Delhi District Court
State vs . Jagdish Prasad on 14 December, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI B.R. KEDIA, SPECIAL JUDGE07
(CENTRAL), (PC ACT CASES OF ACB, GNCTD), DELHI
C.C.NO. : 19/13
Unique Case ID : 02401R0326992013
STATE VS. JAGDISH PRASAD
S/o Sh. Jansi Ram,
R/o Village Patan Ka Bass,
Tehsil & Police Station Rajgarh,
District Alwar, Rajasthan.
FIR NO. : 217/2011
U/S : 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988
P.S. : Gokul Puri, Delhi
Date of Institution 05.07.2013
Judgment reserved on 11.12.2013
Judgment delivered on 14.12.2013
JUDGMENT
1. The precise case of the prosecution is that the complaint dated 15.03.2011 which is Ex.PW19/A along with one CD as sent by C.C. No. 19/13 Page No. 1 of 25 the complainant Dr.Abdul Salam S/o Subhan Allah as addressed to the DCP, North East District, Delhi, was ultimately marked to the then SI Kalau Ali Khan posted at PG Cell, North East District for conducting Inquiry and after conducting the Inquiry, he prepared the Inquiry Report Mark PW17/A concluding therein that the allegations of the complainant regarding beating and false implication in the case by the Police, was found to be false but the CD attached to the complaint reflect about taking of money by the Police at the construction site. Thereafter, in pursuance of the Order dated 28.06.2011 as passed by the DCP, North East District, Delhi, copy of which is Ex.PW6/A for registration of the case on the said complaint of Dr.Abdul Salam, the then ACP Sheesh Ram posted at PG Cell, North East, Delhi, made endorsement Ex.PW21/A on the said complaint and got registered the FIR at PS Gokul Puri on dated 29.06.2011, copy of which is Ex.PW21/F and took up the Investigation.
2. During the course of Investigation, ACP Sheesh Ram/PW21 IO contacted the complainant Dr.Abdul Salam and seized one CD from him vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW19/B and prepared Site Plan Ex.PW21/B. IO recorded the statement of the relevant witnesses C.C. No. 19/13 Page No. 2 of 25 namely Dr.Abdul Salam, Inspector Karan Singh Rana, the then SHO, PS Gokul Puri, Ashraf Ali Siddiqui, Rizwan Ali and others. IO arrested the accused HC Jagdish Prasad vide Arrest Memo Ex.PW21/C and conducted his Personal Search vide Memo Ex.PW21/D and after obtaining the consent of the accused, obtained his sample voice at FSL, Rohini, vide Audio CD Mark SV1 & SV2 which were seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW10/A. During Investigation, the IO seized copy of Chitha dated 20.01.2011 of PS Gokul Puri vide Memo Ex.PW9/A. IO also seized DD No.7B dated 20.01.2011 and DD No.28B dated 20.01.2011 of PS Gokul Puri, copy of which are Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B. The voice sample of the accused as well as said CD were sent to FSL and subsequently, FSL Report Ex.PW21/E was obtained. IO also obtained the initial Inquiry Report Mark PW17/A. IO also obtained the Sanction for prosecution as against the accused Ex.PW20/A. IO on recording the statement of the relevant witnesses and after completion of the Investigation, prepared the chargesheet and filed in the court.
