Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Lakhmi Chand Nagwan @ L.C. Sharma on 2 December, 2009
-1-
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRADEEP CHADDAH:
SPECIAL JUDGE: CBI-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT. DELHI
CC No. 41/08 RC 27(A)/06
PS: CBI, ACB, N.Delhi
U/s 7/13 P.C.Act
CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan @ L.C. Sharma
S/o. Sh. Shiv Narain Nagwan,
R/O 68 Extension, 2-B Nangloi,
Delhi.
(Then posted as Inspector, Factory
Licensing Department, MCD, Delhi.)
Date of Institution : 31.07.07
Judgment Reserved : 19.11.09
Judgment Delivered : 02.12.09
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Lakmi Chand Sangwan @ L.C. Sharma was charge sheeted u/s.7/13(2) r/w Sec.13(1) (d) of PC Act. Wheels of prosecution were set in motion after complainant Deshpal Yadav preferred a complaint against the accused before CBI on 4.7.2006. In his complaint complainant Mr. Deshpal Yadav stated that he was resident of Nangloi and was engaged in CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 1 of -2- property business in Bawana. Earlier he was engaged in welding business at RZ-1 Sayyed Nangloi, Delhi. He had already shut down the business. On 20.6.06 accused Lakhmi Chand Nangwan @ L.C. Sharma came to his house. He told him that he (complainant) was doing unauthorized business at his house. He threatened to get a MCD case registered against him and also to get him arrested. Accused then directed the complainant to visit him in his office. He also took mobile number of the complainant.
2. On 03.07.06 accused demanded Rs.5000/- from him and directed him to pay the same on 04.07.06. He threatened to get his property sealed in case demand is not complied with. Further accused asked him information about unauthorized industries which were running in the area. He told the complainant to provide list of such industries and collect monthly protection money from them. Accused left his mobile number with the complainant and told him to ring him up.
CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 2 of -3-
3. Complainant instead of complying with the demand preferred to make a complaint to the CBI.
4. Thereafter, trap was laid and accused was caught red handed with the bribe amount. After the investigation concluded the present charge sheet was filed by the CBI. In the charge sheet it was further mentioned that trap was laid on 04.07.06 and the accused was caught while accepting bribe of Rs.5,000/- at Wazwan Restaurant, Guru Harkishan Nagar, Paschim Vihar. Two independent witnesses namely Dayal Singh and Rajinder Prasad were present at that time.
5. On the basis of these ingredients, my learned predecessor framed the following charge:
Firstly, that on 3.7.06 you, while working as Inspector, Factory Licensing Department, MCD, Delhi, being a public servant demanded a sum of Rs. 5,000/-
CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 3 of -4- from the complainant Desh Pal Yadav as illegal gratification as motive or reward for the purpose of not registering the case against him for running unauthorised workshop at RZ- 1, Sayyed Nangloi, Delhi and further on 4.7.06 at Wazwan Restaurant, Guru Harkishan Nagar Opposite GH-14 Block, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, you in pursuance of the said initial demand, demanded and accepted sum of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant Desh Pal Yadav as illegal gratification as motive or reward for the above mentioned purpose, and thus, you thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within the cognizance of this court.
Secondly, that on 04.07.06 at CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 4 of -5- Wazwan Restaurant, Guru Harkishan Nagar Opposite GH-14 Block, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, you, in pursuance of the said initial demand, demanded and accepted sum of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant Deshh Pal Yadav by corrupt or illegal means; by abusing your position as a public servant for yourself without any public interest, and thus, you thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within the cognizance of this court.
And I hereby direct you to be tried by this court on the said charges.
6. After charge was framed, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 5 of -6-
7. Prosecution in support of its case examined 12 witnesses in all. Accused did not lead any evidence, though initially he had claimed that he would be leading evidence in defence.
8. PW1 was Mr. K.D. Ahlawat, (Retd.) Additional Commissioner MCD. He testified that in July '07 he was working as Additional Commissioner MCD. He was competent to remove an employee of a rank of Inspector. He granted sanction for the prosecution of the accused which was Ex.PW1/A. He further claimed that he had gone through the incriminating material and had also applied his mind. Upon being cross- examined, he denied the suggestion that he was not competent to accord sanction or that he had granted sanction without application of his mind.
9. The next witness to be examined by the CBI was Dr. Rajinder Singh, Principal Scientific Officer, CFSL. Dr. Singh claimed that he had examined more than 800 CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 6 of -7- cases involving more than 3000 persons in 20 years of his experience. He had received extensive training abroad. On 06.07.06 he had received three parcels from CBI vide letter Ex.PW2/A. He had tallied the seal on the parcel with the specimen seal which had also been forwarded. The parcels were Q-1, Q-2 & S-1. Parcels Q-1 & Q-2 contained normal audio cassette which had questioned voice of the recording and S-1 contained specimen voice recording of accused L.C. Sharma. He examined the questioned voice with the specimen voice recording contained in parcel S-1. He found that questioned voice in cassette Q-1 & Q-2 tallied with the specimen voice S-1. His report was Ex.PW2/B
10. Upon being cross-examined, he claimed that the specimen voice of the accused was not taken in his presence nor he had summoned the accused. He denied the suggestion that his report was incorrect.
CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 7 of -8-
11. Third witness to be examined by CBI was Mr.B.B. Ramtek. Mr. Ramtek claimed that he was Sr. Scientific Officer Gr.-II (Chemistry) at CFSL. On 06.07.06 two sealed bottles marked RHW & PW were received along with forwarding letter Ex.PW3/A. The bottles were in sealed condition. He tallied the seals with the specimen seal impression sheets. Washes from the two bottles were taken separately for presence of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate. Bottle Mark- RHW gave positive test for presence of Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate. Bottle Mark- PW gave positive test for presence of sodium carbonate and negative test for phenolphthalein. His report in this regard was Ex.PW3/C. He was cross- examined by learned PP wherein he admitted that in case quantity of phenolphthalein is very less then it is not possible to detect it by chemical analysis. He further admitted that due to passage of times the chemical degrades and may not give chemical results.
CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 8 of -9-
12. Upon being cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused, he claimed that he had himself done the analysis with the help of his assistants. He denied the suggestion that analysis had not been done properly and he got influenced by CBI while preparing his report.
13. Testimony of PW4 Mr. Dayal Singh is of importance. Mr. Dayal was Assistant Electoral Registration Officer. He claimed that on 04.07.06 on the directions of his officers, he along with LDC Rajender Prasad went to CBI office. They met Inspector Ahlawat over there. They were introduced to the complainant Desh Pal Yadav. His complaint Ex.PW4/A was shown to him. He also went through the complaint Ex.PW4/A. It was against L.C. Sharma, MCD Inspector who had demanded Rs.5,000/- as bribe from complainant.
14. Witness further claimed that complainant CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 9 of -10- produced five GC notes of Rs.1,000/- each. Their number were noted in handing over memo Ex.PW3/G. Other CBI officers were also present in the room. Some powder was applied on the notes and chemical demonstration was given in the CBI office. Rajender Prasad was directed to touch the notes and thereafter to wash his hands in colourless solution of sodium carbonate. When he did so, solution turned pink. It was then thrown away. Complainant was directed to dial mobile number of the accused. Conversation was recorded in a digital recorder. The same was played and heard by the team members. Conversation was transferred to blank audio cassette and their signatures were obtained on the cassette which was sealed in cloth wrapper. An extra copy of the cassette was prepared for the purpose of investigation. The powder treated notes were kept in the shirt pocket of the complainant. He was directed to handover the money on demand to accused. He was also permitted to keep a list of addresses of some premises in his pant pocket CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 10 of -11- for delivering it to the accused. He (PW4 Dayal Singh) was directed to act as a shadow witness. He was asked to remain close to the complainant. He was to hear the conversation and observe the transaction of bribe. Rajinder Prasad was directed to remain with the other team members. He (PW4 Dayal Singh) was directed to give a signal after transaction of bribe was completed. Pre-trap verification and conversation recording memo was prepared in CBI office. The same was Ex.PW4/B. Handing over memo prepared over there was Ex.PW4/C.
15. The witness deposed further that thereafter the team reached near the restaurant in Guru Harkishan Nagar, Paschim Vihar as the accused had directed the complainant to meet him near the restaurant. Thereafter, accused L.C. Sharma reached the spot in his white maruti car at about 5.30 p.m. He (PW4 Dayal Singh) along with complainant and the accused entered the restaurant. Accused asked the complainant to give CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 11 of -12- him the list. Complainant took out the list from his pocket and give it to the accused. Accused went through the list. Thereafter, he asked for the money upon which complainant took out the money from his shirt pocket and extended towards the accused. Accused took the same and kept it in his pocket. He thereafter gave pre appointed signal to the CBI team. The team rushed towards the spot and apprehended the accused by holding his wrists. They inquired from the accused whether he had accepted bribe of Rs.5,000/-. Accused then dropped the money. Rajinder Prasad then collected the scattered notes and tallied the same with the memo. Right hand wash of accused L.C. Sharma was taken in a colourless solution and it turned pink. The solution was preserved in a empty clean bottle and their signatures were obtained and the paper slip pasted on the same. Mouth of the bottle was also sealed with the cloth wrapper. The site plan Ex.PW4/D was prepared. Personal search of the accused was conducted. The CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 12 of -13- same was Ex.PW4/E. Recovery memo Ex.PW4/F was also prepared. Specimen seal impressions of the seal Ex.P-1 were taken on blank sheets. List of addresses which was handed over by the complainant to the accused was also seized. The same was Ex.PW4/G.
16. Witness further testified that the GC notes which had been recovered from the accused were Ex.P-2 to P-6. He claimed that wash bottles Ex.P-7 & P-8 also contained his signatures. Cassette mark Q-1 and cloth wrapper was shown to the witness who identified his signatures on them. The cassette was Ex.P-11 and its cloth wrapper was Ex.P-12. He also identified his signatures on Ex.P-13 & P-14 which were on cassette Q-2 and its cloth wrapper. Witness further identified his signatures on Ex.P-15 which was cassette S-1 containing sample voice and its cloth wrapper Ex.P-16.
