Delhi High Court Acquits DESU Clerk in 30-Year-Old Corruption Case, Says Bribe Demand Not Proven

The Delhi High Court recently acquitted a former clerk of the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking in a corruption case dating back over three decades, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of bribery under law.

The bench of Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha set aside a 2003 judgment of the trial court which had convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The high court held that the evidence on record did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had either demanded or accepted illegal gratification.

“………this Court is unable to find that the evidence on record is satisfactory to prove the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. Had it been only PW1 who had turned hostile and if the remaining evidence had inspired confidence in the mind of the Court, this court could have certainly arrived at a conclusion regarding the guilt of the accused. The materials on record do raise a grave suspicion of the appellant/A1 having committed the offence charged against him. But suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. That being the position, it can only be found that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, I find that the appellant/A1 is entitled to the benefit of doubt”, court observed.

The case originated from a complaint filed in 1994 by a consumer who alleged that the accused, then working as a junior clerk in the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking office, had demanded ₹500 to rectify an electricity bill issued to him.

Acting on the complaint, the Anti-Corruption Branch had laid a trap on August 8, 1994. According to the prosecution’s case, the complainant handed over tainted currency notes to a paan vendor outside the office premises, who in turn allegedly passed the money to the accused clerk.

Based on these events, the trial court convicted the accused in 2003, holding him guilty of corruption offences. The conviction was subsequently challenged before the high court.

While examining the appeal, the high court found serious inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. A key factor that weighed with the court was the testimony of the complainant himself. Although he initially supported the prosecution during his examination in chief, he later turned hostile during cross examination.

In his later testimony, the complainant stated that the alleged demand for bribe had not been made by the accused clerk but by another individual named Raj Kumar. This contradiction, court noted, struck at the very foundation of the prosecution’s case.

Emphasizing the legal requirement under corruption law, court observed that mere recovery or acceptance of money is not sufficient to establish guilt unless it is accompanied by clear proof of demand and voluntary acceptance of the bribe.

“Mere acceptance of illegal gratification without proof of offer by the bribe giver and demand by the public servant would not constitute an offence,” court observed while interpreting the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Court also noted gaps in the investigation and prosecution. It pointed out that there was evidence indicating the presence of a third person during the trap proceedings who had allegedly been apprehended at the spot. However, despite being cited in the chargesheet, this individual was not examined as a witness during the trial.

“The materials on record do not show as to why this witness was not examined by the prosecutor,” court remarked, highlighting the unexplained omission as a serious lacuna in the prosecution’s case.

Taking into account the contradictions in testimony, lack of corroborative evidence, and procedural lapses, the high court concluded that the prosecution had failed to discharge its burden of proof.

Accordingly, court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, bringing an end to a case that had remained pending in the judicial system for over thirty years.

The judgment reiterates the settled legal principle that in corruption cases, proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is indispensable, and any reasonable doubt must operate in favour of the accused.

Case Title: Rajinder Kumar v. CBI

Bench: Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha

Date of Judgement: 16.03.2026