The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Rajinder Singh alias Babloo, upholding his conviction under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in a case involving ₹1,300 allegedly collected to facilitate the issuance of a duplicate driving licence. Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav delivered the judgment on October 8, 2026, holding that the evidence of the panch witness and the raiding officer supported the prosecution despite the complainant turning hostile.
Background
The case arose from an incident at the Transport Authority office in Janakpuri on December 5, 2006. The complainant, Ravinder Singh, had approached the office after misplacing his driving licence. According to the prosecution, Rajinder Singh offered to arrange a duplicate licence and complete the necessary formalities for a total payment of ₹1,300, including the government fee.
The complainant subsequently approached the Anti-Corruption Branch, following which a trap was organised. During the operation, the currency notes were handed to Mukesh Kumar, who was accompanying Rajinder Singh. The raiding team apprehended both men and recovered the treated currency notes.
The trial court convicted Rajinder Singh under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months, along with a fine of ₹10,000. He challenged the conviction before the High Court.
Before the High Court, the appellant argued that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential elements of the offence, particularly the demand and acceptance of gratification. The complainant and another witness had not supported the prosecution during trial.
The State, however, relied on the testimony of panch witness Lalit Kumar and the raiding officer. The prosecution also pointed to two cash receipts recovered during the appellant’s personal search, which related to payments made to the Transport Authority.
Justice Yadav observed that the complainant’s hostile testimony did not, by itself, undermine the entire prosecution case. The Court found that the panch witness had supported the account of the demand and the transaction during the raid.
“PW-4 Lalit Kumar has firmly stood his ground and supported the prosecution’s case in toto and has come out with flying colours from the onslaught of cross-examination, thus, firmly binding and cementing the case of the prosecution against the Appellant.”
The Court also considered the evidence of the raiding officer and the unexplained recovery of the receipts. Referring to the evidentiary record, it stated:
“The testimonies of the Panch Witness and raiding officer are sufficient as long as the same are above board, cogent and convincing to record a finding against the accused.”
The High Court found no sufficient ground to interfere with the trial court’s findings or the sentence imposed. It dismissed the appeal and directed Rajinder Singh to surrender forthwith to serve his sentence.
The Court also granted him the benefit of set-off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Case Title: Rajinder Singh @ Babloo v. State
Case Number: CRL.A. 206/2011
-300x169.webp&w=2048&q=75)
