Conviction Under PC Act Sustained: Demand and Acceptance Inferred from Conduct Despite No Direct Recovery from Accused

1. Case Snapshot

• Case Name: Sidharth Jain vs State of Delhi

• Citation: 2026:DHC:5816

• High Court: High Court of Delhi

• Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav

• Date of Decision: July 14, 2026

• Area of Law: Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2)

2. Judgment in Brief

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal against conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant, a Junior Clerk at DVB, was convicted for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 500/- for issuing a No Objection Certificate to a retired Head Constable. The appellant argued that demand and acceptance were not proved as the money was not recovered from his person and the panch witness did not hear the demand. The High Court upheld the conviction, holding that demand and acceptance can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's conduct of taking the complainant to an isolated terrace, leaving the panch witness behind, and the immediate recovery of tainted currency notes from the location. The Court distinguished precedents where recovery alone was relied upon.

3. Relevant Facts

• The complainant (retired Head Constable) applied for NOC from DVB for surrendering government accommodation. Despite paying dues, the NOC was not issued for months.

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.