Delhi HC Upholds Delhi Police ASI’s Conviction For Offering ₹50 K Bribe To Judge, Acquits Co-Accused On Conspiracy Charge
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld the conviction imposed in 2021 on a former assistant sub-inspector of Delhi Police for attempting to give ₹50,000 to a judicial officer at Tis Hazari Courts in order to secure a peon’s post in the district judiciary for a co-accused, while at the same time setting aside the finding that he was part of a criminal conspiracy. The case arose from allegations that the money was sent in an envelope containing the candidate’s interview letter, which was delivered through the court staff to the judge. Justice Krishna held that the act constituted abetment of offering illegal gratification, but the material did not establish an agreement among the individuals alleged to have been involved.
The case arose from an incident on 26 August 2017, when a former Delhi Police assistant sub-inspector went to the courtroom of a judge at Tis Hazari Courts and requested a meeting by referring to a retired judicial officer known to him. After the judge declined to meet, he contacted the retired officer by phone and returned with an envelope, which he handed to the Naib Court with instructions that it be given to the judge. When the envelope was opened on the judge’s direction, it was found to contain ₹50,000 in currency notes along with a photocopy of an interview letter issued to a candidate appearing for the peon recruitment interview scheduled for the next day. A written complaint followed, leading to registration of an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
During investigation, the authorities collected CCTV footage, call detail records, bank statements, subscriber documentation for several mobile numbers, and the interview-related documents. The prosecution examined twenty-two witnesses, including the judicial officer, the Naib Court, bank officials, nodal officers, and those involved in seizing and preserving the case property. The defence examined five witnesses and asserted that the envelope was handed over due to personal hostility attributed to the Naib Court, disputing the motive, the electronic evidence, and the inferences drawn regarding conspiracy.
The Court began by noting that the allegation of conspiracy required proof of an agreement among the accused to achieve the illegal objective. It recorded that “an agreement between the parties to achieve the illegal object, which was to pay a bribe to influence Mr. Chandra Shekhar, the then ASJ” formed the foundation of the prosecution case. The Court clarified that “mere suspicion, or the fact that some accused knew each other, is insufficient.”
With respect to Mukul Kumar, the Court acknowledged the recovery of the Interview Letter from the envelope delivered to the ASJ but observed that “apart from the recovery of this Interview Letter, there is no other cogent evidence linking the Appellant… to the commission of the offence.” It held that “no evidence whatsoever was led to demonstrate any ‘meeting of the mind’ between him and the co-appellants.” On the call detail records, the Court indicated that “in the absence of the contents of these calls, there is nothing to suggest these conversations concerned the alleged conspiracy.”
Regarding Ramesh Kumar, the Court considered the prosecution allegation that he had provided the amount of Rs.50,000 but evaluated whether the evidence corroborated the transfer of money or involvement in a conspiracy beyond the circumstantial chain.
For Tara Dutt, the Court placed weight on the prosecution showing the delivery of the envelope through Head Constable Surender Kumar and the recovery of cash and the Interview Letter. It held that “the prosecution has proven through cogent and unimpeachable evidence, the overt act of offering the bribe money to the learned Judge.” The Court further observed that “there could not have been better corroborative evidence than the recovery of the envelope containing the money.”
The Court then evaluated whether the statutory ingredients under Section 12 PC Act were attracted, referring to decisions of Kerala, Allahabad, and Bombay High Courts, and stated that “an attempt to bribe by giving money, without a corresponding demand or acceptance, does not constitute the offence of abetment under S.12 PC Act.” The Court held that assessments must be made separately for each accused to determine whether the threshold of abetment was fulfilled.
The Court directed that “the conviction of Tara Dutt is upheld under S.12 PC Act, while he is acquitted for the offence under S.120 B IPC. Criminal Appeal No. 315/2021 of Tara Dutt is accordingly, disposed of. There is no offence proved against Mukul Kumar and Ramesh Kumar, who are hereby acquitted and their Appeal No. 319/2021 is accordingly, allowed.”
“Pending Applications if any, are disposed of accordingly.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Appellants: Mr. Kundan Chandravanshi and Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocates, Ms. Sushma Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent/State: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for State with SI Neeraj, P.S. Subzi Mandi
Case Title: Tara Dutt v. State; Mukul Kumar & Ramesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:9422
Case Number: CRL.A.315/2021 & CRL.A.319/2021
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
