Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Akey Manikyala Rao @ A. M. Rao on 28 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. HASAN ANZAR,
SPECIAL JUDGE, PC ACT (CBI)-03,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI
CNR NO. DLCT11-000732/2022
Registration/CBI No. 55/2022
RC No. 61(A)/2022
PS : CBI/ACB/New Delhi
U/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (As amended in 2018)
In re:
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Versus
Akey Manikyala Rao @ A.M. Rao
S/o Late Shri A.N. Moorthy,
R/o 179-C, Pocket-E, LIG Flats,
GTB Enclave, Delhi-110093, and
Permanent address : Peruru, Anolovpuroom,
Mandel, E.G. DT. (Andhra Pradesh).
Date of Institution :25.11.2022
Reserved on :06.03.2025
Date of Judgment : 28.03.2025
Memo of Appearance
1. Shri M.S. Mann, Ld. Public Prosecutor for the CBI.
2. Shri Satya Sahrawat and Shri Sushil Thakur, Ld. Counsels for accused.
JUDGMENT
1. The above-named accused has been charge-sheeted for committing offences under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) {hereinafter to be referred as 'PC Act'}.
CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 1 of 1422. The present case was registered on the written complaint dated 23.09.2022 of Shri Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Ved Prakash Sharma, R/o House No. 108, Baldev Park, Parvana Road, Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051 of M/s Ravi Bhargava & Company, 225, West Azad Nagar, Opposite Shaheed Bhagat Singh Park, Krishna Nagar, Delhi which is a vendor of M/s IIFL Home Finance Ltd. The complaint pertains to an undue advantage demand made by the accused A.M. Rao, Sub- Registrar IX-A, Najafgarh, New Delhi, for the release of mortgage paper related to Sl. No. 988 dated 21.09.2022 which was registered in favor of M/s IIFL Home Finance Ltd. and were sought by the complainant Shri Manoj Kumar.
3. It was alleged in the complaint dated 23.09.2022 that A.M. Rao, Sub-Registrar IX-A, Najafgarh demanded a bribe of ₹15,000 for the registration of the mortgage deed and the delivery of related documents. Since the complainant Shri Manoj Kumar was unwilling to pay the bribe, he filed a handwritten complaint on 23.09.2022 with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB), New Delhi.
4. Verification of the above said complaint was conducted on 23.09.2022 by Inspector Mahendra Singh, CBI, ACB and in pursuance to the recommendation, the present case was registered against A.M. Rao, under section 7 of Prevention of CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 2 of 142 Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and thereafter, the investigation was entrusted to Inspector Mukesh Kumar Mishra.
5. The verification prima facie revealed the earlier demand of ₹15,000/- by accused A.M. Rao, Sub Registrar, (SR-IXA), Najafgarh, New Delhi was later reduced to ₹10,000/- after due negotiation by the complainant. It is averred in the charge-sheet that accused A.M. Rao directed the complainant to hand over the said bribe amount of ₹10,000/- to him on Monday i.e. 26.09.2022.
6. It is further the case of prosecution that a Pre-Trap Memorandum dated 26.09.2022 was prepared, documenting the details of the entire proceedings that took place on 26.09.2022. The memorandum was read over and explained to all team members, independent witnesses and the complainant who then appended their signatures on it as a token of its correctness.
7. Thereafter, the CBI team including two independent witnesses viz. Shri Lokendra Singh and Shri Monendra and complainant Shri Manoj Kumar left the CBI office at about 1245 Hours in two official vehicles to proceed for spot i.e. near 0/o Sub Registrar, Najafgarh, New Delhi. Subsequently, the CBI team, including two independent witnesses Shri Lokendra Singh and Shri Monendra along with the complainant Shri Manoj Kumar departed from the CBI office at approximately 12:45 PM in two official vehicles towards the designated towards the office of the Sub-Registrar, Najafgarh, New Delhi.
CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 3 of 1428. It was discreetly revealed that accused A.M. Rao would be available in his office chamber/room after lunch hours, approximately between 1500-1515 Hours. SI Pradeep placed a DVR in the left-side shirt pocket of the complainant in Switch On mode, recording, and in hold mode. The complainant was instructed to proceed with the shadow witness Shri Lokendra Singh inside the Chamber of A.M. Rao. Shri Lokendra was instructed to serve as shadow/independent witness to attentively hear the conversation and observe any transaction which might take place between the accused A.M. Rao and the complainant.
9. The CBI Team including Shri Monendra (another independent witness) took their positions discreetly around the office of the accused A.M. Rao. The complainant and independent witness Shri Lokendra Singh went inside the chamber of accused A.M. Rao and after some time, the complainant Shri Manoj Kumar exited the chamber and gave a pre-decided signal by rubbing both hands on his face and upon which, TLO alerted the CBI team members and Shri Monendra and they quickly rushed towards the office chamber of the accused A.M. Rao and entered the chamber of the accused A.M. Rao.
10. It is further alleged that accused A.M. Rao was challenged/questioned by the TLO and Shri Vijay A. Desai, Inspector regarding the demand and acceptance of a white envelope containing bribe amount of ₹10,000/- from the CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 4 of 142 complainant for the execution of mortgage deed and delivery of documents upon which the accused A.M. Rao got perplexed and remained silent. Accused A.M. Rao was held separately from left and right wrist by Inspr./TLO Mukesh Kumar Mishra and Insp. Vijay Desai respectively. Upon inquiry, the complainant informed that the accused had accepted the bribe amount of ₹10,000/- which was kept inside the tainted white envelope. The complainant further told that the accused had handled the envelope with both hands and then he placed it in the right side upper most drawer of his office table.
11. It is alleged that separate left and right hand wash of the accused A.M. Rao were taken after preparing a fresh sodium carbonate solution with water and the solutions turned PINK when fingers of accused A.M. Rao were dipped. The respective right and left solutions were transferred in separate glass bottles which were capped and sealed by the TLO.
12. It is further alleged that upon inquiry by TLO with respect to the whereabouts of the bribe money, the accused A.M. Rao replied in affirmative about the acceptance of the bribe money and confessed the accpetance of bribe money from Shri Manoj Kumar and further informed that envelope containing bribe amount is kept in the right side upper most drawer of his office table.
13. On the directions of the TLO, independent witness Shri Monendra recovered the white colour envelope containing the CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 5 of 142 tainted bribe amount of ₹10,000/- which was placed on the paper sheet inside the right side upper most drawer of office table of A.M. Rao in the presence of the complainant and independent witness Shri Lokendra Singh and CBI team members. The tainted amount of ₹10,000/- was recovered from the envelope in the denomination of ₹2,000/- (01 GC of ₹2000/- and 16 GC notes of ₹500/- each) and the same tallied with the pre-trap memorandum.
14. The paper wash of the paper sheet on which the bribe money was taken with the help of cloth and the cloth was then dipped into the said Sodium Carbonate Solution and the colour of the solution turned Pink. The pink colour solution along with the said piece of cloth was then transferred into a clean glass bottle, and subsequently bottle was capped, covered with white cloth, tied and sealed and the paper sheet was also sealed and seized.
15. It is further alleged that after being asked, the complainant narrated that he along with Shri Lokendra Singh (independent witness) entered the office of accused i.e. the Sub-Registrar-IX, Najafgarh, and sat in the waiting area for few minutes. Thereafter, complainant and Shri Lokendra Singh (independent witness) went inside the chamber of the accused and sat on the chairs in front of the accused's chair and office table and had a brief discussion regarding the matter. The complainant further told that accused had demanded the bribe money by gesture by CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 6 of 142 rubbing his finger and thumb and in response, the complainant took out the tainted white envelope containing ₹10,000/- from the front right pocket of his pant by using his right hand. However, at that moment, accused A.M. Rao told the complainant to wait for 10-15 minutes and asked the independent witness to go outside. Following the instruction, Shri Lokendra Singh left the chamber. Thereafter, the accused gestured again for the bribe money and the complainant extended the white envelope containing the tainted bribe amount and accused accepted the envelope containing the bribe money with both his hands and placed the tainted white envelope in the right side upper most drawer of the office table. The accused further told the complainant that henceforth, he (the accused) would not accept less than "ten" i.e. ₹10,000/- (as explained by the complainant) from him (complainant) and that the accused (A.M. Rao) would assist the complainant by raising some query. Thereafter, the complainant exited the chamber of the accused and gave the pre-decided signal.
16. Shri Lokendra Singh (independent witness) also narrated the incident and corroborated the version of the complainant upto the point when he was asked to exit the chamber of the accused and further disclosed that complainant gave the pre decided signal.
CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 7 of 14217. A rough site plan (not to scale) of the location was prepared indicating the position of different persons on the date of trap.
18. TLO directed Shri Lokendra Singh (independent witness) to produce the DVR. The memory card was taken out from the DVR, and an investigation copy was prepared on the official laptop using a Write Blocker in presence of both the independent witnesses. The memory card was then placed in its original cover and marked as Q-2. The cover was duly signed by both the independent witnesses and the TLO and was kept inside a brown envelope and sealed with the CBI brass seal and the said brown envelope was signed by both the witnesses and the TLO.
19. The investigation copy of Q-2 was played and heard in presence of both the independent witnesses and the CBI team. The recording corroborated the version of the complainant and the independent witness.
20. Accused A.M. Rao voluntarily agreed to provide his specimen voice on request. A new sealed memory card was opened in the presence of the independent witnesses and the card was inserted into the DVR. After confirming the blankness of the memory card, the introductory voices of both the independent witnesses were recorded. Subsequently, the specimen voice of accused A.M. Rao was recorded in the memory card through the DVR, followed by the concluding voices of the independent witnesses. Once the recording was CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 8 of 142 completed, the memory card was removed from the DVR, placed in its cover, and marked as S-1. The cover was then signed by both the independent witnesses, accused A.M. Rao, and the TLO.
21. The memory card was then placed in a brown envelope, sealed with the CBI brass seal, and marked as S-1. The sealed envelope was also signed by both the independent witnesses, accused A.M. Rao and the TLO.
22. Complainant Shri Manoj Kumar voluntarily provided his specimen voice on request. A new memory card was opened and inserted in the DVR and after confirming its blankness, introductory voices of independent witnesses were recorded in the said memory card through DVR followed by the specimen voice of the complainant and lastly the recording of the concluding voice of both the independent witnesses. Memory Card was then taken out from the DVR and kept in its cover and marked as S-2 and signatures of both the independent witnesses, complainant and TLO were taken and thereafter, the memory card was placed in brown colour envelope and was sealed with CBI brass seal, signed by both the independent witnesses, complainant Shri Manoj Kumar and the TLO.
23. The DVR used for recording the conversations in the present case was placed in a brown envelope and marked as "DVR used in CO-53/2022 and in RC-61(A)/2022". Both the CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 9 of 142 independent witnesses and the TLO had signed on sealed brown envelope.
24. A search of office of the accused was conducted in the presence of Tehsildar, Najafgarh. During the search, some incriminating materials were found and taken into police possession vide letter No. TEH/NG(SW)/2022/59048 dated 26.09.2022 under the signature of Shri Raman Kumar Bharti, Tehsildar, Najafgarh.
25. During the investigation, investigation copies of Q-1 and Q-2 were played on the official laptop and the transcription-cum- voice identification memo was prepared in the presence of Shri Lokendra Singh, Shri Monendra (both independent witnesses) and Shri Manoj Kumar (complainant). Upon hearing the recorded conversations, complainant Shri Manoj Kumar had identified his voice as well as the voice of accused A.M. Rao during the verification proceeding i.e. in Q-1 and trap proceeding i.e in Q-2. He also confirmed that these were the same conversations held on 23.09.2022 and 26.09.2022. The independent witnesses Shri Lokendra Singh and Shri Monendra also confirmed their introductory voice and other voices in the file.
26. During the investigation, the investigation copies of Q-1 and Q-2 were also played on the official laptop and the transcription-cum-voice identification memo was prepared in the presence of Shri Raman Kumar Bharti, Tehsildar, Najafgarh, CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 10 of 142 New Delhi, Shri Dinesh Kumar, CDV, 0/o SR-IXA, Najafgarh, New Delhi and Shri Amit Kumar Soni, Postal Assistant-cum- Area Manager, Department of Post, Meghdoot Bhawan, Central Division, New Delhi (independent witness). Shri Raman Kumar Bharti, Tehsildar, Najafgarh and Shri Dinesh Kumar, CDV, 0/o SR-IXA, Najafgarh have identified the voice of accused A.M. Rao, available in Q-1 and Q-2.
27. The Exhibits i.e. Right Hand Wash (RHW), Left Hand Wash (LHW) of accused A.M. Rao and PAPER SHEET WASH of upper most drawer of the office table of accused A.M. Rao and the recorded conversations contained in Q-1, Q-2, S-1 and S-2 were sent to CFSL for examination and opinion of CFSL.
28. It is further the case of prosecution that accused A.M. Rao was caught red handed while demanding and accepting bribe of ₹10,000/- as a motive/reward from the complainant and since he was duty bound to register the mortgage deeds and deliver the deed documents, but accused demanded and accepted bribe from the complainant for registration of mortgage deed and release of mortgage papers and thus committed an offence punishable under section 7 of PC Act 1988 (As amended in 2018) on the part of accused Akey Manikyala Rao, Sub-Registrar, (SR-IXA), Najafgarh, New Delhi.
29. Prosecution Sanction under section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act (as amended in 2018) in respect of accused Akey Manikyala Rao, Sub-Registrar, (SR-IXA), Najafgarh, New CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 11 of 142 Delhi was obtained from the Competent Authority i.e. Shri Naresh Kumar, Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi (PW12).
30. Due compliance under section 207 Cr.P.C. was ensured by providing copies of the relevant documents, charge sheet and the statement of the witnesses.
31. A Charge under Section 7 of PC Act, was framed against the accused A.M. Rao.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
32. To substantiate and prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution has examined 22 witnesses and their testimonies are being discussed below.
33. PW1 Shri Shyam Sundar Singh deposed that he was working in the company/establishment of Shri Subhash Shokeen, which is dealing in Real Estate. He used to take the clients to various sites to show them flats and properties available for sale. PW1 after perusing the copy of mortgage deed and its original mortgage deed dated 20.09.2022 stated that mortgage deed was executed between Subhash Shokeen and IIFL Home Finance Ltd., through its authorized representative Shri Manoj Kumar and identified his signatures on both the copy and the mortgage deed where related details are recorded by the Office of Sub Registrar 11(A). PW1 further deposed that at the CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 12 of 142 time of execution of the mortgage deed, he submitted his self- attested PAN card and Aadhaar card, marked as Exhibit PW1/A (Colly), at the Office of the Sub-Registrar. He further stated that he visited the Office of the Sub-Registrar for the execution of the aforementioned mortgage deed along with Shri Subhash Shokeen and his son Shri Sumit Shokeen. PW1 also confirmed that Shri Sumit Shokeen acted as a witness to the execution of the mortgage deed before the Sub-Registrar, Najafgarh. PW1 deposed that in the Sub Registrar Office, the Sub Registrar, Najafgarh verified his details from his PAN card and Aadhar Card and also verified the documents produced before him for registration. PW1 deposed that in his presence, Sub Registrar had not handed over the documents i.e. registered mortgage deed to Shri Subhash Shokeen. PW1 identified the accused A.M. Rao, Sub Registrar.
34. PW2 Shri Surender Kumar, Statistical Officer in the Office of SDM, Head Quarter Branch, Kapashera, South West District, Delhi deposed that vide forwarding letter (Ex.PW2/A), service book and personal Bio-Data of accused A.M. Rao was sent to CBI and he identified signature of Mrs. Renu Malik, the then Section Officer, on the forwarding letter (Ex.PW2/A). PW2 further deposed that vide letter dated 15.11.2022 (Ex.PW2/B), certified copies of order of posting of accused A.M. Rao, Sub Registrar, IX(A), pay fixation and suspension order were sent to CBI and he further identified signature of Mrs. K.T. Sudha, Section Officer (Admn) on the forwarding letter (Ex.PW2/B).
CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 13 of 142PW2 further stated that the copies of posting/transfer order dated 21.10.2021 (Ex.PW2/C), pay fixation of accused A.M. Rao (Ex.PW2/D) and order of suspension of accused A.M. Rao (Ex.PW2/D) were certified by Ms. K.T. Sudha. PW2 deposed that as per above-mentioned documents, accused A.M. Rao was working as Sub Registrar, IX-A, in the year 2022 until 17.10.2022. He further stated that accused was placed under suspension from the date of his detention i.e. 26.09.2022 in view of the order dated 17.10.2022 of the Chief Secretary. PW2 deposed that the responsibilities of Sub Registrar, IX-A, Najafgarh included overseeing the registration of the document, etc. and the work of Sub Registrar was supervised by SDM and DM. PW2 identified the accused A.M. Rao in the court.
35. PW3 Shri Subhash Shokeen, a Property Dealer deposed that his business was initially operated under the name of "Subhash properties" which was later changed to "Subsang Realters Pvt. Ltd." in which his son Sumit Shokeen was one of the directors. PW3 deposed that both the copy and original mortgage deed dated 20.09.2022 were executed between him and IIFL Home Finance Ltd., through its authorized representative Shri Manoj Kumar. He also stated that mortgage deed bear his photograph as well as the photograph of Shri Manoj Kumar {part of Ex.PW1/A (Colly). PW3 identified his signatures on both the copy and the original mortgage deed. He also identified the signatures of his son Shri Sumit who had signed as an attesting witness. PW3 also deposed that Shri CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 14 of 142 Manoj Kumar signed the mortgage deed as loan of Rs. One Lakh was obtained by PW3 from IIFL Home Finance Ltd. PW3 deposed that the mortgage deed alongwith necessary documents, after signing by both the parties i.e. PW3 and the authorized representative Shri Manoj Kumar was presented before the Sub Registrar, Najafgarh for its registration. PW3 identified the accused A.M. Rao in the court as the Sub Registrar before whom the mortgage and other documents were submitted for the registration. He also deposed that the registered mortgage deed was to be released/handed over to Shri Manoj Kumar on behalf of the IIFL Home Finance Ltd. PW3 deposed that the registered mortgage deed was neither handed over to him nor to Shri Manoj Kumar, representative of the Finance Company. PW3 also identified his photograph as well as photograph of his wife and signatures of PW3 and his wife on the loan application form vide Ex.PW3/B and which is the final sanction letter vide Mark PW3/2.(D-16).
36. PW4 Shri Manoj Kumar is the complainant. He deposed that M/s Ravi Bhargava & Company is engaged in the business of preparing and processing documents that require registration before the Offices of Sub-Registrars. He further stated that he had been authorized by M/s Ravi Bhargava & Company through a letter dated 10.05.2022, marked as Exhibit PW1/A (Colly), to execute, present, and register mortgage deeds as well as cancellation of mortgage deeds, before the concerned Registrar. PW4 deposed that on behalf of IIFL Home Finance Ltd., he CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 15 of 142 executed a mortgage deed vide Ex.PW1/A (Colly) for a sum of Rs. One Lakh on 21.09.2022 in the office of Sub Registrar, IX-A, Najafgarh. PW4 deposed that copy of the mortgage deed was also presented in the office of Sub Registrar, IX-A, Najafgarh and he identified his signatures on the copy and original of mortgage deed. PW4 identified his signature on the final sanction letter vide Ex.PW4/A (D-12). PW4 deposed that he had applied for appointment from the Office of Sub Registrar, IX-A, Najafgarh vide acknowledgment slip for appointment Ex.PW4/B (D-11) and after completing all the formalities, a registration slip vide Ex PW-4/C dated 21.09.2022 was issued. PW4 deposed that as per rules, the executant of the document should get the registered document within three days from the date of registration and the original documents are required by the financier for retaining it as a Security. PW4 deposed accused demanded Rs 15,000 for releasing the original registered mortgage deed to PW-4.
37. PW4 deposed that since he did not want to pay the bribe, he made a handwritten complaint dated 23.09.2022 vide Ex.PW4/D (Colly) to the CBI on 23.09.2022 alongwith registration slip. He also identified his signature on the complaint as well as on the registration slip. PW-4 further stated that he reached at the reception and from where he was taken to the office of SP. PW-4 further stated that CBI officials arranged a witness for the purpose of verification of his complaint and thereafter, his complaint was shown to the said witness. PW4 CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 16 of 142 deposed that thereafter, a new sealed packed DVR (a voice recording device) was arranged and its seal was opened in his presence. A memory card from the sealed packet was inserted in the said DVR and then introductory voices of PW-4 as well as Shri Lokendra were recorded in the memory card through DVR and thereafter, the DVR was put in off mode.
38. PW-4 further deposed that he alongwith the witness Shri Lokendra, CBI officer Shri Pradeep and one more CBI officer proceeded to the Sub Registrar, IX-A, Najafgarh in the CBI vehicle and after arrival, they parked their vehicle at some distance from the Sub Registrar Office. Thereafter, the CBI officer handed over him the DVR in switch on mode and placed it in the left side pocket of PW-4's Shirt. PW-4 further deposed that he entered in the office of Sub Registrar accompanied by Lokendra Singh to overhear and the interaction which would take place between him and the Sub Registrar i.e. accused A.M. Rao. PW-4 further deposed that upon reaching office of the accused A.M. Rao, he found that door was open and the accused was busy with some work. PW-4 alongwith witness Shri Lokendra sat just outside the office/chamber of accused A.M. Rao which was within the sight of the accused A.M. Rao. PW-4 further deposed that he went inside after accused A.M. Rao got free from his work. PW-4 further stated that Shri Lokendra remained present outside since accused A.M. Rao would not engage in any discussion in the presence of third party. PW-4 further stated that he apprised accused A.M. Rao about the CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 17 of 142 documents brought by him and the accused also inquired about the sanction letter, ID as well as the money demanded against the mortgage deed. PW-4 deposed that accused A.M. Rao asked for an amount of for ₹15,000/- for the release of registered mortgage deed and upon this, he informed the accused that he was unable to pay such amount and to which the accused responded "Hum toh itna hi paisa leta hai isse kum nhi leta" and further inquired whether he/PW-4 had brought the money. PW-4 deposed that he told the accused A.M. Rao that he had not brought the money but he had brought the document. He requested the accused A.M. Rao to reduce the amount and upon which the accused A.M. Rao reduced the demanded money of ₹10,000/- and asked to come with the money i.e. ₹10,000/- after lunch on 26.09.2022. PW-4 further deposed that after exiting from the room of the accused, he sat with the witness Shri Lokendra outside the room of accused A.M. Rao approximately for one minute and then PW-4 alongwith Lokendra reached to CBI team which was discreetly positioned, then CBI officials put the DVR on switched off mode and took back the DVR from him and thereafter, DVR was played in the presence of persons/CBI team, present at the spot, and all of them heard the conversation and thereafter, they returned back to CBI office between 06.00 PM and 07.00 PM.