3. After compliance with the provision Under Section 207 of Cr. P. C. and after hearing both sides on the point of charge, charge for offence punishable U/S 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of C.C. No. 19/13 Page No. 3 of 25 Corruption Act, 1988 was framed against accused on 23.10.2013 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Thereafter, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined 21 prosecution witnesses namely HC Surender, the then MHC(M), PS Gokul Puri, a formal witness as PW1, HC Ashok Pal, the then MHC(M), PS Gokul Puri, a formal witness as PW2, HC Vinod Kumar, Driver from District Line North East, a formal witness as PW3, W/SI Sudershan, the then Duty Officer, PS Gokul Puri, a formal witness as PW4, HC Hemant from the Office of Addl. DCP, North East, Delhi, a formal witness as PW5, ASI Dhani Ram from the Office of the Addl. DCP, North East, Delhi, a formal witness as PW6, Inspector Tilak Chand, the then SHO, PS Gokul Puri, a formal witness as PW7, Ct.Abdul Ahad Khan, the then Chitha Munshi of PS Gokul Puri, a formal witness as PW8, Ct.Ami Lal from PG Cell, North East, a formal witness as PW9, Aftab Azhar, a formal witness as PW10, Ct.Rajinder Singh from PG Cell, North East, Delhi, a formal witness as PW11, Ct.Jitender Singh who had accompanied with the accused at the spot as PW12, Ashraf Ali Siddiqui as PW13, Inspector Karan Singh Rana, the then SHO, PS Gokul Puri, a formal witness as PW14, HC Vinod Kumar from the C.C. No. 19/13 Page No. 4 of 25 Office of DCP, North East as PW15, Rizwan Ali Siddiqui as PW16, the then SI Kalau Ali Khan from PG Cell, North East District as PW17, Ct.Satinder Singh from PS Govind Puri, a formal witness as PW18, Dr.Abdul Salam, complainant as PW19, ACP M.L.Sharma, Last IO as PW20 and ACP Sheesh Ram, Initial IO as PW21.
5. After closure of the PE, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which the accused denied about any demand and acceptance of the bribe from the complainant. Accused claimed to be falsely implicated in this case by the complainant.
6. I have heard Final Arguments as addressed by Sh. Yogesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused and Sh.I.U.H. Siddiqi, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and perused the relevant record.
7. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that this accused Jagdish Prasad is innocent and has neither demanded nor accepted any bribe from the complainant and prosecution has failed to prove about the said facts and hence this accused deserves to be acquitted. It is also added by Ld. Defence Counsel that there is no evidence regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.200/ as C.C. No. 19/13 Page No. 5 of 25 against this accused from the complainant. It is also added by Ld. Defence Counsel that one day when Ashraf Ali was returning from Loni Side on foot along with his Motorcycle as petrol was finished and on meeting the accused on the way, he had taken Rs.100/ from the accused as loan for purchasing petrol and thereafter, on that day i.e. 20.01.2011, the Ashraf Ali instructed his son Rizwan Ali to return back said amount of Rs.100/ to the accused at their construction site and said facts are also found supported even from the deposition of the Rizwan Ali, who is the son of the Ashraf Ali. Thus, Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the accused had received said amount of Rs.100/ from Rizwan Ali, son of the Ashraf Ali as per the instructions of the Ashraf Ali towards refund of the loan amount and not as any sort of bribe. It is also added by Ld. Defence Counsel that even PW19 Dr.Abdul Salam/complainant has not stated anything as against this accused regarding demand and acceptance of the bribe in his Complaint Ex.PW19/A nor has deposed regarding this aspect in the Court. It is also added by Ld. Defence Counsel that said PW19/complainant in his cross examination on behalf of the accused has clearly stated that he could not hear the conversation between the accused and Ashraf Ali and therefore, he cannot say for what purpose the money was paid to the accused. It is also added by Ld. Defence C.C. No. 19/13 Page No. 6 of 25 Counsel that PW12 Ct.Jitender Singh who had accompanied with the accused at the spot, has also not deposed regarding any demand or acceptance of bribe as against this accused. It is also added by Ld. Defence Counsel there is no reason as to why the Mobile phone of the complainant in which the complainant is alleged to have made the Video Recording of transaction of bribe, was not seized by the IO and therefore, the CD alleged to be given by the complainant cannot be looked into. It is also added by Ld. Defence Counsel that as Dr.C.P.Singh has not been examined as PW, his FSL Report cannot be looked into as against the accused. Thus, Ld. Counsel urged for the acquittal of this accused.
8. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution by examining 21 PWs have clearly established its case as against this accused and therefore, the accused deserves to be convicted for the charged offence. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the factum regarding carrying out of the construction by Ashraf Ali Siddiqui at his House and the factum regarding the acceptance of the money by the accused from Rizwan Ali as per instructions of his father Ashraf Ali Siddiqui on dated 20.01.2011, are not disputed but the accused has taken the stand that C.C. No. 19/13 Page No. 7 of 25 he has accepted the money towards refund of loan amount of Rs.100/ from Ashraf Ali Siddiqui which is found falsified from the contents of the said VCD Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 as delivered by the complainant to the IO as said VCD clearly reflect about the demand of bribe of Rs. 200/ by the accused from Ashraf Ali Siddiqui and acceptance of said amount by the accused from Rizwan Ali Siddiqui as per the instructions of Ashraf Ali Siddiqui. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that said facts are found corroborated even from the deposition of PW14 Inspector Karan Singh Rana, the then SHO and PW8 Abdul Ahad Khan, who has deposed regarding the contents of the said VCD after having seeing the same and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the case of the prosecution is also found corroborated from the FSL Report Ex.PW21/E which is duly admissible in view of Section 293 Cr.P.C. and mere fact that Dr.C.P.Singh has not been examined as PW, can be of no consequence. It is also added by Ld. Addl. PP that prosecution has been successful in establishing its case as against the accused for the charged offence and hence, he deserves to be convicted, accordingly.
9. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. C.C. No. 19/13 Page No. 8 of 25 Counsel for the accused that this accused Jagdish Prasad is innocent and has neither demanded nor accepted any bribe from the complainant and prosecution has failed to prove about the said facts and hence this accused deserves to be acquitted. It is also added by Ld. Defence Counsel that there is no evidence regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.200/ as against this accused from the complainant. It is also added by Ld. Defence Counsel that one day when Ashraf Ali was returning from Loni Side on foot along with his Motorcycle as petrol was finished and on meeting the accused on the way, he had taken Rs.100/ from the accused as loan for purchasing petrol and thereafter, on that day i.e. 20.01.2011, the Ashraf Ali instructed his son Rizwan Ali to return back said amount of Rs.100/ to the accused at their construction site and said facts are also found supported even from the deposition of the Rizwan Ali, who is the son of the Ashraf Ali. Thus, Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the accused had received said amount of Rs.100/ from Rizwan Ali, son of the Ashraf Ali as per the instructions of the Ashraf Ali towards refund of the loan amount and not as any sort of bribe. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the factum regarding carrying out of the construction by Ashraf Ali Siddiqui at his House and the factum regarding the acceptance of the money by C.C. No. 19/13 Page No. 9 of 25 the accused from Rizwan Ali as per instructions of his father Ashraf Ali Siddiqui on dated 20.01.2011, are not disputed but the accused has taken the stand that he has accepted the money towards refund of loan amount of Rs.100/ from Ashraf Ali Siddiqui, which is found falsified from the contents of the said VCD Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 as delivered by the complainant to the IO as said VCD clearly reflect about the demand of bribe of Rs.200/ by the accused from Ashraf Ali Siddiqui and acceptance of said amount by the accused from Rizwan Ali Siddiqui as per the instructions of Ashraf Ali Siddiqui. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that said facts are found corroborated even from the deposition of PW14 Inspector Karan Singh Rana, the then SHO and PW8 Abdul Ahad Khan, who has deposed regarding the contents of the said VCD after having seeing the same and there is no reason to disbelieve the same.
