Read Time: 05 minutes

The Delhi High Court recently upheld the order of the Trial Court convicting an Assistant Sub Inspector in a bribery case 20 years after he was granted bail by the High Court.

The single Judge bench of Justice Anu Malhotra was hearing an appeal by ASI Ram Naresh Tiwari seeking  for suspension of sentence where it was  submitted that the fine had already been deposited and grant of bail was disposed of with directions to the effect that, the sentence awarded to the appellant was suspended on submission of the personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

The Trial Court in April 2001 had convicted the ASI for offences punishable under Sections 7 & 13(2) read with Sections 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 186/201 read with Section 224/332/353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Thereafter the order was challenged in High Court whereby he was granted bail in May 2001 by the High Court with the condition to deposit a personal bond of Rs 15000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

The case against the petitioner was that whilst being posted and functioning as a public servant in the capacity of an Asst.Sub Inspector in New Delhi, he  had abused his official position and had demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as a bribe from one Sh. Sunil Kumar Aggarwal   against whom the appellant was looking into a complaint lodged by Sh. Bal Krishan in relation to the disappearance of his daughter Alka Aggarwal who had alleged alleged that the appellant had accepted a sum of Rs.5000/- from Sh. Sunil Kumar Aggarwal as a reward for not initiating any action against him.

The High Court however on a consideration of the submissions of both the parties said “ this Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity whatsoever in the impugned judgment dated 25.04.2001”.

The Court said “It is held that the sentence imposed on the accused/appellant is commensurate with the nature of offence committed by the appellant as per the sentence imposable on the date of the commission of the offence.”

The court further added that “The defence evidence led by the accused i.e. the appellant herein before the Trial Court, in unable to create any dent in the prosecution version which establishes the factum of the garbed demand of illegal gratification made by the appellant for removal of the name of the complainant.”

Case Title: Ram Naresh Tiwari vs CBI