Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Akshay @ Akshay Singh on 26 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV AGGARWAL
SPECIAL JUDGE : (CBI)-10 : (PC ACT)
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI
CNR No. : DLCT11-000023-2021
CC No. : 09/2021
RC No : DAI-2020-A-0007
U/S : 7 of P.C. Act, 1988
Branch : CBI/ACB/New Delhi.
CBI vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Versus
Akshay @ Akshay Singh
S/o Sh. A.B.Singh
R/o Flat no. B-1/25, situated at Police Computer Society,
Plot no. B-16, Vasundhara Enclave, New Delhi-110096
Permanent R/o. City Palace, Civil Lines, Pratapgarh (UP)
Date of Institution : 18.01.2021
Date on which reserved for judgment : 14.10.2024
Date of Judgment : 26.10.2024
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts as set out in the chargesheet are as under:-
CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 1 of 105CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh It has been alleged in the complaint dated 16.02.2020 that the complainant is running a proprietary firm in the name and style of Four ACE Communication at Surat, Gujarat and doing the work of Liasoning and event management. It has been further alleged that Indian Trade Promotion Organisation (ITPO), New Delhi is organizing "Ahar Mela" from 03.03.2020 to 07.03.2020 at Pragati Medan. M/s Linova Kitchen Equipment Pvt. Ltd. Rajkot was given the work of Space Booking and decoration of the stall at Pragati Maidan to the complainant. M/s Linova had deposited an amount of Rs.
7,34,000/- approx. in the account of ITPO on 10.02.2020. It has been further alleged that on 15.02.2020, when the complainant met the suspect officer Sh Akshay Singh Dy. Manager, Indian Trade Promotion Organisation, New Delhi for collecting the allotment letter, Bill and Transport Entry Pass, at that time the suspect officer did not handover the same and demanded a bribe of Rs.1,25,000/- and also threatened the complainant that if the bribe amount of Rs.
1,25,000/- is not paid to him, he will not give the CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 2 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh allotment and further work. Since, the complaint did not want to pay the bribe, he lodged a complaint with CBI, ACB, Delhi.
Investigation revealed that during the verification of complaint, prior to FIR, accused Akshay, the then Dy. Manager, India Trade Promotion Organisation, New Delhi demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 1,25,000/- from the complainant which was negotiated to Rs.1,20,000/- and the same was agreed by accused Akshay. Therefore, verification officer recommended for registration of FIR in the instant case and thereafter, an FIR RC-DAI-2020- A-0007 was registered on 17.02.2020 against Akshay Singh, u/s 7 of PC Act 1988 (as amended in 2018).
That during verification accused Akshay met the complainant and independent witness and after a brief discussion, demanded bribe amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- which was negotiated to Rs. 1,20,000/- by the complainant. The recorded conversation corroborated the version of the complainant which revealed the demand on the part of accused Akshay. The CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 3 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh relevant transcript is as under:
Akshay (A) ek kaam kar.... Tu bol ek bees... paanch hazar tere liye chod raha hoon... bus ho gaya.... unclear... theek hai... theek hai... theek hai Jigar (C) ek laakh bees hazar final.... Akshay (A) Haan Paanch hazar iskey saamney he dunga tereko Jagar (C) Hmm Akshay (A) Bhai kal tum leke aaogey to... aspasht aavaaz Jigar (C) Bhai giyarah baze ke andar andar... bye Investigation further revealed that after registration of instant case investigation was entrusted to Inspector A.K. Singh.
Investigation further revealed that from the recording & conversation held between accused Akshay and complainant Shri Jigar Patel, it has been established that accused Akshay demanded bribe from the complainant. The verification of the complaint has been established through the statement of the complainant, the independent witness and the verification officer CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 4 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh as well as the voice recording in the DVR, Voice Identification-cum-TranscriptionMemos prepared in presence of the independent witnesses and also the role of the accused Akshay and his complicity in the crime. The voice matching report is awaited from CFSL, New Delhi.
Investigation further revealed that after registration of an FIR, a trap team consisting Sh. A.K. Singh, Inspr./TLO, CBI, ACB, Delhi and other CBI officials including two independent witnesses was constituted and pre-trap proceedings were drawn. The complainant Shri Jigar Patel visited AU Small Finance Bank Ltd., East of Kailash, New Delhi along with Sh. Vinod Kumar, SI and withdrew an amount of Rs.35,000/- and returned back to CBI Office.
Investigation further revealed that the complainant had produced Rs.35,000/- to hand over/deliver to accused Akshay. The GC notes of Rs. 35,000/- were treated with phenolphthalein powder. The complainant was allowed to carry the above tainted G.C. Notes only in his right side front pocket of his jeans pant which was kept by Shri Devender Kumar, independent witness. The CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 5 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh complainant was directed not to touch the said tainted bribe amount and to hand over the same to the accused on his specific demand not otherwise or on his specific direction to some other person. Shri Awadhesh Kumar Aghwaria, independent witness was asked to act as a shadow witness and to remain close to the complainant to overhear the conversation and see the transaction of bribe amount, which may take place between the complainant and the accused. The complainant was directed to give signal by rubbing his face by his both hands, after the transaction was over. The complainant was also directed to give a missed call from his mobile phone on the mobile phone of TLO Sh. Ajay Kumar Singh having Mobile No. 9968236009 immediately after the transaction of bribe, in case he was not able to see the TLO or the other team members. The shadow witness Sh. Awadhesh Kumar Aghwaria was also directed to give signal by rubbing his face by his both hands and give call/missed call to the TLO after transaction of bribe. The other independent witness Shri Devender Kumar was directed to remain with the trap party.CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 6 of 105
CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh Investigation further revealed that the complainant, both independent witnesses; TLO and trap team members left CBI Office for ITPO, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi on 17.02.2020 at about 1430 Hrs and reached near Pragati Maidan Metro Station, New Delhi at about 1450 Hrs and parked the vehicles in discreet manner.
Investigation further revealed that the complainant was sent inside the ITPO office along with the shadow witness Sh. Awdhesh Kumar Aghwaria, to meet accused Akshay. Sh. Vinod, SI placed the DVR in switched on mode inside the left side front pant pocket of the jeans of complainant at about 1500 Hrs. The remaining trap team members and other independent witness Sh. Devender Kumar followed the complainant and TLO and reached in the premises of ITPO. The complainant informed the TLO that the accused told him that he (Akshay Singh) would meet him at 4 o'clock.
Investigation further revealed that the complainant entered the ITPO Office and shadow witness Shri Awadhesh Kumar followed the complainant. The TLO, other independent CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 7 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh witness and trap team members remained in and around the ITPO premises and took position in discreet manner.
Investigation further revealed that when complainant met the accused Akshay in his office, the accused Akshay informed him through gesture and took him outside the office towards the gate no. 11 and asked him by saying KITNE DE RAHE HO, KAISE LAYE HO BHAIYA, on this complainant replied by saying ARE KAISE CHAIAYE, KITNE CHAIYAE KAHAN DOON, on this accused Akshay asked complainant by asking SARE HAI then complainant replied by saying HAAN, 2 NOTE 500 KI HAIN, BAKE SARE 2000 KI HAIN, on this accused Akshay told the complainant by saying THEEK HAI.
Investigation revealed that further complainant met the accused Akshay at his seat on the first floor of his office where accused Akshay demanded bribe through gesture of his hand and opened the drawer, on this complainant took the yellow colour envelope containing tainted bribe money and handed it over to the accused Akshay. In turn accused Akshay took the CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 8 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh said yellow envelope and then counted the tainted money by both his hands and after counting the same when accused Akshay found the money was less and was only Rs.35,000/-. Accused Akshay threatened the complainant by saying ARE BEWKOOF HO, KYA HAI, ARE KYA KAR RAHE HO TUM, on this complainant told the accused Akshay that he has kept some more amount in other envelope and he would be coming with other envelope, then accused Akshay kept the envelope in the drawer.
Investigation further revealed that at about 1730 the complainant gave a pre- decided signal by giving a call from his mobile on the mobile of TLO upon which the TLO, team members and other independent witness rushed inside the office of accused Akshay. The complainant pointed out towards accused Akshay who accepted the bribe amount. The entire conversation was duly recorded in the DVR.
Investigation further revealed that as directed by TLO independent witness Sh.
Devender Kumar searched the office table of the accused Akshay and also carried out search of the CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 9 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh files lying on the table beside his seat and one yellow colour envelope containing tainted bribe amount of Rs.35,000/- (17 GC notes of Rs.2,000/- denomination and 02 GC notes of Rs. 500/- denomination) was found in the file No. 13- ITPO(I)/FS-II/IITF-2015 which was seized and after tallying with the details as mentioned in the Handing Over Memo, found in toto.
Investigation further revealed that the hand washes of accused Akshay, file cover wash of the file in which tainted bribe amount was found and recovered and left side upper drawer table wash were taken in freshly prepared solution of sodium carbonate and water. The washes turned pink. Thereafter, these washes were transferred in separate clean glass bottles and were sealed separately and seized.
Investigation further revealed that the office table of the accused Akshay was searched and Rs.5,14,500/- was recovered from the lower drawer of table of accused Akshay and Rs.50,500/- was recovered from the office table drawer of Rohit Sonkar, Manager, ITPO to which they could not give satisfactory answer.
CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 10 of 105CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh Investigation further revealed that accused Akshay was arrested vide Arrest cum Personal Search Memo at about 2300 Hrs on 17.02.2020 and Rohit Sonkar was arrested vide Arrest cum Personal Search Memo at 4.00 AM on18.02.2020.
Investigation further revealed that the specimen voice sample of accused Akshay was taken in the presence of independent witnesses in the Fresh Micro SD Card through DVR, which was sealed and marked as S-1.
Investigation revealed that the Right Hand Wash and Left Hand Wash of accused Akshay, file cover wash of the file in which tainted bribe amount was recovered and Left side Upper Drawer Table where the accused Akshay kept the money, were sent to CFSL, New Delhi for examination and report thereon gave positive result confirming the presence of phenolphthalein in the aforesaid washes vide its Report No. CFL- 2020/C-179 dated 20.03.2020.
Investigation further revealed that an investigation copy of Q-1 was played on the CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 11 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh official laptop and the transcription of the recorded conversations held on 16.02.2020 during the verification proceedings between the complainant and the accused Akshay was prepared in presence of the complainant and the independent witness Shri Awdesh Kumar Aghwaria. The complainant identified his voice as well as the voice of the accused Shri Akshay. Similarly, independent witness Shri Awdesh Kumar Aghwaria identified his voice, complainant's voice and the voice of the accused Shri Akshay of the recorded conversation. A Voice Identification-cum-Transcription Memo was prepared to this effect on 12.10.2020.
Investigation further revealed that an investigation copy of Q-2 was played on the official laptop and the transcription of the recorded conversations held on 17.02.2020 during the trap proceedings between the complainant and the accused Shri Akshay was heard and prepared in presence of the independent witnesses Shri Awadhesh Kumar Aghwaria, Shri Devender Kumar and complainant. The complainant identified his CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 12 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh voice as well as the voice of the accused Shri Akshay. Similarly, both the independent witnesses identified their introductory voices recorded during the proceedings. A Voice Identification-cum- Transcription Memo was prepared to this effect on 13.10.2020.
Investigation further revealed that Shri Tarun Kant Pant, Manager and Shri Kunwar Singh, Dy. Manager, both of ITPO, New Delhi had also identified the voice of accused Akshay after hearing the recorded conversation in Q-1 & Q-2 as both are well acquainted with the voice of the accused Akshay as they had worked with him. A Voice Identification Memo was prepared to this effect on 26.10.2020.
That facts and circumstances discussed above show demand and receiving/acceptance of illegal gratification by accused Akshay, then Dy Manager, India Trade Promotion Organisation, New Delhi constitute offence punishable U/Sec. 7 of PC Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) on the part of accused Akshay.... "
2. Since accused Akshay Singh was a public servant at the CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 13 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh time of commission of alleged offence, necessary sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was obtained qua him by the CBI.
3. On 30.04.2022, a formal charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) was framed against accused Akshay Singh, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined as many as following 20 witnesses :-
PW-1 is Shri Pawan Singh, who was the Nodal Officer from Vodafone Idea Ltd. He has proved the CAF, CDR, location chart and Certificate U/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act of the mobile phone of complainant Patel Jigar Jayanti Bhai having mobile no. 9873983824 issued in his name. The said documents are Ex. PW1/A (Colly).
PW-2 is Shri Kamal Kumar, who was the Alternate Nodal Officer of Reliance Jio Infocomm. Ltd. He has proved the customer application form, CDR, ID Chart and Certificate U/S 65 B of Indian Evidence Act pertaining to the accused Akshay in respect of CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 14 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh mobile no. 9627002291. The customer application form and the Election I.Card is Ex. PW2/B (Colly). The CDR is Ex. PW2/C (Colly). The Cell ID Chart is Ex. PW2/D. The Certificate U/S 65 B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW2/E. PW-3 is Ms. Deepti Bharghav, who was Senior Scientific Officer-II, CFSL, New Delhi. She had examined the exhibits of this case i.e. RHW, LHW, FCW and LSUDTW containing the hand washes and the other washes of the accused. She has deposed that the said exhibits gave positive test for the presence of phenolphthalein. Her chemical report is Ex. PW3/B. PW4 is Shri Vineet Singh, who was posted as Branch Manager in AU Finance Small Bank Ltd., F-4, Ground Floor, East of Kailash, New Delhi. He received a letter from Mr. Vijay Desai of the CBI for the inquiry relating to the account of Sh. Patel Jigar Jayanti Bhai. He had handed over the relevant documents to Insp. Vijay Desai vide production cum seizure memo Ex. PW4/B and the account opening form of aforesaid person is Mark PW4/1 and the CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 15 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh statement of account pertaining to account no. 1811216120181072 in the name of the aforesaid person for the period 01.02.2020 to 28.02.2020 is Ex. PW4/C and Certificate U/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW4/D and Certificate U/S 2A of the Banker's Book of Evidence Act is Ex. PW4/E and the copy of the Aadhar card and pan card is Ex. PW4/F (colly).
PW5 is Col. Pushpam Kumar, who was posted as Officer on Special Duty, Administration at ITPO, Pragati Maidan and who had accorded the sanction u/S. 19 of PC Act for prosecution of the accused vide Ex. PW5/B. PW6 is Shri Jigar Patel, who was complainant of this case and he has deposed regarding the time, place and the manner of incident and has fully supported the prosecution case in material particulars.
PW7 is Shri Paresh Mavjibhai, who was the Director of the company M/s Leenova Kitchen Equipments Ltd. He has deposed that the company dealt in the manufacturing of food processing machinery and CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 16 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh kitchen equipments. Their company used to participate in various exhibitions like Aahar Mela in ITPO and they had engaged Sh. Jigar Patel for booking and decoration of stall in Aahar Mela in ITPO. They had not entered into any written agreement with Jigar Patel regarding the work assigned to him pertaining to Aahar Mela. They had also allowed Jigar Patel to access their company mail for booking stall in the Aahar Mela.
PW8 is Addl. SP Atul Hajela, the verification officer. He has deposed that he was working as Deputy SP, CBI, ACB on 16.02.2020 and a written typed complaint of the same date was lodged by one Jigar r/o Ahmadabad, which was endorsed to him for verification. The same is Ex. PW6/A. For the purpose of verification, independent witnesses Sh. Awadhesh Kumar Aghwaria, Assistant Engineer, Office of Chief Engineer, PWD, New Delhi was arranged through Duty Officer, CBI, ACB, New Delhi. Sh. Mukesh Pandey, SI had assisted him during verification proceedings.
All the above persons including complainant Jigar were introduced with each other CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 17 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh and the purpose of assembly was explained to them. He is the Verification Officer and who had verified the complaint and did all the proceedings pertaining thereto.
PW9 is Shri Azam Khan, who was working as Manager (Administration) in ITPO and he met Insp. Vijay Desai and handed over the documents pertaining to Akshay Singh and Rohit Sonkar which were seized vide production cum seizure memo, Ex.P-1/PW9 and the relevant documents were exhibit P-2/PW9 and another production cum seizure memo is Ex. P-3/PW9.
PW10 is Shri Avasarala Chudamani Kumar, who was working as Deputy General Manager in Management Information Cell, ITPO. He has deposed that for all the fairs including Aahar Fair 2020, the IT Department role is to get the software developed and hand over to Domestic Fair Division for its usage and administrative maintenance. Domestic Fair Division used the software for booking the stalls and get the payments from the Exhibitors.
The password related to the software CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 18 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh will be entirely used by Domestic Fair Division headed by General Manager, Domestic Fair Division. IT Department does not keep any passwords related to the Fair as all the regular work would be undertaken by Domestic Fair Division officials. The Aahar Fair, 2020 was supervised by General Manager, Domestic Fair Division Ms. Hema Maity. Domestic Fair Division is headed by General Manager and has Senior Manager, Manager and Deputy Manager. Sh. Ashok Kumar was the Senior Manager. Sh. Rohit Sonkar was the Manager and Sh. Akshay was the Deputy Manager of the Domestic Fair Division.
The IT Department undertakes its job by following the due procedure of open tender and select the software company to undertake the computerization activities related to the fair.
PW11 is Sh. Sunil Arora. He has deposed that he was running his firm by the name of M/s Sai Imports and his firm participated in IITF Fair which usually takes place in Pragati Maidan from 14 th November to 27th November every year. He also deposed that he did not participate in the Aahar Mela in the year 2020, CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 19 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh however Akshay called him for booking of two stalls in Aahar Mela pertaining to two firms, those firms namely Onena and another firm with the initials BR, and these firms did not belong to him and on the asking of accused Akshay, he booked two stalls for Aahar Mela in the name of above said firms from his laptop. The ID and the password for making the requisite booking was provided to him by accused Akshay Singh. He has proved the photographs and print outs of the screenshots of the relevant chats on his mobile number 9810399928, which are Ex. PW11/A (colly).
PW12 is Sh. Awadhesh Kumar Aghwaria. He is the shadow / independent witness, who throughout was present with the CBI team and the complainant, during the verification and during the actual trap. He has deposed regarding the time, place and manner of the pre-trap verification proceedings and trap proceedings and has fully supported the prosecution case in material particulars.
PW13 is Insp. Sunil Kumar, a member of the trap team, who was also present at the time of verification CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 20 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh and who was also present at the time of trap and who has also deposed regarding the time, place and manner of trap and fully supported the prosecution case in material particulars.
PW14 is Sh. Tarun Kumar Pant, who posted as Manager, FS-II Division in ITPO, Pragati Maidan and as an manger his job was to look after the booking of domestic fairs like India International Trade Fair, India International Leather Fair, India International Footware Fair, Aahar held in Pragati Maidan and other venues of ITPO.
He has deposed that the accused was posted as Dy Manager in FS-II Division in ITPO and dealt with Aahar Mela 2020 bookings. He further deposed that In Aahar Mela 2020, applicants were supposed to create user ID and pass word after registration on website of ITPO opened on 14.01.2020. The applicant had to upload documents like GST certificate, cancelled cheque and Pan Card. When the online booking opened on 06.02.2020, they had to log in through the user ID and password which was generated on the ITPO website.
After logging in they had to select the CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 21 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh space and then make payment. If they chose RTGS option of payment, they had to make payment within 3-4 days. After making RTGS payment they had to login again and enter the payment details. The payment details were then checked by the officer concerned Incharge of the sector of ITPO and approved if the payments and the documents were correct. Afterwards approval letter was generated. He has also proved the relevant documents which he handed over to CBI which are Ex. PW14/A to Ex. PW14/G respectively. Vide voice identification memo dated 26.10.2020 bearing his signatures and signatures of one Sh. Kanwar Singh, he had heard and identified the voice of accused Akshay Singh vide voice identification memo Ex. PW14/G. PW15 is Sh. Kunwar Singh, who was working as Deputy Manager in the ITPO at the relevant time and he was working with accused Akshay and he has visited the CBI office to identify the voice of accused Akshay Singh. However, in his deposition, he was declared hostile by the Ld. PP and he failed to recognize the voice of any of the speakers with regard to the voice contained in Q-1 and Q-2 with regard to CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 22 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh the verification proceedings and the trap proceedings and he also did not identify the voice of Akshay Singh.
PW16 is Sh. Devender Kumar, the recovery witness, who was present throughout the verification proceedings and has deposed regarding the time of actual trap and has deposed and supported the prosecution case regarding the time, place and manner of trap and fully supported the prosecution case regarding the recovery of trap money from the table besides the table of the accused immediately after the trap.
PW17 is Sh. Shubhit Gandhi, who has deposed that he was running proprietorship firm in the name and style of M/s Onena International which is the commercial kitchen equipments. Apart from the said firm, he also ran M/s Berjaya International, whose proprietor is Ms. Malika, who is his sister. He knew accused Akshay who was working in ITPO. He correctly identified the accused Akshay present in court. He met accused Akshay for Aahar exhibition in the year 2020 as he intended to book stall and CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 23 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh show his kitchen items in the said exhibition. Accused Akshay took his ID for allocating the booth in the Aahar Mela in the company M/s Onena International. Accused also took the ID of M/s Berjaya International and told that if M/s Onena International was not booked they will book the same through second company M/s Berjaya International.
In the year 2020, accused Akshay also took the documents of his both companies through whatsapp. The booth of M/s Onena was booked, however, accused Akshay did not tell him that he also booked the booth/stall of Aahar Mela of second company M/s Berjaya. The booth/stall of second company of M/s Berjaya was booked without his knowledge on his own by accused Akshay himself.
His statement was also recorded U/s 164 before Ld. MM which is Ex. PW17/A and the whataspp chat print out between him and the accused Akshay and the mobile phone seizing memo is Ex. PW17/B. The print out of whatsapp chat between him and accused Akshay is Ex. PW17/C. PW18 is Insp. Vijay A. Desai, CBI, ACB, Delhi, who CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 24 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh was the IO of this case, who has deposed regarding the investigations, as was carried out by him during the course of the present case and he had filed the charge sheet which is Ex. PW18/C. PW19 is Insp. Ajay Kumar Singh, CBI, ACB, New Delhi, who was Trap Laying Officer (TLO), who has deposed regarding the constitution of the trap team, the demonstration of the properties of the phenolphthalein powder, the sprinkling of currency notes of Rs. 35,000/- with phenolphthalein powder and the laying of the trap, arrest of the accused and recovery of bribe money. He has fully supported the prosecution case regarding the time, place and manner of trap and fully supported the prosecution case in material particulars.
PW20 is Sh. Deepak Kumar Tanwar, the voice expert who has proved the voice identification report qua the conversation of accused Akshay contained in questioned voices Ex. Q-1 (2)(A), Q-1(3)(A), Q-2 (4) (A) with the specimen voice of the accused Akshay Singh S-1 (A). He deposed that after comparison of all these, it was found that the above questioned CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 25 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh voices are the probable voice of the accused Akshay Sigh and he has also proved his report in this regard, which is Ex. PW20/A.
5. After examination of above witnesses, the prosecution evidence was closed vide separate statement of Ld. Sr. PP for CBI recorded on 05.09.2024.
6. As a consequence, the matter was listed for recording the statement of accused U/s 313 CrPC, in which the entire incriminating evidence appearing against the accused during trial was put to accused to which the accused submitted that during trial, he had learnt that complainant/PW-6/ Jigar Patel, PW-11/Sh. Sunil Arora @ Raju, his brother namely Sh. Umesh Arora, PW-17/Sh. Shobhit Gandhi, etc. were running a cartel whereby they used to do the bulk booking of the "spaces/stalls" in the fair organized by ITPO.
The present case had been foisted upon him to intimidate the officials of ITPO, as the officials of ITPO including him used to take all required steps to prohibit such bulk bookings. Since, their attempt to prohibit bulk booking was injurious to the interest of these persons, who had formed a cartel therefore, the present case has been foisted upon him. However, he did not prefer to examine any witness in his defence.
CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 26 of 105CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh
7. I have heard Sh. V. K. Ojha, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI, Sh. Harsh Sharma along with Ms. Priyanka Singh, Ld. Counsels for the accused and perused the record. I have also gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of the CBI as well as by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
8. Ld. counsel for the accused has relied upon following judgments in support of his contentions :
a) Neeraj Dutta vs CBI (2023) 4 SCC 731: (para-88.2(b));
b) Ajay Gupta vs State, Thr CBI 2022 SCC Online 3549 (Del) (Para-159);
c) Charansingh vs State of Maharastra & Ors (2021) 5 SCC 469;
(Para-20);
d) Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors (2020) 7 SCC 1 (Para 30 to 32, 59 & 73);
e) Sate of Karnataka Lokayukta, PS Bangaluru vs M. R. Hiremath (2019) 7 SCC 515 (Para17);
f) C. Sukumaran vs State of Kerala (2015) 11 SCC 314 (Para-17);
g) CBI vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal JT 2013 (15) SC 251: (Para-8);
h) P. Parasurami Reddy vs State of A. P. (2011) 12 SCC 294 (Para 8,12 & 13);
CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 27 of 105CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh
i) Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar vs State of Maharastra (2011) 4 SCC 143 (Para 31 to 396);
j) M. K. Harshan vs State of Kerala (1996) 11 SCC 720 (Para-8 Page 724);
k) Varkey Joseph vs State of Kerala (1993 Suppl. (3) SCC 745(Para 11/ Page 753);
l) Ram Singh vs Col. Ram Singh (1985) Suppl. 611 (Para-32);
m) Mahabir Prasad Verma, vs Dr. Surinder Kaur (1982) 2 SCC 258 (Para 22);
n) Ziyauddin Burhauddin Buhari vs Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra (1976) 2 SCC 17 (Para-19).
9. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI has relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions :
a) C.M. Sharma Vs. State of Andhara Pradesh, (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 89: Law Finder Doc Id 230121;
b) Ganga Bhavani Vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy and Others, 2013 Crl L. J. 4618 Supreme Court;
c) Murari Lal Vs. State of M.P. 1980 Crl. L. J. 396 Supreme Court;
d) Mohinder Singh Vs. State 1953, Crl. L. J. 1761 Supreme Court;
e) Ram Sagar Pandit Vs. State of Bihar, 1964 Crl. L. J. 65 Supreme Court;CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 28 of 105
CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh
f) Indu Bhushan Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal, 1958, Crl. L. J. 279 Supreme Court.
10. I have gone through the rival contentions.
11. Section 7 of the PC Act (as amended in 2018) reads as under :
Any public servant who,--(a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such duty either by himself or by another public servant; or
(b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage from any person as a reward for the improper or dishonest performance of a public duty or for forbearing to perform such duty either by himself or another public servant; or (c) performs or induces another public servant to perform improperly or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear performance of such duty in anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an undue advantage from any person, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 29 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh liable to fine.
From the reading of new Section 7 (as amended in 2018) as a whole, it is not merely accepting or obtaining or attempt thereof to obtain undue advantage from any person, but same has to have nexus with the improper or dishonest performance or forbearance from performing such a duty.
Mere obtaining of some advantage without any intention to improperly perform public duty or forbearance to do so or by abusing his position as a public servant will not attract provisions of Section 7 of New Act. For this, following illustration may be given :
Suppose a high ranking Minister 'M' purchases a very costly Rolex watch on credit from a high street store. The store owner 'S' generally does not sells such costly watches on credit basis, but thinking of his high influential position i.e. 'M' he sells the highly priced watch on credit to 'M' without 'M' promising any official act or forbearance or abuse of position in return. If 'M' does not later on pays for the watch, then same will not attract penal provisions of Section 7 of PC Act, 2018.
12. The prosecution must not only establish a financial or other undue advantage has been offered, promised or given, it must then also show that there is sufficient connection / co-relation between the undue advantage so obtained and intention to perform CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 30 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh any public duty improperly or forbearance / abstinence from performance of said duty or abuse or position as a public servant.
13. Though explanation I and illustration therewith of the new Section 7 may look incongruous to this afore interpretation, however, on closer look / scrutiny, it is apparent that explanation I to Section 7 and illustration thereto is merely an corollary to explanation II or the main substantive provision of Section 7 of PC Act 2018, as if a public servant 'S' asks a person 'P' to give him an amount of five thousand rupees to process his routine ration card application on time. 'S' is guilty of an offence under this Section.
In this illustration, demand of illegal gratification or undue advantage by public servant, irrespective of fact, whether performance of public duty was proper or not, i.e. for routine processing of ration card application by demanding sort of facilitation fee can only be said to be obtained by the public servant, by abusing his position as a public servant, otherwise why would 'P' give facilitation money to 'S' which would fall under explanation II to Section 7 of PC Act 2018.
In this illustration also obtaining of undue advantage has nexus with the abuse of his position as a public servant by 'S'.
14. In this context, another illustration can be given. Suppose a trader 'T' gives a substantial sum of money as a loan to CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 31 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh very high ranking public servant 'S' on 2 percentage points less than the market lending rate / banking rate thinking that he may utilize the relations so made in view of said transactions in getting his work done in future. However, the public servant 'S' has no such consideration or indulgence in his mind entering at the time of such a transaction, who enters into said transaction professionally in a business like manner nor he has linked the same with performance of his public duty improperly or forbearance from the same or has thoughts of abusing his position as a public servant. Then it cannot be said 'S' obtained any undue advantage from 'T' by abuse of his position as public servant.
15. Further, there was overlapping in the old Section 7 of PC Act, 1988 as well as Section 13(1)(d) of the said Act and it appears that the Legislature has chosen to resolve the issue by deleting half of Section 13(1)(d), this has been done through explanation II to Section 7 which carries large chunks of the old Section 13(1)(d) PC Act. Therefore, there are no substantive changes in Section 7 of PC Act, 2018 vis-a-vis older Section 7 of PC Act, 1988 with regard to basic ingredients of demand of bribe, acceptance of bribe or recovery thereof, consequently the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts would be guiding beacons for deciding a case under this Act as well.
CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 32 of 105CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh
16. The law with regard to Section 7 of the PC Act 1988 has been laid down in the relevant para(s) of the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court :
i) B. Jayaraj vs. State of AP, 2014, Cr. L J 2433
7. In so far as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court. By way of illustration reference may be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma Vs. State of A.P.[1] and C.M. Girish Babu Vs. C.B.I.[2]
8. In the present case, the complainant did not support the prosecution case in so far as demand by the accused is concerned. The prosecution has not examined any other witness, present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant, to prove that the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused. When the complainant himself had disowned what he had stated in the initial complaint.
9. In so far as the presumption permissible to be drawn under Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such presumption can only be in respect of the offence under Section 7 and not the offences under Section 13(1)(d)(i)
(ii) of the Act. In any event, it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand.
As the same is lacking in the present case the primary CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 33 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent.
ii) SeJappa vs. State, AIR 2016, SC 2045
10. In order to constitute an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 'proof of demand' is a sine quo non. This has been affirmed in several judgments including a recent judgment of this Court in B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 55, wherein this Court held as under :
'7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court. By way of illustration reference may be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P.(2010) 15 SCC 1 and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI(2009)3.SCC.779.' The same view was reiterated in P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. (2015) 10 SCC 152.
11. It is the case of the prosecution that on 09.12.1997, the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification from PW-1 to discharge the official act of forwarding PW-1's application for pension and for release of retiral benefits. PW-1-Ramakrishnappa has deposed that on 09.12.1997, the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification for sending 'No Objection Certificate' to the office of Accountant General at Bangalore for processing the appellant's pension papers. On the contrary, the appellant has taken the plea of alibi. The appellant contended that on 09.12.1997, when he is alleged to have demanded illegal gratification in his CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 34 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh office at Chitradurga, he was actually on official tour in Bangalore from 07.12.1997 to 10.12.1997 for attending a seminar and that after attending the seminar, on 10.12.1997, he along with PW-7 took delivery of a van alloted to Chitradurga PHE, Sub-Division.
iii) Mukhtiar Singh (Since deceased) Through his LR vs. State of Punjab.
14. The indispensability of the proof of demand and illegal gratification in establishing a charge under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, has by now engaged the attention of this Court on umpteen occasions. In A. Subair vs. State of Kerala4, this Court propounded that the prosecution in order to prove the charge under the above provisions has to establish by proper proof, the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification and till that is accomplished, the accused should be considered to be innocent. Carrying this enunciation further, it was exposited in State of Kerala vs. C.P. Rao5 that mere recovery by itself of the amount said to have been paid by way of illegal gratification would not prove the charge against the accused and in absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused had voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe, conviction cannot be sustained.
4 (2009) 6 SCC 587 5 (2011) 6 SCC 450
15. In P. Satyanarayana Murthy (supra), this Court took note of its verdict in B. Jayaraj vs. State of A.P.6 underlining that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Section 7 as well as Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. It was recounted as well that in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be proved. Not only CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 35 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh the proof of demand thus was held to be an indispensable essentiality and an inflexible statutory mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, it was held as well qua Section 20 of the Act, that any presumption thereunder would arise only on such proof of demand. This Court thus in P. Satyanarayana Murthy (supra) on a survey of its earlier decisions on the pre-requisites of Sections 7 and 13 and the proof thereof summed up its conclusions as hereunder:
"23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)
(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these 6 (2014) 13 SCC 55 two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder." (emphasis supplied).
17. Admittedly the accused is a public servant, therefore, sanction to prosecute him would be required u/s.19 of the PC Act. As per the testimony of PW5 Col. Pushpam Kumar, the Sanctioning Authority, the accused was working as Dy. Manager, ITPO at the relevant time of trap. Same is the testimony of PW9 Sh. Azam Khan, who has deposed that vide production-cum- seizure memo dated 21.09.2020 Ex. P-1/PW9, he handed over to the CBI the certified copies of documents pertaining to Akshay Singh i.e. service book, posting order dated 15.07.2015, transfer / posting order dated 06.03.2018, transfer / posting dated CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 36 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh 23.05.2018, computer generated bio-matric attendance sheet for the month of February 2020 pertaining to Akshay, Dy. Manager.
18. Same is the testimony of PW10 Sh. Avasarala Chuda Mani Kumar, another witness from ITPO, who deposed that the accused was working as Dy. Manager of the Domestic Fair Division and as per the relevant documents i.e. Ex. P-2/PW9, which is a part of seizure-cum-handing over memo Ex. P-1/PW9, the ITPO has been shown to be a Government of India enterprise under the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure. Therefore, the accused was a public servant. Therefore, sanction to prosecute him u/S. 19 of PC Act, 1988 (as amended in the year 2018) was necessary.
19. PW5 is Col. Pushpam Kumar, who had accorded the sanction to prosecute against the accused Akshay Singh, Dy Manager ITPO. He deposed that he had received complaint, FIR, voice samples i.e. DVR recordings, recovery memo, handing over document, chemical examination report and statement of witnesses and being OSD Administration, he was competent and disciplinary authority to accord sanction against him and he applied his mind on all the aforesaid documents placed before him and granted sanction to prosecute him which is Ex. PW5/B. CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 37 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh
20. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the testimony of PW5 that he had heard the voice samples, DVR recordings and had seen the recovery memo, handing over of documents is false, as the entire file containing the relevant documents was kept on the record for the perusal of the court.
The said file is Ex. PW5/DX2, which shows that neither any FIR is there nor any recordings or voice samples or DVR recordings or recovery memo or handing over memo or chemical examination report is there, which was perused by this witness before according sanction and sanction without perusal of all the above mentioned relevant documents is no sanction in the eyes of the law and it appears that the sanction has been accorded in a mechanical manner only after seeing the SP report that too on the dictation of the CBI, therefore, the sanction to prosecute is per se bad in law.
21. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the judgment CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (supra), in which in para 8, it has been held as under :
8. In view of the above, the legal propositions can be summarised as under:
(a) The prosecution must send the entire relevant record to the sanctioning authority including the FIR, disclosure statements, statements of witnesses, recovery memos, draft charge sheet and all other relevant material. The record so sent should also contain the material/document, if any, which may tilt the balance in favour of the accused and on CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 38 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh the basis of which, the competent authority may refuse sanction.
(b) The authority itself has to do complete and conscious scrutiny of the whole record so produced by the prosecution independently applying its mind and taking into consideration all the relevant facts before grant of sanction while discharging its duty to give or withhold the sanction.
(c) The power to grant sanction is to be exercised strictly keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought.
(d) The order of sanction should make it evident that the authority had been aware of all relevant facts/materials and had applied its mind to all the relevant material.
(e) In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that the entire relevant facts had been placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same and that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law.
22. On the other hand Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI has relied upon the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Ram Sagar Pandit Vs. The State of Bihar (supra), in which it was held in para 11 as under :
11. Section 6 of the Act also does not require the sanction to be given in a particular form. The principle expressed by the Privy Council, namely that the sanction should be given in respect of the facts constituting the offence charged equally applies to the sanction under S. 6 of the Act. In the present case all the facts constituting the offence of misconduct with which the appellant was charged were placed before the Government. The second principle, namely, that the facts should be referred to on the face of the sanction and if they do not so appear, the prosecution CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 39 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh must prove them by extraneous evidence, is certainly sound having regard to the purpose of the requirements of a sanction.
In the present case though the sanction ex facie does not disclose the facts, the documents which are exhibited in the case give all the necessary relevant facts constituting the offence of criminal misconduct. This Court in Biswabhusan Naik v. State of Orissa, AIR 1954 SC 359 rejected a contention similar to that now raised before us. There the sanction given under S. 6 of the Act referred only to Sub-S. (2) of S. 5 of the Act and it did not specify which of the four offences mentioned in S. 5(1) was meant. This Court adverting to a similar contention observed. "It was evident from the evidence that the facts placed before the Government could only relate to offences under S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and cl. (a) of S. 5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. They could not relate to cl. (b) or (c). When the sanction was confined to S. 5(2) it could not, in the circumstances of the case, have related to anything but cl. (a) of Sub-S. (1) of S. 5. Therefore the omission to mention cl. (a) in the sanction did not invalidate it'.
Relying upon the above judgment, he has argued that all the relevant material was placed before the sanctioning authority and the sanction file placed before the Court for perusal Ex. PW5/DX2 clearly shows that all the relevant facts necessary to satisfy the mind of the sanctioning authority were placed before it and the sanctioning authority was duly supplied with all the relevant facts constituting the offence in question with which the accused was charged and the sanctioning authority had accorded the sanction after due application of mind qua the facts constituting the offence, therefore, the sanction has been accorded a proper and valid manner.
23. I have gone through the rival contentions on this aspect.
CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 40 of 105CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh The ratio of law laid down in the above judgment Ram Sagar Pandit Vs. The State of Bihar (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the present case also all the facts constituting the offence for which the accused was charged i.e. u/S. 7 of the PC Act (as amended in the year 2018) qua which the sanction was sought from the sanctioning authority were placed before the sanctioning authority and all the facts constituting the offence was duly disclosed to the sanctioning authority before it accorded the sanction qua the accused, as PW5 also stated in his cross-examination that CBI had provided him the draft sanction order, a hard copy. They had received the soft copies of statements of witnesses and rest of the documents / material were the hard copy. He also stated that he had perused the complete documents and applied his mind before granting sanction and he had also verified from the ITPO with respect to this matter.
24. He had also perused the documents submitted by CBI and the relevant complaint given by the complainant in this matter before granting sanction. He further deposed in his cross- examination that there is no difference in draft sanction order and sanction order, however, he had perused all the documents submitted by CBI along with the letter for requisition of sanction and applied his mind before granting sanction to prosecute. Therefore, it appears that the entire necessary material or facts CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 41 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh constituting the offence against the accused was duly placed before the sanctioning authority, who accorded the sanction after going through the contents of the same and since Section 19 of PC Act does not require the sanction to be given in a particular form, therefore, the sum and substance of the allegations against the accused and the prosecution case as a whole was put before the sanctioning authority which accorded the sanction after due application of mind.
25. Therefore, the contrary arguments of Ld. Counsel for the accused that the entire material was not put before the sanctioning authority before according the sanction has no merits in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above constitutional bench judgment. Therefore, the sanction had been accorded in proper and valid manner after due application of mind, as all the material documents were considered by the sanctioning authority before according the sanction and even the FIR was part and parcel of those documents.
26. Now proceeding further with the factual matrix of the case, the next relevant testimony is that of PW6, the complainant Sh. Jigar Patel, who has deposed that he had come from Gujarat and tried to book a stall, but it was not booked. Thereafter, he met Akshay Singh in his office and had discussion regarding the CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 42 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh booking of a stall in ITPO, New Building for Aahar Mela, which was in March. He was booking the stall for M/s. Leenova Kitchen Equipments and his communication with Akshay Singh was in respect of said company. Mr. Paresh Patel was the owner of the said company and the company had provided him all the documents necessary for booking of stalls.
27. In this regard, PW7 Sh. Paresh Mavjibhai Patel in his testimony has deposed as under :
I have done Graduation from Rajkot, Gujarat. I am Director in the company M/s Leenova Kitchen Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Sh. Rajnibhai and Ms. Bhawna Ben are other Directors of this company. Our company deals in manufacturing of food processing machinery and kitchen equipments. Our company used to participate in various exhibition likewise Aahar Mela in ITPO in the country. We have engaged Sh. Jigar Patel for booking and decoration of stall in Aahar Mela in ITPO. I cannot tell the year when the said Aahar Mela was held, however, it was before outbreak of Corona pandemic. We have not entered into any written agreement with Jigar Patel in respect of the work assigned to him CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 43 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh regarding Aahar Mela. We had assigned this work to Jigar Patel orally.
I have allowed Sh. Jigar Patel to ac-
cess our company mail i.e. leenovakitchenequipr- [email protected] for booking stall in the Aahar Mela....
28. Accordingly from the testimonies of PW6 and PW7, it is apparent that PW6 was booking the stall on behalf of M/s. Leenova Kitchen Equipments owned by PW7, who was one of the directors of the said company and they had engaged PW6 for booking and decoration of stall in Aahar Mela ITPO and for this they had also allowed PW6 access to their company mail for booking the stall in Aahar Mela, as their company was dealing in manufacturing of food processing machinery and kitchen equipments and for booking a stall in ITPO, PW6 complainant had met the accused Akshay Singh, that is how PW6 came into the contact of accused and which is the genesis of the present case, as it is alleged that accused demanded an amount of Rs. 1.20 / 1.25 lakhs for allotment of the stall in Aahar Mela on behalf of Leenova Ktichen Equipment Pvt. Ltd., whom PW6 was representing as he was running an event management firm in the name and style of M/s. Four Ace Communication at Ahmadabad and their firm used CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 44 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh to manage the exhibitions, management and stall fabrication of their clients and PW7 was also client of PW6.
Verification / Demand of bribe
29. Since the complainant was disturbed by asking of the bribe by the accused, he lodged a complaint with the CBI. The verification of the complaint lodged by the complainant PW6 is Ex. PW6/A, which was marked to PW8 Addl. SP Atul Hajela, the verification officer, who verified the said complaint, who in his relevant deposition has deposed as under :
On 16.02.2020 I was posted and working as Deputy SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi.
On 16.02.2020, a typed complaint in Hindi dated 16.02.2020 lodged by one Sh. Jigar r/o Ahmadabad was endorsed to me for verification by SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi.
(At this stage witness has been shown
complaint, already Ex. PW6/A in D-2).
This complaint, already Ex. PW6/A of
complainant Sh. Jigar was marked to me by SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi. It bears the endorsement and signature of SP Ms. Vijay Laxmi at Portion B to B (already marked). I identify her signatures at Point C CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 45 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh as I had worked with her. I also identify the signature of complainant Jigar on the said complaint at Point A (already marked) as during verification and trap proceedings of the present matter he had signed many documents in my presence.
For the purpose of verification, independent witness Sh. Awadhesh Kumar Aghwaria, Assistant Engineer, office of Chief Engineer, PWD, New Delhi was arranged through Duty Officer, CBI, ACB, New Delhi. Sh. Mukesh Pandey, SI had assisted me during verification proceedings. All the above persons including complainant Jigar were introduced with each other and the purpose of assembly was explained to them.
The complaint dated 16.02.2020 lodged by complainant Jigar was read over and explained to all the above persons. It was alleged in the complaint that the complainant Jigar r/o Ahmdabad was running a proprietorship firm in the name and style of Four ACE Communications and work as Liaisoning and Event Management. ITPO was arranging aahar Mela from 03.03.2020 to 07.03.2020 and M/s Leenova Kitchen Equipments Pvt. Ltd. had given the work of space allotment and decoration of stall in Aahar Mela CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 46 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh to the firm of complainant Jigar. M/s Leenova Kitchen Equipments Pvt. Ltd. had deposited an amount of Rs.,7,34,000/- (aprox) with ITPO on 10.02.2020. When the complainant Jigar met with suspect officer Akshay Singh on 15.02.2020 for collection of allotment letter, bill and transport entry passes, at this time suspect officer had demanded a bribe of Rs.1,25,000/- from the complainant and threatened him that if the bribe amount was not paid to him, he would not be given allotment and further work.
The complainant did not want to pay the bribe, as demanded by suspect officer, he lodged the present complaint dated 16.02.2020 to SP,CBI, ACB, New Delhi.
For the purpose of verification, a sealed memory card of 8 GB and sealed DVR were arranged. In the presence of independent witness the seal of memory card and DVR was opened and after ensuring the blankness of the memory card, the same was inserted in the said DVR. The working of DVR was also explained to all the above concerned. Thereafter introductory voice of independent witness Awdhesh Kumar Aghwaria was recorded in the memory card CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 47 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh through DVR. Mean while the complainant made a call from his mobile to the mobile of suspect officer at about 1600 hours to ascertain his whereabouts.
Thereafter, it was decided to visit the office of suspect for the purpose of verification. The above officials of CBI, complainant Jigar and independent witness left CBI office at about 16.40 hours and reached the office of suspect officer. After reaching near the office of suspect officer, the complainant again made a call to suspect officer, on this the suspect officer asked him to wait in his office and he will come after 30 minutes.
It was directed to the complainant to introduce witness Awdhesh Kumar Aghwaria as the officer of Leenova company to suspect officer and the said DVR in recording on position was kept in the hand bag of the complainant for recording likely conversation between suspect officer and the complainant. The witness was also directed to remain close with the complainant and try to hear the conver- sation held between suspect officer and complainant. Thereafter, the complainant and witness left for the office of suspect officer and I alongwith SI Mukesh Pandey followed them in discreet manner. Both CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 48 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh complainant and independent witness Awdhesh Kumar Aghwaria entered in the office building (ITPO located in Pragati Maidan) of the suspect officer.
At about 17.20 hours, the complainant and independent witness came back near the CBI vehicle which was parked at a safer place. On being asked, the complainant had informed that he alongwith indepen- dent witness Awdhesh Kumar Aghwaria met with the suspect officer and discussed the matter. The indepen- dent witness was introduced as the officer of Leenova Company to suspect officer. During discussion, the suspect officer asked the witness Awdhesh Kumar Aghwaria to wait outside . During the discussion itself, the suspect officer demanded a bribe of Rs.1,25,000/- from the complainant. On negotiations, the suspect officer reduced the bribe amount to Rs.1,20,000/- . On this, the complainant told him that he will arrange the demanded bribe amount and will come on 17.02.2020 at 11 am. The witness also corroborated the version of complainant.
The CBI team, complainant Jigar and indepen- dent witness Awdhesh Kumar Aghwaria returned back to CBI office at about 20.00 hours. The recorded conversation was heard by all using write CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 49 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh blocker which also corroborated the version of complainant. A copy of the said recorded conver sation was prepared by using write blocker and the transcript of the relevant portion of the said conver sation was prepared in the immediate presence of complainant Jigar and independent witness, the said transcript was signed by all members of verification proceedings.
The memory card was removed from the DVR and the same was signed by me, complainant Jigar and independent witness and marked as Q1-CO14/2020. The said memory card was then put in the plastic cover and paper cover, which were also signed by the members of the verification proceedings. Thereafter, the said plastic cover containing the above mentioned memory card was kept in an envelope and the same was sealed having impression 25/2020 and the same was also marked as Q1-CO14/2020.
30. The testimony of PW8 regarding the verification proceedings having been done on 16.02.2020 is corroborated by the testimony of PW6 Jigar Patel, complainant, who has deposed as under :
CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 50 of 105CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh The complaint dated 16/02/2020 was lodged by me to CBI. It bears my signature at point A. The complaint dated 16/02/2020 is Ex.PW6/A. The endorsement at point B was made by SP in my presence, thereby marking the complaint to Mr Atul Hajela, CBI officer. Sh Atul Hajela started doing his work and called four CBI officials. Thereafter he did some typing work. Thereafter he explained the complaint to the official sitting with him. Thereafter he kept a machine of silver colour in my pocket. It was a recording device. The machine was appearing to be new one. A sim card was inserted in the said machine before it was given to me, however, I cannot say whether it was a new Sim card or old one. Some proceedings were recorded by the CBI officials and my signatures were taken on some papers on which some material was written. Before we left the CBI office, I called Akshay Singh to know as to where we could meet. Akshay Singh asked me to meet in ITPO, Pragati Maidan. We were four persons. We parked our vehicle outside Pragati Maidan at some distance. Thereafter, we went inside Pragati Maidan and we dispersed. However, one person was with me. I CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 51 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh cannot say whether he was CBI official or some outsider. Thereafter I made a phone call to Akshay Singh when I was standing in front of his office and Akshay Singh asked me to sit in his office and he would be coming. At that time, one person was with me. My mobile number at that time was 9873983824. The person who was with me, was instructed by CBI official to represent him as Leenova's Employee. I was booking stall for M/s Leenova Kitchen Equipments and my communi cation with Akshay Singh was in respect of said company. Sh. Paresh Patel was the owner of the M/s Leenova Kitchen Equipments. There was no agreement between my company and M/s Leenova Kitchen Equipments. This company has provided me all the documents necessary for booking the stalls. Thereafter Mr Akshay Singh came and I had discussion with me regarding allotment of stall in Aahar Mela. We had discussion regarding money and I also introduced the person along with me as a employee of M/s Leenova Kitchen Equipments. He has further deposed in his testimony recorded on 23.07.2024 as under :CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 52 of 105
CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh On 16.02.2020 when I went to meet Akshay Singh in the Pragati Maidan Office, I was accom- panied by 3-4 persons. I recollect that a person named Agwaria was also accompanying us. Besides Sh. Agwaria other persons were CBI officials. I introduced Sh. Agwaria to Akshay Singh stating that he was from M/s Leenova Kitchen. Sh. Agwaria remained with us for 5-7 minutes when I was talking with Akshay Singh about money regarding booking stalls. Sh. Agwaria went outside after some time. Accused Akshay Singh was talking about Rs. 1,25,000/-. Later on the amount fixed was Rs. 1,20,000/-. The aforesaid amount was to be given in cash for booking of stall to accused Akshay. As date of ex- hibition was close, amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- was to be given next day.
After talking with Akshay Singh on 16.02.2020, we went to CBI office. I narrated about talks with Akshay Singh to the CBI officials. My talks with Akshay Singh at Pragati Maidan office was recorded in recording device brought by me which was handed over by CBI.
This recorded conversation between me and CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 53 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh Akshay Singh was heard in CBI office by CBI officials and Sh. Agwaria. In CBI office papers were prepared regarding proceedings in Pragati Maidan with CBI team.
31. His testimony regarding the verification proceedings having been taken place on 16.02.2020 is also corroborated by shadow witness PW12 Sh. Awadhesh Kumar, who deposed that the verification proceedings took place in the office of the accused and the complainant also introduced him to the accused as salesman of Leenova Company, when he was introduced with accused Akshay. He after some time told him to wait outside the office and thereafter, Jigar and Akshay remained in Akshay's office.