39. PW-4 deposed that in the CBI office, memory card was extracted from the DVR and the conversations contained therein were again heard and transcription of the same was prepared. The memory card containing transcription was sealed in the CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 18 of 142 presence of PW-4, independent witness and CBI team members. PW-4 identified his signatures on the brown colour envelope vide Ex.PW4/E as well as on the packet and memory card (Micro SDHC Card) vide Ex.PW4/F (Colly). PW-4 identified his signature as well as brass seal used during the verification on the verification memo vide Ex.PW4/G and further deposed that brass seal after its use during the verification proceeding was handed over to Shri Lokendra for the safe custody. The voice recordings were played during his examination-in-chief and he identified the introductory voice of Shri Lokendra as contained in file no. 220923_1419.mp3. PW-4 also identified his voice as well as the voice of accused A.M. Rao as contained in file nos. 220923_1548.mp3. PW-4 deposed that the transcription memo was prepared on 17.10.2022 when he alongwith witness again visited the CBI office for the purpose of identification of the voices and transcription was presented to both of them for matching. After hearing the recorded voices, they matched it with transcription and found them to be correct and accordingly, they signed the transcription memo. PW4 further deposed that on same day, they also heard and compared the voices recorded at the time of trap. He identified his signatures on the transcription, the transcription memo, and the identification memo, marked as Ex.PW4/I (D-18).
40. PW4 deposed that he was called by the CBI Officers on 26.09.2022 in their office and he was carrying ₹10,000/- having denomination of ₹500/- (16 notes) and ₹2,000/- (one note).
CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 19 of 142PW4 deposed that the witnesses Monendra and Lokendra were also called in the CBI office and all of them had assembled for the purpose of trap of accused A.M. Rao who was demanding money. PW4 deposed that discussion took place among all of them present in the office of the CBI and he informed the CBI officer about the addresses of Ravi Bhargava & Company. PW4 further stated that independent witness Shri Lokendra had brought the brass seal which was given to him for safe custody and Lokendra handed over the brass seal to other witness. He deposed that a DVR used for recording was produced before the CBI Team. ₹10,000/- by PW4, were counted and the serial numbers of the currency notes were recorded on the paper in the presence of CBI officers and other persons. Thereafter, the CBI officers conducted the demonstration i.e reaction of chemical smeared on currency notes and envelope. During the demonstration, one person was asked to touch the fingers on the smeared notes and subsequently, his fingers were washed in the chemical solution and when the fingers touched the solution, the solution turned 'Pink'. PW4 further deposed that powder was spread on the currency notes and envelope and the solution which turned Pink, was destroyed by the CBI officer. The CBI officers and the independent witnesses searched each other. PW4 further deposed that CBI officers were carrying the trap kit and the smeared currency notes were put inside an envelope and the said envelope containing the GC notes were given to him and the CBI officer instructed him to hand over the money only after demand by the accused A.M. Rao. PW4 deposed that he was CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 20 of 142 allowed to carry his mobile phone with him and all the CBI team members and independent witnesses washed their hands with soap, and the independent witness Shri Lokendra was instructed to remain with him/PW4 when PW4 will go to meet accused A.M. Rao and to over overhear the transactions/conversation between PW4 and accused A.M. Rao
41. PW-4 further stated that he was also instructed to handover the money only after the demand made by the accused A.M. Rao and after completion of the transaction, to give the signal by rubbing his/PW4 hand on his face or by giving a missed call to the CBI team members. PW4 deposed that a new memory card was inserted (wrongly typed as instructed) into the DVR and introductory voices of independent witnesses were recorded by the CBI officers and thereafter, the DVR was switched off and the same was decided to handover to him on the way to the office of Sub Registrar for the purpose of further proceedings. PW4 deposed that all the proceedings of preparation and demonstration for the trap had been recorded on papers in which he alongwith other trap team members and witnesses had signed. PW4 identified his signature as well as impression of the seal on the pre-trap memorandum vide Ex.PW4/J (D-4) and the pre-trap proceedings were concluded around 12.00 PM. Thereafter PW4 alongwith witnesses and CBI team left the CBI office for the Sub Registrar Office and reached the vicinity to the office of Sub Registrar at about 2.00 pm and the vehicles were parked in discreet manner. PW4 further deposed that around 03.00 PM, a CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 21 of 142 DVR was handed over to him by putting it in switched on mode and prior thereto, Lokendra was instructed to accompany PW4 and other witness was following them at some distance when they were going towards the office/room of Sub Registrar i.e. room of accused A.M. Rao, situated at ground floor. He further deposed that he and Lokendra initially entered the reception area of the office of the Sub Registrar. Subsequently, both of them sat in the hall adjacent to the room of accused A.M. Rao, and accused A.M. Rao saw them from his room as door was open and upon noticing PW-4, accused A.M. Rao came towards the door of his room and then returned to his chair and then he and independent witness entered the room of accused A.M. Rao. PW4 greeted the accused by saying " Namaste" and introduced that Lokendra was working with him. PW4 further stated that he apprised the accused about bringing the required documents and also told that he had already given the conveyance deed, and thereafter, accused A.M. Rao asked from the witness Lokendra whether "Sath hi kaam karte ho". PW4 further deposed that accused A.M. Rao also asked whether any other person was sitting outside the room to which Lokendra replied that perhaps an old man was seated. PW4 further stated then he informed the accused A.M. Rao about the documents required by him to which accused A.M. Rao replied "Abhi le leta hun" and he/accused also enquired whether the documents had been signed, to which PW4 replied "Kara diya". PW4 deposed that he asked accused A.M. Rao "Time lagega abhi" and to which the accused answered that it would take 10-15 minutes. Accused CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 22 of 142 A.M. Rao then asked them to wait/sit outside the room and upon which Lokendra left the room, however, PW4 stayed back in the room.
42. PW4 deposed that once again he asked the accused A.M. Rao whether it would take some more time, to which accused A.M. Rao replied that it would take about half an hour and advised that PW4 should sit outside and engaged in gossip with the person accompanying him. PW4 told accused A.M. Rao that henceforth, the person accompanying him i.e. Lokendra would come instead and requested to pay attention to him and in response to the same, accused A.M. Rao told " Aaega to thik hai " (as and when he comes then it would be seen) and after this, accused A.M. Rao stood from his chair and PW4 also got up from his chair and thereafter, PW4 told " Sir pure dus hai isme"
and also indicated the same through gestures and further told the accused "Aage se dhyan rakhna", on which accused A.M. Rao replied "Hum dus pandra hi lete hai". PW4 deposed that thereafter, he came out from the room of the accused and sat with Lokendra and thereafter, one or two members of the team came near him/PW4 and those persons approached near him gesticulated by moving their fingers and thereafter, PW4 gesticulated to those team members by pointing towards the pocket of pant where he had kept the envelope. The team members took the envelope from him and went inside the room of the accused, whereas PW4 remained seated outside. After about half an hour, PW4 was called inside the room. PW4 did CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 23 of 142 not support the case of the prosecution and thereafter, he was cross-examined by ld. Public Prosecution for CBI. He/PW4 also identified the accused A.M. Rao in the court.
43. PW-4 further stated that on 17.10.2022, he heard the recorded conversations in the office of CBI and which were matched with the transcription (Ex.PW22/D) annexed with voice identification cum transcription memo vide Ex. PW4/I.
44. In his cross-examination PW-4 denied giving any pre decided signal and after the attention is drawn to Ex. PW4/J in which the distinctive currency numbers were mentioned and kept in a white envelope and after comparing the currency notes taken out of the envelope with the details noted in Ex. PW4/J, PW-4 stated that the money was handed over to him in white envelope to him for the purpose of delivering it on the demand of A.M. Rao. PW-4 in his further examination-in-chief stated that he got registered about 7 to 8 mortgage deeds from the accused A.M. Rao and he used to speak to him. PW-4 identified the position of witnesses in Mark-PW4/X-5. PW-4 further deposed that CBI team did not ask him to narrate the incident and also denied the suggestion that he had falsely stated that he was not present during the proceedings. PW-4 identified the DVR vide Ex.PW4/N and stated that it was used for recording the conversation between him and the accused A.M. Rao and he further deposed that when he came out of the room of accused A.M. Rao, Lokendra did not make any inquiry from him. PW4 CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 24 of 142 also identified the Introductory voices of independent witnesses Lokendra and Monendra.
45. When file bearing No. 220926_1513 was played on the laptop, PW-4 identified the word "Namaste" and the phrase "Yeh mere saathi hai, inhe mai dikha laon office." and He/PW4 subsequently identified the voice of A.M. Rao in the audio recording and the corresponding transcript vide Exhibit PW4/I. PW-4 further deposed that the recording perhaps contain the voice of A.M. Rao. He/PW4 also recognized his own voice in the recording and its corresponding transcript entries A-21 to A- 21 and A-30 to A-30. However, PW4 was unable to identify voices after A-30 to A-30 in the transcription and denied the suggestion that this omission was intended to protect A.M. Rao. During the further examination in chief when, PW-4 was confronted with the transcription from portion B-36-B-36 and B- 49-B-49, is specifically asked from which portion the word "Bahar wait karo" is mentioned by accused A.M. Rao. PW-4 after a long pause, deposed that word "Bahar wait karo" is not mentioned/ written in the transcript. The attention of PW-4 was drawn to A-28 to A-28 to A-30 to A-30 and portion Y to Y, B-44 to B-44 to B-49 to B-49 that he never went out of the room and handed over the bribe amount to accused A.M. Rao. PW-4 after reading the transcript, repeated that he did not give the bribe amount to accused A.M. Rao. PW-4 denied the suggestion that he used to give bribe to accused A.M. Rao on earlier occasions. PW-4 further stated that he gave the complaint as accused used CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 25 of 142 to put objections and questions whether he had brought the money.
46. PW-4 had further deposed that in his evidence, his voice examination report was taken in the office of CBI. PW-4 identified the introductory voice of Lokendra but failed to identify the voice of Monendra.
47. The Cross-examination of PW-4 was conducted by Ld. Counsel for accused in which he stated that there was no demand of money on 26.09.2022 when he went to the office of Sub Registrar.
48. PW5 Shri Lokendra Singh is the shadow witness. PW5 stated that on the first day, a complaint was received at the CBI office and the complainant was identified as Manoj Kumar. He further deposed that although he had not personally seen the complaint, he was aware that it contained allegations of bribery against the Sub-Registrar from the office of the SDM, Najafgarh. PW-5 further stated that he was unable to recall the exact purpose for which the Sub Registrar was demanding money, however, it was related to mortgage in connection with a bank matter. PW5 deposed that he was introduced to the complainant and informed that CBI is required to verify the allegations mentioned in the complaint and he was to act as witness to the verification. PW-5 further stated that CBI officials demonstrated the manner in which the verification was to be carried out and for said purpose, a brand new DVR was shown to him and he CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 26 of 142 confirmed its blankness by operating the DVR in which only folders without any file was seen by him and no recordings were seen. Upon perusing the complaint vide Ex.PW4/D dated 23.09.2022, he stated that he had not seen the complaint on that day and the CBI officers informed that complainant Shri Manoj Kumar had given the complaint of bribery against Sub Registrar i.e. accused A.M. Rao.
49. PW5 further deposed that his introductory voice was recorded in the DVR and for the purpose of verification, they i.e. PW5, complainant and two-three CBI officers proceeded towards the office of Sub Registrar office, SDM, Najafgarh and left the CBI office around 01.30 to 02.00 PM in a vehicle and the vehicle was stopped at some distance from the Sub Registrar office, Najafgarh and CBI officials directed the complainant and PW5 to hear the conversation between the complainant and accused A.M. Rao and the CBI official had put the DVR in switch on mode in the shirt pocket of the complainant Shri Manoj Kumar. PW5 further deposed that he and complainant went inside the building of Sub Registrar office and upon reaching, the complainant informed the staff of accused A.M. Rao that he wanted to meet the accused A.M. Rao and thereupon the complainant was asked to wait. PW-5 further stated that complainant informed him that he would go inside alone, as the accused might be hesitant to speak in the presence of PW-5 and then complainant entered room of accused A.M. Rao and interacted with him. The complainant came out of the room of CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 27 of 142 the accused A.M. Rao approximately after 10-15 minutes and told him that he had spoken to A.M. Rao. PW-5 further stated that after returning to the stationed vehicle, the CBI officials retrieved the DVR and stopped its recording. The officials then inquired with the complainant Manoj Kumar regarding the discussion that took place inside the room of the accused A.M. Rao. In response, the complainant informed them that the initial demand made by A.M. Rao was ₹15,000/-, which was later negotiated down to ₹10,000. PW-5 further stated that they returned to the CBI office in the evening. At the office, the recorded conversation was played in the presence of PW-5, the complainant and the CBI officials and the recording confirmed that initial demand was ₹15,000/- which was negotiated to ₹10,000/-. The CBI officials then removed the memory card from the DVR, sealed it in an envelope and signatures were also obtained. The verification proceedings were documented, which was signed by him, the complainant and the CBI officials. PW-5 identified his signature on the verification memo (Ex.PW4/G) and deposed that this document contained the proceedings recorded by the CBI officials. He further stated that he received a brass seal from the CBI officials on 23.09.2022, along with instructions to produce it whenever required.
50. PW5 identified his introductory voice in file No. 220923_1419.mp3 of the voice recording and the same being transcribed in the transcription memo (part of D-18). On playing, file no. 220923_1548.mp3, PW5 deposed that the voice CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 28 of 142 contained in the recordings were recorded by the complainant on 23.09.2022 in the room of Sub Registrar/accused A.M. Rao. PW5 deposed that recording was heard by him, complainant and CBI team officers in the CBI office after returning from the Sub Registrar office on 23.09.2022. PW5 further deposed that he again visited the office of CBI where another witness Monendra was also present alongwith CBI officers. All of them were briefed about the procedure and steps to be taken for the purpose of trap of accused A.M. Rao in the office of Sub Registrar Office, Najafgarh, New Delhi. PW5 further stated that the CBI team displayed the currency notes of ₹10,000/- which was brought by the complainant. The serial numbers of the currency notes were noted down and he alongwith others also cross-checked the serial numbers of the said currency notes with serial numbers recorded by the CBI officers. PW5 further stated that CBI officers demonstrated the use of phenolphthalein powder and explained that if the powder was touched with the hands and the hands are dipped in the colourless water solution then the solution will turn Pink. A demonstration of this reaction was conducted. Thereafter phenolphthalein powder was applied on the Government currency notes, which was then kept inside a white envelope. The phenolphthalein powder was applied on the white envelope and the remaining phenolphthalein powder was kept in a bottle in a bag for further use.
51. PW5 further deposed that the CBI seal which had been given to him on previous date, was returned to the CBI Officer CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 29 of 142 for the proceedings. The smeared white envelope containing smeared GC notes was then placed in the right side front pocket of the pant of the complainant Manoj Kumar with the directions that the white envelope should not be touched and should be handed over to the accused A.M. Rao only on his demand. He further deposed that he was instructed by the CBI officers to remain with the complainant as well to overhear the conversation between the complainant and the accused A.M. Rao and if, transaction is completed then complainant would give signal by rubbing both his hands on his face. He further deposed that members of the trap team and witness washed their hands prior to leaving the office of CBI. He further deposed that new DVR and new memory card were arranged, the introductory voices of PW5 and other witness Monendra were recorded in the DVR by using the said memory card. PW5 further deposed that confirmation regarding the blankness of the DVR and the memory card was repeated by the CBI officials, similar to the earlier occasions. PW-5 further stated that DVR containing the memory card would be given to the complainant in switch on mode soon before entering into the office of Sub Registrar accused A.M. Rao. PW5 deposed that the pre-trap memorandum vide Ex.PW4/J (D-4) is the same memorandum prepared by the CBI officials in their presence on 26.09.2022 and PW-5 identified his signatures as well as stamp impression of the CBI seal on it. PW-5 further deposed that other persons also put their signatures on Ex. PW4/J (D-4) and the proceedings were concluded at about 12:30 PM and thereafter, he, Monendra CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 30 of 142 Singh, complainant and the CBI team left the CBI office in two vehicles for the SDM office and reached near the office of Sub Registrar, Najafgarh between 02:00 to 02:30 PM. After waiting for sometime, DVR was put in Switch on mode and was put inside the left side shirt pocket of the complainant and then he and complainant moved towards the office of Sub Registrar, as situated on the ground floor, to meet Sub Registrar accused A.M. Rao and after some time, PW-5 and complainant went to washroom to ease themselves and thereafter, both of them went into the room of accused A.M. Rao.
52. PW-5 further deposed that he noticed that complainant was acquainted with accused A.M. Rao who offered seat and both of them sat opposite to accused A.M. Rao. PW5 further deposed that thereafter, complainant Manoj Kumar initiated the conversation with A.M. Rao and told that the had brought the required documents and requested him to verify them and complainant requested for the delivery of mortgage papers. PW5 further deposed that during the conversation, A.M. Rao told that it would take time as staff was not available at that moment. The accused A.M. Rao then made a gesture by moving his thumb alternatively on his index finger. PW-5 further deposed that to his understanding, the gesticulation indicated that accused A.M. Rao was asking for the money, thereafter, complainant Shri Manoj Kumar took out the white envelope containing the bribe amount from his pocket, at this juncture, accused A.M. Rao told the complainant " Abhi nhi baad mai"
CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 31 of 142(not now, later) and also made a hand gesture by waving his palm up and down position. The accused A.M. Rao enquired about him i.e. PW-5 and the complainant Manoj Kumar informed the accused that PW-5 has recently joined and is working with the complainant. PW-5 further deposed that the accused A.M. Rao instructed him to sit outside, while the complainant Manoj Kumar remained seated in the room of accused A.M. Rao. Following the instruction of the accused, PW-5 came out of the room and sat in the waiting area. After about 5 minutes, complainant Manoj Kumar came out of the room of accused A.M. Rao and gave the pre-decided signal i.e. rubbing his face with both hands. Immediately, the CBI officers who were positioned in the vicinity proceeded inside the room of accused A.M. Rao. PW5 further deposed that complainant did not communicate with him before or after giving signal to the CBI team members.
53. PW-5 further deposed that after making entry into the room of accused A.M. Rao, two CBI officers move towards both the sides of accused A.M. Rao who was sitting in his office chair and caught hold his both hands from the wrist. Both introduced themselves as CBI officers to accused A.M. Rao. PW-5 further deposed that another officer took the DVR from the complainant Manoj Kumar and switched it off. PW-5 further deposed that the officers who were holding the hands, apprised the accused with regard to the complaint in respect of bribery against him and further inquired from him whether he took bribe from the CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 32 of 142 complainant Manoj Kumar, however, the accused A.M. Rao denied making any demand for the bribe and at that point of time, the CBI officers asked the complainant Manoj Kumar regarding the white envelope containing bribe money and then, complainant Manoj Kumar told that accused A.M. Rao took the white envelope from both his hands and placed the same on the top drawer to the right side of the office table. PW-5 further deposed that one of the officers opened the drawer and on the direction of CBI officer, other independent witness Shri Monendra took out the said white envelope from the drawer and Shri Monendra took the white envelope in his hand and thereafter the CBI officer enquired about its contents, to which the accused A.M. Rao told that "Galti Ho Gayi Hai " (I made a mistake) and further admitted that " Main Manta Hun Galti Ho Gayi Hai" (I accept that I made a mistake). PW-5 further deposed that during this process, the complainant Shri Manoj Kumar was also present.
54. PW-5 further deposed that thereafter, the CBI officers prepared the colourless water solution in two different tumblers. The hands of the accused A.M. Rao were then dipped separately one after the other in the different colourless water solution in the different tumblers. The colourless solution in both the tumblers turned PINK after the accused had touched them with his hands. Pink colour solutions in both the tumblers were transferred in two separate containers which were sealed and signed by him and PW-5 also identified his signatures on the sealed water bottle CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 33 of 142 containing light/dark Pink water solution vide Ex.PW-5/RHW, Ex.PW-5/LHW and Ex.PW-5/PSW. PW-5 also identified the three cloth wrappers bearing seal of CBI and also mentioning the CFSL-2022/C-955/Ex.RHW; CFSL-2022/ C-955/Ex.LHW and CFSL-2022/C-955/Ex. Three Cloth wrappers vide Ex.PW-5/CW1, Ex.PW-5/CW2 and Ex.PW-5/CW3. PW5 further deposed that the cloth wrappers having seal of CBI were used to wrap and seal the glass bottles containing the Pink colour solutions were preserved.
55. PW5 further deposed that other office drawers of the accused A.M. Rao were also searched to know whether there is some other bribe money. PW5 further deposed that accused A.M. Rao was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/A and PW-5 identified his signature on it. PW5 further deposed that the tainted bribe amount recovered from the drawer of the accused A.M. Rao was counted by them and serial numbers were cross- checked with the serial numbers noted by the CBI officers in Ex.PW4/J (D-4) and all the currency notes vide Ex.PW4/M (Colly) were correctly matched. He further deposed that the recovered white envelope containing the GC notes were the same notes which were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and handed over to the complainant for the purpose of giving it to the accused A.M. Rao and identified his signatures on the brown colour envelope containing the details "White Envelope Containing TRAP MONEY in RC-61 (A)/2022", Malkhana Number vide Ex.PW5/B as well as on the white envelope found CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 34 of 142 mentioning the details " Trap Envelope in RC 61 (A)/2022" vide Ex.PW5/C.