10. PW4 W/SI Sudershan has deposed that on 20.01.2011, she was posted as Duty Officer from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at PS Gokul Puri and had made departure entry of the staff. She further deposed that as per record, HC Jagdish Prasad, No.308/NE, has left for duty with Motorcycle No.DL 1SN 3762 (B92) at about 8:00 a.m. with Ct.Pramod Kumar, DHG and from 2:00 p.m. onwards Ct.Jitender C.C. No. 19/13 Page No. 10 of 25 joined duty with said HC Jagdish in place of Ct.Pramod and she had recorded the DD No.7B, copy of which is Ex.PW4/A and DD No.28 B, copy of which is Ex.PW4/B. The said deposition of PW4 W/SI Sudershan also found corroborated from the deposition of PW8 Ct.Abdul Ahad Khan who has deposed that he had worked as Chitha Munshi from 05.11.2010 to 05.05.2011. He further deposed that on 20.01.2011 he prepared Duty Roster of staff of PS Gokul Puri as per which HC Jagdish was assigned duty on Motorcycle bearing No.DL 1SN 3762 (B92) from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. His departure entry was made vide DD No.7B dated 20.01.2011. He further deposed that on the same day at about 3:10 p.m., DHG Jitender, No.2364 has also joined duty with said HC Jagdish as per DD No.28B. He further deposed that copy of Duty Roster dated 20.01.2011 which bears signatures of SHO at point A and of himself at point B is Ex.PW8/A. Thus, the deposition of PW4 W/SI Sudershan and PW8 Ct.Abdul Ahad Khan coupled with copy of DD No.7B dated 20.01.201 of PS Gokul Puri Ex.PW4/A and copy of DD No.28 dated 20.01.2011 of PS Gokul Puri Ex.PW4/B read with the deposition of PW12 Ct.Jitender, PW13 Ashraf Ali Siddiqui, PW16 Rizwan Ali Siddiqui and PW19 Dr.Abdul Salam, complainant establish about the presence of the accused HC Jagdish Prasad along with Ct.Jitender at the spot i.e. C.C. No. 19/13 Page No. 11 of 25 construction site at H.No.2212, Gali No.23, 33 Futa Road, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, New Mustafabad at about 4:00 p.m. on dated 20.01.2011.
11. PW19 Dr.Abdul Salam/complainant has deposed that he was having good relations with Ashraf Ali Siddiqui, who is residing in Gali No.23, New Mustafabad. He also deposed that said Ashraf Ali Siddiqui was raising construction at his House at Gali No.23, New Mustafabad and two Police Officials including the accused had demanded money from said Ashraf Ali Siddiqui probably on dated 20/21.01.2011. He further deposed that he was standing at a distance and several persons had gathered there and he was told that Police Officials had been demanding money for said construction work. Said PW19/complainant further deposed that one person had taken his Mobile phone and from said Mobile phone made recording of the Police Officials of taking money and he took back his Mobile phone after the recording. Said PW19/complainant further deposed that he got prepared the CD from the said recording. He has also stated that he had shown the recording from his Mobile phone to the SHO, PS Gokul Puri regarding illegal collection of money by his subordinate Police Officials, on which the SHO assured him that subordinate C.C. No. 19/13 Page No. 12 of 25 Police Officials would not repeat the same afterwards and requested him not to show the said recording to anyone. Said PW19/complainant has also narrated about the incident of dated 12.03.2011 and added that he prepared his Complaint Ex.PW19/A which bears his signatures at point A on all pages and gave the same to the Senior Police Officer and on the basis of complaint, FIR of the present case was registered. He has also deposed that he has given the CD containing the recording of taking the money by the accused, to the IO which was seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW19/B which bears his signatures at point A. Said PW19/complainant was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP on certain aspects in which he reiterated regarding acceptance of money by the accused from Rizwan Ali as he has deposed in this respect as under: "It is correct that Rizwan Ali had handed over some money to accused HC Jagdish Prasad which he kept in his pocket but I cannot tell the exact amount. It is correct that thereafter accused along with other police officials left the spot on his motorcycle."
12. Said PW19/complainant also added that he had handed over C.C. No. 19/13 Page No. 13 of 25 the CD along with the complaint to the police and has duly identified the CD taken out from the envelope available on the Judicial File as the same CD which was sent by him along with his complaint and bears his signatures at point A and said CD is Ex.P1. He denied the suggestion of Ld. Defense Counsel that he had not given any such CD to the police or that he had manufactured said CD to prove his defense. In the cross examination by Ld. Defense Counsel said PW19/complainant further added that he could not hear the conversation between the accused and Ashraf Ali Siddiqui and therefore, he could not say for what purpose the money was paid to the accused but volunteered that several persons had stated that money was paid to the accused for construction work.
