The Delhi High Court has dismissed a criminal appeal filed by a Delhi Police constable, upholding his conviction in a corruption case dating back to 1994. The court found no legal infirmity in the trial court’s findings that the accused had demanded and accepted illegal gratification.
Background of the Case
The case arose from allegations that Constable Satish Kumar, posted at Mehrauli Police Station, demanded ₹1,000 from a complainant for returning his identity card. The incident reportedly took place after a late-night police checking at Aya Nagar in July 1994.
A complaint was later lodged with the Anti-Corruption Branch, leading to a trap operation. During the raid, the accused was allegedly caught accepting the marked currency notes.
The trial court, in 2004, convicted him under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine.
The appeal was heard by Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha. Notably, the appellant had passed away during the pendency of the appeal, and no legal representative came forward to pursue the case. The court, however, proceeded to examine the matter on merits based on the record.
The defence argued that the prosecution’s case was weak because the complainant was never examined, and that there were inconsistencies in witness testimonies. It also questioned the validity of the sanction granted for prosecution.
The court addressed the absence of the complainant, noting that while he remained untraceable, the case did not automatically fail.
“The non-examination of the informant does not, by itself, preclude the prosecution from establishing the offence,” the bench observed.
Relying on established legal principles, the court emphasized that demand and acceptance of a bribe can be proved through other reliable evidence.
In this case, the testimony of the panch witness (shadow witness) was found credible. The court noted that his account clearly established both the demand and acceptance of the bribe.
It further observed that recovery of the tainted money from the accused supported the prosecution’s version.
On the issue of sanction, the court held that the authority granting approval for prosecution was legally competent, as it had the power to remove the accused from service.
After examining the evidence and arguments, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully proved the essential elements of the offence.
“I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment calling for interference,” the court stated while dismissing the appeal.
The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court were thus upheld, and all pending applications were closed.
Case Details:
Case Title: Const. Satish Kumar v. State of Delhi
Case Number: CRL.A. 862/2004
Judge: Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha
Decision Date: 27 April 2026