56. PW5 identified his signature on the rough site plan vide Ex.PW5/D. PW5 further deposed that the recorded conversation was heard by all and the memory card was extracted from the DVR and its investigation copy was prepared by using some instrument and the memory card was sealed in the similar manner as stated by him. PW5 identified the DVR vide Ex.PW4/N which was used for recording the conversation between accused A.M. Rao and the complainant Manoj Kumar and the same was kept in the brown envelope vide Ex.PW5/E bearing his signature as well as the signatures of other persons. PW5 also identified his signatures on the packing which contains a memory card of 16 GB vide Ex.PW5/G vide Mark Q-2 and the same was kept in brown colour envelope vide Ex.PW5/F containing his signature at Point-A and also contains the signatures of other persons.
57. The memory card was inserted in the laptop brought by Malkhana Officer by using write blocker/card reader and PW5 identified his introductory voice contained in file nos. 220926_1232 and 220926_1233 and the said conversation was transcribed in the transcription memo vide Ex.PW4/I (part of D-
18). PW5 also identified his voice as well as the voices of the complainant and the accused A.M. Rao in file no. 220926_ 1513 which is transcribed in the transcription memo vide Ex.PW4/I CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 35 of 142 (Part of D-18). PW5 further deposed gesture of advancing the white colour envelope by the complainant Manoj Kumar to the accused A.M. Rao is transcribed in Ex.PW4/I and thereafter, the accused A.M. Rao uttered "Abhi le leta hun" which is also transcribed in Ex.PW4/I (Part of D-18).
58. In his further statement, PW5 identified the voices of accused A.M. Rao from portion B42-B42 in the transcription memo when the accused A.M. Rao had gestured him to sit outside by waving his hands. PW5 further identified the voices of accused A.M. Rao from Portion B43-B43 and B43A-B43A as well as the voices of complainant from Portion A25-A25 to A28- A28 and upon being further questioned, PW5 stated that complainant did not come out of the room when the complainant had uttered the Portion A26 to A26 i.e. "Ha thik hai main bahar wait kr rha hun sir, thik hai". PW5 also identified the relevant voices of accused A.M. Rao which is transcribed at portion B44- B44 to B49-B49 in Ex.PW4/I (part of D-18 and Ex.PW4/I). PW5 also identified the voices of complainant which are transcribed from Portion A28A-A28A to A30-A30 in the transcription memo vide Ex.PW4/I (Part of D-18).
59. PW5 further stated that the accused A.M. Rao gave his specimen voice voluntarily which was recorded after recording his introductory voice as well as the introductory voice of Monendra in a sealed pack blank memory card through DVR after ensuring its blankness and thereafter, the memory card was CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 36 of 142 sealed with the CBI seal and the signatures were taken at the necessary places and he/PW5 identified his signature on Ex.PW5/H, bearing the seal of CBI on "S-1 in RC 61 (A)/2022". The memory card "S-1" was inserted in the official laptop and the relevant files were played in which, he/PW5 identified his introductory voice as well as the introductory voice of Monendra and the specimen voice of the accused A.M. Rao. PW5 also identified his concluding voice as well as the concluding voice of witness Monendra in the relevant files in the memory card "S-1".
60. The memory card "S-2" is inserted in the official laptop from the brown envelope bearing the particulars and seal of the CBI was opened. On playing "S-2", PW5 identified his introductory voice as well as the introductory voice of Monendra. He/PW5 also identified the specimen voice of complainant Manoj Kumar. PW5 also identified his concluding voice as well as the concluding voice of witness Monendra in the relevant files in the memory card "S-2" vide Ex.PW4/P.
61. PW5 further stated that the proceedings commenced on 26.09.2022 and continued till 27.09.2022 at 02:00 AM and he/PW5 further stated that post trap memorandum vide Ex.PW4/K and its contents were made known to him, independent witness Monendra, complainant and others and he/ PW5 further stated that CBI brass seal was affixed and the signatures of all the persons who were present in the office of the CBI were taken on Ex.PW4/K. PW5 further deposed that after CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 37 of 142 about 20 days, he as well as Monendra again visited the office of CBI for the purpose of voice identification-cum-transcription wherein the voice recordings recorded during the trap proceedings were matched with the transcription after both of them listened to the voice recordings. He/PW5 further stated that the complainant/Manoj Kumar also identified his voice as well as the voice of A.M. Rao and the relevant documentation vide Ex. PW4/I.
62. Certain questions were put to PW5 by Ld. PP for CBI and PW5 stated that he alongwith complainant Manoj Kumar, independent witness and the CBI team came inside the room of the accused A.M. Rao after the complainant had given the pre- decided signal. He/PW5 further stated upon being queried by the Ld. PP for the CBI that complainant was present in the room of accused A.M. Rao at the time of taking of the Hand Washes and Drawer Wash of accused A.M. Rao. PW5 further stated on being queried that when hand wash and drawer wash were preserved and sealed, the complainant was present in the room of the accused A.M. Rao. PW5 further stated on the specific question of the Ld. PP that complainant Manoj Kumar was present inside the room when currency notes were matched with the previously recorded document in which the serial numbers of the currency notes were mentioned as well as when the currency notes were sealed. PW5 further stated on being queried that complainant was present in the same room at the time of preparation of site Plan vide Ex. PW5/D and recording of the CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 38 of 142 specimen voice of accused A.M. Rao. PW5 further stated that upon being questioned by the Ld. PP that complainant Manoj Kumar remained associated with the proceedings on 23.09.2022 and 26.09.2022.
63. PW6 Shri Surya Pratap Singh, Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) in Administrative Branch of Deputy Commissioner Office, South West, Kapashera identified his signature on the production-cum-seizure memo vide Ex.PW6/A dated 01.11.2022 vide which he handed over the letter of Ms. Renu Malik alongwith certified copies of personal data and service book of accused A.M. Rao (total sheets 42 pages).
64. PW7 Shri Kunal Gupta, Legal, Manager at IIFL Home vide production-cum-seizure memo dated 20.10.2022 (Ex.PW7/A), had handed over the documents mentioned in the production-cum-seizure memo vide Ex.PW7/A to the CBI. PW7 further deposed that his company had authorized Ravi Bhargava & Company to execute/present the documents for registration in the Registrar Offices. PW-7 further stated that Complainant Shri Manoj Kumar is the executive of the said Ravi Bhargava & Company and identified his signature on the authorization letter dated 10.05.2022 vide Ex.PW1/A in favour of three persons including Shri Manoj Kumar for the aforesaid purpose i.e. for execution and registration of mortgage deed/re- conveyance deed, etc. PW7 further stated that vide letter Ex.PW-7/B-Colly (D-14), he identified his signature as well as CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 39 of 142 stamp of his company on the letter dated 20.10.2022 vide Ex.PW7/B (Colly (D-14) and deposed that in response of the requisition of CBI officer, he had provided certified copies of loan application form of Shri Subhash Shokeen, certified copies of loan sanction letter in favour of Shri Subhash Shokeen and co- applicant Mrs. Sangeet Shokeen and certified copies of the property papers in favour of Shri Subhash Shokeen. PW7 confirmed the certification and company stamp on the loan application, sanction letter and certified property documents. PW7 further stated that IIFL Home Finance Ltd. had a fixed remuneration of ₹9,000/- for execution and registration of each document at the office of the Sub Registrar and remuneration was paid by the client to the Advocate Shri Ravi Bhargava, owner of Ravi Bhargava & Company.
65. PW8 Shri Brijesh Kumar, Civil Defence Volunteer stated that he was posted in the Office of Sub Registrar-IXA, Najafgarh from 2018 till 27.09.2022 and makes data entry. PW8 stated that accused A.M. Rao had joined as Sub Registrar in the month of November 2021 and was responsible for the work relating to presentation of deeds, verification of documents relating to the presenter and witnesses to the deeds etc. PW8 identified signature of accused A.M. Rao on the Mortgage deed bearing no. 988 dated 21.09.2022 vide Ex.PW1/A (Colly) (D-8) as he had worked under the supervision of accused A.M. Rao and seen him writing and signing. PW8 identified the accused A.M. Rao.
CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 40 of 14266. PW9 Ms. Gungun Mudgal, Senior Scientific Assistant (Chemistry), CFSL, New Delhi stated that on 28.09.2022, three sealed glass bottles with the seal 2022 205 CBI, ACB N.D. were received in the Office of Director, CFSL and the same were marked to her through H.O.D (Chemistry) for opinion. PW9 deposed that the sealed bottles were compared with the sample seals and the same were found to be intact and after examination, she gave her opinion vide her report dated 01.12.2022 vide Ex.PW9/A (D-30).
67. PW10 Ms. Renu Malik, Section Officer in Revenue Department, Delhi Government, South West at Kapashera, New Delhi deposed that she know accused A.M. Rao as he was working as Sub Registrar at the relevant time. PW10 stated that vide letter Ex.PW-2/A (Pages 131 to 213)(D-9), she had provided the personal bio-data and attested copy of service book of accused A.M. Rao containing her signature and the official stamp on the attested copy of the service book of the accused A.M. Rao.
68. PW11 Ms. K.T. Sudha is the Section Officer, Office of Deputy Commissioner (South West). She deposed that she had provided the documents vide Ex.PW2/C, Ex.PW2/D and Ex.PW2/E vide forwarding letter Ex.PW2/B dated 15.11.2022 bearing her signature alongwith official stamp to the CBI during investigation.
CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 41 of 14269. PW12 Shri Naresh Kumar is the Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi. He deposed to the effect that he granted prosecution sanction of accused A.M. Rao, the then Sub Registrar vide Ex.PW12/P1 dated 16.12.2022 after examining the record of the case and the same was forwarded vide letter dated 16.12.2022 (Ex.PW12/P2).
70. PW13 Shri Amit Kumar Soni, Postal Assistant, Department of Post, Ministry of Communication. He was witness to the voice identification proceedings by PW-14 and PW15. He deposed that both PW-14 and PW-15 had identified the voice as well as appended their signatures on Ex PW-13/B and identification-cum-transcription memo Ex.PW13/A (D-19).
71. PW14 Shri Raman Kumar Bharti, Tehsildar, Office of Sub Registrar and also worked in the capacity of Executive Magistrate. PW14 deposed that he visited the office of CBI for the purposes of identification of voice of accused A.M. Rao in relation to some trap case. PW14 also deposed that he handed over mortgage deed and office copy of the mortgage deed (Ex.PW1/A - Colly) vide his letter dated 26.09.2022 Ex.PW14/A (D-8). PW14 further stated that he had provided the schedule of appointment on 21.09.2022 alongwith certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act vide Ex.PW14/C and Ex.PW14/D respectively and he also provided the certified copy of the circular bearing No. F-1/2364/Regn. Br./Div. Comm/HQ/R/2019/Pt-File-II/5247 dated 11.01.2021 (D-28) in CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 42 of 142 which the standard operating procedure which is to be followed is mentioned and all the above documents were provided to the CBI vide Ex.PW14/B. PW14 identified the voice of accused A.M. Rao from the recording contained in file 220923_1548.mp3 from memory card "Q-1 in CO-53/2022" and pointed out to the words "Ungli ko kya ho gya" and "Hmm" as the voice of accused A.M. Rao which corresponds with Point-A to A in the transcription vide Ex.PW13/B. PW14 upon hearing the recording contained in File No. 220926_1513 from memory card "Q-2 in RC 61 (A)/2022" deposed that it contain three human voices and one of the voice as that of the accused A.M. Rao which corresponds with the Portion-A to A of transcription vide Ex. PW13/B. PW14 identified his signatures on the transcription memo and transcription vide Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW13/B respectively which was prepared in his presence and he also identified the signature of PW15 Dinesh Kumar since he used to work with him.
72. PW15 Shri Dinesh Kumar, Civil Defence Volunteer in the office of Sub Registrar Office, IX-A, Najafgarh, New Delhi deposed that he visited the office of CBI in the year 2022 alongwith Raman Kumar Bharti for the purpose of voice identification of accused A.M. Rao in connection with the identification of the voice of accused A.M. Rao which were played on the official computer system and he identified the voice of accused A.M. Rao and further identified his signature on Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW13/B respectively. PW15 identified the CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 43 of 142 voice of accused A.M. Rao (from portion A to A vide Ex.PW13/B) and voice of complainant Manoj Kumar (from portion B to B vide Ex.PW13/B) from the recording contained in file 220923_1548.mp3 from memory card "Q-1 in CO-53/2022"
and PW15 upon hearing the recording contained in File No. 220926_1513 from memory card "Q-2 in RC 61 (A)/2022", identified the voices of the accused A.M. Rao (which corresponds with the portion A to A of transcription vide Ex.PW13/B) and complainant Manoj Kumar (corresponds from Portion B to B vide Ex.PW13/B). PW14 identified the signature of accused A.M. Rao on Ex.PW1/A.
73. PW16 Shri Aman Mishra, Data Entry Operator (Contractual) in the office of Sub Registrar-IXA, Najafgarh, New Delhi, deposed that he visited the office of the CBI and handed over the following documents i.e. (i) Original letter dated 16.11.2022 forwarding certified documents and circular in respect of registered deeds (1 sheet) vide Ex.PW14/B (D-26); (ii) Certified copies of schedule of Sub Registrar Office dated 21.09.2022 and deed related documents of Sr. No. 988 dated 21.09.2022 alongwith certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act (Three sheets) vide Ex. PW14/C and Ex.PW14/D (D-27); (iii) Certified copy of circular number F.No. 1/2364/Regn.Br./Div.Comm/HQ/R/2019/ Pt. File-II/5247 dated 11.01.2021 issued by Shri A. Gopi Krishan, Dy. Commissioner (HQ) Stamp & Registration Branch (1 sheet) vide Mark PW14/A to the CBI vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/A dated 17.11.2022.
CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 44 of 14274. PW17 Shri Monendra employed as Special Educator, MCD Primary Boys Senior Secondary School, No. 2, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi. He deposed that on 26.09.2022, he visited the office of ACB on the direction of his department and he met CBI officials, complainant Shri Manoj and Shri Lokendra Singh. He further deposed that he was apprised that there was a complaint by Manoj Kumar regarding the demand of bribe and the complaint vide Ex.PW4/D was shown to him. He further deposed that complainant was telling the CBI official that accused A.M. Rao was demanding ₹15,000/- as a bribe and would not accept less than ₹10,000/-. He further deposed that a trap was planned for the Sub Registrar who was demanding the bribe. He further stated that demonstration was given by the CBI officials by applying powder on the currency notes as well as on the envelope and it was further explained to him that if the powder is touched by any person and if the hands of such a person is dipped in a solution then its colour would change to Pink. PW17 further deposed that CBI officials explained the complainant Manoj Kumar that if accused A.M. Rao would accept the bribe then he would give a pre-decided signal by rubbing his face with his hands. He further stated that DVR was given to the complainant in the office of the CBI. PW17 on being queried by the Ld. PP stated that instructions were given by the CBI officials prior to the departure from the office of the CBI that Lokendra shall accompany the complainant in the cabin of accused A.M. Rao and other CBI officials shall positioned themselves discreetly in the waiting hall and some would be CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 45 of 142 stationed at the main entrance of the office of the Sub Registrar. PW17 further deposed that he and another CBI official Pradeep were directed to remain at the main entrance. PW17 upon being queried by the Ld. PP stated that apart from the DVR, a memory card was also taken in a sealed pack condition. PW17 further deposed that prior to the departure from the office of CBI, a pre- trap memorandum vide Ex.PW4/J was prepared and he further volunteered that the CBI brass seal is impressed at Point-B. He further stated that all persons reached the office of the Sub Registrar at about 02:30 PM and he further stated that when he was standing near the main entrance, a call was received by Shri Pradeep, Sub Inspector, CBI and upon which SI Pradeep asked him to come inside and after going inside the office of the Sub Registrar, the CBI officials had caught hold the hands of accused A.M. Rao and a drawer was opened from which one envelope was taken out. He also stated that Hand wash of accused A.M. Rao was taken and the solution changed its colour. He also stated that the area/place where envelope was kept in the drawer, that part was wiped with a wet white colour and it had also changed its colour to Pink. He further stated that the currency notes were taken out from the envelope and the same correctly matched with the number of notes mentioned in Ex.PW4/J.
75. PW17 further deposed that upon inquiring from the accused A.M. Rao regarding the acceptance of bribe, accused A.M. Rao stated "Galti ho gayi". He further deposed that the search of the drawer of the office table of A.M. Rao was made by CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 46 of 142 the independent witness including him and the other CBI officials and certain other papers were also found. He further stated that a post-trap memorandum was also prepared vide Ex. PW4/K containing his signature.
76. PW17 further deposed that Shri Bharti and SDM were informed when the proceedings were being undertaken. He also stated that voice samples of independent witnesses including PW17, complainant and accused A.M. Rao were taken in the office of Sub-Registrar. PW17 deposed that the solution which had turned Pink was put in a container and was sealed and the currency notes and the envelope from which the currency notes were taken out, were also sealed and the memory card on which the voice samples were taken was also sealed. PW17 deposed that the documents which were prepared in the office of Sub- Registrar by the CBI officials were read over to them and PW17 and other persons also put their signatures on it. PW17 deposed that the site plan of the place of the transaction was also prepared by the CBI officials and PW17 identified his signature on the rough site plan vide Ex.PW5/D (D-6), prepared by the CBI officials from where recovery of bribe amount was made. PW17 deposed that accused A.M. Rao was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/A by the CBI officials in his presence on which he put his signature. He identified the accused A.M. Rao in the court.
77. PW17 deposed that inquiries were made by the CBI officials from Lokendra and complainant Shri Manoj Kumar as CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 47 of 142 to what had transpired in the cabin of the accused A.M. Rao, to which PW5/Lokendra told that accused A.M. Rao had refused to take the bribe amount in his presence and the accused A.M. Rao made inquiries about PW5/Lokendra from the complainant Manoj Kumar and PW5 came out on the instruction of accused A.M. Rao and thereafter, Manoj Kumar came out and gave a pre- decided signal. PW17 also stated that CBI officer went inside the room of accused and made inquiries from the complainant with regard to the bribe money demanded by the accused and handed over to him. PW17 further stated that complainant told that the bribe amount of ₹10,000/- was given to the accused A.M. Rao in a white envelope.
78. PW17 stated that at the time of taking the hand wash of the accused A.M. Rao, the complainant was present inside the cabin and when the hand wash in a container was sealed, the complainant was also present inside the cabin. PW17 deposed that the DVR was taken after the apprehension of the accused A.M. Rao from the complainant and was switched off. PW17 further deposed that the recording between the complainant and accused A.M. Rao was played on the Laptop after the trap proceedings and the voice recording which was on the memory card was copied on the Laptop and thereafter, the same was played on the Laptop and it was heard by PW17 and Lokendra.
79. PW17 stated that the tainted white envelope vide Ex.PW5/C containing the bribe amount was kept in the brown CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 48 of 142 colour envelope Ex.PW5/B bearing his signatures. PW17 also identified the bottles containing pink colour solutions vide Ex.PW5/RHW and Ex.PW5/LHW stating to be the respective hand washes of the accused A.M. Rao.
80. PW17 further deposed that the CBI officer with the help of the cloth, wiped the inner surface of the drawer of the accused A.M. Rao from where the white envelope containing the bribe amount was recovered and thereafter the cloth was soaked or washed into a separate colourless water solution in a separate tumbler and the colour of the solution turned PINK. The Pink colour solution was kept in a bottle vide Ex.PW5/PSW bearing the signature of the witness. He also stated that cloth wrappers vide Ex.PW5/CW1, Ex.CW5/2 and Ex.CW5/3 were sealed in his presence and the cloth wrappers were used to cover the cap of glass bottles containing the solution.
81. PW17 identified his signature on the DVR vide Ex.PW4/N as well as the brown colour envelope vide Ex.PW5/E which bears his signature. The memory card containing file No. 220926_1232 and 220926_1233 were separately played and the witness identified the respective introductory voices contained in them. PW17 further identified the voices of complainant, Lokendra and accused A.M. Rao in file no. 220926_ 1513. PW17 also identified the introductory voice of Lokendra as well as his introductory voice in file No. 220926_1910. PW17 also identified the sample voice of accused in file No. 220926_1912.
CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 49 of 142PW17 also identified the concluding voices in File No. 220926_1916 and 220926_1917. PW17 also identified the introductory voices in file nos. 220926_1923 and 220926_1923_01. PW17 also identified his voice in file No. 220926_1927. PW17 identified the voice of complainant in File No. 220926_1924 and also identified the voice of Lokendra in file no. 220926_1926.
82. PW17 stated that after about 15-20 days of the trap proceedings, he visited the Office of CBI for reading the transcript and identified his signatures on the voice identification-cum-transcription memo vide Ex.PW4/1.
83. PW18 Shri Arun Kumar Gupta is Sr. Scientific Asstt. (Physics), CFSL, Directorate of Forensic Science Service (DFSS), New Delhi. He deposed that in the present case, a request letter from SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi vide letter dated 14.10.2022 alongwith five sealed parcels, specimen seal impression and copy of rough transcription received in his office by his subordinate on 14.10.2022 and subsequently, on 23.11.2022, the exhibits of the present case were handed over to him in sealed condition alongwith forwarding letter of SP, CBI (Part of D-21). PW18 deposed that out of five parcels, parcel no. 1 i.e. Q-1 in CO53/2022 is remarked as Q-1, the exhibit Q-2 in RC 61(A)/2022 was remarked as Q-2, the exhibit DVR used in CO53/2022 and RC61(A)/2022 was remarked as Q-3, the exhibit S-1 in RC61(A)/2022 is remarked as S-1, the exhibit S-2 CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 50 of 142 in RC61(A)/2022 is remarked as S-2 in the Laboratory. PW18 deposed that the case was opened for examination on 14.02.2023 and reported on 22.02.2023 and at the time of examination, the seal was found intact. PW18 deposed that subsequently, the date of the aforementioned exhibits were transferred into instrument Speech Science Lab Professional Edition 4.1 (SSL) for examination. He further deposed that the exhibits Q-1, Q-2, S-1 and S-2 containing files were subject to auditory analyses as well as spectrographic analyses. PW18 deposed that in the present case, S-1 containing the voice of subject A.M. Rao was examined as per spectrograph. He deposed that in the examination, the spectrogram of 10 to 11 clue words/sentences were prepared and accordingly, the parameters were observed in spectrographic sheet with respect to number of formants.
