Even if the accused was not authorised to perform the act for which he took the bribe, an offence is made out if he accepted illegal gratification, the Delhi High Court said. (Image generated using AI)Delhi High Court bribery case ruling: The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of a public servant in a 1986 bribery case involving Rs 100, while observing that the offence of demanding and accepting illegal gratification strikes at the very integrity of public service and cannot be treated lightly.Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha, while maintaining the guilty verdict, reduced the sentence from one year to six months, noting the “mitigating circumstances” of the long trial and the small amount involved. Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha held that the prosecution had successfully established demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.The high court was hearing the appeal of Bhim Singh Lakara, who was working as a lower division clerk in the slum department of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and allegedly took a bribe of Rs 100 from a person to make an entry in a possession slip.Also Read | Justice after death: Widow wins 20-year legal battle as Chhattisgarh High Court overturns husband’s bribery conviction“The offence proved against the appellant pertains to the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant, which is a serious offence affecting the integrity of a public servant and cannot be viewed lightly. However, certain mitigating circumstances cannot be overlooked,” the Delhi High Court’s April 4 order read.Bribery allegationThe prosecution claimed that the accused, on July 18, 1986, demanded and accepted a sum of Rs 100 from one witness as illegal gratification for incorporating “No. IV Jawalapuri” on his possession slip No. 007364 in respect of plot No. C-82, Block No IV, Jawalapuri, Delhi, while working as a lower division clerk (LDC) in the slum department of Delhi Development Authority.A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged at the instance of the witness, and following a CBI investigation, a chargesheet was submitted, alleging the commission of the said offences.Also Read | US-born child’s ‘deep roots’ in India outweigh American court orders, Delhi High Court rules in bitter custody battleSubsequently, the trial court, by an order of June 30, 2003, held the accused guilty of the offence and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year, along with a fine of Rs 1,000 and, in case of default in payment, the accused was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Aggrieved by the order, the accused moved the Delhi High Court.Story continues below this adCourt modifies sentenceThe case dates back to 1986, and the accused has faced criminal trial for a considerable length of time. The amount involved is Rs 100, and there is no material to indicate that the man is a habitual offender or has been involved in similar offences.While maintaining the conviction, the Delhi High Court held that the ends of justice would be met by modifying the sentence. Accordingly, the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year was reduced to six months.The court observed that minor variations in proceedings prior to the CBI’s ‘trap’, set to catch the official in the act, are not sufficient to discredit the prosecution’s case, as such inconsistencies do not go to the root of the matter.The Delhi High Court held that the prosecution had successfully established demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and the recovery of the tainted money from the possession of the accused has been proved beyond doubt.The high court presumed that such gratification was accepted as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act, unless the contrary is proved.The contention of the defence that the accused was not competent to make the entry in the possession slip is also without merit. The Delhi High Court clarified that even if the accused was not authorised to perform the act, the offence is made out if he demanded and accepted illegal gratification.Also Read | Love isn’t consent: Gauhati High Court not to quash POCSO case despite ‘compromise’ArgumentsAppearing for the accused, advocate Gulab Singh submitted before the Delhi High Court that his client was falsely implicated in the case. He added that the accused was neither entitled nor authorised to make any corrections in the possession slip. Therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of doubt.On the contrary, special public prosecutor Rajesh Kumar argued that the foundational facts necessary to substantiate the prosecution case stand duly proved. The prosecution’s case is proved by the materials on record.He further stated that it is not necessary that the person demanding the bribe must be in a position of authority to perform the act in question. It is sufficient if the accused induces the complainant and accepts the gratification.Richa Sahay is a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express, where she focuses on simplifying the complexities of the Indian judicial system. A law postgraduate, she leverages her advanced legal education to bridge the gap between technical court rulings and public understanding, ensuring that readers stay informed about the rapidly evolving legal landscape. Expertise Advanced Legal Education: As a law postgraduate, Richa possesses the academic depth required to interpret intricate statutes and constitutional nuances. Her background allows her to provide more than just summaries; she offers context-driven analysis of how legal changes impact the average citizen. Specialized Beat: She operates at the intersection of law and public policy, focusing on: Judicial Updates: Providing timely reports on orders from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts. Legal Simplification: Translating dense "legalese" into accessible, engaging narratives without sacrificing factual accuracy. Legislative Changes: Monitoring new bills, amendments, and regulatory shifts that shape Indian society. ... Read More © IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd