“With great power comes great responsibility”—an adage although popularised by Marvel Comics and Films through their superhero Spider-Man has become an arduous code of conduct, especially for public servants, said a Delhi Court while convicting a police officer on charges of bribery [CBI v. Gopal Singh].

Rouse Avenue Court’s Special Judge Namita Aggarwal said that power cannot be enjoyed simply for its privileges alone and those who wield power are morally responsible if they fail to use it.

The order passed on June 8 underlined that the policing authority was one of the most ubiquitous organisations of the society besides being the “most visible representative” of the government. 

Thus, there is a need for accountability from police, the Court emphasised.

“Being public servants with vast powers at their disposition, police officers are expected to set a standard for the society by being accessible to public in case of need. They play a vital role in the protection of right to life, liberty, security, etc., enshrined in the Constitution of India. Thus, the need for police accountability is made evident by the great powers that police forces yield,” it added.

The police official in question was accused of demanding ₹2 lakh as bribe from a couple for deleting their names from a complaint he was investigating in 2018.

According to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which investigated the case against the police official, acceptance of the bribe was proven by the trap laid down by the agency. 

Forensic results of the proceedings and witnesses’ testimonies proved the charges against him beyond reasonable doubt, it was argued.  

The counsel for the accused cop said that the prosecution sanction granted against his client was invalid since it was without “application of mind” and consideration of the requisite documents. Pointing out other loopholes, the counsel emphasised that the complainant in the case had turned hostile.

The court observed the sanction order was passed after due application of mind and consideration of all the documents by the sanctioning authority.

Referring to an incriminating call record between the police officer and the complainant, the Court noted that an officer who was “roguish enough” to ask the complainant to make a video call to her would “obviously not make any demand directly” in unambiguous words as a matter of abundant caution. 

“Moreover, in the entire conversation the accused kept asking the complainant not to tell all this to her husband and even not talk about it on the phone. This clearly proves the malice on part of the accused while demanding money from the complainant,” the Court said.

It further opined that the defence has tried to pick and choose even the minutest of the discrepancies to support its case forgetting that the case was handled by human beings who are bound to act like this in natural course of events.

“It can be safely inferred that the complete chain of circumstances was established beyond reasonable doubt and without a snap, thus proving the guilt of the accused. Thus, accused Gopal Singh is convicted for offence under Section 7 (illegal gratification) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018),” it held.