84. PW18 deposed with respect to the tampering that he did not find any tampering in exhibits Q-1, Q-2, S-1 and S-2. PW18 further deposed that the DVR (Exhibit Q-3) could have been used for recording exhibits Q-1, Q-2, S-1 and S-2. PW18 proved the report dated 22.02.2023 vide Ex.PW18/F.
85. PW19 Shri Mukesh Kumar Mishra is the Trap Laying Officer and he deposed that on 24.09.2022, SP CBI had assigned the present case to him and also handed over the copy of FIR, verification report and complaint dated 23.09.2022 submitted by complainant Shri Manoj Kumar. He further stated that since bribe of ₹15,000/- was reduced to ₹10,000/- by the accused CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 51 of 142 A.M. Rao during verification for the release of mortgage documents and hence, he arranged the witnesses, duty officer for laying a trap on the accused A.M. Rao. PW19 further deposed that a trap team was constituted by him comprising Inspectors Vijay Desai, Ravinder Kumar Bhati, S.K. Pandey, Mahendra Singh, Sub Inspector Pradeep, other subordinate staff and independent witnesses namely Shri Lokendra Singh and Shri Monendra and complainant and all of them assembled in the CBI, ACB, New Delhi office. PW19 further deposed that he read over the complaint of Manoj Kumar, FIR and Verification Report prepared by Insp. Mahendra Singh to all the persons and explained the purpose of assembly. PW19 further deposed that brass seal used during verification proceedings on 23.09.2022 was brought by independent witness Lokendra Singh. PW19 further deposed that DVR used in the verification proceedings and the brass seal were taken for the purposes of the trap proceedings. He further stated that the sum of ₹10,000/- was produced by the complainant Manoj Kumar and the description of the notes were noted in the pre-trap memo. PW19 further deposed that a demonstration alongwith the purpose and significance of the use of phenolphthalein powder and its reaction with the Sodium Carbonate solution was explained to the CBI officers, independent witnesses and complainant. PW19 further deposed that Monendra conducted the personal search of the complainant to ensure that no articles/things remained with the complainant. PW19 further deposed that a white envelope was arranged and treated with phenolphthalein CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 52 of 142 powder and on his direction Shri Monendra placed an amount of ₹10,000/- inside the white envelope and which was kept in the right side front pocket of the complainant Manoj Kumar and he was instructed not to touch the envelope and was to be delivered to accused A.M. Rao or any person on behalf of accused A.M. Rao. PW19 further stated that Shri Lokendra was directed to act as a shadow witness and to remain with complainant Manoj Kumar to overhear the conversation and the bribe transaction between Manoj Kumar and A.M. Rao. PW19 further stated that instruction was given to the complainant to give a specific signal of rubbing the palms on face or by giving miss call to PW19 after the conclusion of the transaction. PW19 also stated that Lokendra was also directed to give the signal either by rubbing his both palms on his head or to give a miss call. He also stated that trap members and the independent witnesses washed their hands with soap and water. He further stated that memory card was also arranged from the care taker and its blankness was ensured. The introductory voices of the witnesses were recorded on the memory card through DVR. PW19 further deposed that a pre-trap memorandum was prepared in the office which was signed by the independent witnesses Shri Lokendra and Shri Monendra, complainant Shri Manoj Kumar, CBI team members Shri Vijay Deasai, Shri R.K. Bharti, Shri S.K. Pandey, Shri Mahendra Singh, PW19 and other subordinate staff and the pre- trap proceedings were concluded at 12:15 PM on 26.09.2022, however, the date is wrongly typed as 26.08.2022 on the pre trap memo vide Ex.PW4/J. CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 53 of 142
86. PW19 further deposed that after arranging two vehicles, all of them left at about 12:45 PM to the office of Sub Registrar, Najafgarh and reached about 02:15 PM. It was found that A.M. Rao would be available after lunch at about 03-03:15 PM and accordingly, the DVR in switched ON mode (Recording & Hold mode) was put in the left side front shirt pocket of complainant Shri Manoj Kumar by the independent witness Shri Monendra. PW19 deposed that complainant was instructed to go inside the office/room of Sub Registrar and Lokendra was directed to overhear the conversation between the complainant Shri Manoj Kumar and accused A.M. Rao and thereafter, both went inside the office/room of accused A.M. Rao and the complainant Manoj Kumar came out from the office/room of the accused A.M. Rao and gave the pre-decided signal and accordingly, he alerted the CBI team and other independent witness rushed towards the office of A.M. Rao.
87. PW-19 and Insp. Vijay Desai went inside the office of accused A.M. Rao and challenged him i.e. whether he had demanded and accepted the bribe amount of ₹10,000/- in a white envelope, however, accused became perplexed and kept mum. PW19 further stated that he and Vijay Desai caught hold left and right fist of accused respectively. PW19 further deposed that complainant informed that accused had accepted the bribe amount contained in white envelope with both his hands and kept in the right side uppermost drawer of the office table of A.M. Rao. PW19 further deposed that the DVR was taken from CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 54 of 142 the complainant and put on switch off mode and handed over to Lokendra for safe custody. PW19 further stated that the respective hand washes of accused A.M. Rao were taken by dipping his hands in the respective Sodium Carbonate Solution and it turned pink and the respective solutions which were transferred in separate bottles were capped, wrapped, tied and sealed with the help of CBI brass seal and white papers were pasted on the sealed bottles which were signed by both the independent witnesses and PW19.
88. PW19 further deposed upon inquiry from the accused A.M. Rao, the accused told that he had kept the white colour envelope in the right side upper most drawer of his office table and also said "Galti Ho Gai" and thereafter, the white envelope containing the bribe amount was recovered by independent witness Shri Monendra from the drawer of the office table of the accused A.M. Rao. PW19 deposed that after taking out the envelope containing the bribe amount, the currency notes were counted by both the independent witnesses and were found to be ₹10,000/- and the recovered GC notes were then matched with the description of the GC notes in the pre-trap memorandum/proceedings vide Ex.PW4/J and it completely tallied with the description given in Ex.PW4/J and right tick mark was put against the GC notes by the independent witnesses in Ex.PW4/J. CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 55 of 142
89. PW19 further deposed that a separate Sodium Carbonate Solution was prepared and the paper sheet on which the white colour envelope was recovered in the drawer of the office table of accused A.M. Rao was then wiped with the help of a dry cloth, and upon dipping the same in the Sodium Carbonate solution, the solution turned Pink and thereafter, the pink solution was then poured in a glass bottle alongwith the cloth and it was capped, wrapped, tied and sealed with the help of CBI brass seal and a paper was also pasted on it and marked as "Paper Sheet Wash" in RC 61/2022 vide Ex.PW19/B and was signed by both the independent witnesses and PW19 and same was kept in an envelope and was marked as "Paper Sheet" in RC 61/2022 and which was signed by both the independent witnesses and PW19. PW19 further deposed that complainant Shri Manoj Kumar narrated entire incident regarding demand and acceptance of bribe money by accused A.M. Rao. PW19 further deposed that independent witness Shri Lokendra narrated the incident as to what had transpired inside the room of accused A.M. Rao and confirmed the facts which were stated by Manoj Kumar till he was asked to move out from the office cabin of accused A.M. Rao. PW19 further stated that he had heard the version of complainant and independent witnesses. PW19 further stated that Shri Raman Kumar Bharti came for the assistance after the concerned SDM was directed to depute some officers. PW19 further deposed that white envelope containing the bribe amount was given to him by the independent witness Monendra and subsequently the same was sealed and signed by independent CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 56 of 142 witness and marked as "Trap Money" which was kept inside a brown envelop and signed by both the independent witness and PW19.
90. PW19 deposed that the memory card which was used to record the conversation between the complainant and the accused A.M. Rao was taken out from the DVR and was then inserted in the official laptop by using a write blocker for preparing the investigation copy of the audio recordings. PW19 deposed that the investigation copy of the audio recordings was heard by the complainant as well as by PW19 and the audio recording had corroborated the version given by the complainant to PW19. PW19 further stated that memory card was then placed back to its original packing and was signed by PW19 and both the independent witnesses and the covered memory card was then enclosed inside an another envelope and then signed by PW19 and both the independent witnesses which was sealed with the CBI brass seal and marked as "Q-2" in RC 61 A/2022. PW19 further deposed that thereafter, the accused A.M. Rao agreed to give his specimen voice sample voluntarily, and to record the said specimen voice, a new sealed memory card was taken out from the trap kit and the same was inserted in the DVR and the blankness of the memory card was verified prior to its use. PW19 deposed that the introductory voices of both the independent witnesses were recorded and thereafter the specimen voice of accused A.M. Rao was also recorded and the concluding voices of both the independent witnesses were CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 57 of 142 recorded and the memory card was then placed back in its original packing was signed by PW19 and both the independent witnesses and it (memory card) was enclosed in an envelope which was signed by PW19 and both the independent witnesses and sealed with the CBI brass seal and marked as "S-1" in RC 61 A/2022. PW19 further deposed that similarly, he took specimen voice of the complainant Shri Manoj Kumar with his consent and for the said purpose, a new sealed memory card was taken out from the trap kit and this new memory card was inserted in the DVR and ensured its blank status prior to its use. PW19 deposed that the introductory voices of both the independent witnesses were recorded, followed by the specimen voice of complainant, and after recording the voice of the complainant, the concluding voices of both the independent witnesses were recorded and the said memory card was again put back to the original packing and was signed by PW19 and both the independent witnesses and the memory card was enclosed in an envelope which was signed by PW19 and both the independent witnesses and was sealed with the CBI brass seal and marked as "S-2" in RC 61 A/2022.
91. PW19 further deposed that DVR used during the trap proceedings was signed by him and the independent witnesses and was also sealed with the CBI brass seal and was marked as "DVR used in CO-53/2022" in RC 61 A/2022. The DVR was placed in an envelope which was signed by him and both the independent witnesses. PW19 further deposed that the office/room of the accused A.M. Rao was also searched in the CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 58 of 142 presence of independent witness and Shri Raman Kr. Bharti (Tehsildar) and some incriminating material i.e. mortgage deed and other papers were found and the same were seized vide letter dated 26.09.2022. A rough sketch of the spot where the transaction took place was prepared indicating the place of transaction of bribe, the independent witnesses and Insp. Ravinder Kumar Bharti signed on it. PW19 deposed that accused A.M. Rao was arrested on 26.09.2022 at 08:00 PM and a separate arrest-cum-personal search memo was also prepared after due intimation to the members of his family. PW19 deposed that post-trap memo vide Ex.PW4/K was prepared in the office/cabin of accused A.M. Rao and after conclusion of the proceeding at about 1:50 AM on 27.09.2022, the CBI brass seal used during the trap proceedings was handed over to independent witness Shri Monendra for the safe custody.
92. PW19 identified his signature on the pre-trap memorandum vide Ex.PW4/J (D-4), post trap memorandum vide Ex.PW4/K (D-5), rough site plan vide Ex.PW5/D (D-6), arrest-cum-personal search memo of the accused vide Ex.PW5/A (D-7), brown colour envelope vide Ex.PW5/B and identified the white colour envelope vide Ex.PW5/C to be the same envelope which was smeared with phenolphthalein powder and the tainted bribe amount was kept in it.
93. PW19 identified his signature on the bottles containing light Pink colour solution vide Ex.PW5/RHW and CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 59 of 142 Ex.PW5/LHW and stated that in both these bottles, the turned Pink colour solution was transferred from the tumbler and the same were sealed in his presence. PW19 also identified his signature on the glass bottle vide Ex.PW5/PSW in which the solution alongwith piece of cloth used for wiping the paper sheet was transferred. PW19 deposed that he had submitted the hand washes of accused A.M. Rao to CFSL for chemical examination on 28.09.2022.
94. PW20 Shri Mahendra Singh is the Verification Officer. He deposed that the present case was entrusted to him by the SP, ACB Delhi to verify the complaint dated 23.09.2022 of Shri Manoj Kumar against the accused A.M. Rao, Sub Registrar, IX- A, Najafgarh, New Delhi wherein it was alleged that accused A.M. Rao has demanded bribe of ₹15,000/- from the complainant and for the said purpose, he secured the presence of independent witness Lokendra Singh through Duty Officer and briefed him about the purpose of assembly and explained the contents of the complaint to independent witness. Inspector Pradeep also joined him for the assistance. PW-20 further stated that one DVR and memory card were also arranged from the Care Taker, CBI, ACB, ND for recording the conversation between the suspect officer and the complainant. PW20 deposed that the voice of independent witness Shri Lokendra was recorded in the memory card through the DVR after ensuring the blankness of the DVR. PW20 further deposed that verification team left for the Sub Registrar Office, Najafgarh at about 2.30 CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 60 of 142 pm in an official vehicle and the vehicle was parked near the office of Sub Registrar. Instruction was given to the independent witness to maintain some distance from the complainant so as to avoid any suspicion. The DVR was kept in the left pocket shirt of the complainant in Hold Mode and after about 30-45 minutes, the complainant and the independent witness came to the parked vehicle. The DVR was taken and switched off and the complainant was asked to narrate as to what had happened in the Office of Sub Registrar to which the complainant narrated that he alongwith the independent witness went to the office of Sub Registrar and saw that the Sub Registrar was busy in his work, then they waited outside the room of Sub Registrar for about 10- 15 Minutes, then the Sub Registrar called the complainant inside his room and made inquiries whether the complainant had brought the mortgage documents and he further deposed about the entire conversation which occurred inside the room of the accused A.M. Rao in which the accused demanded ₹15,000/-, and upon negotiation reduced the amount to ₹10,000/-, and the accused A.M. Rao directed him to come on 26.09.2022 with bribe. PW-20 further stated that PW-5 Lokendra stated that he waited outside the room/cabin of the Sub Registrar till the complainant Manoj Kumar exited from the room of the accused A.M. Rao. PW20 deposed that thereafter, the conversation held between the complainant and accused A.M. Rao was also heard by PW20 and Sub Inspector Pradeep in the presence of the complainant and the independent witness. PW-20 further stated that CBI team reached back to the CBI office at about 08:15 PM CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 61 of 142 and thereafter, the memory card was taken out from the DVR and its content were copied in the computer system by using the write blocker and subsequently, the memory card was again packed in its original cover and the cover was signed by PW20, complainant and independent witness, and the original cover was kept in an envelope and the envelope was sealed through lac and the envelope in which the memory card was kept was also signed by PW20, independent witness and the complainant. He further stated that the original cover as well as the envelope was marked as Q-1 in CO-53/2022 and the seal used for sealing the envelope was handed over to Shri Lokendra with the direction to produce it as and when required and the verification proceedings vide Ex.PW4/G were concluded at about 10.30 pm.
95. PW20 further deposed that he had recommended for the registration of an RC against the accused A.M. Rao, Sub Registrar, IX A, Najafgargh u/s 7 of PC Act on the basis of the recorded conversation between the complainant and the accused A.M. Rao. PW20 further stated that on 26.09.2022, CBI team i.e. Shri Mukesh Kumar Mishra, Shri S.K. Pandey, Shri Vijay Desai, Shri Ravinder Kumar Bharti, SI Pradeep and PW20 and two independent witnesses namely Shri Lokendra Singh and Shri Monendra assembled in the office of SP, CBI for the purpose of laying a trap on accused A.M. Rao and the purpose of assembly was explained to all the present members alongwith complainant Shri Manoj Kumar and he further deposed in detail about the pre-trap proceedings conducted at office of the CBI CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 62 of 142 and his statement is in line with the statement of PW-19 with respect to the pre-trap proceedings. He further stated that pre- trap memo vide Ex.PW4/J (D-4) was prepared containing his signature and the signatures of other persons. He also stated that instructions were given to the complainant to handover the envelope only to accused A.M. Rao or to the person to whom A.M. Rao instruct and Lokendra Singh was also instructed to act as a shadow witness and to overhear the conversation between the accused and the complainant. PW20 deposed that Shri Monendra, another independent witness, was also instructed to remain with the team and the CBI team departed from the CBI office approximately at about 12.45 pm in two different vehicles. He also stated that the white envelope containing the proposed bribe money was put in the right-side pant pocket of the complainant by Lokendra, again said, by Monendra and reached the Office of Sub Registrar-IX-A, Najafgarh, New Delhi at about 02.15 pm and the vehicles were parked at some distance and it was transpired that Sub Registrar would be available after 03.00 pm. At about 3.15 pm, SI Pradeep Kumar switched on the DVR and placed it in the left side shirt pocket of the complainant Shri Manoj Kumar and the DVR was put on the Hold mode. PW20 deposed that further instructions were given to the complainant Shri Manoj Kumar and shadow witness Lokendra to go inside and meet the accused A.M. Rao, and the other team members were also asked to follow the complainant Shri Manoj Kumar and the shadow witness Shri Lokendra by keeping some distance from them.
CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 63 of 14296. PW-20 further stated that after some time, both, the complainant Shri Manoj Kumar and shadow witness Shri Lokendra Singh, came out from the office of Sub Registrar IX, Najafgarh and the complainant informed the team that accused A.M. Rao had taken bribe from him and then TLO Shri Mukesh Kumar Mishra and Inspector Vijay Desai rushed inside the room of accused A.M. Rao and Shri Mukesh Kumar Mishra/TLO caught hold the left hand of accused A.M. Rao and Inspector Vijay Desai caught hold the right hand wrist of accused A.M. Rao and both of them i.e. Shri Mukesh Kumar Mishra and Inspector Vijay Desai challenged the accused A.M. Rao whether he had taken the bribe from the complainant Shri Manoj Kumar. Accused A.M. Rao kept silence for some time and thereafter, he accepted that he had taken the bribe money from the complainant Shri Manoj Kumar, and the accused A.M. Rao further said 'Galti Ho Gayee' (Made the mistake). PW20 deposed that thereafter, separate right-hand wash and left-hand wash of accused A.M. Rao were taken after preparing a sodium carbonate solution in a tumbler. PW20 deposed that the fingers of the right and left hand of accused A.M. Rao were separately dipped into the solution, and the respective solutions of the accused A.M. Rao from both the tumblers were put in a separate bottles and both the bottles containing the solution were capped and sealed with the help of cloth and a paper was also pasted on both the bottles containing the description LHW and RHW of accused A.M. Rao in RC 61(A)/2022. PW20 further deposed that the TLO Shri Mukesh Kumar Mishra and Inspector Vijay Desai also challenged the CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 64 of 142 accused A.M. Rao as to where he had kept the envelope containing the bribe amount and the accused A.M. Rao disclosed that he had kept the envelope containing the bribe amount in the upper most right side drawer of the table. PW-20 also stated that one of the two independent witnesses took out the white envelope from the upper most drawer of the table of accused A.M. Rao. PW-20 also stated that since the said drawer was having number of papers in it and the top most paper which was in contact with the white envelope and the wash of the same, was taken by them with the help of cotton. PW20 deposed that the cotton was dipped in the tumbler containing the solution and the said tumbler containing the solution turned Pink and the contents of the tumbler containing the solution were transferred in the third bottle which was sealed with the help of Lac and brass seal was also embossed on the Lac and a white paper was also affixed on the bottle in which the description PAPER WASH IN RC 61(A)/2022 was given. PW20 deposed that both the independent witnesses were asked to take out the money from the white envelope and accordingly, the bribe amount was taken out from the said white envelope and both the independent witnesses were also asked to match the amount which was taken out from the white envelope with the description of the currency notes which were mentioned in the pre-trap memo and after tallying the same, the description of the currency notes were correctly tallied with the currency notes in the white colour envelope as recorded in the pre-trap memorandum. PW20 deposed that the complainant Shri Manoj Kumar narrated the facts as to what had CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 65 of 142 transpired in the room of the accused A.M. Rao. PW20 deposed that inquiries were made from the independent witness Shri Lokendra by the CBI team and he corroborated the version given by the complainant till he was asked to exit from the room of the accused A.M. Rao.
97. PW20 deposed that the TLO Shri Mukesh Kumar Mishra met the concerned SDM in his office and informed about the above-mentioned incident i.e. trap. PW20 deposed that the concerned SDM Mr. Kale, deputed Shri Bharti ( Tehsildar) to assist the CBI team in the proceedings and meanwhile search warrant was also issued to conduct search in the residential premises of accused A.M. Rao as well as the office search of the room of the accused A.M. Rao in the presence of Shri Bharti, Tehsildar and some incriminating documents relating to the complainant were also seized from the accused A.M. Rao and Post-trap memorandum and rough site plan was also prepared. He also stated that signatures were appended on them by the respective signatories. PW20 deposed that the post-trap proceedings were concluded at about 02.00 am on 27.09.2022 and the same were signed by all the CBI team members alongwith independent witnesses including PW20. PW20 deposed that as soon as the bribe amount was recovered from the accused A.M. Rao, Shri Pradeep (Sub Inspector) took out the DVR from the pocket of the complainant and kept it in switch off mode and later on, the DVR was sealed in an envelope embossing the brass seal with lac. PW20 deposed that prior to CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 66 of 142 sealing the DVR, the voice samples of both the independent witnesses were also taken through the memory card and the specimen and question voice of accused A.M. Rao was also taken through the DVR in memory card. PW20 deposed that accused A.M. Rao voluntarily agreed to give his voice sample to the CBI team. PW20 further deposed that the DVR used for recording the voice of complainant and accused was sealed. PW20 identified his initial on the post trap memorandum vide Ex.PW4/K.
98. PW21 Ms. Mamta Saxena is the Section Officer in Delhi Dispute Resolution Society (in diverted capacity from Directorate of Education). She was posted as Sub Registrar-IX, Kapashera. PW21 explained the procedure for registration of the documents and stated that if any document/mortgage deed is presented for the registration and in the event of deficiency, a manual deficiency memo is issued to the concerned party and if the defects are curable, then the party is permitted to make necessary correction and if despite reminders, the deficiency is not rectified within a specified time, then registration of the document is refused. PW21 brought on record circular dated 26.07.2021 vide Mark PW21/X and stated that the guidelines indicated in the circular are required to be followed.
99. PW22 Inspector Sanjay Malhotra is the Investigating Officer and filed the charge sheet. He deposed that on 30.09.2022, the investigation of the case was entrusted to him by CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 67 of 142 the orders of Shri Rajesh Kumar, SP CBI, ACB and he took over the investigation from Shri Mukesh Kumar Mishra, TLO/Insp. CBI, ACB, New Delhi and received documents pertaining to the present case on 01.10.2022. PW22 identified signature of Shri Rajesh Kumar, the then SP on the FIR dated 24.09.2022 vide Ex. PW22/A (D-1). PW22 deposed that after taking over the investigation of the present case, he got prepared transcriptions of recorded conversations Q-1 and Q-2 relating to verification and post-trap proceedings of this case and the rough transcription prepared alongwith conversations and specimen voice samples marked Q-1, Q-2 and Q-3 and S-1, S-2 were sent to CFSL for voice analysis and expert opinion through forwarding letter vide Ex.PW22/E under the signature of the concerned SP alongwith the above referred Exhibits through Constable Upesh Kumari to CFSL and the exhibits were received at CFSL vide acknowledgment receipt dated 14.10.2022 vide Mark PW22/C. PW22 further deposed that during investigation, the voices of accused A.M. Rao were identified by the officials of his Department Shri Raman Kumar Bharti, Tehsildar and Shri Dinesh Kumar, Civil Defence Volunteer (CDV), contained in Q-1 and Q-2. PW22 deposed that the voice identification memo dated 31.10.2022 vide Ex.PW13/A was prepared alongwith the transcription and the conversation as recorded in Q-1 and Q-2 were played in the official laptop and heard by the witnesses Shri Raman Kr. Bharti, Shri Dinesh Kumar in the presence of independent witness Shri Amit Kumar Soni, word by word, and the same was compared CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 68 of 142 with the transcription vide Ex.PW13/B. PW22 deposed that during investigation, voices of the complainant Shri Manoj Kumar and accused A.M. Rao were also identified through separate voice identification memo dated 17.10.2022 vide Ex.PW4/I in the presence of the independent trap witnesses Shri Lokendra Singh and Shri Monendra and voice identification memo dated 17.10.2022 vide Ex.PW4/I was prepared alongwith the transcription. PW22 further deposed that the conversation as recorded in Q-1 and Q-2 were played in the official laptop and heard by the complainant Shri Manoj Kumar as well as independent witnesses Shri Lokendra Singh and Shri Monendra, word by word, and the same were compared with the transcription vide Ex.PW22/D (Part of D-18). PW22 deposed that the voice examination report dated 22.02.2023 vide Ex.PW18/F was received from CFSL which confirmed the probable voice of accused A.M. Rao in the above mentioned exhibits Q-1 and Q-2, sent for examination and it also confirmed the voice of complainant Shri Manoj Kumar in the recorded conversations marked Q-1 and Q-2.
100. PW22 deposed that during the investigation, both the right and left hand washes of accused A.M. Rao as well as paper sheet wash of the drawer of the table was forwarded to CFSL for its chemical analysis as well as for expert opinion for the presence of phenolphthalein, by the then SP Shri Rajesh Kumar and the exhibits were sent by Shri Mukesh Kumar Mishra, the then Inspector of Police/TLO of the case prior to handing over the CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 69 of 142 investigation of the case. PW22 identified signature of the then SP Shri Rajesh Kumar on the forwarding letter dated 28.09.2022 vide Ex.PW22/E and deposed that vide the present forwarding letter, the afore-mentioned exhibits were sent to the CFSL through Constable Prabhu Ram and the above-mentioned exhibits were received at CFSL vide acknowledgment receipt dated 28.09.2022 vide Mark PW22/F. PW22 deposed that the chemical analysis report vide Ex.PW9/A was received from CFSL which confirmed the presence of phenolphthalein in the above mentioned exhibits, sent for examination. PW22 deposed that during investigation, the service records pertaining to accused A.M. Rao was seized through Shri Surendra Kumar, Statistical Officer (SO), O/o District Magistrate, Kapashera. PW22 identified his signature on the production-cum-seizure memo dated 16.11.2022 vide Ex.PW22/G (part of D-29) and deposed that vide this production-cum-seizure memo, he had collected the documents as mentioned in the seizure memo from Shri Surendra Kumar. PW22 identified his signature on the production-cum-seizure memo dated 01.11.2022 vide Ex.PW6/A (part of D-29) and deposed that vide this production- cum-seizure memo, he had collected the documents as mentioned in the seizure memo from Shri Surya Pratap Singh.
101. PW22 identified his signature on D-28 i.e. certified copy of circular no. F. No. 1/2364/Regn. Br./Div.
Comm./HQ/R/2019/Pt. File-II/5247 dated 11.01.20211 vide Mark PW14/A issued by Shri A. Gopi Krishan, Deputy CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 70 of 142 Commissioner (HQ) and deposed that the same was seized vide Ex.PW16/A, bearing his signature. PW22 also identified his signature on D-29 i.e. production-cum-seizure memo dated 17.10.2022 vide Ex.PW4/L and deposed that vide this seizure memo, he had collected certain documents as mentioned in the seizure memo. PW22 also identified his signature on the production-cum-seizure memo dated 19.10.2022 and deposed that the same was seized from Shri Subhash Shokeen who signed the same in his presence and vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/H, he had collected certain documents as mentioned in the seizure memo. PW22 identified his signature on production-cum-seizure memo dated 20.10.2022 vide Ex.PW7/A and deposed that vide this seizure memo, he had collected certain documents as mentioned in the seizure memo. PW22 deposed that during investigation, he recorded statements u/s 161 Cr.PC of the witnesses including Shri Manoj Kumar (complainant), independent witnesses Shri Lokendra Singh and Shri Monendra Singh, Shri Raman Kumar Bharti, Shri Dinesh Kumar and others. PW22 deposed that statements u/s 161 Cr.PC of Shri Manoj Kumar (complainant) dated 06.10.2022 and 17.10.2022 vide Ex.PW22/I and Ex.PW22/J respectively were correctly recorded by him as per the version given by the witness Shri Manoj Kumar.
102. PW22 deposed that the necessary documents/material as well as SP report were sent to Competent Authority for obtaining Prosecution Sanction against the accused A.M. Rao and the CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 71 of 142 prosecution sanction was received through Shri Sanjay Kumar Surya, Assistant Director (Vig.) addressed to Shri Rajesh Kumar SP, CBI, ACB. PW22 deposed that on the basis of statement of the witnesses as well as complainant, recorded during investigation, identification of voices and signatures of accused A.M. Rao by the relevant witnesses as well the documents seized during the investigation, he recommended prosecution u/s 7 of PC Act and obtained the sanction u/s 19 of PC Act from the Competent Authority and the charge-sheet was filed in the Court.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED
103. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.PC. In his statement, while denying all the incriminating evidence put to him, accused A.M. Rao claimed innocence and false implication in the present case. Accused stated that mortgage deed was pending in the Sub Registrar office due to incomplete link documents. Accused admitted that the work of Sub Registrar-IXA, Najafgarh was to look after the work of registration of the documents etc and he further stated that the work of Sub Registrar is supervised by DM, South-West. Accused further stated that the mortgage deed was presented before him, but the documents such as self signed copy of Aadhar and PAN in respect of Shri Subhash Shokeen, copy of authorization slip/conveyance deed issued by DDA and copy of loan sanction letter of IIFL were not submitted at the time of presentation of the mortgage deed. He further stated that CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 72 of 142 the mortgage deed was neither registered nor handed over to PW-3 Shri Subhash Shokeen nor to Shri Manoj Kumar, representative of the Finance Company due to incomplete link documents and the said persons were verbally informed about the incomplete link documents. Accused stated that he had never demanded any bribe from anyone and he was trapped in this case intentionally by the complainant because he/accused refused to register the mortgage deed due to the deficiency of the document and as a result of which, the present complaint/case was lodged against him.
104. Accused A.M. Rao had summoned some officials but did not choose to examine in his defence.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PROSECUTION
105. Ld. PP for the CBI contended that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is also contended that accused had demanded and accepted the bribe from the complainant Shri Manoj Kumar. It is also contended that after duly satisfying itself with respect of demand of bribe during verification proceedings, the FIR was registered and subsequently, the pre-trap proceedings were conducted and the final trap was laid in which the accused A.M. Rao was found demanding and accepting the bribe. It is also contended that the bribe amount in a white envelope was recovered from the upper most drawer kept below the office table of accused A.M. Rao in the presence of both the independent witnesses i.e. Lokendra CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 73 of 142 (PW5) and Monendra (PW17). It is also contended that the prosecution has successfully established the factum of demand of bribe. It is also contended that audio recordings made during the verification and trap proceedings would reveal that accused A.M. Rao had demanded money. It is also contended that FSL report vide Ex.PW18/F attributes the voice recording in Q-1 and Q-2 as that of accused A.M. Rao. It is also contended that phenolphthalein powder was found in the solution from the hand washes of the accused, taken during the post trap proceedings. It is also contended that paper wash of the upper most drawer below the office table of the accused where white envelope containing the bribe amount was recovered shows the presence of phenolphthalein powder.
106. It is also contended that the prosecution has successfully established the foundational facts constituting the commission of offence i.e. demand, acceptance and recovery of the tainted money. It is also contended by Ld. PP that the case of the prosecution is based on direct as well as circumstantial piece of evidence including the scientific evidence in the form of audio recording and chemical examination report. It is also contended that accused has failed to rebut the presumption under section 20 of PC Act 1988. It is also contended that material witnesses such as PW4, PW5, PW17, PW19 and PW20 have supported the case of the prosecution and the evidence of the complainant/PW4 Shri Manoj Kumar can be very well taken into consideration to the extent that he had supported the case of the prosecution. It is CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 74 of 142 also contended that prosecution has duly established the factum of demand, acceptance and recovery of money against the accused A.M. Rao and was able to establish the complete chain of circumstances. It is also contended that the prosecution sanction was validly granted against accused A.M. Rao by the competent authority. It is also contended that prosecution has established the safe custody of the exhibits during the trial.
107. The Ld. PP for the CBI has relied the judgments, State of UP Vs. Zakaullah, 1997, SUPP. 6 S.C.R, Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab (2015) 1 S.C.R. 504, Vidhya Rani Vs. State, Criminal Appeal No. 186/1997 (decided on 08th March, 2010) of Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED
108. It is contended by the Ld. Counsel that prosecution has failed to establish the factum of demand since PW-3 who visited the office of Sub Registrar clearly stated that no money was demanded from him by the accused A.M. Rao. It is also contended that complainant/PW-4 had deposed that accused A.M. Rao had demanded ₹15,000/- for the release of the registered deed, whereas word ₹15,000 is not reflected either in the voice recording vide Ex.PW4/F or in the transcript vide Ex.PW4/I. It is also contended that PW-4 had stated that ₹10,000/- was demanded by the accused after lunch on 26.09.2022, whereas the word 10,000 is not reflected either in the audio recordings or in the transcripts and, therefore, the CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 75 of 142 factum of demand by the accused A.M. Rao was not proved by the prosecution and the factum of demand of bribe is contradictory. It is also contended that in the conversation dated 26.09.2022, there was no reference of any demand of bribe by the accused. It is also contended that PW-5 is admittedly a stock witness since he failed to testify about the basic facts of the case in which he had appeared as a witness. It is also contended that PW-5 had neither witnessed demand nor acceptance of bribe by the accused A.M. Rao and yet he had attempted to depose as if he had witnessed the entire transaction. It is also contended that since prosecution has failed to establish the factum of demand from PW-4 by the accused A.M. Rao and therefore, it had attempted to establish the factum of bribe from PW-5 who stated that accused A.M. Rao made the demand of bribe by gesticulation and such a gesticulation cannot be accepted as demand as PW-5 is not an expert in sign language or any explanation has been sought from the accused with regard to the gesticulation. It is also contended that audio recordings contained in Q-1 and Q-2 do not establish the factum of demand by the accused. It is also contended that prosecution has failed to establish the factum of acceptance of bribe as there was no witness to establish that any bribe was paid by the complainant or its consequent acceptance by the accused A.M. Rao. It is also contended that admittedly, PW-5 Lokendra Singh was not present at the time of alleged acceptance of bribe by the accused A.M. Rao. It is also contended that prosecution has failed to establish the factum of recovery and the circumstances CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 76 of 142 surrounding the factum of recovery is in doubt and in this regard, it is submitted that PW-4 had clearly contended that he did not hand over the bribe to accused A.M. Rao when he came out of the room of the accused A.M. Rao. It is also contended that the case of the prosecution was to the effect that envelope containing the bribe amount was taken out by PW-17, however, no such statement was made by PW17 in this regard. It is also contended that the bribe money was planted and the hand washes were replaced as cloth wrappers used to seal bottles containing the signature of independent witness and TLO were replaced. It is also contended that original Micro SD Card was not produced during the trial and it is also not established that Micro SD Card used in the proceedings were actually used on 23.09.2022 and 26.09.2022 and it is further contended that verification memo mentions the name of Memory Card as Strontium, whereas the Memory Card produced during the trial is Simmtronics and it is also contended that prosecution has failed to establish the custody of Micro SD Card from 14th October 2022 to 22nd November 2022 since expert has deposed that it was not in the custody of FSL Expert. It is also contended that hash value of the SD card was not recorded and therefore, the authenticity and veracity of Micro SD Card examined by the CFSL is highly doubtful and such an opinion cannot be relied upon. It is also contended that during cross-examination, PW20 had admitted that the Micro SD cards used in the investigation are different from the Micro SD cards produced in the court. It is also contended that PW-22 has stated that the memory card which CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 77 of 142 was used in the verification proceedings dated 23.09.2022 was strontium, whereas Micro SD card produced in the court was Simmtronics. It is also contended that it was recorded in the post trap memo vide Ex.PW4/K that cloth wrappers were signed by the independent witnesses and TLO, but cloth wrappers did not bear the signature of independent witnesses and TLO at the time of its production before the court. It is also contended that brass seal was stated to be handed over to PW17 during the proceedings, however, brass seal was never produced by any of the prosecution witness and the same is suggestive of the tampering of the case property. It is also contended that PW-4 had deposed that at the time of recovery of the envelope containing the bribe amount, he was not present inside the room of the accused A.M. Rao. It is contended that the testimonies of different witnesses with respect to the recovery of the alleged envelope containing the bribe amount are contradictory and as such the testimonies are liable to be discarded. It is also contended that the case of prosecution with respect to the recovery of envelope from the drawer is full of doubt in view of the contradictory testimonies of PW5 and PW17 since PW5 had stated that the inner surface of the office drawer was white with one plain piece of cloth, whereas PW-17 had stated that the drawer was wipe with the help of white colour cloth, whereas PW20 stated that it was wiped with the help of cotton. It is also contended that PW-5 deposed that envelope was taken out by PW17, whereas PW17 did not depose that he took envelope from the drawer. It is also contended that currency notes and envelope CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 78 of 142 in which the tainted bribe money was kept was not sent to FSL for analysis for the presence of phenolphthalein powder. It is also contended that considering the inconsistent statements given by the prosecution witnesses, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. It is also contended that neither Q-1 nor Q-2 would reflect that there was any recording to the effect that money, ₹15,000/- or ₹10,000/- were uttered by the accused.
109. It is also contended that PW-4 has failed to bring on record as to how he was authorized by Ravi Bhargava & Company to appear before the Sub Registrar. It is also contended that accused has valid reason for not registering the mortgage deed as the sanction letter was not obtained at the time of presentation of the mortgage deed and the sanction letter was received on 27.09.2022. It is also contended that PW3 had nowhere stated that there was any demand of bribe by the accused A.M. Rao at the time of presentation of the mortgage deed and it is also contended that PW3 had stated that he had not annexed the documents and if the documents pertaining to the identification of PW3 are not furnished then registering authority would be justified in refusing the registration. It is also contended that no document was placed by the prosecution to indicate as to how the complaint was further marked for investigation. It is also contended by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that there was a disconnect between the transcript and deposition of the complainant/PW4 Shri Manoj Kumar.
CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 79 of 142110. It is also contended by the Ld. Counsel for accused that PW-5 Lokendra is a tutored witness and identified his signatures on Ex.PW15/C-1 to Ex.PW15/C-3 on the basis of the prompting. It is also contended that the prosecution sanction vide Ex.PW12/P-1 granted by Shri Naresh Kumar is without due application of mind as CFSL report is not shown to the Sanctioning Authority.
111. Ld. Counsel for the accused has relied upon P. Sathyanarayana Murthy Vs. District Inspector of Police, State AP & Anr., (2015) 10 SCC 152; Mukut Bihari & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 11 SCC 642; Jai Narayan Vs. State, Crl. A. 259/2007, 2003 DHC 6491; Satish Kumar Vs. State, (1996) Crl. LJ 265; M.K. Harshan Vs. State of Kerala, (1996) 11 SCC 720; K.P. Kolanthai Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Crl. A. No. 693 of 2008; B. Jayaraj Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 55; P. Parasurami Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2011) 12 SCC 294; Om Prakash Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, Crl. Appeal No. 765/2001; Sharad Birdhichand Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622; Mahabir Prasad Verma Vs. Dr. Surender Kumar, (1982) 2 SCC 258; Ram Singh Vs. Col. Ram Singh, 1985 Supp SCC 611; Amarjit Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Delhi, 1995 Crl. LJ 1623; Soudarajan Vs State Rep. By the Inspector of Police Vigilance Anti Corruption Dindigual, Crl. Appeal No. 1592 of 2022; Sudesh Kaushik Vs. CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4300; A. Subair Vs. State of Kerala, (2009) 6 SCC 587 and Satvir Singh Vs. State of Delhi, (2014) 13 SCC 143; Ram CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 80 of 142 Swaroop Gupta Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, through Special Police Sthapana, Lokayukta Thana Bhopal, Unit Raipur (C.G.), CRA No. 297 of 2002.
112. I have heard the submissions advanced by both the sides and perused the record of the case and the written submissions filed on behalf of the accused.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS.
WHETHER PROSECUTION SANCTION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE PC ACT WAS VALIDLY GRANTED AGAINST THE ACCUSED A.M. RAO.
113. PW12 Shri Naresh Kumar, Chief Secretary, NCT of Delhi had granted prosecution sanction under section 19 of PC Act against the accused A.M. Rao vide Ex.PW12/P-1.
114. It is contended that prosecution sanction was granted against the accused A.M. Rao without due application of mind. It is contended that Sanctioning Authority neither perused the FSL report nor the audio recordings in the present case which forms the basis of prosecution against the accused A.M. Rao and proceeded to grant the prosecution sanction in a mechanical manner. Ld. PP for the CBI has vehemently opposed the submission and contended that the required material for grant of prosecution sanction was duly placed before the Competent Authority. It is also submitted that sanctioning authority is only required to consider whether prima-facie case disclosing the commission of offence or not is made out against the accused CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 81 of 142 A.M. Rao. It is also contended that actual production of tapes etc. is a matter of trial and not necessarily to be considered at the time of grant of prosecution sanction.
115. It would be appropriate to refer and rely upon "Vinod Kumar Garg Vs. State", (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 2 SCC 88 in which it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under :-
"25. On the said aspect, the later decision of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Mahesh G. Jain, (2013) Part 8 SCC 119 has referred to several decisions to expound on the following principles of law governing the validity of sanction:
"14.1. It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out.
14.2. The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before it and, after consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction for prosecution.
14.3. The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and its satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the material placed before it.
14.4. Grant of sanction is only an administrative function and the sanctioning authority is required to prima facie reach the satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute the offence.
14.5. The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order.CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 82 of 142
14.6. If the sanctioning authority has perused all the materials placed before it and some of them have not been proved that would not vitiate the order of sanction.
14.7. The order of sanction is a prerequisite as it is intended to provide a safeguard to a public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigants, but simultaneously an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hypertechnical approach to test its validity." The contention of the appellant, therefore, fails and is rejected.
28. This Court in Ashok Tshering Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim, (2011) 4 SCC 402 referring to the earlier precedents has observed that a defect or irregularity in investigation however serious, would have no direct bearing on the competence or procedure relating to cognizance or trial. Where the cognizance of the case has already been taken and the case has proceeded to termination, the invalidity of the precedent investigation does not vitiate the result, unless a miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby. Similar is the position with regard to the validity of the sanction. A mere error, omission or irregularity in sanction is not considered to be fatal unless it has resulted in a failure of justice or has been occasioned thereby. Section 19(1) of the Act is matter of procedure and does not go to the root of the jurisdiction and once the cognizance has been taken by the court under the Code, it cannot be said that an invalid police report is the foundation of jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance and for that matter the trial.
116. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "C. S. Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka", 2005 CRI. L.J. 2145, while dealing with the issue regarding validity of sanction, observed as under :
".......It is no doubt true that the sanction is necessary for every prosecution of public servant, this safeguard is against the frivolous prosecution against public servant from harassment. But, the sanction should not be taken as CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 83 of 142 a shield to protect corrupt and dishonest public servant."
"The sanction itself shows that there is something to be accounted by the accused. When the sanction itself is very expressive, then in that case, the argument that particular material was not properly placed before the sanctioning authority for according sanction and sanctioning authority has not applied its mind becomes unsustainable. When sanction order itself is eloquent enough, then in that case only formal evidence has to be produced by the sanctioning authority or by any other evidence that the sanction was accorded by a competent person with due application of mind."
117. Prosecution sanction vide Ex.PW-12/P-1 was granted by PW-12 Shri Naresh Kumar. PW-12 deposed that he had granted the prosecution sanction after going through the relevant documents including statements of the witnesses, transcript of conversation, seizure memo etc. and after considering the documents, he granted prosecution sanction against the accused A.M. Rao. Perusal of statement of PW12 would indicate that all material facts constituting the offence is sufficiently disclosed and the sanction order clearly specifies and mentions the same in Ex.PW12/P-1 and, therefore, the prosecution sanction was validly granted after due application of mind. Moreover, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused to the effect that sanctioning authority did not go through the CFSL report while granting the sanction. In the opinion of the court, the grant of sanction is an administrative function which is to be performed by the sanctioning authority and a sanctioning authority cannot conduct a mini trial to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused. The order granting the sanction indicates that sanctioning authority had applied its mind by examining the CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 84 of 142 material on record and moreover, there was no cross- examination by the defence and the testimony of the sanctioning authority remained unchallenged, therefore, it is held that there is no defect in the grant of sanction by the Sanctioning Authority.
118. In view of the above discussion, it is held that a valid prosecution sanction was granted by PW12 Shri Naresh Kumar, Chief Secretary, NCT of Delhi against the accused A.M. Rao.
PROVISION & CASE LAWS.
119. In order to properly appreciate the respective contention of the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to the provision invoked against the accused.
7. Offence relating to public servant being bribed.
- 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 liable to fine.
Explanation 1. - For the purpose of this section, the obtaining, accepting, or the attempting to obtain an undue CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 85 of 142 advantage shall itself constitute an offence even if the performance of a public duty by public servant, is not or has not been improper.Illustration. - 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.
Explanation 2. - For the purpose of this section,- i) the expressions "obtains" or "accepts" or "attempts to obtain"
shall cover cases where a person being a public servant, obtains or "accepts" or attempts to obtain, any undue advantage for himself or for another person, by abusing his position as a public servant or by using his personal influence over another public servant; or by any other corrupt or illegal means; (ii) it shall be immaterial whether such person being a public servant obtains or accepts, or attempts to obtain the undue advantage directly or through a third party.
120. Section 20 of the PC Act reads as under :-
"20. Presumption where public servant accepts any undue advantage - 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 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 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."
121. Charge under section 7 of PC Act framed against the accused A.M. Rao is to the effect that he was demanding ₹15,000/- for registration of mortgage deed and delivery of documents and after negotiation, the bribe amount was reduced to ₹10,000/- and a trap was laid on 26.09.2022 where accused CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 86 of 142 A.M. Rao was apprehended while demanding and accepting ₹10,000/- from the complainant/PW-4 Manoj Kumar and the tainted bribe amount was recovered from the office drawer of the accused A.M. Rao.
122. Section 2(d) of PC Act defines undue advantage as any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration. The explanation to Section 2(d) provides that gratification is not limited to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications estimable in money and word "legal remuneration" includes all remuneration which is received by the public servant after he is permitted by the government or organization.
123. The Prevention of Corruption Act (Amendment Act 2018) came into effect on 26.07.2018 and perusal of the amended Act would reflect that by way of amendment, number of provisions were amended by the Parliament. The present case relates to the offence committed post 26.07.2018 and hence, amended PC Act is applicable to the present case. An offence under section 7 of PC Act is said to be committed when a public servant obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person any undue advantage with the intention to perform the public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forebear or cause forbearance of the performance of such a public duty. After amendment to Section 7 of the PC Act, Section 7(a) and 7(b) r/w Explanation-I are almost similar to Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the unamended PC Act.
CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 87 of 142124. Section 20 of PC Act was also amended vide Amended Act 16 of 2018, the notable feature of the amended Section 20 of PC Act, if during the trial, it is proved that a public servant accused of an offence has accepted or obtained an undue advantage, it shall be presumed that he had accepted or obtained or attempted to obtain such an undue advantage as a motive or reward under section 7 of PC Act for performing or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly either by himself or by any other public servant. Prior to amendment in Section 20 of PC Act, the same is only invoked when during the trial offence under Section 7 or 11 of PC Act are proved. After amendment in section 7 & 13 of PC Act, Clause (i)&(ii) of 13(1)
(d) of unamended Act has become part and parcel of the amended Section 7 of the PC Act, meaning thereby that if the prosecution is able to establish that undue advantage or a pecuniary advantage has been obtained by a public servant then presumption under section 20 of PC Act can be invoked in a given case.
125. Before deliberating to analyze the oral and documentary evidence as led by the prosecution, it would be appropriate to reminisce the principle of the criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be an innocent unless proven guilty and the suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof. It is the bounden duty of the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and in offences involving PC Act, the prosecution is duty bound to establish the foundational facts CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 88 of 142 prior to invoking the presumption under section 20 of PC Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "P. Sathyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State AP and Anr. (2015) 10 SCC 152" after relying upon the judgment Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406 held that "suspicion, however, grave cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in the realm of "may be" true but has to upgrade it in the domain of "must be" true in order to steer clear of any possible surmise of conjecture. It was held that the court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if in the facts and circumstances, two views are plausible, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. The prosecution is required to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, but this doctrine cannot be stretched to such an extent that prosecution is required to prove the impossible in respect of the facts and issues before the court and, therefore, in accepting the version given by the prosecution witnesses, the question is whether the witnesses are able to pass the test of the credibility vis-a-vis to the case of the prosecution.
126. The demand of undue advantage is a sine qua non for making out an offence under section 7 of PC Act. In order to arrive at the conclusion whether all the ingredients of the offence viz. demand, acceptance and recovery of amount of illegal gratification have been satisfied or not, the entire facts and circumstances are to be considered in its entirety. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 89 of 142 accused when substantive evidence with respect to demand and acceptance is shaky and the evidence must indicate in a clear manner that public servant had obtained the bribe voluntarily. Prior to invoking the presumption under Section 20 of the P C Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt. However, before the accused is to call upon to explain as to how the amount in question was found in his possession and presumption in respect of demand and acceptance or obtainment of undue advantage/illegal gratification could be invoked only, if the prosecution has established the foundational facts by way of evidence and it is the discretion of the court to raise such presumption, which is subject to the rebuttal and rebuttal could either by pointing out the inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution or bringing to fore material or relevant facts during the cross-examination. In Mukut Bihari & O rs. Vs State of Rajasthan, (2012)11 SCC 642, it was observed that complainant is an interested and partisan witness and therefore, his evidence is to be considered like any other interested witness and the court must look for independent corroboration prior convicting the accused.
127. In analyzing the evidence led during the trial, specially oral testimonies of the witness(s) has a substantial bearing in the case and more so, in trial of offences under PC Act where the allegations are that bribe was attempted to be obtained or CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 90 of 142 obtained or accepted by a public servant in cases which in usual parlance are called as the "Trap Case", the complainant/the bribe giver is perhaps one of the most material witness apart from other witnesses. In evaluating the testimony of the complainant or any other witness, the credibility and the manner in which he or she narrates the facts during the trial is critical in adjudicating the case of the prosecution. When the court is considering the inter se testimonies of the witnesses, the minor contradictions and slight exaggerations in the testimonies of the witnesses are liable to be ignored and what is to be considered whether the version given by the witness(s) is consistent and the testimonies of the witnesses leads to the conclusion that offence has been committed by the accused.
128. In P. Sathyanarayana Murthy (supra), it is observed that:
"23. the proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)
(i)&(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 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 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder."
129. In Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2024) INSC 503: (2023) 4 SCC 731, it was held by the Apex Court that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is sine-
CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 91 of 142qua-non for establishing the guilt under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The Constitution Bench after surveying number of judgments was pleased to hold as follows :-
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.
(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 CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 92 of 142 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 servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and in turn 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.
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) CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 93 of 142
(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."
TESTIMONY OF THE COMPLAINANT/PW4
130. At the cost of reiteration for the purpose of clarity, the testimony of the complainant/PW-4 Shri Manoj Kumar was to the effect that he is an Executive in Ravi Bhargava & Company which is engaged in the documentation. PW-4 also stated that vide authorization letter Ex.PW1/A, he was authorized to present documents for registration etc. by IIFL Home Finance Ltd. He also deposed that mortgage deed was presented in the office of Sub-Registrar for registration vide Ex.PW1/A. He had also deposed that he took appointment from the Office of Sub Registrar vide appointment slip Ex.PW4/B and also obtained a registration slip vide Ex.PW4/C after completing the necessary formalities before the Office of Sub-Registrar. PW4/complainant Manoj Kumar also stated that registered documents are to be given within a period of three days from its registration and if such documents are executed between financier and borrower then the original copy of the registered document is required to be delivered to the financier for keeping it as a security. He further stated that Sub Registrar demanded bribe of ₹15,000/- for handing back the mortgage deed. Since PW4/complainant Manoj Kumar did not want to pay the bribe, he made a complaint in his handwriting alongwith the registration slip vide Ex.PW4/D (Colly) to CBI. PW4 further CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 94 of 142 stated that he was apprised that a verification of his complaint would be made. He also stated that DVR was arranged and in which his voice as well as the voice of independent witness Lokendra was recorded. PW4 further deposed that he went to the office of Sub Registrar alongwith DVR which was attached in a clandestine manner and Lokendra also accompanied him. PW4 further deposed that he met accused A.M. Rao, whereas independent witness Lokendra remained present outside.
131. PW-4 further deposed that on 26.09.2022, he again went to the office of CBI alongwith an amount of ₹10,000/- and two witnesses Monendra and Lokendra were already present for the purpose of laying trap. He also deposed that independent witness Shri Lokendra brought the brass seal and PW-4 also deposed in line of the facts stated in the pre-trap memorandum vide Ex.PW4/J. PW-4 further deposed that on 26.09.2022, they reached near the office of Sub Registrar at 02.00 PM and DVR was also taken by him and Lokendra was also instructed to accompany him. PW-4 further deposed that both, he and Lokendra Singh, sat outside the hall adjacent to the room of accused A.M. Rao. Thereafter, PW-4 went inside the room of accused A.M. Rao and pleasantries were exchanged. PW-4 also stated that he told the accused A.M. Rao that he had brought the requisite documents. PW-4 also deposed that accused A.M. Rao enquired about independent witness Lokendra. PW-4 further deposed that he told the accused A.M. Rao that the required documents brought by him and to which the accused replied that CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 95 of 142 "Abhi Le Leta Huin" and accused A.M. Rao also asked whether the documents were signed and to which PW-4 replied "Kara diya". PW-4 further stated that accused told him that it would take about 10 to 15 minutes and asked them to wait outside the room, but Lokendra went out of the room, whereas PW-4 stayed in the room. PW-4 further deposed that he told A.M. Rao that Lokendra shall come in the near future. PW-4 further deposed that when he told that Lokendra would come and accused should pay attention to him, accused A.M. Rao told that he would see as and when he comes (Aayega to theek hai). PW-4 further deposed that when he got up from his chair, then he told the accused (Sir pure dus hai isme) and also indicated the same by gesture and he further told the accused "Aage se dhyan rakhna"
to which accused said "Hum dus pandra hi lete hai" and thereafter, PW-4 came out of the room. PW-4 further deposed that after coming out of the room, he sat along with Lokendra and one or two members of the trap team approached him and made gestures by moving their fingers to which PW-4 pointed out toward the pocket of the pant where he had kept the envelope and then members of the trap team took the envelope from him and they went inside the room of accused A.M. Rao, whereas PW-4/complainant Manoj Kumar remained seated outside the room and thereafter, he was called inside the said room and thereafter he was extensively cross-examined by the Ld. PP for the CBI. PW-4 Shri Manoj Kumar identified his signature on the post trap memorandum vide Ex.PW4/K. PW-4 also identified the currency notes after comparing it with Ex.PW4/J by stating CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 96 of 142 that the currency notes were kept in the envelope for the purpose of giving it to the accused A.M. Rao on his demand. PW-4 denied that he gave pre-decided signal. PW-4 denied the suggestion that he used to give bribe to accused A.M. Rao.
132. PW-5 Shri Lokendra was the shadow witness and remained associated with PW-4/Complainant during the verification and trap proceedings. He stated that on 23.09.2022, he along with the complainant/PW-4 Shri Manoj Kumar reached the office of Sub-Registrar and upon reaching the office of Sub- Registrar, PW-4 went inside the room of accused A.M. Rao by leaving him/PW-5 outside the room of the accused on the pretext that accused A.M. Rao would not discuss about the demand of bribe. PW-5 further deposed that after sometime, PW-4 Manoj Kumar came out of the room of the accused and met him and thereafter, both of them went to the CBI officials who heard the conversation held between accused A.M Rao and PW-4 Manoj Kumar.
133. PW-5 further deposed that on 26.09.2022, he went to the office of Sub Registrar along with PW-4 Manoj Kumar after the completion of pre-trap proceedings vide Ex.PW1/D. His detailed testimony is in line with the facts stated in pre-trap memo with regard to application of phenolphthalein powder on currency notes and demonstration by the CBI trap team etc. With respect to the actual turn of events on 26.09.2022, PW-5 deposed that he and PW-4 Manoj Kumar met accused A.M. Rao in his CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 97 of 142 chamber/room where PW-5 and PW-4 were offered chair and PW-4 told that he had brought the documents for the verification and PW-4 also asked A.M. Rao for providing the documents i.e. mortgage paper to him. PW-5 further deposed that accused A.M. Rao gave an indication by alternatively moving his thumb on his index finger and he explained the meaning of the same as the demand of bribe. PW-5 further deposed that PW-4 took out a white envelope containing the bribe amount from his pocket to the accused but the accused A.M. Rao declined by waving his palm in up and down position. PW-5 has also stated that accused made inquiries about him and then PW-5 was asked to wait outside the room and after some time, PW-4 Manoj Kumar came out and gave the pre-decided signal and subsequently he, complainant/PW-4 and other members of the CBI team went inside the room/chamber of the accused A.M. Rao and caught hold of him. The DVR was switched off and the accused A.M. Rao was challenged that he took bribe and the location of the envelope containing bribe money was also inquired. PW-5 also deposed that complainant/PW-4 told that accused A.M. Rao took bribe amount from both of his hands and had kept the bribe amount in the drawer of the table. The bribe amount was recovered and matched with the distinctive currency notes, mentioned in pre-trap memo. PW-5 elaborated about the post trap proceedings consequent to the trap.
134. The complaint Ex.PW4/D was given by PW-4 Shri Manoj Kumar to the CBI inter-alia alleging that for the release of CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 98 of 142 mortgage deed, accused A.M. Rao was demanding bribe of ₹15,000/-. Although, mere allegations in the complaint would not give a seal of approval since like any other fact, the allegations in the complaint are required to be established through cogent evidence. PW-4 Shri Manoj Kumar with respect to the allegations stated that on 21.09.2022, he went to the office of Sub Registrar and as per rule, the registered documents are required to be handed over within a period of three days from the date of registration. PW-4 also deposed that he had inquired from the accused A.M. Rao about the tentative date when he would receive the mortgage deed to which the accused A.M. Rao made a demand of ₹15,000/-. It is evident from complaint Ex.PW4/D that PW-4 had alleged that accused A.M. Rao was demanding the bribe and for which PW-4 did not want to pay any bribe. It is also not specified either in the deposition of complainant/PW4 Shri Manoj Kumar or in the complaint Ex.PW4/D, at what point of time did accused A.M. Rao demanded the bribe which gives an occasion to the complainant to lodge a complaint against him. PW-3 Shri Subhash Shokeen who was examined by the prosecution, only testified to the effect that on 21.09.2022, he went to the office of Sub Registrar where he signed the document i.e. mortgage deed but no bribe was demanded by the accused A.M. Rao. Nevertheless, since the allegations were to the effect that there was a demand of bribe and therefore, the CBI is required to verify the said complaint (Ex.PW4/D) in an independent and unbiased manner and it is essentially for this reason, the complaint was taken up for CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 99 of 142 verification by the CBI.
EVENTS/HAPPENING DATED 23.09.2022 COVERING THE PROCESS OF INITIAL DEMAND AND VERIFICATION BY THE CBI.
135. After the receipt of the complaint vide Ex.PW4/D on 23.09.2022, the verification of the complaint was made and as per the case of the prosecution, the concerned SP assigned the task of conducting verification. Shri Lokendra had joined as an independent witness for the verification proceedings. DVR containing memory card etc. was also arranged and was directed to be kept with PW-4 Shri Manoj Kumar in a clandestine manner. As per prosecution, on 23.09.2022, the complainant/PW-4 and independent witness/PW-5 Shri Lokendra went to the office of Sub Registrar and the complainant/PW-4 went inside the room of the accused A.M. Rao, whereas the independent witness/PW- 5 Shri Lokendra did not go inside the room of the accused A.M. Rao since the complainant/PW-4 was of the opinion that accused A.M. Rao would not demand any bribe from him in the presence of the independent witness/PW-5 Shri Lokendra. PW-4 had also deposed in line with the fact stated in verification proceedings vide Ex.PW-4/G i.e. the DVR etc. was arranged and the introductory voice was recorded and the independent witness Lokendra was arranged and the DVR was put in off mode. PW4 further stated that they went to the office of Sub Registrar in the CBI vehicle and the said vehicle was parked at some distance and the independent witness Lokendra was also deputed with CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 100 of 142 him to overhear the conversation and the interaction which would take between him and the accused A.M. Rao. PW-4 had also deposed that he went inside the room of the accused A.M. Rao, whereas independent witness sat outside the room. PW-4 deposed that conversation ensued between him and the accused A.M. Rao in which accused demanded ₹15,000/- for the release of mortgage deed and he told him that he cannot pay such an amount and to which the accused A.M. Rao "Hum toh itna hi paisa leta hai isse kum nhi leta and after negotiation, the bribe amount was reduced to ₹10,000/- and he was asked to bring an amount of ₹10,000/- in the post lunch session on 26.09.2022. PW4 further deposed that on 23.09.2022, after the discussion with the accused A.M. Rao, he came out of the room of the accused A.M. Rao and met independent witness and thereafter to the CBI team who were waiting outside. PW4 also deposed that the DVR which was taken by him was taken by the CBI officials and after a transcript of the same was also prepared in the office of the CBI. PW4 identified his voice as well as the voice of the accused A.M. Rao as recorded in the memory card and PW4 also identified the relevant voice from the transcript vide Ex.PW4/I.
136. PW-5 Shri Lokendra deposed that on 23.09.2022, he and complainant/PW-4 Manoj Kumar went to the office of the Sub Registrar where complainant/PW-4 Manoj Kumar met the accused A.M. Rao in his room, however, PW-5 did not go inside the room as complainant/PW-4 told that accused might be hesitant to speak in front of PW-5. PW-5 had also deposed that CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 101 of 142 that after meeting between accused A.M. Rao and the complainant/PW-4, the complainant/PW-4 came outside the office of Sub Registrar and went to the CBI team which was waiting in the vehicle. PW-5 also deposed that PW-4 had also narrated the discussion which had transpired between him and the accused A.M. Rao, in which the bribe amount was negotiated to ₹10,000/- from ₹15,000/-. PW-5 had also deposed that the recording was also played and in which, it is reflected that accused A.M. Rao was demanding a bribe of ₹10,000/-. PW-5 further explained that memory card containing the recording was seized and was put in an envelope. PW-5 identified his signatures on the verification memo Ex.PW4/G. He had also deposed that a brass seal which was used in the proceedings was handed over to him and he was directed to produce the same as and when required by the CBI. PW-5 identified the voice recording contained in memory card i.e. his introductory voice and also confirmed that the recording was played on 23.09.2022.
137. The visit dated 23.09.2022 to the office of Sub Registrar by the complainant/PW-4 Manoj Kumar as well as PW-5/independent witness Lokendra was also corroborated by other witnesses of the CBI. The visit of PW-4 and PW-5 to the office of Sub- Registrar was also corroborated by PW-20, Inspector Mahendra Singh, Verification Officer.
138. Without going into the admissibility of the recorded conversation (Q-1) and the transcript vide Ex.PW4/I in respect CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 102 of 142 of the discussion between the complainant/PW-4 and accused A.M. Rao, the recorded conversation would indicate that both, accused A.M. Rao and PW-4/complainant Shri Manoj Kumar were known to each other so much so that accused was inquiring about the injuries sustained by PW-4/complainant in his hand. Accused also made inquiry about one Surender and had also inquired whether the complainant/PW-4 had brought the sanction letter and to which the complainant/PW-4 replied that sanction letter would be received by Tuesday and further the accused telling the complainant/PW-4 to send it by Whatsapp. The complainant/PW-4 made inquiries from the accused A.M. Rao that he would come either on Monday or Tuesday by making prior call to him. Complainant/PW-4 further asked the accused A.M. Rao Sir isme kuch karwa do. The accused further told the complainant that he is asking for 15 which is minimum and thereafter, the complainant further negotiated and further told the accused that he cannot pay so much for every case. The accused further said that he had also signed and to which the accused clarified that he had signed on Shokeen. The complainant further said that he would come and thereafter he would make the payment. The accused further said that he should pay 10 and the complainant further sought clarification. The accused told that this was the amount which is to be paid and it cannot be less and the accused further reiterated that he takes not less than 10. Further negotiations had happened in which the accused was constantly telling that it cannot be less than 10. Thereafter, the further transcript would reveal that the accused CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 103 of 142 telling the complainant that if he raises query only then people would come to him. Further discussion had happened in which the complainant inquired from the accused when would the paper be readied. The complainant further said that he would come on Monday and the paper be given on the said day. Further discussion had happened between the accused and the complainant/PW-4 where both of them were talking about number of things. The complainant also tried to confirm from the accused that the papers would be delivered to him without hassle.
139. A careful perusal of the transcript would indicate that both, accused and complainant/PW-4, were discussing with respect to the fact that some work was to be done and that accused had raised objection and the accused asked the complainant/PW-4 Manoj Kumar that he want 15. There is also reference that accused had signed on one case of Shokeen and the complainant told that Shokeen would come. The accused demanded that 10 be given. The entire conversation/transcript would indicate that monetary transaction was being discussed between them. It is also reflected from the reading of the transcription that both the sides were negotiating and the complainant was asking the accused to sign on some papers and he also referred the name of Shokeen and the accused requiring the complainant to take some amount from him. The transcript and the voice recording raises a strong suspicion that some negotiation is being engaged between the complainant and the CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 104 of 142 accused with respect to the some transaction, relating to the work at the office of Sub Registrar and it is also reflected from the reading of the transcript that it was decided between the accused and the complainant that complainant would bring some amount on Monday for the accused and it can certainly be said that some monetary demand is being made between them. The impugned conversation between accused A.M. Rao and the complainant Manoj Kumar raises a strong suspicion that something is asked and the complainant is ready to deliver 10. The testimony of the complainant/PW-4 in this regard is very categoric.
140. A perusal of the deposition of PW4/complainant would indicate that he had stated that accused A.M. Rao had demanded ₹15,000/- for the release of mortgage and when the complainant told him then accused replied that he does not accept less and upon negotiation, the accused reduced it to ₹10,000/- and the complainant further stated that he is unable to recall the minute detail with respect to the conversation. The deposition of the complainant/PW4 Manoj Kumar remained unchallenged and unrebutted as there was no cross-examination of the complainant/PW4 Manoj Kumar on behalf of the accused.
141. The conversation between the accused and the complainant would reflect that there was lot of talk with respect to monetary aspect. PW-4 had clearly deposed before the court that there was a demand of ₹15,000/- which was reduced to ₹10,000/-. The above sequence of events would provide CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 105 of 142 justification to the prosecution/investigating agency to take further action in accordance with law against the accused A.M. Rao and it further establishes that there was an initial demand on behalf of the accused A.M. Rao. Accordingly, the prosecution was successful in establishing the initial demand on 23.09.2022.
EVENTS/HAPPENING POST REGISTRATION OF FIR COVERING THE FINAL DEMAND, ACCEPTANCE AND RECOVERY.
142. Consequent to the verification of the complaint through Verification proceedings and from the facts emerged in the verification memo dated 23.09.2022 vide Ex.PW1/B (D-3), an FIR was registered vide Ex.PW1/I and pursuant to which a pre- trap memorandum was prepared vide Ex.PW1/D (D-5). A trap team was constituted under the leadership of PW19 Shri Mukesh Kumar Mishra. The pre-trap proceedings were carried out by smearing the proposed bribe amount with phenolphthalein powder, DVR and memory card were also arranged. The search of the members of the raiding party was conducted to ensure that nothing incriminating is kept or retained by any of the members of the raiding party. The demonstration of phenolphthalein powder and its reaction with sodium carbonate solution was also stated to be carried out at the CBI office. A perusal of the pre- trap proceedings would indicate that it had provided the complete details with respect to the happening in the office of CBI prior to reaching the office of the Sub Registrar, Najafgarh, CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 106 of 142 New Delhi.
143. The CBI team along with independent witnesses and complainant reached approximately between 02:00 & 02:30 PM at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Najafgarh, New Delhi. The DVR was handed over to the complainant at about 03.00 PM and the independent witness Shri Lokendra accompanied him. PW-4 along with the independent witness PW-5 Lokendra entered in the hall which was adjacent to the room of the accused A.M. Rao and then PW-4 Manoj Kumar was called inside the room of accused A.M. Rao by gesture. PW-4 Shri Manoj Kumar alongwith independent witness Shri Lokendra met the accused A.M. Rao, who enquired about the required documents. PW-4 also deposed that accused A.M. Rao made inquiry whether Lokendra works with him. PW-4 further deposed that when he told accused A.M. Rao that he had brought the documents, the accused A.M. Rao told him that he would take the same afterwards and made further inquiries in respect of the signing of the documents and then A.M. Rao asked him to wait outside, however, PW-4 stayed in the room of the accused A.M. Rao, whereas independent witness Shri Lokendra came out of the room. PW-4 further stated that both of them started conversing and then he apprised the accused A.M. Rao that henceforth his friend Lokendra would come and to which the accused said that he would see as and when he comes.
144. PW-4 further stated that he stood up from his chair and CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 107 of 142 accused also stood up from his chair and he told the accused "Sir pure dus hai isme" and also indicated the same by gesture and he further told the accused "Aage se dhyan rakhna". PW-4 further deposed that accused told him that "Hum dus pandra hi lete hai"
and thereafter, he came out of the room of the accused A.M. Rao and sat next to Lokendra/PW-5 whereupon he was approached by the CBI team and PW-4 told them that the envelope (purported to be containing bribe amount) was in his pant pocket and thereupon, the said envelope was taken by the member of the CBI team inside the room of the accused A.M. Rao, whereas PW4 remained seated in the hall.
145. PW-5 Lokendra Singh (independent witness) deposed that he went to the office of CBI on 26.09.2022. He also deposed with respect to the pre-trap proceedings vide Ex.PW-1/D and the constitution of the CBI team for the purposes of laying trap. PW-5 further deposed that on 26.09.2022 after reaching the office of CBI, all of them went to the office of the Sub Registrar wherein he alongwith the complainant/PW-4 Shri Manoj Kumar met accused A.M. Rao in his room and inquiries were made by the accused A.M. Rao with respect to the documents and PW4 Manoj Kumar asked for the mortgage deed/paper. PW-5 further deposed that during the conversation, the accused gave an indication by alternatively moving his thumb on the index finger and as per his understanding, the gesture was towards the bribe and thereafter complainant/PW-4 gave a white envelope containing the bribe amount to which the accused A.M. Rao told CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 108 of 142 the complainant "Abhi nahi baad mein" and also waved his palm and accused made inquiries from them. Complainant/PW-4 Shri Manoj Kumar asked him to wait outside and after five minutes, the complainant/PW-4 came out of the room of the accused A.M. Rao and the complainant/PW-4 finally gave pre-decided signal upon which the CBI team came and went inside the room of the accused A.M. Rao where hand of the accused was held by the CBI officer from his wrist and the DVR was taken from PW-4/complainant Shri Manoj Kumar.
146. Perusal of the testimonies of PW-4 Shri Manoj Kumar and PW-5 Shri Lokendra would indicate that on 26.09.2022, both of them went inside the room of the accused A.M. Rao. It also appears from their testimonies that both, accused A.M. Rao and PW-4, were in friendly terms with each other and the accused tried to know about PW-5 Lokendra. PW-4 also told accused A.M. Rao that PW-5 Lokendra shall henceforth visit the office of the accused. With respect to the crucial issue of demand by the accused A.M. Rao, the testimony of PW-5 was to the effect that accused A.M. Rao made a gesture by alternating his thumb on his index finger which the witness had construed as the gesture for the demand of bribe. PW5 Lokendra in his testimony did not indicate that accused A.M. Rao had demanded money from PW- 4 Manoj Kumar directly or that he had heard/overheard any conversation about the direct demand of bribe. Relevantly, PW- 4 deposed that when he had offered the envelope, the accused A.M. Rao stated that "Abhi nahi baad mein". PW-4 did not state CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 109 of 142 in his testimony that when PW-5 Lokendra was present in the room of the accused A.M. Rao, any demand for money/bribe was made by way of gesture by the accused A.M. Rao. Admittedly, PW-5 Lokendra came out of the room of the accused AM Rao, however, there appears to be some inconsistencies, at what point of time, did PW-5 exited from the room of the accused A M Rao.
147. PW-4 Shri Manoj Kumar in his deposition stated that when PW-5 Shri Lokendra came out of the room of the accused A.M. Rao then complainant/PW-4 stated that henceforth the person accompanying him i.e. Lokendra would come and therefore, he should pay attention to him and thereafter, accused A.M. Rao told that "Aaega to thik hai" (as and when he comes then it would be seen) and subsequently, A.M. Rao stood from his chair and he/PW-4 also stood up from his chair. PW-4 further deposed that he told the accused "Sir pure dus hai isme" and also gestured about the same. PW-4 further stated that he had asked the accused "aage se dhyan rakhna" (to take care in future), to which the accused A.M. Rao replied that" Hum dus pandra hi lete hai".
148. The offering of the proposed bribe money by saying "Sir pure hain dus isme and aage se dhyan rakhna" cannot be considered as demand as it was the statement made by the complainant.
149. The deposition of PW-4 Manoj Kumar to the effect that accused A.M. Rao stated that hum to dus pandra hi lete hai might CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 110 of 142 raise some suspicion or a cajoling by the accused A.M. Rao, however, in order to construe it as an attempt on the part of the accused to obtain the bribe, something more is to be shown by indicating that there was a conscious demand to obtain the bribe/undue advantage and such a demand is to be backed by clear evidence of demand. The demand has to be very specific or the surrounding circumstances and the material is so convincing to lead only one inference that the word spoken by the speaker was to obtain an undue advantage.
150. PW-4 had clearly stated that there was no demand of bribe by the accused from him.
151. There was no direct demand of bribe by the accused A.M. Rao from PW4 Shri Manoj Kumar in the presence of PW5 Shri Lokendra and the direct evidence to obtain an undue advantage could be given by the complainant/PW4 Shri Manoj Kumar. As already noted, PW4 had deposed that he exited the room of the accused A.M. Rao without delivering the bribe.
152. It is a well settled principle of law that the demand for bribe must be specific, unambiguous and is required to be proved beyond doubt by the prosecution. The demand cannot be inferred by way of logical inference that there was a reference of money unless it is conclusively established that the public servant has made a conscious and deliberate effort to obtain an undue advantage. Q-2 contains audio recording to cover the final demand as well as the acceptance of the bribe amount from CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 111 of 142 the accused A.M. Rao. The transcription vide Ex.PW1/G - Colly (D-9) clearly indicates that evidence or the supporting material qua the demand of bribe is absent from the conversation, although the conversation makes reference that the complainant was offering bribe to accused A.M. Rao. The transcript and the recording do not establish the requisite intent of the demand of bribe by the accused. Audio recording/transcription were seriously disputed on behalf of the accused. The audio recording as well as its transcript would reveal that the words "Hum to dus pandra hi lete hai" are neither audible in the voice recording nor written in the transcript and is altogether missing. The relevant part is as under:-
C आगे से सर ध्यान रखना
A आगे से हम दस से कम लेंगे नही
C ठीक है चलो पर फिर बढाना मत मतलब सर दस से ठीक है सर हां
A अब आपकी ही मदद करेंगे वो आने के बाद सब खेल जाएंगे हम तो
Inquiry करेंगे ये कहेंगे तब तुमसे बात करेंगे
A है ना तुम पहले करेंगे तो मांग रहे करके सोचेंगे आप सिर्फ मैं पेश
करवा दूंगा उसके बाद भैया मै Inquiry करेंगे ही करेंगे तब भी तुमसे करेंगे कार्यवाही करके A अब तुम पहले मेरे से पहले पूछेंगे करबाऊं गा फिर ते देंगे नही ये कह रहा है करके सोचेंगे।
C चलो ठीक है आपने सर उसमें कर दिया वो लेकिन सर से 10 ऊपर
मत बढाना आगे कभी
A ठीक है
C हां
A वो ही 10-15 वो ही लेते है हम ज्यादा नहीं लेते
CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 112 of 142
C ठीक है ठीक है..................
153. It is seen from the relevant portion, as extracted, that the demand of bribe by the accused A.M. Rao is not very emphatic or clear. The allegation that the accused attempted to obtain undue advantage is substantially weakened in the cross- examination wherein PW-4 categorically denied that there was any demand of bribe. Every demand for payment is not a demand for gratification and something more has to be shown than mere demand of money. A conversation between two individuals has different elements such as verbal and non-verbal gesture and other bodily gestures which could be felt or understood by the persons who are engaged in the conversation. The logical inference to draw a conclusion while hearing the audio conversation or reading the transcript with a pre-set mind whether it was for the purposes of the demand of bribe or not, would create a room for error as the inquiry of the mind would be directed on a particular line or the word by deeming it as a demand for bribe, and in such a situation, the best test would be to consider the version of the persons who were party to the conversation or to the person in close proximity over hearing such a conversation that it relates to the demand of bribe. Assuming that the recorded conversation was correct at the most, it could be an attempt on the part of the public servant to suggest that he is capable enough to obfuscate the process of the inquiry. However, the crucial question would always be whether the public servant had demanded an undue advantage/illegal gratification. It is held in catena of judgments that mere demand CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 113 of 142 of money would not make it an offence under section 7 of PC Act unless the demand of money was with a view to obtain an undue advantage. The facts of the case in hand would indicate that on the final day of the demand, both accused A.M. Rao and complainant/PW-4 Manoj Kumar, were playing the hide and seek. The accused was not straight forward in putting up the demand of bribe and the complainant was also trying to play safe either by constantly cajoling the accused to make a demand of bribe. In evaluating the testimony of such a complainant, a required care has to be taken whether the complainant was so persistent and cajoling the accused to demand the bribe. The complainant in a trap case enjoys a unique advantage when he sits across a public servant to make the trap highly successful by the use of sly technique. For example, if an accused repeatedly requires or asks a public servant by saying that he had brought the money and the public servant is not answering the question and the complainant engaging him or her in some other conversation and in response to the conversation accused willingly or unwillingly makes a statement or comment then such a comment has to be considered in proper perspective, the crucial question would always remain whether it was a demand of bribe and the recorded conversation and transcript on its own is not sufficient and conclusive to infer that there was a demand of bribe. In order to rely upon such a recorded conversation and the transcript to infer that there was a demand of bribe, the word spoken in such recording should be specific or unambiguous and leads no conclusion except that it was for the sake of bribe that CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 114 of 142 demand is being made. A first-hand impression of the transcript and audio recording falls short of the requisite threshold to obtain an undue advantage i.e. demand of bribe by the public servant.
154. There is a disconnect between the facts disclosed by PW4 in his evidence with the audio recording Q-2 and its transcript. The necessary element of the demand of bribe is lacking.
155. In view of the above-mentioned discussion, the prosecution has failed to establish the demand of bribe by accused A.M. Rao on 26.09.2022.
ACCEPTANCE & RECOVERY
156. PW-4 Manoj Kumar and PW-5 Lokendra were the best witnesses who could depose about the factum of the acceptance of bribe by the accused A.M. Rao, since both of them had entered in the room of the accused A.M. Rao. Admittedly, PW-4 did not depose that bribe was accepted by the accused A.M. Rao and he had rather stated that envelope containing the bribe money was taken by the CBI officials from him when the CBI officials had approached him.
157. The next question is whether there is any circumstantial evidence/other evidence to support the conclusion that bribe was accepted by accused A.M. Rao. The audio recording (Q-2) and the corresponding transcript is totally silent with respect to the acceptance of bribe by accused A.M. Rao on 26.09.2022. PW5 CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 115 of 142 Shri Lokendra also did not witness the acceptance of bribe by the accused A.M. Rao as he was outside the room/cabin of the accused A.M. Rao.
158. In order to establish the factum of acceptance of bribe money and its consequent recovery, the prosecution has examined PW-17 Shri Monendra. PW-17 in his cross- examination had admitted that he was cited as a witness in five to six cases filed by the CBI. It appears that PW-17 is a stock witness of the CBI as he used to appear as a witness in CBI cases on regular basis. The independent witnesses in any trap proceedings are joined in the trap proceedings to get an untainted and independent view in respect of the actual transaction between the complainant and the bribe taker. The importance of joining of any independent witness in any trap proceedings depends on the fact that even if the complainant does not support the case of the prosecution and such an independent witness is able to truthfully and factually narrates the facts and events then conviction can be sustained on such a testimony. However, when a particular witness termed as an "Independent Witness" is associated in number of cases, such a witness can no longer be considered as an independent and it would be extremely hazardous to rely upon testimony of such witnesses as they usually follow a predetermined story in the manner as suggested by the prosecution and, therefore testimony of such a called independent witness is nothing but the testimony of stock witness and as such is to be disregarded while evaluating the CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 116 of 142 evidence of PW-17. It is also necessary to observe that PW-17 despite being a stock witness of the CBI did not provide the complete details of the cases in which he had deposed as a witness.
159. PW-5 Shri Lokendra also deposed that he was cited as a witness in one other case by the CBI and surprisingly, the witness/PW-5 did not give any detail in which case he was cited as a witness by the CBI. The defence has also not made any attempt to properly cross-examine PW-5 Lokendra in order to enable the court to determine whether PW-5 was habitual or stock witness of the CBI. Merely deposing in one case would not mean that the witness is a stock witness unless it is established that such a witness was habitually deposing in support of the investigating agency. However, his testimony is required to be appreciated with extreme caution.
160. With respect to the recovery of the tainted money, PW-4 Shri Manoj Kumar denied that any bribe money was recovered from the possession of the accused A.M. Rao as he was sitting outside the cabin of the accused A.M. Rao i.e. in the hall. PW-4 had deposed that no pre-decided signal was given by him. PW-5 Shri Lokendra deposed that complainant/PW-4 after coming out of the room of the accused A.M. Rao gave a signal by rubbing his face with both the hands. PW-5 had also deposed that two CBI officers caught hold the hand of the accused A.M. Rao and introduction was given to the accused A.M. Rao and the DVR CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 117 of 142 was taken. PW-5 further stated that complainant/PW-4 Manoj Kumar on inquiry, told that bribe money was kept by accused A.M. Rao on the top drawer on the right side of his table. PW-5 further stated that one of the CBI official opened the drawer and the independent witness took out the white envelope containing the bribe amount and further post trap proceedings were conducted. At the cost of the repetition, PW-4/complainant Manoj Kumar did not depose that the envelope was put in the drawer by the accused A.M. Rao in his presence.
161. As mentioned earlier, independent witness Lokendra/PW- 5 had stated that after opening the drawer, the envelope was taken out by PW-17 Shri Monendra i.e. another witness. PW-17 Shri Monendra (another independent witness) stated that a drawer was opened and the envelope was taken out. Curiously, this witness has not stated that envelope containing the bribe money was taken by him. PW-17 Shri Monendra even went to the extent of saying that search of the drawer of the table was made by independent witness including him and blank envelopes were also found and those blank envelopes were sealed with the same brass seal which was with Lokendra. PW-19 Shri Mukesh Kumar Mishra (Trap Laying Officer) deposed that it was the accused A.M. Rao who told about the envelope being kept in the drawer and the envelope was recovered by independent witness PW-17 Monendra. PW-20 Shri Mahendra Singh (Verification Officer) who had entered the room on the date of trap, deposed that accused A.M. Rao stated that the envelope containing the CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 118 of 142 bribe amount was in the upper most drawer and the envelope was taken out by one of the independent witnesses whom he is unable to recall.
162. It appears from the deposition of witnesses that different statements were made by the witnesses with respect to the recovery of tainted money. PW17 had deposed that some other blank envelopes were also found from the drawer and the same were sealed, however, the said fact is conspicuously missing in post trap memorandum vide Ex.PW4/K. It is also notable to mention that PW17 had also stated that he had not seen Manoj Kumar and Lokendra going inside the cabin as he was standing outside. It is pertinent to mention that none of the members of the trap team had witnessed the acceptance of bribe including the complainant/PW-4 Manoj Kumar or the independent witness/PW-5 Lokendra.
163. PW-17 stated that cloth wrappers vide Ex.PW5/C1 to Ex.PW5/C3 do not bear his signature, although he had signed on the bottles which were wrapped with cloth wrappers and volunteered that he is not sure whether these were the same cloth wrappers or not.
164. Even otherwise, mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances in the absence of the demand cannot be relied against the accused. Hon'ble Supreme court in case P. Parasurami Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2011) 12 SCC
294. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme court that sole CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 119 of 142 evidence of the fingers being soiled in sodium carbonate turned pink itself is not sufficient to convict the accused. In "Om Prakash Vs. State of NCT of Delhi", Crl. Appeal No. 765/2001 dated 06.11.2013 it was held that neither demand nor the acceptance alone is sufficient to establish the offence and mere recovery of tainted money divorced from the circumstances is not sufficient to convict the accused persons.
165. In the present case, there is no direct evidence with respect to the demand of bribe and its consequent acceptance and there is no other reliable evidence. It was observed in "M.K. Harshan Vs. State of Kerala," (1996) 11 SCC 720 :
"In all such type of cases of bribery, two aspects are important. Firstly, there must be a demand and secondly, there must be acceptance in the sense that the accused has obtained the illegal gratification. Mere demand by itself is not sufficient to establish the offence. Therefore, the other aspect, namely, acceptance is very important."
166. In "K.P. Kolanthai Vs. State by Inspector of Police", Crl. A. No. 693 of 2008 dated 09.08.2019, it is observed by Kerala High Court after analyzing number of judgments in relation to a trap case ;
12. ......
(i) To succeed in such a case, the Prosecution is obliged to prove the demand of bribe before and at the time of trap, its acceptance and the recovery of tainted money.
(ii)The demand can be proved by testimony of the complainant as well as from the complaint made by him and other witnesses if proved in accordance with law and if it is corroborated in material particulars.
CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 120 of 142(iii) A presumption as to the demand of bribe can also be drawn if the tainted money i.e. the money tendered as bribe money is recovered from the possession of the accused, which presumption, of course, is rebuttable under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(iv)If the accused gives some defence, that can be scrutinized by the test of preponderance of probability, while the Prosecution must prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt."
13. The genesis of a trap lies in the previous demand of bribe made by the accused from the complainant, which becomes the basis of laying a trap by the investigating agency. Then, it is for the Prosecution to, again, prove the demand at the time when the trap was laid and thereafter, the question of acceptance and recovery of bribe money also is required to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts.
AUDIO RECORDING/ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE/FSL REPORT IN RESPECT OF HAND WASHES.
167. In order to prove the voices between the accused A.M. Rao and the complainant Manoj Kumar in the audio recordings Q-1& Q-2, the prosecution has examined two set of witnesses. The first set of witness was voice examiner from CFSL and the second set of witnesses are stated to be conversant with the voice of the accused A.M. Rao.
168. Prosecution has examined PW-5/Shri Lokendra, PW-17/Shri Monendra, PW-14/Shri Raman Kumar Bharti, PW- 15 Shri Dinesh Kumar for voice identification and PW-13 Shri Amit Kumar Soni was witness to the voice identification proceedings. PW-18 Shri Arun Kumar Gupta, Sr. Scientific Asstt. (Physics), CFSL gave voice report vide Ex.PW18/F. CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 121 of 142
169. Prior to considering the identification of a voice in the audio recording, it would be apt to refer to the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Ram Singh Vs. Col. Ram Singh, 1985 Supp SCC 611" a tape-recorded statement is admissible in evidence, subject to the following conditions:-
(1) The voice of the speaker must be identified by the maker of the record or other persons recognizing his voice. Where the maker is unable to identify the voice, strict proof will be required to determine whether or not it was the voice of the alleged speaker.
(2) The accuracy of the tape-recorded statement must be proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory evidence:
direct or circumstantial.
(3) Possibility of tampering with, or erasure of any part of, the tape-recorded statement must be totally excluded. The tape-recorded statement must be relevant.
(4) The recorded cassette must be sealed and must be kept in safe or official custody.
(5) The voice of the particular speaker must be clearly audible and must not be lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbance.