17. Upon being cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused, he stated that complaint had been written CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 13 of -14- in his presence. A clerk of Sales Tax Department and 3-4 Officials of CBI were present over there. He further claimed that Complainant was having list of unauthorized factories which were running. The same was to be provided to the accused. The currency notes were kept in the front shirt pocket and the list was kept in the pant pocket. Currency notes and the list were to be delivered together. He further submitted that accused had reached the spot after 10/15 minutes of the telephone call. Both Complainant and the accused talked about going inside the restaurant. Lights of the restaurant had been switched on. The currency notes and the list were given separately simultaneously. Complainant had taken out the list and the currency notes simultaneously. CBI team was at the gate of the restaurant and were visible to him. Accused was apprehended about 5/6 paces inside the restaurant immediately after the transaction. He had thrown the currency notes. They were not wrapped in the list. The list also had been thrown along with the notes. He CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 14 of -15- denied the suggestion that accused had not demanded or accepted the bribe amount.
18. The next witness to be examined was Rajinder Parsad from Sales Tax Department. In his similar testimony he claimed that in January, 2006 he was working in ward no. 46 and 47, Sales Tax Department. On 04.07.06, he along with Dayal Singh went to CBI Office at the instance of their Controlling officers. They met inspector Parveen Ahlawat who introduced him to the complainant Desh Pal Yadav and other CBI team members. Complaint of Desh Pal Yadav was shown to them regarding demand of bribe by the accused. In order to verify the complaint, the complainant was asked to contact the accused on his mobile phone. The conversation was recorded in digital recorder. It was then transferred to two blank audio cassette. The cassette was sealed with the seal of CBI after obtaining their signature on the cassette and the cloth wrapper. The verification memo was also prepared which was CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 15 of -16- Ex.PW4/B. Complainant had produced 5 GC notes in the denomination of Rs. 1000/- each. Their number was noted down in the memo. Chemical demonstration was given and he (PW Rajender Parsad) was directed to touch those notes. Thereafter his finger was washed in some colourless solution which turned pink. The GC notes were kept in upper left side pocket of the complainant who was instructed to hand over the same on demand. List of addresses was kept in right side pant pocket. The digital recorder was played to ensure its blankness and thereafter introductory voice of him (PW5 Rajender Parsad) and Dayal Singh was recorded. Dayal Singh was instructed to act as a shadow witness and remain close to the complainant D.P. Yadav. He was further instructed to give signal whenever transaction took place. He (PW-5 Rajender Parsad) remained with other members of the team. They reached near Wazwan Restaurant. Accused, Complainant and Shadow witness Dayal Singh entered Wazwan restaurant, while they remained outside.
CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 16 of -17- Accused had reached the spot in his car. Upon receipt of signal from Dayal Singh, he along with the CBI officials entered the restaurant and intercepted the accused at the entrance. The accused was challenged and asked whether he had accepted the bribe. He kept mum and denied.
19. At the time when accused was challenged, he dropped the tainted money and the list which he was holding in his right hand. He (PW Rajinder Parsad) tallied the GC Notes with the memos. They were found to match. A solution was prepared and right hand finger of the accused were dipped and the solution turned pink. It was preserved and sealed in the empty bottles and the signatures were obtained on them. List of the addresses was also washed in a colourless solution which too turned pink.
20. Digital recorder which the complainant was carrying had recorded the conversation between CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 17 of -18- accused and the complainant. It was transferred to two blank audio cassette. One was sealed at the spot. Accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted. Rough site plan was also prepared at the spot.
21. The witness deposed further that he along with Dayal Singh visited CBI office on 05.07.06 and specimen voices of the accused was recorded in the cassette in his presence. The same was signed by them. The specimen voice recording memo is Ex. PW5/A. The witness claimed that he visited CBI Office again on 09.01.07. At that time, transcription of the conversation was prepared. The transcription was Ex. PW5/B and C. The transcription cum voice identification memo Ex. PW5/D was prepared which was duly signed by him. The currency notes P2 to P6 were the one which had been recovered at the spot. The witness thereafter deposed about the wash bottles, cassettes, cloth wrapper etc..
CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 18 of -19-
22. Upon being cross examined the witness claimed that at the time when he reached CBI Office, complainant already was there. He had with him a written complaint which was read over to him (PW5 Rajender Parsad) by the CBI Inspector. There he came to know that they had to go to Wazwan Restaurant. The list produced by the complainant was one page document. GC notes were folded in the list. He further admitted that complainant had telephonically talked to the accused as accused had not come at the scheduled time of 5.15 pm. He along with CBI team would have entered the restaurant within a minute of complainant and accused entered it. The bribe amount was lying inside the list. The washes were taken in the restaurant itself.
23. Upon being cross examined by Ld. PP the witness admitted that the GC notes were kept in the left upper pocket of the shirt and lists of industries were kept in the right side pant pocket. He further clarified CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 19 of -20- that the currency notes were kept in the list at the time when accused had accepted them from the complainant. He also admitted that he had correctly stated to the CBI that he along with PW Dayal Singh had visited CBI Office on 05.07.06 when specimen voice of the accused were recorded. He had mistakenly deposed in his cross examination that accused was never called to CBI Office. In fact, specimen voice recording of the accused was done in their presence. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
24. Next witness to be examined by the CBI was S.I. Praven Ahlawat. He testified that on 04.07.06 he was working as inspector in CBI on deputation. On that day he had been called by SP Bhupender Kumar and introduced to the complainant D.P. Yadav. The complaint was given to him to verify and lay the trap. Ex. PW6/A was the FIR which contained signatures of Mr. Bhupender Singh.
CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 20 of -21-
25. Witness deposed further that he called two independent witness from Sales Tax Department namely Dayal Singh and Rajender Parshad. He also called other CBI officers. Complainant was introduced with the trap team. The complaint was regarding demand of bribe by the accused. Complainant was called upon to contact the accused on his mobile phone. The conversation was also digitally recorded. It was transferred to blank audio cassette marked as Q-1. Signatures of both the witnesses were obtained on the cassette. Cassette was then sealed in the cloth wrapper and signatures of the witnesses were obtained on them. Extra copy of the cassette was prepared for investigation purposes. Further he deposed that complainant had produced 5 GC notes of Rs. 1,000/- each. Their numbers was recorded in the handing over memo. Chemical demonstration was given by Inspt. Shyam Parkash. Thereafter Rajender Parsad was called upon to touch them. His fingers turned pink after CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 21 of -22- being washed in solution of sodium carbonate. The solution was thrown away. Powder treated notes were kept in T-shirt pocket of the complainant. He was allowed to retain list of addresses which had been requested by the accused. List had been kept in the left side pant pocket. A digital voice recorder, blank cassette and compact cassette recorder were arranged. The functioning of the instrument was explained by inspector Prem Nath. All team members washed their hands with soap and water. Dayal Singh was instructed to act as a shadow witness for hearing conversation. He was also called upon to flash signal by scratching his head. Rajender Parsad was directed to remain with other trap team members. Thereafter they left for the spot near Wazwan restaurant Paschim Vihar. Accused failed to reach there at the stipulated time. Complainant was asked to contact the accused. He informed that he would arrive at about 7.00 pm. Accused came in a white Maruti Zen car. Complainant and Dayal Singh went to him and thereafter all three of CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 22 of -23- them entered the restaurant. The witness deposed further that thereafter they observed that all three of them were going to come out of the restaurant and Dayal Singh had flashed the signal. They intercepted the accused on the gate of the restaurant. They introduced themselves and challenged the accused. Accused was carrying a paper in his right hand. The moment accused was challenged, he dropped the paper which he was holding. Money got scattered on the floor. It had come out of the paper. PW Rajender Parsad collected the money and tallied the same with handing over memo. Complainant then informed him ( PW-6 SI Praven Ahlawat) that during conversation accused had demanded list and the money. Complainant then took out the list from his pant pocket and handed it to the accused who went through it. He demanded money. Complainant took out money from his T-shirt pocket and extended it towards the accused. Accused directed the complainant to put the money in the list of address. It was that list which contained CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 23 of -24- money which was in the hands of the accused when he was challenged. Right hand wash of the accused was taken. The solution turned pink. It was poured in bottle. Mouth of the bottle was sealed with the seal of CBI and signatures of both the independent witnesses were obtained on the cloth wrapper and the paper slip marked RHW was pasted on it. Blank portion of the paper was also washed which also turned pink. The solution was similarly preserved and marked PW. Digital recorder was taken away from the complainant. It carried telephonic conversation which had taken place. There was no spot conversation as according to the complainant, he could not switch on the digital recorder. The accused was arrested and his personal search memo Ex. PW4/E was prepared. Recovery memo running into 8 pages contained his signatures at point D and the same was Ex. PW4/F.
26. On the next date specimen voice recording of the accused was taken in presence of independent CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 24 of -25- witnesses. The cassette was marked S1. Signatures of both the witnesses were obtained and it was sealed in a cloth wrapper. Seal after use was handed over to PW Dayal Singh. Questioned cassette and specimen were sent to CFSL. Similarly washes marked RHW and PW were forwarded. Investigation thereafter was handed over to SI R.K. Shivanna on the directions of SP. The GC notes which had been recovered were P-2 to P-6.
27. In his cross examination, he claimed that the conversation between complainant and the accused had taken place between 3 or 3.30 pm in the CBI Office. He denied the suggestion that accused had refused to accept bribe money. He further denied that there was no demand of money by the accused and he had merely asked for information. He admitted that no pocket wash of the T-shirt of the complainant was taken. He also denied the suggestion that GC notes were kept inside the list to falsely trap the accused. He further admitted that there were two persons present CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 25 of -26- inside Wazwan restaurant. He volunteered that the restaurant was not functioning at that time. He admitted that no employee of wazwan restaurant was appraised of the raid nor was made to join the proceedings. He submitted further that complainant was standing opposite to the restaurant when accused reached there. Dayal Singh along with complainant had gone inside the restaurant and were visible to them from the spot where they were standing outside. He further admitted that he had no personal knowledge as to what all transpired inside the restaurant. Main gate of the restaurant was not bolted but the same was closed. He further admitted that he and Inspector Umesh entered the restaurant after waiting outside for about 5 minutes. He denied the suggestion that he was unable to see the GC notes because of darkness. He further denied the suggestion that GC notes were wrapped in the list from the very beginning and had been kept in the pocket of trousers at the office of CBI.
CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 26 of -27-
28. Thereafter CBI examined S.C. Bhardwaj as PW-
7. Mr. Bhardwaj testified that he was working as SDM Punjabi Bagh in the year 2006. He was also looking after polluting Industries which were running in violation of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. He had been provided with services of accused L.C. Sharma on part time basis. He was to assist him in addition to h is regular duties as Factory Licensing Inspector. The joining report of the accused was Ex. PW7/A. He deposed further that complaint of the complainant R. Yadav dt. 30.05.06 had been marked to the accused for verification. The said complaint was Ex. PW7/B. Subsequently upon visit to the area, he did not find any factory running in the premises. He admitted in his cross examination that nobody had complained against the accused to him.
29. Thereafter complainant of this case Desh Pal Yadav entered the witness box. In his testimony which is of utmost importance to the fate of the case, he CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 27 of -28- testified tht in 1992-1993 he was doing job of wielding at RZ-1 Sayed Nangloi, Delhi. He had shut down the business around the year 2000. He testified further that on 20.06.06 Inspector L.C. Sharma of MCD came to his house. He told him that his premises would be sealed and MCD shall take action against him as he was unauthorizedly doing business at RZ-1 Sayeed Nangloi. He asked him to contact him at his office. Subsequently on 2/3 occasion accused L.C. Sharma telephoned and asked him (PW Deshpal Yadav) to meet him. He met him in SDM's office on 03.07.06. Accused asked him to provide him with the list of illegal factories which were running in Village Sayyed Nangloi. Further accused demanded bribe of Rs.5,000/- for not sealing his premises and for not taking action against him. He directed him to pay Rs.5,000/- and also provide list of factories on 04.07.06. Thereafter complaint was made by him (PW Deshpal Yadav) to CBI. He testified further that he produced 5 GC notes of Rs.1,000/- each in the office of CBI. Some powder was applied on the notes CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 28 of -29- and demonstration was given by the witness. Number of GC notes were noted down on a sheet of paper. The currency notes were kept in his upper pocket of T-shirt. He was directed to hand over the notes to the accused. He also carried with him list of factories prepared by him which were running unauthorizedly in the village. A recording device was also clamped in his pocket. He was directed to switch it on before contacting the accused.
30. They then reached Wazwan restaurant along with independent witnesses and 5/6 CBI team members. The venue had been fixed in telephonic call between him and the accused. The witness Dayal Singh was directed to remain close to him. Accused did not reach the spot at the stipulated time and so he (PW Deshpal Yadav) called him on his mobile. Accused came at about 7.15/7.30 pm in a white Zen Car. He along with the accused and Dayal Singh went inside the restaurant. Dayal Singh stood at the open gate of the CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 29 of -30- restaurant. Accused asked him whether he had brought the "Saman". Accused then told him "Doo". He (PW D.P. Yadav) then extended the bribe amount and the list towards him. Accused took the list while the bribe amount fell on the ground. CBI team which was standing outside the restaurant then came in and apprehended the accused. The bribe amount which had fell on the spot was picked up by witness Rajinder. They were the same currency notes which were handed over to the accused. He claimed that list Ex. PE4/G was the same list which was handed over by him to the accused. Ex. P-2 to P-6 were the same currency notes which he handed over to the accused along with the list. Then he deposed about various memos.
31. The witness was then cross examined by Ld. Public Prosecutor wherein he claimed that he was doing property dealing business. His old sign board was hanging on his welding shop. He admitted that CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 30 of -31- accused had come to him after seeing the sign board. He admitted that accused had threatened to get MCD case registered against him and would get the premises sealed. He further admitted that accused had provided him his mobile number and directed him on 03.07.06 to come with the list of factories and bribe amount of Rs. 5,000/-. He further admitted that on the direction of CBI he had contacted the accused on his mobile phone and the conversation was recorded. He denied the suggestion that after entering the hotel, accused had asked him to hand over the list. He then claimed that he did not remember whether accused after perusing the list demanded bribe from him. He volunteered that he extended list and bribe amount together to the accused. He further claimed that he did not remember if accused had started moving outside the hotel while holding bribe amount folded in white paper in his right hand. He claimed that he did not remember whether solution had turned pink after fingers of the accused were dipped in it. He did not remember if the paper on CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 31 of -32- which list of industries was written was washed in freshly prepared solution and its colour also turned pink. He claimed further that he did not remember if the site plan was prepared by CBI at the spot and bribe amount of Rs.5,000/-, two sealed bottles, white paper containing list of industries and sealed cassette were taken in possession by Inspector Parveen Ahlawat. He further claimed that he did not remember whether car of the accused was searched and documents were seized from it. However he admitted that on 09.01.07 when he was called to CBI Office, witness PW Dayal Singh and Rajinder Prasad were present over there and in their presence audio cassette was played and he had identified telephonic conversation between him and the accused which had been recorded on 04.07.06. He denied the suggestion that he had been won over by the accused and so he was not correctly disclosing the facts. Upon hearing the recorded conversation, the witness admitted that it contained his voice and that of the accused. He further admitted that transcription Ex.
CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 32 of -33- PW5/B and PW5/C were correctly prepared. The said transcription were of conversation between him and the accused on 04.07.06. The 1st conversation had taken place from CBI Office while the 2nd one from Wazwan restaurant. Upon being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused, he claimed that he did not remember whether he had met the accused prior to 20.06.06. He further admitted having told the accused that he was having Rs. 5,000/- with him upon which accused had remarked " Uski Koi Baat Nahee Hai, Pahele Mujeh List Chahiye". He denied the suggestion that accused had not uttered a word " Pahele". He further claimed that there were one or two employees in the restaurant at that time. He denied the suggestion that it was dark. He finally denied the suggestion that accused had not telephoned him and that he had falsely implicated the accused. He also denied the suggestion that accused had never demanded any bribe on 03.07.06 or thereafter.
CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 33 of -34-
32. CBI thereafter examined SI R.K. Shivanna as PW-9. Mr. Shivanna testified that investigation of the case was handed over to him by SP CBI on 13.07.06. He received the file from Inspector Parveen Ahlawat and other records. He recorded statement of few witnesses, collected documents from Mobile companies and Office of SDM Punjabi Bagh and MCD. He collected FSL report and obtained saction order and filed charge sheet. He also recorded transcription cum voice identification memo. He had seized documents regarding joining report of the accused and the complainant dt. 30.05.06 addressed to Dy. Commissioner (west) which had been endorsed to accused by SDM vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/B. Upon being cross examined, he denied the suggestion that there was no handing over and taking over between him and Inspector Praveen Ahlawat. He claimed that he did not remember the date on which he had collected report from CFSL. He denied the suggestion that he had obtained signatures of complainant on blank paper CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 34 of -35- and then manipulated his statement. He denied the suggestion that he did not carry out fair investigation.
33. PW Tej Pal Gupta was the next witness to be examined by CBI. He testified that in July 2006 he was posted in Factory Licensing Department. Accused was posted as Head clerk (Factory Licensing Department). He also used to write his name as Mr. L.C. Nagwan. Attendance register maintained in the department was Ex. PW10/A. As per entries of Pg. no. 55, accused had attended factory licensing office in the morning on 04.07.06. The office order Ex. PW10/C was dated 03.05.06. Vide this order accused was attached to SDM Punjabi Bagh's Office. He had joined SDM Office on 05.05.06.
34. CBI thereafter examined Mr. Pawan Singh. Mr Singh testified that on 21.07.06, he was posted as Nodal Officer in Idea Cellular Ltd. He had forwarded to CBI call details of Mobile no. 9891077400 Ex. PW14/B. CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 35 of -36- It was in 19 sheets. It was in the name of Lakhmi Chand Sharma S/o Late Sh. Shiv Naryan Sharma R/o H.No. 68, Extn. 2-B. Nangloi. It was for the period 20.06.06 to 04.07.06. It was forwarded to CBI vide letter Ex. PW14/A.
35. The last witness to be examined by the CBI was Mr. Dharamvir Bansal. Mr. Bansal testified that he had a Mobile connection no. 9811258672. The said phone remained with him for about a month. Thereafter he gave this number to his friend Sh. Desh Pal Yadav. The application form for the connection was Ex. PW15/A. I- card and photograph submitted for the connection was Ex. PW15/B.
36. After closing of CBI evidence, statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused was recorded wherein he denied case of the prosecution in toto. He claimed that tainted money was wrapped in the list to falsely implicate him. He threw them down upon finding CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 36 of -37- currency notes kept in the list. He claimed that PWs had falsely deposed against him at instance of CBI. He had never demanded or accepted bribe.
37. I have heard Sh. V.K. Sharma Ld. Sr. PP for CBI and Ld. Counsel for the accused at length.
38. According to Ld. Counsel for the accused, accused had been falsely implicated. There was no occasion for him to demand any bribe because complainant was not doing any unauthorized business in the premises. Further Ld. Counsel for the accused claimed that as per complaint Ex. PW4/A accused had met complainant on 03.07.06 and had demanded bribe. So according to Ld. Counsel, prior to 03.07.06 complainant did not have mobile number of the accused with him. But according to call details complainant did possess mobile number of the accused and he also used to ring up accused. So according to Ld. Counsel, complainant was not speaking the truth CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 37 of -38- and his testimony should be discarded.
39. Moreover, according to Ld. Counsel for the accused, according to Ex. PW4 Dayal Singh, bribe money had been kept in the pocket of T-shirt of the complainant and list of industries in his pant pocket for being delivered to the accused. After the money was given to the accused, he kept it in his pant pocket. This was not the case of CBI. So according to him, his client was entitled to be acquitted.
40. He relied upon large number of judgments. I have gone through them. But I am unable to appreciate as to how they are attracted to the facts of th is particular case.
41. If we take a look at the transcript of the conversation which had taken place between accused and the complainant, it becomes amply clear that indeed accused had demanded Rs. 5,000/- and also list CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 38 of -39- of industries which were functioning illegally in the area. If we take a look at the 1st transcript of conversation which had taken place from CBI's office on 04.07.06, we find that complainant had told the accused that his Rs. 5,000/- was ready. I would reproduce the exact words used by the complainant and the accused as follows:
C. Accha Saheb wo aapke 5000 rupey jo aapne kahe the, wo bhi taiyaar kar rakhe wo bhi A. Aji wo uski baat nahin hai C. Accha.
