Delhi High Court questions 1991 ACB raid inside Tis Hazari courtroom during proceedings

The Delhi High Court on Friday raised questions over how Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) officers carried out a raid inside a courtroom “under the nose of the Magistrate” without prior permission. [Ram Prashad v. State of NCT of Delhi]

Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by Ram Prashad, a Naib court constable posted at Tis Hazari courts, who had been convicted under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act for allegedly accepting ₹150 as illegal gratification.

The case arose from a raid conducted by ACB officials inside a courtroom in 1991 during ongoing judicial proceedings.

In its judgment passed on April 24, the High Court noted that the raid to trap Prashad was carried out inside the courtroom without prior permission from the presiding Magistrate or the District Judge.

“I cannot but wonder as to how such a transaction took place in the immediate presence or, to put it in other words, ‘under the nose of the Magistrate’ presiding in the court….What was the Magistrate doing at that time that he did not notice such a transaction taking place inside his courtroom? The Magistrate seems to have been completely oblivious of the things happening inside his Court. The Magistrate is never seen to have questioned the activities carried out without his permission inside his court room. The Magistrate seems to have been quite nonchalant about the raid conducted, though no permission was sought by the officer concerned. It is beyond my comprehension as to how PW6 dared to conduct a raid and apprehend the accused inside the court hall, that too when the court proceedings were going on," the High Court observed.

The Court thus set aside the conviction and acquitted the constable after noting that the prosecution had failed to prove the demand for illegal gratification.

The appeal before the High Court arose from a 2001 trial court judgment that had convicted Prashad under Sections 7 (Bribery) and 13 (Misconduct) of the PC Act.

Prashad challenged both his conviction and sentence before the High Court.

According to the prosecution, a student(complainant) was sent by his tutor to inquire about a challan issued for a scooter. The student was allegedly told that while the fine would be around ₹400–₹500, the matter could be settled for ₹150 in exchange for return of documents and disposal of the challan.

Following this, the student approached the ACB and lodged a complaint.

Acting on the complaint, the ACB organised a trap on the same day. A panch witness was deputed and the currency notes were handed over to the complainant.

The trap was executed inside court room no 326 of Tis Hazari courts while proceedings were ongoing. The prosecution alleged that the accused accepted ₹150 and kept it in a register after which he was apprehended and the tainted money was recovered.

After examining the evidence, the High Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish the foundational requirement of the demand of illegal gratification, which is essential for conviction under the PC Act.

The Court noted that the complainant had given inconsistent statements during the trial and said that the demand was made by another person and not the accused. It further observed that the panch witness only supported the recovery of money and not the demand.

“But the evidence regarding the demand is quite unsatisfactory for the reasons hereinabove referred to. Materials do make out a case of strong suspicion against the accused, but suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof,” the Court said.

Therefore, the Court held that the evidence on record was insufficient to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and that the trial court was wrong in convicting the accused.

Hence, the High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted Ram Prashad of all charges, setting aside both the conviction and sentence.

Advocates ML Yadav, Prashant, Piyush Saini and Hardeep Godara appeared for the accused.

Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Utkarsh along with Inspector RN Pathak (ACB), appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]