170. In Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 4 SCC 143, Hon'ble Apex Court had referred to the judgment of Ram Singh (supra) and also referred to the judgments of foreign jurisdiction which were relied in Ram Singh (supra), wherein the requirement of the need for minimum safeguard to be observed while considering the voice identification evidence, the relevant paragraphs as referred in the CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 122 of 142 judgments are as follows :-
The Court of Appeal in England in R Vs. Chenia and R. Vs. Flynn and St. John has reiterated the minimum safeguards which are required to be observed before a Court can place any reliance on the voice identification evidence, as follows:-
"(a) the voice recognition exercise should be carried out by someone other than the officer investigating the offence;
(b) proper records should be kept of the amount of time spent in contact with the suspect by any officer giving voice recognition evidence, of the date and time spent by any such officer in compiling any transcript of a covert recording, and of any annotations on a transcript made by a listening officer as to his views as to the identify of a speaker; and
(c) any officer attempting a voice recognition exercise should not be provided with atranscript bearing the annotations of any other officer.
In America, similar safeguards have been evolved through a series of judgments of different Courts. The 9 [2003] 2 Cr. App. R. 6 CA 10 [2008] 2 Cr.APP.R.20, CA principles evolved have been summed-up in American Jurisprudence 2d (Vol. 29) in regard to the admissibility of tape recorded statements, which are stated as under:-
"The cases are in general agreement as to what constitutes a proper foundation for the admission of a sound recording, and indicate a reasonably strict adherence to the rules prescribed for testing the admissibility of recordings, which have been outlined as follows :
(1) a showing that the recording device was capable of taking testimony;
(2) a showing that the operator of the device was competent;
(3) establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the recording;CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 123 of 142
(4) a showing that changes, additions, or deletions have not been made;
(5) a showing of the manner of the preservation of the recording;
(6) identification of the speakers; and (7) a showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made without any kind of inducement. ... However, the recording may be rejected if it is so inaudible and indistinct that the jury must speculate as to what was said.
171. PW-5 Lokendra identified the voice of accused A.M. Rao and complainant/PW-4 Manoj Kumar in the recordings which were played in the court and also identified his signatures on voice identification-cum-transcription memo vide Ex.PW4/1. PW-5 had joined the proceedings from the stage of verification of the complaint and till trap proceedings were concluded. PW-5 Lokendra had met the accused A.M. Rao on 26.09.2022 i.e. on the day of final trap. It is evident from the testimony of PW-5 that he did not go inside the chamber of accused A.M. Rao on 23.09.2022 at the time of verification of the complaint vide Ex.PW-4/D. Therefore, PW-5 was unable to hear any conversation between accused A.M. Rao and complainant/PW-4 Manoj Kumar. PW-5 Lokendra went inside the chamber of accused A.M. Rao only for a few minutes on 26.09.2022 and thereafter, he had come out of the chamber of accused A.M. Rao. When a witness/person has no occasion to interact or converse with a person then how he could be acquainted with the voice of such a person. A person would be able to identify the voice of a person to whom he is acquainted, either he had spoken to such a witness physically or a long course of interaction with such a CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 124 of 142 person and the witness has identified the voice of accused A.M. Rao. Considering the fact that PW-5 Lokendra got only a limited time to get identify the voice of accused A.M. Rao and therefore, his evidence qua the identification of accused A.M. Rao is liable to be ignored.
172. PW-17 Shri Monendra had never interacted with the accused A.M. Rao at any point of time except at the stage of post trap proceedings and mere ipse dixit statement of PW-17 Monendra that he can identify the voice of accused A.M. Rao is difficult to be accepted. As observed earlier, a person would be able to identify the voice of such person to whom he is acquainted or had a physical interaction. A short duration meeting is hardly an assurance of the fact that a witness would be able to identify the voice of such person.
173. PW-14 Shri Raman Kumar Bharti (Tehsildar) was examined by the prosecution for identifying the voice of accused A.M. Rao in the memory card. In his examination-in-chief, PW- 14 identified the voice of accused A.M. Rao as well as the transcripts vide Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW13/B, however, the attempt of the prosecution grossly failed for the reason that during the cross-examination, PW-14 stated that he had never worked with the accused A.M. Rao in any official capacity. A careful perusal of the examination-in-chief of PW-14 would reveal that at no stage, the witness had stated or deposed that he has ever worked with accused A.M. Rao. Court questions were CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 125 of 142 put to PW14 Shri Raman Kumar Bharti in which he stated that the accused never worked with him either as a superior or subordinate. In pursuance to the liberty granted to both the sides, the witness answered the Ld. PP for the CBI that he had identified the voice of accused A.M. Rao since on the date of trap from 04.00 PM to 12.30 AM, he was present with the accused A.M. Rao, CBI official in the office of Sub Registrar and on that basis, he had identified the voice of accused A.M. Rao. It is also relevant to mention that PW-14 had stated in his cross- examination that he met the accused A.M. Rao for the first time on 26.09.2022 as he was asked by the concerned SDM and it is interesting to mention that in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigation Officer, it was attributed that Raman Kumar Bharti was able to identify the voice of accused A.M. Rao because of previous acquaintance. In Ram Singh (supra), it was held that the voice of a person could be identified by such person who is conversant with the voice of the subject and, therefore, the testimony of PW-14 Raman Kumar Bharti identifying the voice of the accused A.M. Rao does not inspire confidence as new case qua identification is brought by the prosecution. PW-14 was provide with the copy of transcript and the witness had simply matched voice recording played in the office of CBI.
174. PW15 Shri Dinesh Kumar is stated to have identified the voice of accused A.M. Rao, stated that some writing/conversation was already prepared which was matched CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 126 of 142 and he identified the voice of the accused in the court. This witness had also identified the voice of the complainant Shri Manoj Kumar and the reason which he had given was that both the persons used to be in the office of the Sub-Registrar.
175. The voice identification proceedings of PW-14 and PW-15 were conducted in the CBI office in the most casual and unfair manner by not taking the requisite safeguards for the voice identification the Investigating Officer while preparing voice identification memo and the transcripts. The transcripts were provided to the witnesses and they were asked to identify the voices. The witnesses have identified the voice of the accused in the court, however, considering the fact that since the witnesses were already aware about the persons whose voices they are going to identify, the very purpose of identification of the voice becomes meaningless. Both PW14 and PW-15 were called on the same day for the purposes of the identification and stated to have identified the voice of accused and the complainant, simultaneously as reflected from the common voice identification-cum-transcription memo.
176. PW-18 Shri Arun Kumar Gupta, Sr. Scientific Asstt. (Physics), CFSL has furnished his opinion in respect of the voice recordings vide report Ex.PW18/F. In his report, he attributed the similarities in the questioned voices with specimen voices. He has testified that the questioned voices of accused A.M. Rao and complainant/PW-4 Manoj Kumar match with the sample CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 127 of 142 voices and observed that the voices in the recording are the probable voices of accused A.M. Rao and complainant/PW-4 Manoj Kumar and he did not observe any tampering.
177. Interestingly, in the cross-examination of PW-18 Shri Arun Kumar Gupta stated that he has no idea whether the conversation were recorded on some other SD card but were copied in the SD card which was sent for analyses. PW-18 Shri Arun Kumar Gupta also stated that auditory and spectrographic analyses have their limitation in respect of 100% accuracy and the report Ex.PW18/F are the probable voices of the person and, therefore, the voice report vide Ex.PW18/F cannot be solely relied for the purpose of identification taken into consideration for determining the voices of the persons contained in it.
178. PW18 Shri Arun Kumar Gupta had stated in his report that apart from the five sealed parcel were sent to CFSL for analysis and the copy of the transcript was also received and it was accompanied with the rough copy of the transcript as stated by PW18 and from the transcripts, name of both, complainant and accused, was very well disclosed. In this regard, as it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar (Supra) wherein the emphasized for maintaining safeguard to be observed before placing reliance on the voice identification evidence and one of the conditions was that any officer attempting a voice recognition exercise should not be provided with a transcript bearing the annotation of any CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 128 of 142 other officer. In the present case, the maker of the report, itself had mentioned in its report that transcript of the questioned conversations was provided and the name of the person who had ascribed were mentioned in the transcription and therefore, the expert evidence with respect to the voice identification is in doubt and it cannot be relied upon for the purposes of the identification of the voice as well as the fact that expert was also not able to comment whether the recording in the memory card was original or not.
179. In Ram Singh's case and "R. M. Malkani vs. State of Maharashtra, 1972 (2) SCR 417" which relate to the recorded co nversations, it was held that tape recorded conversation is admissible in evidence to corroborate the evidence of the witnesses who had stated that such conversations had taken place. However, the time and place and accuracy of the recording must be proved by competent witness and the voices must be properly identified. Previous statement made by a person and recorded on tape can be used not only to corroborate the substantive evidence.
180. In Nilesh Dinkar case (supra), the Apex Court had referred the judgment of R. Vs. Robson, (1972) 2 All ER 699 in which it is observed that "... The determination of the question is rendered the more difficult because tape recordings may be altered by the transposition, excision and insertion of words or phrases and such alterations may escape detection and even elude CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 129 of 142 it on examination by technical experts."
181. Although some of the witnesses have identified the voices in the audio recording between the complainant and the accused. Relevantly, in his cross-examination, PW18/FSL witness Shri Arun Kumar Gupta was unable to disclose whether it was the same memory card in which the voice was recorded or whether its contents were copied. In the absence of the specific material/evidence that the memory card contained the original voice recordings of the accused and the complainant, the corroborative piece of evidence in the form of audio recording is in suspect.
182. As per prosecution, the CBI brass seal, after use, was handed over to PW-17 Monendra, however, during the trial, neither independent witness nor investigating officer had explained about the whereabouts of the brass seal after its use and the same puts doubt on the integrity of the exhibits sent for analyses and since the CBI brass seal was used to seal all the material exhibits such as handwashes, paper wash, sealing of trap money, memory card and DVR of the present case were sealed.
183. In "Amarjit Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Delhi", 1995 Cr. LJ 1623, it was held that the prosecution has to establish that the seal remained intact till it reaches CFSL and the independent witness has not disclosed about the seal. In the present case, the case property more specifically, audio recordings and washes CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 130 of 142 were sealed with the help of CBI seal and as per prosecution, the said seal was handed over to PW-17 Monendra. However, during the trial, PW-17 Monendra had neither produced the seal after its use nor provided an account of its status and, therefore, in these circumstances, when the seal in question has not been produced or accounted by the prosecution, the audio recordings and washes cannot be taken into consideration in view of the susceptibility of electronic record to the tampering.
184. The absence of explanation about the CBI brass seal, after its use, has a substantial bearing in the present case in view of the fact that verification memo Ex.PW4/G states that Strontium 16 GB micro SD card was used, however, the micro SD card which is produced before the court was of Simmtronics. The CFSL report vide Ex.PW18/F indicates that in so far as Q-1 is concerned, the make of the memory card was Simmtronics. During the trial, the attention of the witnesses were drawn to the effect that in the verification proceedings, Strontium memory card was used and even PW-20 had admitted in his cross- examination that memory card used during the investigation are different from the micro SD card produced in the court and during the cross-examination, the Investigating Officer had stated that while recording the statements of the witnesses that all of them had stated Strontium memory card was used. The prosecution witnesses, more particularly, PW-22 and PW-19 failed to explain if the Strontium memory card was used then how Simmtronics memory card was sent to CFSL for analyses.
CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 131 of 142The witnesses from the prosecution and more particularly investigating officer was aware of the FSL report. No attempts were made by the prosecution to explain about such a vital discrepancy and thus, the non-explanation about the seal, after its use, assumes importance in the present case, specially when CBI brass seal was not produced.
185. In "Mahabir Prasad Verma Vs. Dr. Surender Kumar", (1982) 2 SCC 258, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that a tape recorded evidence can only be used as a corroborative piece of evidence. The substantive evidence in the form of deposition of the complainant/PW4 and the attendant circumstances are such that testimony of the complainant/PW4 was not accepted qua the demand and acceptance and therefore, the corroborative evidence is not much of help to the prosecution.
186. The voice examination report vide Ex.PW18/F could only have bearing, if substantive evidence is available on record and merely on the basis of the recorded conversation, the finding of guilt cannot be returned. As observed earlier, the relevant part of transcript as well as the audio recording does not make out the case for the demand.
187. In "Jai Narayan Vs. State", Crl. Appeal No. 259/2007 dated 06.09.2023, it was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that an offence under section 7 of PC Act could only be held to be proved when the prosecution establishes that there was demand CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 132 of 142 for illegal gratification. It was further held that the demand has to be of gratification and not merely a simple demand of money. The presumption under section 20 of PC Act can be invoked only, if the factum of demand is proved and an offence under section 7 of PC Act can be proved in the absence of testimony of the complainant, but the same is to be established by way of reliable cogent and trustworthy evidence on record.
188. It is a well settled law that in offences involving Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (As amended) and if the prosecution alleges that there was a demand and acceptance of bribe by the public servant, the acceptance of bribe by a public servant has to be established beyond doubt. In trap cases, the acceptance of the bribe amount is required to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and as such the prosecution is duty bound to prove the acceptance of the bribe amount and the consequent recovery of the bribe from accused A.M. Rao.
189. Complainant/PW-4 Shri Manoj Kumar has taken a vacillating stand during the trial and on one occasion, he gave a complaint that accused A.M. Rao was trying to approach him and when steps were further taken to provide adequate measure so that PW-4 is able to depose in free and fair manner, however, PW-4 stated that he does not wish to proceed further or to take any action. As already observed that neither accused A.M. Rao nor the prosecuting agency had provided enough material to CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 133 of 142 indicate either way by way of call detail report or any other evidence that accused had approached PW-4. More importantly, when PW-4 was cross-examined by Ld. Public Prosecutor after he was declared hostile, PW-4 made false allegations against the Ld. Public Prosecutor and an application to this effect was also rejected by the court. Given the conduct of PW-4/complainant during the course of the trial, his testimony is required to be treated with caution and to consider whether there is any other substantive evidence or circumstantial evidence to establish that there was a final demand of bribe of bribe on the day of trap. In Suraj Mal Vs. State Delhi Admn., MANU/SC 0268/1979, it was observed that it is well-settled that where witnesses make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witnesses.
190. In trap case, the testimony of a complainant/bribe giver is of utmost importance and his testimony is required to be corroborated through other evidence. In assessing the testimony of such a witness, the version offered by the witness after separating inconsistencies and exaggeration should be consistent, truthful and reliable. If complainant/PW1 had turned hostile then evidence of such a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole and the relevant part thereof which are admissible in law can be used both by prosecution and defence.
CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 134 of 142It is a well settled law that if there are some omissions/contradictions, the entire evidence cannot be disregarded (Vide C. Muniappan & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567). In the present case, PW4 Manoj Kumar had discarded the case of the prosecution on the material aspect of demand and acceptance. The testimony of PW4 is very crucial for the success of the case of the prosecution as no other witness i.e. CBI officials had witnessed the transaction of demand and acceptance. The case of the prosecution is further weakened by the fact that independent witnesses namely Lokendra and Monendra who were cited by the prosecution were witnesses to proceedings in other CBI case and one of the witness was cited as a witness in five to six cases, whereas PW5/Lokendra was cited as a witness in another CBI case, and both the independent witnesses were guarded in their testimonies in respect of number of the cases in which they were cited as a witness.
191. In view of the contradictory versions offered by PW4/Manoj Kumar and other independent witnesses namely PW5/Lokendra and PW17/Monendra, a substantial doubt has arisen with respect to the actual demand of bribe/undue advantage of the money and the acceptance and moreover, the recovery of money from the accused A.M. Rao is also shrouded with doubt.
192. Since the essential grounds of proof of demand, acceptance CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 135 of 142 and recovery is not established through sufficient and reliable evidence, therefore, presumption under section 20 of PC Act cannot be invoked. It is a well settled law that presumption under section 20 of the PC Act is a rebuttable presumption which can be rebutted by bringing into fore the facts and circumstances by way of cross-examination of the relevant witnesses and by leading defence evidence. In "B. Jayaraj Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 55", it is held:
"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 facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent."
193. Accused A.M. Rao took a plea in his statement, recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., to the effect that was falsely implicated in the present case since he did not register the mortgage deed because of insufficient documents by the complainant/PW4 Manoj Kumar in collusion with the CBI. It is also submitted that the facts of the case would reveal that the entire purpose of the trap was to implicate the accused A.M. Rao as the letter for sanction was issued by the Bank after presentation of the mortgage deed and loan was disbursed after CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 136 of 142 presentation of the mortgage deed. It is also contended that further facts of the case would show that in the present case, an amount of ₹9,000/- was being paid to the company of the complainant for the registration of mortgage deed and other deeds, whereas in the instant case, the amount of bribe was stated to be ₹10,000/- and a loan of Rs. One Lakh was being disbursed with a repayment tenure of 10 years and the same is not possible in ordinary course of nature and the loan was sanctioned after presentation of the mortgage deed.
194. The submissions are vehemently opposed by the Ld. PP for the CBI and it is submitted that if a public servant demands and accepts the bribe, no other facts are required to be established. It is also contended that it is a matter between the borrower and financier to determine in what mode and manner the documents are to be executed and on the said basis, no benefit could be given to the accused.
195. Perusal of Ex.PW7/B (D-14) was the information provided by IIFL Finance Ltd. in which vide Mark PW3/2, the final loan was sanctioned on 27.09.2022. It is also reflected from the documents presented for the registration that there was no sanction letter with respect to the grant of loan, although, this fact in itself is not sufficient to conclude anything in favour of the accused A.M. Rao. However, the fact that amount of ₹9,000/- was being paid for completing the work (vide CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 137 of 142 deposition of PW7) and the bribe of ₹10,000/- was proposed to be paid is little difficult to be believed.
196. Ld. PP for the CBI has relied upon Neeraj Dutta Vs. State Govt. Of NCT of Delhi, (2023) 2 SCR 997 (Two Judges Bench) and contended that in the absence of the direct evidence, the demand and acceptance can always be proved by other evidence such as circumstantial evidence. There is no cavil to the proposition as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which the ratio of the Constitutional Bench of the judgment of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2024) INSC 503:
(2023) 4 SCC 731 was followed. The bare perusal of the judgment as relied on behalf of the prosecution would reveal that in the said judgment, it was observed that no circumstances were brought on record to prove the demand for gratification and the case ended in acquittal. The demand and acceptance of a bribe can be proved by way of direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. In reference to the present case, the direct demand and acceptance of bribe was not established by the prosecution and in order to circumstantially establish the demand and acceptance of the bribe, the prosecution is duty bound to link all the chain of the circumstances, however, the same is not satisfied in the instant case and therefore, the judgment as relied is not of much help to the prosecution.
197. Ld. PP for the CBI has relied State of UP Vs. Zakaullah, (1997) Supp. 6 SCR and contended that in cases of bribery/trap, CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 138 of 142 the evidence of the police officer can be relied upon without corroboration and it cannot be rejected merely on the ground that police officer is interested in the success of the trap. The propostion of law as laid down in the referred judgment is the Law of Land and the court is bound to rely the same, however, the same is inapplicable in reference to the present case as essential ingredients of offence under section 7 of PC Act is required to be fulfilled by the prosecution. In the instant case, neither independent witnesses nor any police officer had witnessed the transaction of the demand and acceptance of bribe and, therefore, the judgment cited is not of much help to the prosecution.
198. Ld. PP for the CBI has relied upon Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, (2015) Part 1 SCR 504 and contended that even if the witness was declared hostile and re-examined, his evidence cannot be brushed aside and the absence of the explanation of the recovery of the currency notes would result in triggering of presumption under section 20 of PC Act. There is no disagreement with the proposition of law as contended by the Ld. PP for the CBI. In reference to the present case, the complainant/PW4 Shri Manoj Kumar did not support the case of the prosecution on the crucial aspect of demand and acceptance of bribe and that apart in the present case the recovery of the bribe amount is riddled with contradiction and therefore, the cited judgment is not of much help to the prosecution and is rendered on the basis of its peculiar facts. In trap cases, the prosecution is duty bound to explain the demand, acceptance and the consequent CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 139 of 142 recovery and any missing link would render the entire story of the prosecution doubtful.
199. Ld. PP for the CBI has relied upon Vidhya Rani Vs. State (Delhi Admn), Crl. Appeal No. 385/1997 decided on March 8, 2010 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which had referred paragraph no. 5 and 6 of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCC 217 and contended that not much importance should be given to the minor discrepancies in a given case. There is no dispute to the contention advanced by the Ld. PP for the CBI, a court while appreciating the deposition of witness or in terse deposition of the witnesses, ignores the discrepancies which are of trifle nature. However, when the testimony of the witness(s) or interse testimonies of the witnesses are such that discrepancies are so over powering which cannot be ignored then the referred judgment cannot be relied upon in view of the above detailed discussion.
200. It is a well settled law that in an offence triable under section 7 of PC Act, the accused is only required to probablise his defence either by cross-examining the witness or examining such witnesses to disprove the case of the prosecution. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand as the same is lacking in the present case and therefore, no presumption under section 20 PC can be drawn.
CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 140 of 142201. In "Sharad Birdhichand vs State of Maharashtra", AIR 1984 SC 1622, it was observed that the circumstances from wh ich the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. The court while laying emphas is on the above legal principle relied on a judgment of the Su preme Court in " Shiva Sahabrao Bobade and another v. Stateof Maharashtra", (1973) 2 SCC 793 where it was observ ed that "Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused m ust be and not merely may be guilty before a court can conv ict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.
202. In view of the above-mentioned discussion and taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, the benefit of doubt is given to the accused A.M. Rao as prosecution has failed to prove the charge framed against him and accordingly, accused A.M. Rao is acquitted of the offence under section Section 7 of PC Act.
203. The bail bond and surety of the accused Akey Manikyala Rao @ A.M. Rao stands discharged. Accused Akey Manikyala Rao @ A.M. Rao is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) with one surety of the like amount under section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023. (Corresponding section 437A Cr. PC).
CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 141 of 142204. Case property, if any, be destroyed as per rules. File be Digitally signed consigned to Record Room. by HASAN HASAN ANZAR (Announced in the open court Date:
today i.e. on 28.03.2025) ANZAR 2025.03.28
16:49:03
+0530
(Hasan Anzar)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-03,
District Court, RADC,
New Delhi/28.03.2025
CBI Vs. A.M. Rao Page 142 of 142