32-Year Delay No Bar: Delhi High Court Confirms Conviction Rs 1,000 Bribery Case

In Const. Satish Kumar v. State Of Delhi, the Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of a police constable for accepting a ₹1,000 bribe in 1994. The ruling reaffirmed that corruption offences can be proved even after long delays if evidence remains reliable.

The judgement was delivered by Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha, who dismissed the appeal filed by the accused. The constable had challenged his conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, arguing that the prosecution’s case was weak.

The trial court had earlier sentenced the constable to one year of rigorous imprisonment on each count, along with a fine. It had directed that both sentences would run concurrently. The High Court found no legal error in this sentencing.

According to the prosecution, the constable was posted at Mehrauli Police Station and had seized a complainant’s identity card during a checking operation. He allegedly demanded ₹1,000 for returning the document. Acting on the complaint, the Anti-Corruption Branch laid a trap and caught the constable while accepting the bribe.

Before the High Court, the defence argued that the conviction should not stand because the complainant was never examined during trial. Despite repeated summons, the complainant remained untraceable. The defence claimed that this absence weakened the prosecution’s case.

The Court, however, rejected this argument. It held that non-examination of the complainant is not fatal if the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can be proved through other credible evidence. The Court emphasised that corruption cases must be assessed on the overall strength of evidence, not merely on the presence of a single witness.

For this principle, reliance was placed on Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), where the Supreme Court clarified that demand of illegal gratification can be proved through circumstantial evidence, documentary records, or testimony of other witnesses, even if the complainant is unavailable.

In the present case, the High Court found the testimony of the panch witness to be clear and reliable. The witness had supported the prosecution’s version regarding both demand and acceptance of the bribe. The Court saw no reason to doubt this evidence.

The Court also examined the issue of sanction for prosecution. It held that the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police was competent to grant sanction, as the authority had the power to remove the accused from service.

Finding no infirmity in the trial court’s findings, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction. The judgement reinforces that corruption cases can succeed on strong supporting evidence, even in the absence of the original complainant.