Delhi High Court Acquits Accused in High-Profile Corruption Case

Court Cites Lack of Evidence and Doubts on Credibility of Prosecution's Key Witness

In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has acquitted Har Swarup Verma and Ashok Kumar Gupta, both former Junior Engineers with the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), who were earlier convicted for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 2,500 in a corruption case dating back to 1991. The High Court, presided over by Justice Amit Mahajan, overturned the previous conviction, citing insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case.

The case revolved around allegations that the two DDA officials had demanded a bribe from a complainant, Som Nath, for facilitating the completion of certain forms necessary for the construction of his house and to avoid demolition threats. The Anti-Corruption Branch had set up a trap, resulting in the arrest of Verma with marked currency notes.

However, the High Court found significant gaps in the prosecution's case. The judgment highlighted the failure to establish a clear demand for the bribe, a key component required for conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Justice Mahajan noted that the prosecution's reliance on the testimony of Som Nath, whom the court described as a "stock witness" for the Anti-Corruption Branch, was problematic due to his previous involvement in similar cases, which undermined his credibility.

Further, the court pointed out procedural irregularities, such as the investigation being conducted by officers not authorized under the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, the court clarified that this irregularity did not, by itself, invalidate the trial unless it resulted in a miscarriage of justice, which was not demonstrated in this case.

The court emphasized the principle of criminal jurisprudence that when two views are possible, one leading to guilt and the other to innocence, the benefit of doubt should go to the accused. Consequently, the court acquitted both Verma and Gupta of all charges, setting aside the trial court's judgment and sentence.

Bottom Line:

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Demand for illegal gratification - Essential to prove demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribe amount beyond reasonable doubt - Mere possession and recovery of money insufficient for conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of PC Act.

Statutory provision(s): Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2), 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Har Swarup Verma v. State of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2812416