A. uskeliye nahin
C. Tho
A. Pahele muje wo chahiye wo information phir
uske baad
42. Had accused not demanded Rs. 5,000/- he would have confronted the complainant as to which money he is talking about. He would have retorted. He made it very clear that he not only wanted information but also CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 39 of -40- money. No normal person who is offered money would take the offer causally. There can be only one circumstance in which such a person will not get agitated and will not retort and that is when he himself had demanded money. Otherwise such a person would invariably tell the caller as to what he is talking about and what is this story of Rs. 5,000/-. If we read both the transcripts it becomes more clear that indeed demand for money had been there. In the transcript accused said "Phir uske baad". It means that he wanted not only list but something more thereafter. Moreover if there was no demand of money and only information was required from the complainant, there would have been no need to call him to Wazwan restaurant merely for seeking information. According to Ld. Counsel for the accused the shadow witness had claimed that transaction had taken place at about 5.30 pm. According to him, the transaction had allegedly taken place at about 7.00 pm. To my mind, this hardly matters. In the testimony witness had not categorically CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 40 of -41- stated that time was 5.30 pm. He had stated that it might be 5.30 pm and moreover he did not remember the exact time.
43. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the currency notes were wrapped in the list and when PW-5 picked up the bribe amount, it was inside the list. So according to Ld. Counsel, accused had not touched the money. I am afraid it is not so. Accused in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. had stated that complainant had handed over him list of unauthorized factories. The list was folded.
There were currency notes in the list and he threw them down on the floor. If accused had not touched the currency notes, there was no occasion for the sodium solution to have turned pink after fingers of the accused were dipped in it. The list was never coated with phenolphthalein powder. It was G.C. Notes which had been treated.
44. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 41 of -42- independent witness were available in the restaurant but they were not joined in the proceedings and so this casts doubts on the prosecution story. To my mind, there was no need for the trap team to have joined other people who were present in the restaurant. The team had been formed in the CBI Office. They were armed with two independent witnesses who had been briefed about their roles before they left for the spot. So there was no need for them to have invited other persons. This was the trap laid to catch corrupt government official. It was not usual run of the mill criminal case investigated by local Police. Ld. Counsel for the accused also submitted that complainant was accompanied by shadow witness and it was unlikely that accused would have accepted money in presence of shadow witness. I find nothing strange in it. Bribe seekers have become very bold. We can see payment of bribes openly taking place on the roadside and traffic policemen taking money without batting an eye lid, and even acknowledging receipt of bribe in note book of CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 42 of -43- blue line buses and chartered buses.
45. Ld. Counsel for the accused had relied upon AIR 1977 Supreme Court 666. I have gone through the same. In the above case, accused was not the bribe seeker he was an innocent courier on behalf of one Gupta a DESU inspector. Ld. Counsel had also relied upon AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1455. The same also does not apply to the facts of the case because accused in the said case admitted having received Rs. 5 but he took up the defence that it was balance amount from Rs. 10 which he had already paid to the complainant after consuming juice. In 1992 Crl. Law Journal 490 Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the witnesses who formed part of the raiding party were not independent. It is not the case in hand. Here accused belonged to MCD while witnesses were from the Sales Tax Department.
46. I have also gone through AIR 1986 Supreme CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 43 of -44- Court 307 and AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1538. In the said case, accused had claimed that complainant had tried to thrust money in his pocket and he had thrown down the money on the floor. The version of the accused had been supported by the prosecution witnesses.
47. Here as I have already observed demand of money already had been made by the accused. It is true that there are some contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses but such contradiction are bound to occur in the testimony of independent witnesses and official witnesses.
48. PW Praveen Ahlawat in his cross examination had claimed that complainant along with the accused and independent witness had gone inside the restaurant and they were not visible to them as gate of the restaurant was closed. PW Rajender Prasad in his cross examination claimed that the restaurant was CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 44 of -45- open. He had also claimed that accused was intercepted on the entrance of the restaurant. As per testimony of complainant it seems that door of restaurant was open as after accepting the payment of bribe they were coming out when accused was nabbed. So, it indicates that after the transaction when all three of them were coming out of restaurant, accused was intercepted at the gate.
49. In case titled as Jayasedan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Manu/SC/0168/2009, My Lord Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Mr. Justice A.K. Ganguly held:
" It is the duty of the Court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found deficient."
CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 45 of -46-
50. In case titled as Krishna Mochi Vs. State of Bihar (2002) 6 S.C.C. pg. 81 had held that minor contradictions should be ignored. His lordship had held:
".......The Court while appreciating the evidence should not loose sight of these realities of life and can not afford to take an unrealistic approach by sitting in an ivory tower. I find that in recent times the tendency to acquit an accused easily is galloping fast. It is very easy to pass an order of acquittal on the basis of minor points raised in the case by a short judgment so as to achieve the yardstick of disposal. Some discrepancy is bound to be there in each and every case which should not weigh with the Court so long it does not materially CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 46 of -47- affect the prosecution case. In case discrepancies pointed out are in the realm of pebbles, the Court should tread upon it, but if the same are boulders, the Court should not make an attempt to jump over the same."
51. In an earlier decision, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Gura Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (2001) 2 S.S.C 205 it was held:
" From the above conspectus, it merges clear that even in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross examined and contradicted with the leave of the Court, by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for the judge of fact to consider in each case whether CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 47 of -48- as a result of such cross examination and contradiction, the witness stand thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. If the judge finds that in the process, the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, he may, after reading and considering the evidence of the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of the other evidence on the record, that part of his testimony which he finds to be creditworthy and act upon it. If in the given case, the whole of the testimony of the witness is impugned, and in the process, the witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the judge should as a CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 48 of -49- matter of prudence, discard his evidence in toto."
52. In case tilted as Hazari Lal Vs. State: AIR 1980 SC 878, scooter rickshaw of complainant was impounded by the accused policeman. He demanded Rs.60/- to release it. Complainant PW3 made a complaint . A raiding party was organized. It arrested the accused. Accused took out money from his pocket and flung in across the wall into adjoining room. GC notes were collected from the said adjoining room. The sodium carbonate solution turned pink after hands of the accused, his handkerchief and pant pocket were dipped in it. During trial complainant PW3 turned hostile. He deposed that some Hawaldar had demanded bribe and not the accused. He also deposed in the court that accused had refused to take money and had jerked his hand. He claimed that accused never demanded or accepted any money. He further CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 49 of -50- deposed that accused had refused to take any bribe.
Out of two panch witnesses one became insane and other only partly supported the prosecution. He was declared hostile. Only IO PW8 supported prosecution. My Lord Mr. Justice R.S. Sarkaria and My Lord Mr. Justice S. Chinnappa held:
" We are not prepared to accept submission of Mr. Frank Anthony he is the very police officer who laid the trap should be sufficient for us to insist upon corroboration. We do wish to say that there is no rule of prudence which has crystallized into a rule of law, nor indeed any rule of prudence, which requires that the evidence of such officers should be treated on the same footing as CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 50 of -51- evidence of accomplices and there should be insistence on corroboration. In facts and circumstances of a particular case a court may be disinclined to act upon the evidence of such an officer without corroboration, but equally, in the facts and circumstances of another case, the court may unhesitatingly accept the evidence of such a officer. It is all a matter of appreciation of evidence and on such matters there can be no hard and fast rule, nor there can be any precedential guidance".
Also held:
" The respectability and the veracity of a witness is not necessarily dependent upon his status in life and CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 51 of -52- we are not prepared to say that clerks are less truthful and more amenable than their superior officer"
Also held :
" It is not necessary that the passing of money should be proved by direct evidence. It may also be proved by circumstantial evidence. The events which followed in quick succession in the present case lead to only inference that the money was obtained by the accused from PW3".
53. After making complaint Ex. PW4/A and getting the accused arrested complainant probably started having second thought. He did not support prosecution completely. He started getting bouts of amnesia. He remembered having signed various papers but forgot as to where he had signed them. However in parts, he CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 52 of -53- admitted certain things which are very crucial. He stated that after he had entered the restaurant, L.C. Sharma accused asked him whether he had brought the "Saman". Thereafter complainant claimed that he extended the bribe amount and the list towards the accused. There would have been no occasion for the accused to have used the word "Saman". Had it not been a joint demand for list and money, he could have simply asked for the list. Upon being cross examined by Ld. PP, complainant admitted that accused had asked him for list of industries and also Rs. 5,000/-.
54. Whenever witnesses started giving contradictory statements or do not support prosecution completely and turn hostile then their entire testimony is not to be thrown away. Court must try to separate grain from the chaff and rely on that part of testimony which is trustworthy and reliable.
55. It is no doubt true that complainant had turned CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 53 of -54- hostile and did not support prosecution completely but
1. He admitted that accused had come to him.
2. He admitted that accused had threatened him with prosecution and sealing.
3. He admitted that accused had demanded Rs.5,000/-.
4. He admitted having making complaint to CBI.
5. He admitted providing currency notes on which power was applied.
6. He admitted that witness was made to touch the notes and the solution turned pink.
7. He admitted having telephonic conversation with the accused.
8. He admitted that accused had CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 54 of -55- asked for "Saman".
9. He admitted that he had extended bribe amount to the accused.
56. There might be some contradiction but still on all major portions, complainant had admitted CBI's case. The independent witnesses who were accompanying the team were from different departments and were not related or known to either party. It is also not case of the accused that he was on enimical terms with any member of the raiding party. Had accused not demanded Rs.5,000/-, there was no occasion for complainant to extend Rs.5,000/- towards accused. Complainant was not standing in temple and accused was not deity and so complainant should not have extended any money.. So to my mind, CBI has been successful in proving its case against the accused L.C. Sharma @ L.C. Nagwan that on 03.07.06 while working as Factory Licensing Inspector MCD, he sought illegal CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 55 of -56- gratification of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant D.P. Yadav for not registering case against him. It further stands established that he had accepted Rs. 5,000/- on 04.07.06 at Wazwan restaurant, Paschim Vihar from the complainant D.P. Yadav.
57. I therefore, convict him Under Section 7 and 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Announced in open Court on December 2, 2009. ( PRADEEP CHADDAH ) Special Judge:CBI-01 Central District. Delhi CBI Vs. Lakhmi Chand Nagwan pg 56 of