32. Nothing material has come out in the cross-examination of above witnesses, which could show that the testimonial deposition of above witnesses was not trustworthy or that no such verification proceedings took place on 16.02.2020. A great stress had been put by Ld. Counsel for the accused by arguing that no such verification proceedings could have taken place on 16.02.2020, which was Sunday, on which day the office of ITPO is closed, which has also been admitted by the relevant witnesses and which is also evident from the attendance sheet of the accused which has been placed on CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 54 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh the record as part of Ex. P-2/PW9 which does not show the attendance of the accused on that particular day i.e. 16.02.2020.
33. No doubt, the attendance of the accused would not be marked there on the attendance sheet on 16.02.2020, which happened to be Sunday, however, it is quite possible that the accused had called the complainant PW6 for sealing the bribe transaction on 16.02.2020, which happened to be Sunday, thinking that on that day there would not be anyone else present in the office or around the office and in that way nobody would be able to see with whom he was meeting and what he was doing surreptitiously, as the bribe transactions are done in a secret and clandestine manner.
34. It is not unnatural for any public servant to call anyone in his office on Sunday, if the office is open or he has the access to the same. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has also argued that if that was so, then there would have been some entry made by the CBI team on some register before going into the office of ITPO. The said argument is also without any substance as the entire team had not went inside the office of the accused, but only the complaint and PW12 holding as salesman of the Leenova company, who went inside the office of the accused to make a talk regarding the bribe money which was to be paid to the accused. Therefore, there was nothing unnatural in PW6 meeting the complainant in the office of CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 55 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh the accused on 16.02.2020, which was Sunday, as the accused may have been in a hurry to grab the money from the complainant.
35. PW6 in his deposition in examination in chief has deposed that the Aahar Mela was in March, the stall was to be allotted on payment of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs. This amount was to be paid to Akshay Singh and he had bargained regarding this amount and the deal was settled at Rs. 1.20 Lakhs. The stall fee, security deposit was beside this amount. The amount of Rs. 1.20 / 1.25 Lakhs was not the legal amount demanded by the accused. Thereafter, he deposed regarding the incident of 16.02.2020 i.e. the day of verification, as he stated that on that day he went to meet Akshay Singh in the Pragati Maidan office and at that time one person named Aghwaria was also accompanying them.
He introduced him to Akshay Singh stating that he was from M/s. Leenova Kitchen. Sh. Aghwaria remained with them for 5-7 minutes, when he was talking with Akshay Singh, Mr. Aghwaria went outside after some time. The accused Akshay Singh was talking about Rs. 1.25 Lakhs, later on the amount was fixed as Rs. 1.20 Lakhs. This amount was to be given in cash for booking of stall to Akshay Singh, as the date of exhibition was close, amount of Rs. 1.20 Lakhs was to be given next day.
CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 56 of 105CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh
36. The testimonial deposition of PW6 regarding the incident of 16.02.2020 is also corroborated by the testimony of PW12 shadow witness Awadhesh Kumar Aghwaria, who has also deposed that on 16.02.2020 after PW6 contacted the accused on mobile, the accused told him to wait for half an hour. At around 5 to 6 PM, the accused came to his office at ITPO and they both met him in his office. There PW6 introduced him to Akshay as salesman of Leenova Company. When he and PW6 met him, the DVR was in switch on condition in the bag of Jigar Patel i.e. PW6. When he was introduced with Akshay, after some time accused Akshay told him to wait outside his office and both of them i.e. accused Akshay and PW6 talked with each other. Therefore, it appears that the demand of bribe was made one to one by the accused to PW6 the complainant.
37. Their testimonies regarding the incident of 16.02.2020 is also corroborated by the testimony of PW8 verification officer who also deposed that the complainant and the witness i.e. Awadhesh Kumar Aghwaria left for the office of suspect officer and while the DVR was in on condition in the bag of the complainant for recording the likely conversation between the suspect officer and the complainant and at about 17:20 hours, the complainant and the independent witness came back near the CBI vehicle which was parked nearby and on being asked, the complainant informed that he along with independent witness met with the accused and discussed the matter CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 57 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh and during the discussion, the accused demanded the bribe of Rs. 1.25 Lakhs from him, which was reduced to Rs. 1.20 Lakhs. The said testimony of PW6 regarding the demand of bribe is not a bald assertion, as the same has not been assailed in the cross-examination as nothing material has come out in his cross-examination which could impinge or dilute the probative force of testimonial deposition of PW6, PW12 or PW8 regarding the incident of 16.02.2020.
38. Further the said oral deposition by PW6 regarding the demand of bribe of Rs. 1.20 Lakhs is also corroborated by the recordings done by the CBI team in the DVR carried by the complainant at the time of meeting the accused on 16.02.2020. Further PW6 was also made to listen the verification proceedings recorded in the DVR, in which the demand of bribe was made by the accused i.e. he was made to listen to the contents of the memory card Q-1 which is with regard to the verification proceedings as under :
The aforesaid brown envelope is opened and is found to contain a brown envelope in open condition. The brown envelope contains a micro SD card of 8 GB make Sandisk (Q1) in its paper packing and in plastic packing.
The brown envelope is Ex. PW8/B. The plastic packing bears my signature at Point B. The plastic pack- ing is Ex. PW8/C. The paper packing of memory card CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 58 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh bears my signature at Point B. The paper packing is Ex. PW8/D. The conversation was recorded at the time of verification proceedings in the said memory card. The memory card is Ex. PW8/E. The memory card, Ex. PW8/E is played on the laptop brought by Ct. Gopal. It contains two folders i.e. Music and Private. The Folder Private is opened. It contains Folder name Sony. Sony Folder is opened. It contain Folder named REC_File. Same is opened and it contains two Folders namely FOLDER01 and Folder RADIO01. The Folder FOLDER01 is opened and it contains three audio files no. 200216_1646, file no. 200216_1716 and file no.200216_1724. The File no. 200216_1716 is played).
I identify opening voice as "Hello" is spoken by Akshay Singh and the word "Akshay bhai" is spoken by me. My voice in this recording is now marked from Portion X to X-1 and voice of Akshay Singh is marked in the transcript, Ex. PW12/Y from Portion Y to Y-1.
(Now recording voice file no. 200216_1724 is played).
I identify my voice in the recording from Point X to X-1 and I cannot identify the initial voice of the CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 59 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh person to whom I am talking to which is already marked in transcription at Portion U in the transcript.
I also identify my voice as "Akshay ji" from Por- tion X to X-1 after a phone ring at 8:57, but I cannot identify who is speaking as "Akshayji". Q. Whose voice is recorded in conversation with you after phone ring at 8.57 in the transcription, Ex.PW12/Y?
A. After ring at 8.57 in the transcription, Ex. PW12/Y, it is conversation between me and accused Akshay Singh till recording time 56:35.
Recording is played after timing 56:36 and word spoken "mane bola sava lakh se ek rupaya bhi kam nahi hoga" is my voice at Point X to X-1.
Q. Who is speaking in the recorded conversation being heard by you after you as stated above "mane bola sava lakh se ek rupaya bhi kam nahi hoga"?
A. Thereafter, Akshay Singh has spoken as "What is sava lakh" at Point Y to Y-1.
Q. Please identify the voice who had spoken as "nahi final to hai isme koi ehsan thodi na kar rahe ho....... Usne hai karna hai to bolo.........." from Portion Y to Y-1?CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 60 of 105
CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh A. The aforesaid conversation is spoken by Akshay Singh from Portion Y to Y-1.
(At this stage memory card Q-1 was played after recording time 01:08:40 and witness was asked to iden- tify the speaker).
Q. Who has spoken the sentence "ek kaam kar...... tu bol ek bees....... Panch hazar tere liye chod raha hui......bas ho gaya.....thik hai thik hai"? A. The aforesaid part of conversation is in the voice of Akshay Singh. The aforesaid portion is now marked as Y to Y-1.
Q. Who has spoken the word "ek lakh bees hazar fi- nal"?
A. The aforesaid conversation is in my voice from Por- tion X to X-1.
Q. Who has spoken as "hai panch hazar iske samne hi dunga tereko"?
A. The aforesaid conversation is in voice of Akshay Singh from Portion Y to Y-1.
(At this stage attention of witness is drawn to voice identification cum transcription memo, already Ex. PW12/Z and transcription from page no. 2 to 18, Ex. PW 12/Z-1 (D-24)).CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 61 of 105
CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh I identify my signature at Point C on voice identi- fication cum transcription memo, already Ex. PW12/Z. I also identify my signature on transcription, Ex. PW12/Z-1 on every sheet at Point C.
39. The witness PW6 has identified his signatures on the voice identification cum transcription memo Ex. PW12/X at point B (D-23) and he also identified his signatures on transcription of verification proceedings at each page of the same on point B, thereby PW6 has authenticated the voice recordings which took place between him, accused and also containing the voice of PW12 the shadow witness.
PW12 has also identified his signatures on the said voice identification-cum-transcription memo Ex. PW12/X and the transcription with regard to the verification proceedings at each page on point A of Ex. PW12/Y.
40. The said voice of accused was not only got identified by PW6 and PW12 with whom accused had one to one conversation at the time of verification therefore, they were well placed to recognize the voice of accused having heard him from close quarters at the time of having conversation with him, therefore, their identification of voice of the accused qua them carries much weight. Not only this the voice of accused was also got identified by his colleague PW14, who was working as Manager, FS-II Division in ITPO, Pragati Maidan and CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 62 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh who was working with the accused in the said Organization. He has recognized the voice of accused independently in the verification proceedings contained in Q-1 and regarding the recording which took place at the time of trap recorded in Q-2 vide voice identification memo Ex. PW14/G.
41. Since PW14 would have talked or worked with the accused day and day out, he would be in the best position to recognize the voice of the accused, which he did as contained in Q-1 and Q-2. Q-1 contains the voice recordings of the accused and the complainant and PW12 at the time of verification and Q-2 similarly contains the voice recordings of the accused, complainant and other persons at the time of the trap.
42. Further the voice of this accused was also sent for scientific evaluation i.e. the voice contained in Q-1 and Q-2 to match with the specimen voice of the accused, as contained in S-1(A). The voice expert PW20 Sh. Deepak Kumar Tanwar has deposed in his examination in chief recorded on 24.08.2024 as under :
The auditory examination of questioned voices marked Ex. Q-1(2)(A), Q-1(3)(A), Q-2(4)(A) to Q-2(6)(A) and specimen voice of Akshay Singh Marked Ex. S-1(A) re- vealed that they are similary in respect of their linguis- tic and phonetic feature. The subsequent voice spec-CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 63 of 105
CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh trogprahic examination of common clue sentences/ words selected from questioned and specfic voice of Aakshay Singh revealed that they are similar with re- spect of their number of formants, formants frequencies distribution, intonation pattern and other general visual features in their voice grams. On the basis of both ex- amination it was concluded that the questioned voices marked Ex. Q-1(2)(A), Q-1(3)(A), Q-2(4)(A) to Q-2(6) (A) are the probable voice of the person (Akshay Singh) whose specimen voice is marked Ex. S-1(A).
43. He has also proved his report in this regard as Ex. PW20/A. Nothing material has come out in his cross-examination which could impinge upon the probative force of the testimonial deposition of this witness or to show that he was not an expert in the field of voice comparison. Though it was contended by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the photocopy of the transcription consisting of 34 pages was also sent to him, which he has admitted in his cross-examination, which shows that he had not done the voice comparison himself and had simply heard the conversation recorded in Q-1 and Q-2 and compared it with the transcription and gave the positive report as desired by the CBI.
CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 64 of 105CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh
44. This argument is without any substance, as nothing has been brought to the notice of the court which has emerged from the cross- examination of this witness which could show that the said witness was not trustworthy. The said witness has candidly admitted that he had received the transcription of Q-1 and Q-2 consisting of 34 pages from the forwarding authority. He has also stated that he had done various auditory tests including spectrographic examination of the words / sentences in the conversation of the accused and has given his opinion based on his long experience in the field of forensic voice examination of more than 29 years during which period, he had examined the voice of more than 3000 persons and opined upon them.
45. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that this report given by the voice expert that the questioned voice samples contained in Q-1 and Q-2 was the probable voice of the accused as contained in the S-1(A), which does not carry any weight, as he has not described the probative value of the said report given by him, simply saying that it was the probable voice of the accused is not sufficient in view of the law laid down in the judgment of Ajay Gupta Vs. State through CBI (supra), wherein it has been held as under:
159. Furthermore, the FSL result dated 31.09.1997 only states that the questioned voice samples marked Q1, Q2 which were then matched with S1, the voice samples of the appellant were "probably" of the same speaker. Apparently, the accused can-CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 65 of 105
CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh not be held guilty on the basis of probabilities in a criminal trial.
46. In view of the ratio of law laid down in the above judgment, which is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, since PW20 in his report has opined that the questioned voices contained in Q-1, Q-2 are the probable voice of accused Akshay Singh, whose specimen voice is at marked S-1 (A), without specifying what was the index of probability, he was mentioning in his report, whether it was 10% probable or 90% probable, this has not been made clear. Therefore, his report simply saying probable does not carry much weight, in view of the afore judgment. Therefore, same cannot be used for the purpose of corroboration to the voice(s) identified by testimonial depositions of PW6, PW12 and PW14 of accused Akshay Singh.
However, even bereft of such corroboration by the voice expert, the positive identification of voice(s) of the accused contained in Q-1 & Q-2 by the above witnesses, who had close interaction with the accused having heard him from close quarters while conversing with him during the course of conversations during the above transaction of bribe lends credible assurance that the voice(s) contained in Q-1 & Q-2 as identified by PW6, PW12 and PW14 was that of accused Akshay Singh only and there cannot be any doubt in this regard, as this first hand piece of evidence of above witnesses clearly lends assurance that the voice contained in Q-1 & Q-2 as CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 66 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh identified by the above witnesses was that of accused Akshay Singh only and there was no chance of error or doubt about the same.
47. From the oral testimony of PW6 and the voice conversation contained in Q1, it is clearly established that the accused had demanded an amount of Rs. 1.20 Lakhs on 16.02.2020 from PW6 as he stated the words "ek kaam kar.... tu bol ek bees... paanch hazar tere liye chod raha hui... bus ho gaya... thik hai... thik hai."
PW6 also identified the words spoken by the accused on 16.02.2020 as "ek lakh bees hazar final"
This clearly establishes the demand of bribe money of Rs. 1.20 Lakhs by the accused from the complainant on 16.02.2020.
48. Though the Ld. Counsel for the accused made an attempt to contend that the said amount was in fact the calculation done by the accused with regard to the booking of stall of 70 sq. mtr. As PW6 has admitted in his cross-examination that when he met with accused Akshay Singh, he had calculated the amount payable by M/s. Leenova Kitchen for getting the stall of 60 sq. mtrs. Both side open and it was correct that Leenova Kitchen had already deposited the amount required for 60 sq. meters both sides open, however, for seeking allotment of 70 sq. meters stall, both side open an additional sum of Rs. 1.20 Lakh to Rs. 1.30 Lakh was to be paid to the ITPO. Therefore, he has argued that the amount of Rs. 1.20 Lakhs, which is CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 67 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh coming in the conversation recorded in Q1 on the date of verification on 16.02.2020 is that said amount which the accused calculated.
49. However, the said contention is without any substance, as PW6 in his categorical deposition has stated that the stall was allotted on payment of Rs. 1.5 lakhs and the money was to be paid to Akshay Singh and he bargained regarding this amount and the deal was settled at Rs. 1.20 lakhs / 1.25 lakhs. The stall fee / security deposit was beside this amount. The amount of Rs. 1.20 / 1.25 lakhs was not the legal amount demanded by accused Akshay singh. This testimonial deposition clears any ambiguity qua the demand made by the accused or the version sought to be raised by the Ld. Counsel that the said amount was calculated by the accused to be deposited with ITPO and not the bribe money.
50. Further the tone and tenor of the recording and the transcript of the same contained in Q-1 clearly shows that the same was bribe money, as the accused at one point saying " sewa lakh se ek rupaya bhi kam nahi hoga". If the same was the calculated amount to be paid to the ITPO i.e. the government exchequer, then where was the question of bargaining or reducing the said amount and further the accused stated that "paanh hazar tere liye chod raha hoon" which also shows that he is haggling regarding the bribe money with the complainant and thereafter, he also spoken the word "paanh hazar CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 68 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh iskey samney he doonga tereko" which also shows that the accused was consciously bargaining and demanding the bribe money and nothing else. Therefore, the demand of bribe money of Rs. 1.20 lakh on 16.02.2020 has been clearly established by the prosecution.
51. Regarding the trap proceedings, the TLO PW19 Ajay Kumar Singh in his testimonial deposition has deposed as under :
M/s Lenova Kitchen Pvt. Ltd had assigned the work relating to space allocation and to arrange the stall for allotment of shops to Jigar Patel. DSP Atul Hazela handed me over recorded conversation Q1 regarding verification proceedings held be- tween accused Akshay Singh and complainant and independent witness Sh. Awdhesh handed me over a DVR and brass seal. I asked the complainant about arrangement of bribe to be given to accused, he informed that he had to visit bank to arrange it.
Thereafter, a fresh memory card was ar- ranged and inserted in the DVR after ensuring the blankness of the DVR and introductory voice of both independent witnesses were recorded. As complainant had informed that he had given the time of 11 AM to the accused Akshay Singh for meeting with bribe amount, complainant was di-CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 69 of 105
CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh rected to visit the bank along with DVR having memory card. SI Vinod Kumar was handed over DVR having memory card and directed to accom- pany with complainant with bank with direction in case a call was received from Akshay Singh on mo- bile of complainant, it should be recorded in the DVR. The complainant and SI Vinod Kumar visited A.U.Small Finance Bank and brought Rs. 35,000/-. Complainant informed that he could not arrange the full amount of bribe demanded by accused Akshay Singh, but he could only arrange Rs.35,000/-. He also informed that he received a call in the mid way from accused Akshay Singh in which accused asked why did he not come so far and he threatened that he must come upto 3 PM.
The complainant produced Rs.35,000/- out of which there were 17 government currency notes of Rs.2000/- and two notes of Rs.500/-. Serial numbers of the government currency notes were noted down in handing over memo. Thereafter demonstration was given by Insp. CMS Negi regarding reaction of phenolphthalein powder with solution of sodium carbonate. Independent witness Sh. Devender was asked to apply phenolphthalein powder on the gov-CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 70 of 105
CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh ernment currency notes and he was asked to touch the note after preparation of solution of sodium car- bonate and he was directed to dip his fingers in the solution of sodium carbonate. It was observed that the colour of sodium carbonate solution turned pink.
Thereafter wash which has shown demonstra- tion was thrown away and remnant of phenolph- thalein was returned to malkhana. In the mean time complainant informed that it may be possible that accused Akshay Singh might not take the notes openly, therefore, it may be kept in an envelope. An envelope was arranged and phenolphthalein was ap- plied on the envelope.
Thereafter independent witness Sh. Awdhesh took search of the complainant and it was ensured that nothing objectionable item remains with him. Independent witness Sh. Devender kept the phe- nolphthalein treated envelope containing currency notes which was also treated with phenolphthalein kept in the right side jeans pocket of the com- plainant.
The complainant was instructed to give sig- nal by rubbing his face after completion of handing over the bribe amount to Akshay Singh. He was also CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 71 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh instructed to make a missed call after completion of the transaction of handing over of bribe money. Complainant was instructed to hand over the bribe amount to accused Akshay Singh only on his spe- cific demand. A bag was brought in which sodium carbonate powder, stationary materials, sealing ma- terials, FIR and handing over memo containing proceedings done in CBI office, after obtaining sig- natures of team members including independent witnesses and complainant Jigar Patel were kept. All the proceedings mentioned in handing over memo were explained to the team members.
At this stage attention of witness is drawn to handing over memo dated 17.02.2020, Ex.PW8/F, containing 7 pages (D-4).
The aforesaid handing over memo bears my signature at Point F on all the sheets. The proceed- ings mentioned in handing over memo was con- cluded at 2.20 PM.
The CBI team members including myself, two independent witnesses namely Sh. Devender and Sh. Awdhesh Kumar, complainant and other supporting staff left the CBI for ITPO in two vehi- cles. The complainant, both independent witnesses, CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 72 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh SI Vinod, DSP Atul Hazela and Insp. Anand Swa- roop was in a vehicle in which I was proceeding to- wards ITPO, Pragati Maidan. The other team mem- bers proceeded in another vehicle.
When we were in the mid way, accused Ak- shay Singh called on the mobile of complainant and asked his whereabouts. Then complainant informed him that we were near about High Court and will be reaching shortly. With short time, we reached at Pragati Maidan. SI Vinod after reaching there, the DVR in switch on modefitted with memory card kept in the left side pocket of the jeans of the com- plainant.
I along with complainant, SI Vinod, inde- pendent witness Sh. Awdhesh entered the Pragati Maidan, Gate No. 10. In the mean time, com- plainant called on mobile of Akshay Singh and in- formed that he was not allowed to enter the Gate and this was why he was calling. The remaining team of CBI followed us.
Thereafter we reached office of ITPO. Then complainant called on the mobile of Akshay Singh and informed that he had reached his office. Then the complainant whispered into my ears that CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 73 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh accused Akshay Singh had informed to meet him at about 4.00 PM. Before telling by the complainant to me regarding meeting time of accused, the com- plainant was seen meeting with the accused Akshay Singh.
I recollect now that when the demonstration was given in the office of CBI, it was decided that the independent witness Sh. Awdhesh will act as shadow witness and Sh. Devender will remain with the team.
Then complainant and witness Sh. Awdhesh entered in the office of ITPO where accused Akshay Singh used to sit. After some time, it was seen that accused Akshay Singh along with some unknown person, complainant and Sh. Awdhesh Singh were proceeding towards Gate No. 11. They stopped for some time and they were talking. Thereafter, all of them returned to the office of Akshay Singh at ITPO.
Thereafter I received a call of complainant. Then I along with team members entered the office room of Akshay Singh at the first floor. When I asked the complainant about a person by pointing out towards him, the complainant told that he was CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 74 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh Akshay Singh. Then DVR was taken back from complainant and switched off. Thereafter I asked the complainant about what happened. Then com- plainant informed that when he met accused Akshay Singh, accused Akshay Singh took us away to- wards Gate No. 11. There Akshay Singh demanded by asking "kese laye ho, kitne laye ho". Com- plainant replied to the query of accused that he brought the notes of Rs.2000/- and Rs.500/-. (Ob- jected to by Ld. Defence Counsel being hearsay). Then Akshay Singh told that he would call in five minutes. Then Akshay Singh demanded money by gestures. Thereafter the complainant handed over the bribe money kept in envelope to accused Ak- shay. Then accused Akshay counted the said money after taking it out from the envelope.
When he counted the same, the money was less, he then asked the complainant "kya kar raha hai, itne kam kyo hai". The complainant said that he had more money and he is bringing the same. In the man while accused kept the bribe money in the up- per drawer of his table. Thereafter I along with my team reached there. We asked the recovery witness namely Devender to search the drawer of the ac-CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 75 of 105
CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh cused, however, on searching by him the bribe money could not be found in the upper drawer. He continued search and on searching the same, the bribe money was found kept in a file cover in the adjacent table between the other piles of file. I asked the recovery witness to check the bribe amount and to see it was the same amount which was handed over by the complainant to the accused. The recovery witness counted the said bribe money and thereafter ticked the currency note number on the bribe notes with the handing over memo and ticked the relevant portion of the handing over memo. Our team in the mean while caught hold of the accused by holding his right wrist and left wrist. Thereafter we took the right hand wash of the fin- ger and thereafter of the left hand fingers by dipping in the solution of sodium bicarbonate which ondo- ing so turned into pink colour. Thereafter those pink solution was sealed in the separate glass bottles tak- ing it out from the IO bag and duly sealed and marked and also signed by the witnesses and mine. Thereafter, we took the washes of the drawer which also turned into pink colour. Same was also sealed, marked and signed by the independent witnesses CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 76 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh and myself. Thereafter similarly we took the file cover wash and sealed, marked and also got signed the same in the similar manner by myself. The file cover was also signed at the place where money was kept therein. The file cover was also seized, sealed, marked and signed. Thereafter we took out the memory card from the DVR and made investi- gation copy on the official laptop of CBI.
52. The above TLO has proved the constitution of the trap team arranging of the fresh memory card and withdrawal of Rs. 35,000/-
by the complainant from AU Small Finance Bank, out of which 17 currency notes were of Rs. 2000/- denomination and two notes were of Rs. 500/- denomination and he has also deposed regarding the demonstration given by Inspector CMS Negi regarding the reaction of phenolphthalein powder with solution of sodium carbonate and sprinkling of phenolphthalein powder with the currency notes and the taking of search of complainant by independent witness Awadhesh and the complainant kept the treated currency notes in his right side pocket pant and was instructed to hand over the same to the accused and make a miss call after the completion of transaction and he has also proved the handing over memo Ex. PW8/F and he has also deposed regarding the complainant and witness Awadhesh entering the office of ITPO where the accused was sitting.
CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 77 of 105CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh Nothing has come out in his cross-examination which could show that no trap took place on 17.02.2020 or had not taken place in the manner deposed by PW19.
53. PW6 has also corroborated the version of PW19 in material particulars regarding what transpired in CBI office on 17.02.2020 before laying of the trap i.e. regarding the constitution of the trap team, the demonstration of phenolphthalein powder and turning of the same into pink colour in the water solution and that the currency notes were sprinkled with phenolphthalein powder.
54. He also deposed that he withdrew Rs. 35,000/- from AU Bank which in any case has been proved by the testimony of PW4 Vineet Singh, who was working as Branch Manager in AU Small Bank Ltd., East of Kailash, New Delhi. He has proved the account opening form of the complainant PW6 along with photograph Ex. PW4/C. He has also proved the statement of account from 01.02.2020 to 28.02.2020 in respect of account of PW6.
55. He has also proved the certificate u/S. 65 of Evidence Act as Ex. PW4/D and certificate u/S. 2A of the Bankers Book Evidence Act Ex. PW4/E and has also proved the withdrawal vouchers and other documents Ex. PW4/F regarding the withdrawal of Rs. 35,000/- by PW6 on 17.02.2020 from the said bank.
CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 78 of 105CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh PW6 has also deposed that thereafter they went to the office of accused at ITPO and when he went in the office of the accused, two persons were waiting outside the gate of office and some persons were there on the stairs and some others were in nearby vehicle. He was directed that he had to inform others in this regard. All of the persons went inside the office of Akshay Singh.
56. PW12 the shadow witness has corroborated the testimonies of PW6 and PW19 regarding the constitution of the trap team, the sprinkling of phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes in the CBI office and the demonstration thereof.
In his examination in chief done on 28.02.2020 PW12 had stated that at about 3:15 PM, he along with the CBI team including A.K. Singh, Incharge reached the office of Akshay Singh, thereafter, Akshay Singh took the complainant Jigar Patel somewhere, outside his office towards gate no. 11 of ITPO. Thereafter, they returned at about 5:15 pm. Meanwhile accused and PW6 were having conversation with each other, at about 5:30 pm the TLO received call from PW6 regarding indication of completion of transaction, thereby it can be clearly deduced from this testimony that when the transaction of handing of bribe actually took place, he was not present with the complainant and that transaction took place one to one. However, later on in his testimony recorded on 18.04.2024, he has deposed as under :
CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 79 of 105CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh When the bribe money containing in yellow envelope was delivered by complainant to accused, I was near the office gate/chamber of accused Akshay. Accused Akshay demanded bribe through gesture and opened the drawer and kept the yellow envelope in the drawer. Before keeping the money in drawer, Akshay counted the bribe money with both hands. However, when the bribe money was recovered, the same was not in the drawer and was recovered from -"piche file me"
which was lying on the table. The trap was laid on 17.02.2020.
57. Thereby he deposed and claimed that when the transaction of bribe took place, he was present with the complainant and the accused demanded the bribe through gestures and opened the drawer and kept the yellow envelop in the drawer and before keeping the money in drawer, he counted the bribe money with both his hands. However, this part of testimony of PW12 was demolished when he was confronted with the site plan Ex. PW8/DX of the spot i.e. the office of ITPO in which the accused was also sitting at the time of bribe transaction. There in his cross-examination he admitted as under :
At this stage, attention of the witness is drawn CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 80 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh towards (D-12) Ex. PW-8/DX bearing his signature at point A. It is correct that the bigger square shown in the site plan reflects table and the small square reflects the chair. I do not remember as to whether the partition shown amongst the tables were made by almirahs. It is correct that the person sitting in one cubical, shown in the site plan cannot see the person sitting in the other cubical. My position in the site plan Ex. PW-8/DX is correctly shown to be at point C i.e. near the gate of the Hall, which was at first floor.
At this stage, attention of the witness is drawn towards Point C and Point A on Ex. PW-8/DX. Que : I put it to you that the person standing at position C in Ex. PW-8/DX cannot see what were the movements of the person sitting at Point B and Point A in the cubical shown in the said site plan. Ans. : It is correct.
Probably, the numbers 115,114,113,112 as shown in Ex. PW-8/DX were engraved on cement walls.
58. From the aforesaid testimony of PW12, it is clear that he had made a material improvement with regard to his earlier testimony, CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 81 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh from where it was apparent that it was only the complainant who went inside to meet the accused at the time of completing the bribe transaction on 17.02.2020. The said PW12 was confronted with the site plan Ex. PW8/DX and he admitted that his position was at point C on that day and he admitted that the person standing at point C in Ex. PW8/DX cannot see the movement of the person at point A and B, as shown in the cubical shown in the site plan.
The position A was that of the accused Akshay and position B was that of the complainant, thereby belying the stand of PW12 that he was present at the time of transaction of bribe and it is apparent from the testimonies of PW6 and PW12 now that it was only one to one transaction of alleged acceptance of bribe on 17.02.2020, which took place allegedly between the accused and the complainant and no one else witnessed the said transaction or the said transaction took place only in the presence of the accused and the complainant and nobody else was present at that time to witness the said transaction or was present nearby to hear what transpired there or could see from distance what was taking place near the table of Akshay Singh i.e. the accused.
59. The Ld. PP for the CBI has relied upon the testimony of PW19 Ajay Kumar Singh, TLO, in support of his contentions that after the transaction of bribe giving when the complainant came out of the room of Akshay Singh, the TLO asked him what happened to which CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 82 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh he narrated that "then complainant informed that when he met accused Akshay Singh, accused Akshay Singh took us away towards Gate No. 11. There Akshay Singh demanded by asking "kese laye ho, kitne laye ho". Complainant replied to the query of accused that he brought the notes of Rs.2000/- and Rs. 500/-. (Objected to by Ld. Defnece Counsel being hearsay). Then Akshay Singh told that he would call in five minutes. Then Akshay Singh demanded money by gestures. Thereafter the complainant handed over the bribe money kept in envelope to accused Akshay. Then accused Akshay counted the said money after taking it out from the envelope."
60. Therefore, relying upon such piece of evidence, he is arguing that the acceptance has been duly proved. The said contention of the Ld. Sr. PP for CBI is without any substance as it is the hearsay piece of evidence, as told to him by the complainant, as discussed above, it was only one to one transaction of alleged bribe given between the complainant and the accused. Therefore, what the complainant told the TLO after coming out of the room of accused, is a hearsay piece of evidence is not admissible in law. Therefore, the said testimonial deposition of PW19 TLO does not help the case of the prosecution regarding the acceptance.
61. Now in this light, it is to be seen whether there was any acceptance of bribe money by the accused from the complainant. In CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 83 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh this regard, the testimonial deposition of PW6 is relevant. However, before that as per the recording contained in Q-2, which has been proved by various witnesses, as discussed above, beyond shadow of doubt, it is apparent that there was also a demand made by the accused at the time of trap, which is reflected in the transcription Ex. PW12/Z1 dated 17.02.2020 as under :
C - Chalo udhar jaakar.... Aap ruko na hum aatey hain A- Kaisey de rehey ho?
C- Kaisey chahiye?
A- Kaisey laye ho bhaiya... ab to bata do... C- Arey kaisey chahiye.... Kitney chahiye... kahan chahiye? A- Arey wo sab to.... Aspasht...
C- Do note paanch so ki hai baki saarey... A- Theek hai C- Ghar ja rahey ho... to wapis kab aaoge... A- Arey bahar yaar bahar ja raha hoon.
62. From the tone and tenor of the above conversation between the accused and the complainant, it is clear that the accused also made a demand of bribe at the time of trap, as he is also asking how he was giving bribe and how he has got the bribe and to which the complainant explains that "two currency notes are of Rs. 500/- and remaining.....," to which the accused states "theek hai", that is how CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 84 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh the demand gets completed at the time of trap, which has been proved by the prosecution.
Acceptance of Bribe Money
63. Now regarding the acceptance at the time of trap, the testimo- nial deposition of PW6 Jigar Patel is relevant, as it has been proved while afore discussion that only PW6 went with the sprinkled / treated money on 17.10.2020 into the hall / chamber of the accused where he was sitting in the ITPO office, therefore, it was not witnessed by anyone else including the shadow witness nor there was any CCTV camera, which reflected the said transaction, therefore, it was one to one transaction between the complainant and the accused.
64. In this regard, PW6 in his testimonial deposition recorded on 23.07.2024 has deposed as under :
Q. What was done by you about money which was kept in envelope with you?
(Objected to by Ld. Defence Counsel being leading question) I went inside the office of ITPO through big hall. Thereafter I turned left and then turned right where there was a room where four ta- bles were lying. I kept money on one of the tables I do not know to whom the said table belonged. The CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 85 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh money was kept there as per the discussion and recording done one day prior.
65. From the aforesaid testimonial deposition of PW6 in his examination in chief, it is clear that there was no acceptance of bribe money by the accused, as PW6 simply went into the big hall of ITPO, turned left and right and there was a room, where four tables were lying and he did not knew to whom the said table belonged and he kept money on one of the tables. Thereafter he has deposed that he went outside and told this fact to one fellow belonging to the CBI.
Therefore, there is no clear cut unequivocal acceptance on part of the accused, which has been proved by the prosecution, though, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI stated that PW6 has deposed that the money was kept there as per discussion and recording done one day prior.
However, there is nothing in the recording contained in Micro SD Card Q-1, whereby the accused had directed him to keep the money on any of the tables in the ITPO office or a particular table lying at the particular place. PW6 even does not say that the accused was sitting there and had accepted money from him. There is no whisper regarding the same in his testimony.
66. Further there is no independent corroboration regarding his testimonial deposition qua acceptance on 17.02.2020, as the testimony of PW12 shadow witness has already been discarded on CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 86 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh this aspect, as he had made material improvement in this regard and he was not even in position to witness the transaction of acceptance of bribe between the accused and complainant, whereby the accused was accepting bribe given by the complainant.
67. Though the Ld. Sr. PP for CBI has argued that the bribe can be demanded through gestures also. No doubt the bribe can be accepted by gestures, but where is the evidence in this case that the accused made any gestures to the PW6 to give bribe by gestures. There is no evidence whatsoever on this aspect.
68. Further from the recording contained in the transcription Ex. PW12/Z1 dated 17.02.2020, from the perusal of the relevant conversation which allegedly took placed between the accused and the complainant at the time of alleged acceptance, it rather appears that the accused was forsaking the taking of bribe money and was saying to the complainant, if he was an idiot and what he was doing and what was this, the following excerpt is relevant, which is reproduced as below:
A- Kya hai ye...
C- Hmm?
A- tum bewkuf ho kya... kya hai ye... aspasht... arey kya kar rehay ho yaar tum C- chalo.... Aspasht....CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 87 of 105
CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh U- Envelope kahan hai... bata na jaldi... U- Hain... kya ho...
69. Therefore from the aforesaid conversation it appears that the accused was telling the complainant what he was doing and whether he was an idiot and what is this, however, an unknown voice was asking for the envelop. The said unknown voice has not been identified and the said unknown voice is not attributable to the accused. Therefore, the voice recording which took place at the time of the trap also does not support the prosecution story regarding the acceptance of the bribe money by the accused from the complainant on 17.02.2020 or the same has not been corroborated by the voice recordings.
Either it appears that the accused had the inkling of something wrong going around, which made him to abort the plan to accept the bribe from the complainant PW6 or there was change of heart due to remorse or otherwise, though no definite opinion can be given regarding either of two at this stage, as both are equally probable events in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the acceptance of the bribe money by the accused from the complainant on 17.02.2020 i.e. the day of trap.
CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 88 of 105CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh
70. Regarding the hands of accused turning pink after being caught by the CBI team immediately after PW6 came out from the hall where the accused was sitting and informed the CBI officials, as per the testimony of PW19 TLO and also stated so by trap team members including PW12 and PW16, the same will be dealt hereinafter, after the discussion on recovery part.
Recovery of bribe money
71. Regarding the recovery part, PW6 has deposed that the money brought by him was recovered from inside a file, whereas PW12 the shadow witness has deposed that the independent witness Devender Singh searched the table of the accused and looked at the files on the table of the accused on the directions of the TLO and he recovered the bribe amount of Rs. 35,000/- form the files lying on the table. The above said Rs. 35,000/- were kept in an envelop inside the file. However, in his later version recorded on 18.04.2024, he stated that when the bribe money was recovered, the same was not in drawer, but was recovered from "peechey file mein", which was lying on the table.
Whereas, PW19 the TLO has deposed that the drawer of the accused was searched. On searching, the bribe money could not be found in the upper drawer, he continued search and on searching the same, the bribe money was found kept in a file cover in the adjacent table between the other piles of files. He asked the recovery witness CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 89 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh to check the bribe amount. The recovery witness counted the said bribe money and ticked the currency note numbers of the bribe notes with those mentioned in handing over memo.
72. PW16 the recovery witness deposed that the CBI officials told him to search the trap money. He searched for the same, but he could not trace the same and he also checked in the drawer, but the same was locked. He also checked the drawer after taking keys from Akshay Singh. In the left hand side drawer, the bribe money was kept in an envelop in the file cover. Thereafter, he was declared hostile by Ld. PP for CBI on this aspect of recovery. In his cross- examination he stated as correct that the aforesaid amount was not recovered from the drawer, as stated above, rather upon search of the drawer, it was not found in the drawer and then it was found in the file lying on the table besides Akshay Singh.
73. Therefore, from the above testimonial discussion of PW19, PW12, PW6, PW16, it is apparent that the prosecution witnesses are giving different versions regarding the recovery of bribe money, allegedly from the possession of the accused. However, the conclusion which can be deduced from the overall testimonies of the above witnesses is that the bribe money was found kept in file cover on the adjacent table between the other piles of files and it was not recovered from the drawer or possession of the accused. Therefore, CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 90 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh the prosecution has also failed to prove that the bribe money was also recovered immediately from the possession of accused after the giving of bribe, as alleged by PW6 to accused. Therefore, the prosecution has also failed to prove the recovery of bribe money from the possession of the accused.
