bribe Demand to Protect Accused in Fake Degree Case

The prosecution case was that on the night of September 25, 1995, the appellant took PW1 to Jama Masjid Police Station and demanded ₹15,000, later reducing it to ₹5,000, for not arresting him in connection with Crime No. 187/1995. PW1 complained to the CBI on October 6, 1995, and the agency registered FIR RC No. 86(A)/95-DLI. A trap was laid the same day, culminating in the recovery of ₹4,000 from Head Constable Prem Pal Singh, who allegedly accepted the bribe on the appellant’s instructions inside Tis Hazari Court.

Notably, the trial court had discharged Prem Pal Singh, whose acquittal remained unchallenged. However, the court found sufficient evidence to convict Manoj Kumar, and his appeal under Section 374 CrPC and Section 27 of the PC Act led to the present decision.

Demand, Acceptance, Presumption Under Section 20 and Effect of Partially Hostile Witnesses

One of the core issues in the appeal was whether the prosecution had established the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification—essential elements under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The appellant argued that crucial witnesses—such as the complainant’s son and police officials—were not examined, and the tape-recorded conversation used to corroborate the trap was unreliable due to alleged lapses in custody and missing transcript portions.

The Court firmly rejected this contention. It reaffirmed the principle that “the complainant in a bribery case is not an accomplice and his testimony need not be corroborated, unless otherwise found unreliable” [Para 27]. Justice Sudha emphasized that “the evidence has to be weighed, not counted,” and held that the partial hostility of PW3 and PW4 (independent witnesses) did not dilute the prosecution’s case since they supported the trap proceedings in material aspects.

On the statutory presumption under Section 20 PC Act, the Court reiterated: “Once demand and acceptance are proved, the presumption under Section 20 arises. The appellant failed to rebut the presumption by any cogent or probable explanation” [Para 39].

Alleged Contradictions and Investigative Gaps Found Inconsequential

The appellant’s main arguments were grounded in alleged contradictions in the prosecution evidence: discrepancies about how the bribe demand was communicated, who dialed the phone during the CBI pre-trap operation, and conflicting testimony on whether the bribe was wrapped in paper. The High Court held that these were “minor discrepancies which do not affect the core of the prosecution case” [Para 31].

Regarding the firing of the accused’s service revolver during the arrest, the Court noted that while PW1 was silent and PW4 claimed not to recall the incident, PW3 and PW5 confirmed it—and crucially, the accused himself admitted it occurred. Hence, the Court ruled this inconsistency was immaterial [Para 31].

On the matchbox on which the appellant allegedly wrote the name of the lawyer to whom the bribe was to be delivered, the Court remarked: “It would have been ideal had the I.O. obtained a handwriting opinion, but mere failure to do so does not vitiate the entire prosecution, especially when the matchbox was recovered and identified by PW3 and PW4” [Para 32–33].

As to the non-examination of Advocate Y.K. Sharma (the alleged recipient of the bribe), the Court reasoned: “There is no reason to expect the prosecution to examine a witness who was being used as an instrument to commit the offence and who is unlikely to support the case” [Para 34].

Audio Cassette Evidence: Chain of Custody and Transcript Issues Dismissed as Non-Material

Rejecting the appellant’s argument about the admissibility of the audio cassette and alleged tampering, the Court held that even without relying on the tape-recorded conversation, the prosecution’s case stood on its own. Justice Sudha observed: “Even assuming for argument’s sake that the audio cassette and transcript cannot be relied on, the question is whether the remaining evidence proves the foundational facts. The answer is yes” [Para 29].

The Court was satisfied that the cassette had been handled properly post-trap—sealed in the presence of witnesses, opened under court orders, and resealed again. PW3 and PW4 corroborated this chain of custody, and the minor omission in the transcript did not relate to the bribe demand [Paras 28–29].

Section 161 CrPC and Contradictions: No Procedural Violation Established

As to contradictions between the complainant’s complaint, deposition, and Section 161 CrPC statements, the Court clarified that such statements are admissible only for contradiction, and only if the procedure under Section 145 of the Evidence Act is followed. Since this was not done, “the appellant cannot take advantage of alleged contradictions” [Paras 35–37].

Further, the Court refused to grant any weight to alleged procedural violations of the CBI Manual, holding once again that the Manual is an administrative guideline and “cannot override the statutory framework of the Code of Criminal Procedure” [Para 38].

Demand and Acceptance Proved, Appeal Dismissed

The Court concluded that the chain of events, corroborated testimony of PW1, and substantial support from PW3 and PW4 were sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant. “No ground is made out to interfere with the judgment of the trial court. The appeal is dismissed,” held Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha [Para 40].

The judgment stands as a reaffirmation of the legal principles concerning bribe cases under the PC Act, particularly the evidentiary sufficiency of complainant testimony and the strength of the statutory presumption once foundational facts are proven.

Date of Decision: February 02, 2026