New Delhi, Feb 4 (NationPress) The Delhi High Court has confirmed the conviction of a Delhi Police Sub-Inspector in a bribery case that dates back 30 years, establishing that the prosecution effectively demonstrated the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

In a ruling that dismissed the criminal appeal, a single-judge Bench led by Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha chose not to intervene with the 2003 ruling of the trial court, which had deemed Sub-Inspector Manoj Kumar guilty under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), along with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, sentencing him to four years of rigorous imprisonment.

“The sole issue for consideration in the current appeal is whether any errors exist in the contested judgment that warrant this Court's intervention.

Upon thorough evaluation of the available evidence, this Court identifies no such errors,” Justice Sudha remarked.

The case stemmed from a 1995 complaint alleging that the appellant, stationed at Jama Masjid police station, demanded a bribe of ₹5,000 from the complainant to avoid taking negative action regarding a criminal case involving the sale of counterfeit university degrees.

Following the complaint, the CBI’s Anti-Corruption Branch executed a trap at Tis Hazari Courts, during which ₹4,000 was seized from a head constable who accepted the payment on the appellant’s orders.

Rejecting the defense's claim that the demand was unproven due to the absence of certain witnesses, the Delhi High Court affirmed that the complainant’s testimony remained consistent and credible.

“In such cases, the complainant is not considered an accomplice, and his testimony does not always require corroboration from independent sources,” the court stated.

Justice Sudha dismissed concerns regarding the absence of specific witnesses, including the complainant’s son and other police officials.

“Evidence should be assessed in quality rather than quantity,” the judgment noted, emphasizing that the absence of some witnesses did not detract from the prosecution's case.

Regarding the admissibility of an audio recording presented by the prosecution, the Delhi High Court stated that even disregarding the cassette and transcript, there was ample independent evidence to uphold the conviction.

“The request for a bribe was not initiated during the recorded conversation, but rather on a prior occasion,” Justice Sudha stated.

Concluding that the essential facts of demand and acceptance were established beyond reasonable doubt, the Delhi High Court affirmed the application of statutory presumption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which remained unrefuted by the appellant.

“I see no justification to doubt the prosecution's case,” Justice Sudha declared, dismissing the appeal and confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.