74. Regarding the existence of phenolphthalein powder in the hands of the accused, which turned red when immersed into a solution of sodium carbonate and the fact that the phenolphthalein was found positive in the chemical examination report Ex. PW3/B proved by PW3 Ms. Deepti Bhargava from CFSL, New Delhi, as she has stated that the RHW, LHW, FCW and LSU DTW gave positive test for the presence of phenolphthalein.
75. Regarding this, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI has argued that if the accused had not accepted the bribe money or touched the same, then how the phenolphthalein powder got transferred into his hands and how those hands when immersed into the solution of sodium carbonate turned pink. Regarding this, no plausible explanation has been furnished by the accused. This is a very strong circumstance to show the culpability of the accused that he had received the bribe money from the complainant on 17.02.2020, as projected by the prosecution.
CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 91 of 105CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh
76. To this Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that as per the recording contained in Micro SD card Q-2 i.e. on the date of the trap, the following conversation between the accused and the complainant is relevant which is contained in transcription PW12/Z1 as under :
A- ID password roz ban raha hai... ID pasword roz ban raha hai... raat mein do baze bhi ban raha hai. ID password... aap kya baat kar rehey ho... isi samay karoge kya paan baje... BD hai... C- BD hai... haan BD se he kaan chalana padega abhi... ek kilome- ter bahar kon jayega...
A- Ab ye sapan mein aayega aapka password... lo bd jalao yaar... C- Chalo udhar jaakar... aap ruko na hum aatey hain.
77. Therefore, from the above conversation, it is clear that the accused and the complainant were mingling freely with each other and were even smoking biddi together on the date of the trap i.e. 17.02.2020 and it is quite possible also that they in the said period of proximity may have also shaken hands with each other, resulting in transfer of phenolphthalein powder from the hands of the complainant to the hands of the accused.
78. Further it has been held in the judgment P. Parasurami Reddy Vs. State of A.P. (supra), where in the relevant para, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :
CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 92 of 105CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh
8. ...According to Mr. Venkata Narayana, the fact that money was accepted by the accused stands proved on the basis of sodium carbonate test which was done on the right hand fingers and the back side pocket of the accused.
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
12. This was rather strange. Learned counsel appearing for the State very heavily relied on that circumstance. That circum-
stance by itself may not be able to establish that money was de- manded and it was accepted as bribe. It could have been the possibility that the complainant had touched the currency notes and had shaken hand with the accused or it could be that any one of the investigating officer or the member of the raiding party had touched the fingers of the accused. That circumstance itself cannot be ruled out.
13. We have seen the judgments of the courts below wherein the sole evidence of the fingers being soiled in sodium carbon- ate turned pink has been relied upon. Both the courts below seem to have impressed by this situation alone. We do not feel it sufficient to convict the accused on this evidence alone and we would choose to give him the benefit of doubt.
79. The facts of the above judgment are quite apposite to the facts of the present case. In the said judgment, it has also been held that it could have been possible that the complainant had touched the currency notes and shaken the hands with the accused or that anyone of the investigating officer or the other member of the raiding party had touched the finger of the accused that circumstance cannot be ruled out, which may lead to the existence of the phenolphthalein powder in the hands of the accused and this circumstance by itself CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 93 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh may not be able to establish that the money was demanded and it was accepted as bribe.
80. In the present case also, since both the accused and the complainant mingling closely and had even smoked biddi / cigarette together therefore, there are chances that the complainant had touched the currency notes lying in the pocket of his pant and then shaken hands with the accused, that is how the phenolphthalein powder may have got transferred from the hands of the complainant to the hands of the accused. This explanation furnished by defence can be said to be probable on preponderance of probabilities.
81. Regarding raising of the legal presumption u/S. 20 of the PC Act, 1988 (as amended in the year 2018), the Section 20 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in the year 2018) is reproduced as under :
20. [ Presumption where public servant accepts any undue advantage. [Substituted by Act No. 16 of 2018, dated 26.7.2018.]
- Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under section 7 or under section 11, it is proved that a public servant accused of an offence has accepted or obtained or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any undue advantage from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or attempted to CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 94 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh obtain that undue advantage, as a motive or reward under section 7 for performing or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly either by himself or by another public servant or, as the case may be, any undue advantage without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate under section 11.] [Inserted by Act No. 16 of 2018, dated 26.7.2018.] Section 20 of the PC Act, 1988 before amendment in the year 2018 is reproduced as under :
20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration.--
(1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under section 7 or section 11 or clause (a) or clause
(b) of sub-section (1) of section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.
82. On comparison of the old provision of Sec. 20 of the PC Act prior to amendment in the year 2018 with the new provision as amended in the year 2018, further it appears that Sec. 2(d) has been inserted in the year 2018 in the Amended Act, which defines undue CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 95 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh advantage as under :
2[(d) "undue advantage" means any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this clause,--
(a) the word "gratification" is not limited to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications estimable in money;
(b) the expression "legal remuneration" is not restricted to remuneration paid to a public servant, but includes all remuneration which he is permitted by the Government or the organisation, which he serves, to receive.] Explanation 1.--Persons falling under any of the above sub-clauses are public servants, whether appointed by the Government or not.
Explanation 2.--Wherever the words "public servant" occur, they shall be understood of every person who is in actual possession of the situation of a public servant, whatever legal defect there may be in his right to hold that situation Therefore, it appears that Section 2(d) has been inserted in the year 2018, wherein undue advantage means gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration. In the explanation the expression gratification has been further expanded as also the expression "legal remuneration".
Earlier the words in the Section 20 were any gratification (other than legal remuneration), whereas it now reads CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 96 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh as defined u/S. 2(d), the word undue advantage as any gratification whatever other than legal remuneration with the explanation to Section 2(d) of the expression gratification and legal remuneration. However, on comparison, it appear only the word whatever has been added in the definition of undue advantage in Section 2(d) along with explanation of the expression gratification and legal remuneration.
However, on comparison of Section 20 before amendment in the year 2018 and the new Section 20 after post amendment, it appears that both the said provisions are in pari materia with each other and there is no major change in the same and substantially they are the one and same.
83. The relevant law with regard to Section 20 is being discussed hereunder :
It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in recent Constitutional Bench judgment titled as Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) in Criminal Appeal No. 1669 of 2009 decided on 15.12.2022 as under :
68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under:
(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and(ii) of the Act.CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 97 of 105
CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh
(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.
(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment.
In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)
(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act.
Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 98 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and inturn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
(f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.
69. In view of the aforesaid discussion and conclusions, we find that there is no conflict in the three judge Bench CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 99 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh decisions of this Court in B. Jayaraj and P. Satyanarayana Murthy with the three judge Bench decision in M. Narasinga Rao, with regard to the nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for offences under Sections 7 or 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act, when the direct evidence of the complainant or "primary evidence"
of the complainant is unavailable owing to his death or any other reason. The position of law when a complainant or prosecution witness turns "hostile" is also discussed and the observations made above would accordingly apply in light of Section 154 of the Evidence Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that there is no conflict between the judgments in the aforesaid three cases.
70. Accordingly, the question referred for consideration of this Constitution Bench is answered as under:
In the absence of evidence of the complainant (direct/primary, oral/documentary evidence) it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution.
71. We direct that individual cases may be considered before the appropriate Bench after seeking orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India.
84. Based on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above Constitutional Bench judgment, it has been held in the judgment Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi of Delhi) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 211, in the relevant paras as under :
11. Even the issue of presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act has been answered by the Constitution Bench by holding that only on proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the Court to raise a presumption that illegal CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 100 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh gratification was for the purpose of motive or reward as mentioned in Section 7 (as it existed prior to the amendment of 2018). In fact, the Constitution Bench has approved two decisions by the benches of three Hon'ble Judges in the cases of B. Jayaraj1 and P. Satyanarayana Murthy2. There is another decision of a three Judges' bench in the case of N. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu5, which follows the view taken in the cases of B. Jayaraj1 and P. Satyanarayana Murthy2. In paragraph 9 of the decision in the case of B. Jayaraj1, this Court has dealt with the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act. In paragraph 9, this Court held thus:
"9. Insofar as the presumption permissible to be drawn under Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such presumption can only be in respect of the offence under Section 7 and not the offences under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. In any event, it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the present case the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent."
(emphasis added) The presumption under Section 20 can be invoked only when the two basic facts required to be proved under Section 7, are proved. The said two basic facts are 'demand' and 'acceptance' of gratification. The presumption under Section 20 is that unless the contrary is proved, the acceptance of gratification shall be presumed to be for a motive or reward, as contemplated by Section 7. It means that once the basic facts of the demand of illegal gratification and acceptance thereof are proved, unless the contrary are proved, the Court will have to presume that the gratification was demanded and accepted as a motive or reward as contemplated by Section 7. However, this presumption is rebuttable. Even CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 101 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh on the basis of the preponderance of probability, the accused can rebut the presumption.
12. In the case of N. Vijayakumar5, another bench of three Hon'ble Judges dealt with the issue of presumption under Section 20 and the degree of proof required to establish the offences punishable under Section 7 and clauses (i) and (ii) Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act. In paragraph 26, the bench held thus:
"26. It is equally well settled that mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused. Reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI [C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, (2009) 3 SCC 779 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] and in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. [B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 543] In the aforesaid judgments of this Court while considering the case under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 it is reiterated that to prove the charge, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe.
Absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence. In the said judgments it is also held that even the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. It is also fairly well settled that initial presumption of innocence in the criminal jurisprudence gets doubled by acquittal recorded by the trial court."
(emphasis added) Thus, the demand for gratification and its acceptance must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
13. Section 7, as existed prior to 26th July 2018, was different from the present Section 7. The unamended Section 7 which is applicable in the present case, specifically refers to "any gratification". The substituted CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 102 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh Section 7 does not use the word "gratification", but it uses a wider term "undue advantage". When the allegation is of demand of gratification and acceptance thereof by the accused, it must be as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act. The fact that the demand and acceptance of gratification were for motive or reward as provided in Section 7 can be proved by invoking the presumption under Section 20 provided the basic allegations of the demand and acceptance are proved..."
85. In view of the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, it is crystal clear that presumption u/S. 20 of the PC Act can only be invoked when two basic facts required to be proved u/S. 7 of PC Act are proved. The said basic facts are demand and acceptance of gratification. It means that once the basic facts of the demand of illegal gratification and acceptance thereof are proved, unless the contrary is proved, the Court will presume that the gratification was demanded and accepted as a motive or reward as contemplated by Sec. 7 of the PC Act. This presumption is rebuttable on preponderance of probabilities.
86. Since the basic ingredients of Sec. 7 before amendment of 2018 and post 2018 remain the same i.e. the prosecution has to prove demand, acceptance and recovery of the bribe money on the day of trap. Further as discussed above, the Section 20 prior to amendment of 2018 and post 2018 are almost pari materia with each other, therefore, the law with regard to the basic ingredients which leads to triggering of presumption u/S. 20 PC Act is the CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 103 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh same as laid down in the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
87. Here in the case under discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the acceptance of illegal gratification, which in turn has been defined as any gratification whatever, other than the legal remuneration. Though the prosecution has been able to prove the other ingredient of demand of undue advantage or illegal gratification other than legal remuneration, in view of the foregoing discussion therefore the presumption u/S. 20 of the PC Act post amendment of 2018 is not triggered or does not come into play for the benefit of the prosecution. The prosecution has further failed to prove the recovery of illegal gratification money from the possession of the accused.
To Sum up
88. In view of the law laid down in the judgment(s) B. Jayaraj vs. State of AP, 2014, Cr. L J 2433, SeJappa vs. State, AIR 2016, SC 2045 and Mukhtiar Singh (Since deceased) Through his LR vs. State of Punjab (supra), the ingredient of acceptance of bribe is sine qua non of Section 7 of the PC Act (as amended in the year 2018), which has not been proved vide the above discussion and taking into account the overall evidence with regard to evidentiary facts, as discussed above, consequently the prosecution CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 104 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh has failed to make out a case u/S. 7 of the PC Act (as amended in the year 2018).
89. Since the yardstick which is to be achieved by the prosecution in criminal trial is probabilistic in nature i.e. the prosecution should prove its case against a accused beyond reasonable doubt i.e. the probabilities of the prosecution case or probative force of its case as a whole, or weigh thereof as a whole should be beyond any sort of reasonable doubt against the accused, which the prosecution has failed to achieve in the present case.
90. As a resultant, the accused Akshay @ Akshay Singh stands acquitted of the charge(s) u/S. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018).
The above accused is stated to have already furnished his bail bond(s) in compliance of Section 437-A CrPC, which shall remain valid for a period of six months from today, as per the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC.
File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed bySANJEEV SANJEEV AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2024.10.26 21:19:53 +0530 Announced in the Open Court (Sanjeev Aggarwal) on this 26 day of October, 2024. Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-10 th Rouse Avenue District Courts New Delhi/26.10.2024 CNR No. DLCT11-000023-2021 Page 105 of 105 CBI Vs. Akshay @ Akshay Singh