Conviction for Alleged Bribe Set Aside Due to Uncorroborated Testimony

Yogesh Vs State of Delhi (Delhi High Court)

The Delhi High Court overturned the conviction of Yogesh, a Sales Tax Officer, who was found guilty by a Special Judge under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case originated from a complaint alleging that an Inspector Sandeep Yadav initially demanded a bribe for sales tax registration processing, later reduced to ₹3,000. During a trap, Yogesh was apprehended, and ₹1,500 was recovered from him. However, the High Court, upon reviewing the evidence, found significant inconsistencies and lack of corroboration in the prosecution’s case.

The court emphasized that proving a prior demand for illegal gratification is essential for convictions under the relevant sections of the PC Act. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the High Court noted that mere acceptance of money without proof of demand is insufficient. In this case, the complainant’s testimony regarding the demand was inconsistent and unsupported by the Chartered Accountant who accompanied him or the panch witness. Notably, the initial demand was attributed to Inspector Yadav, who was absent during the trap, and the complainant’s account of a subsequent arrangement with Yogesh was not corroborated. The discrepancy in the demanded amount (₹3,000) and the recovered amount (₹1,500) was also not adequately explained. Considering these evidentiary gaps and the uncorroborated nature of the key allegations, the High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the charge against Yogesh and thus set aside his conviction.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT