The Delhi High Court has acquitted two former Junior Engineers of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in a corruption case that began in 1991 and had earlier resulted in their conviction by a trial court in 2003 [Har Swarup Verma & Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of India].
Justice Amit Mahajan set aside the conviction and sentence on November 24, bringing an end to appeals pending in the matter for over two decades. After examining the evidence on record, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged bribery demand.
"In the present case, a thorough examination of the material on record indicates that the case of the prosecution is fraught with blemishes and fails to establish the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Further, a perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that several crucial aspects having direct bearing on the adjudication of the case were either insufficiently addressed," said the Court.
The case dates back to 1991, when the government's Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) carried out an operation to trap two DDA engineers - Har Swarup Verma and Ashok Kumar Gupta - based on a complaint that they had asked for a bribe of ₹2,500 to help process certain construction-related forms.
A trial court convicted them in 2003 under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) and sentenced them to 1.5 years in prison.
The engineers challenged the decision, and their appeals had remained pending for 23 years.
Their primary contention was that the officers who conducted the probe were of a rank that was junior to what was required under the PC Act.
It was undisputed that inspectors conducted the investigation and that proper authorisation from higher-ups came only in 1999, long after the 1991 trap.
The High Court accepted that the investigation was irregular but said this alone did not invalidate the trial.
The Court clarified that once a Magistrate takes cognisance, the trial does not automatically become invalid due to such an error in the investigation.
The Court proceeded to examine the case on merits.
The Court analysed whether the prosecution had proved that the accused demanded a bribe.
Referring to the Supreme Court's judgments in B Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) and the Constitution Bench ruling in the 2022 Neeraj Dutta case, the High Court reiterated that a bribery demand is a necessary element to show the commission of an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act and that the recovery or acceptance of money alone cannot sustain a conviction.
On reviewing the evidence, the Court noted that Som Nath (complainant) did not produce any documents showing that the property - in relation to which he allegedly sought permissions for construction - belonged to him or his wife. There was no proof that any construction existed. The Court also pointed to inconsistencies in his statements on how the forms were filled and signed.
Additionally, the panch witness did not confirm any verbal bribery demand by Verma on the day of the trap, recalling only that Verma extended his hand. As for Gupta, he was not present during the trap, and no evidence connected him to any alleged bribery demand.
The Court concluded that the corruption offences were not proved against the two accused.
"The entire chain of demand, acceptance, and recovery has not been established through credible, consistent, and uncontradicted evidence. The evidence led by the prosecution does not meet the standard of proof required in a case of this nature and thus, the benefit of doubt must and does go to the appellants," said the Court.
It added,
"The solemn duty of a criminal court is not to convict merely because an allegation is made, but to convict only when the allegation is proven beyond reasonable doubt. It is equally well settled that when two views are possible— one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence — the view favorable to the accused must be adopted."
The Court proceeded to set aside the 2003 conviction and acquitted both the accused.
The accused/ appellants were represented by Senior Advocate DP Singh, along with Sonam Gupta, Saumay Kapoor, Shiva Pande and Ritvika Poswal.
The State was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Sunil Kumar Gautam.
[Read Judgment]