13. From the perusal of the deposition of PW13 Ashraf Ali Siddiqui and his son PW16 Rizwan Ali Siddiqui, it is reflected that they have not supported the stand of the prosecution and were cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP and were confronted with the relevant portion of their earlier Police Statement. As PW13 Ashraf Ali Siddiqui has deposed that about 2 years back he was carrying out some construction work at his House and he knew accused as he was posted in their PS Gokul Puri and used to be on patrolling duty. He C.C. No. 19/13 Page No. 14 of 25 further deposed that one day while he was coming on foot along with his Motorcycle from Loni Side as petrol of his Motorcycle was finished accused met him on the way and he has taken Rs.100/ as loan from the accused for purchasing petrol and after taking petrol, he came back to his House. He further deposed that after some days he saw the accused near his House where construction was going on and asked him to take back his money and thereafter, stated his son Rizwan Ali to give Rs.100/ to the accused and left from there. He further deposed that one Police Official Home Guard has also accompanied with the accused at that time. He also added that he did not give any bribe to the accused. Said PW13 Ashraf Ali Siddiqui was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP and was confronted with the relevant portion of his earlier Police Statement Ex.PW13/A.
14. Similarly, PW16 Rizwan Ali Siddiqui who is the son of PW13 Ashraft Ali Siddiqui, is also found to have deposed in the line of deposition of his father. As he deposed that in January 2011, they were carrying construction work at their House bearing 2212/2213, Gali No.23, New Mustafabad. He further deposed that on 20.01.2011, the accused Jagdish Prasad came there and his father asked him to give Rs.100/ as he had taken from him for petrol. He further deposed C.C. No. 19/13 Page No. 15 of 25 that during conversation he was having fun with him by telling him that he would take Rs.200/ in place of Rs.100/ but ultimately he gave Rs.100/ to said Jagdish Prasad and thereafter, the accused left from there along with another Police Official who had accompanied him. Said PW16 was also cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP and was confronted with his earlier Police Statement Ex.PW16/A.
15. The aforesaid deposition of PW13 Ashraf Ali Siddiqui and PW16 Rizwan Ali Siddiqui to the effect that the accused Jagdish Prasad was paid Rs.100/ by Rizwan Ali Siddiqui on the instructions of his father Ashraf Ali Siddiqui towards refund of loan amount of Rs. 100/ as taken by Ashraf Ali Siddiqui earlier from the accused for purchase of the petrol, is found falsified from the contents of the VCD which is Ex.P1 as got prepared by PW19 Dr.Abdul Salam/ complainant on getting recorded the said transaction at the spot on that day i.e. 20.01.2011 through his Mobile phone which is also found corroborated even from the deposition of PW19/complainant as well as PW14 Inspector Karan Singh Rana, the then SHO, PS Gokul Puri as well as PW8 Ct.Abdul Ahad Khan. As PW8 Ct.Abdul Ahad Khan has deposed regarding his observation on seeing the said VCD as under: C.C. No. 19/13 Page No. 16 of 25 "IO of this case had shown a VCD to me in which HC Jagdish present in the court today, was standing at a construction site with his motor cycle and DHG Jitender was standing behind him. In the said VCD HC Jagdish was telling the public person that therefrom patrolling staff and the beat staff are entitled for their separate due but they themselves are also entitled for Rs.200/ as their due being patrolling staff by making gesture of raising two fingers in this respect (objected to). HC Jagdish was also seen stating that public person to give them at the time and to pay the beat staff later on. Thereafter, the said public person was seen paying something to HC Jagdish and he placed the same inside his pant pocket."
16. Similarly, PW14 Inspector Karan Singh Rana, the then SHO, PS Gokul Puri has deposed as under: "On 29.06.2011 I was posted as SHO, PS Gokul Puri. C.C. No. 19/13 Page No. 17 of 25 On that day, I was called by ACP, PG Cell Sh.Shish Ram for joining the Investigation. IO of the case showed me a CD given by Dr. Abdul Salam, on seeing the same I found accused HC Jagdish Prasad and DHG Jitender Kumar present at construction site and were talking to some one. Accused Jagdish Prasad was telling something by raising two fingers of his hand.
Thereafter, that person had given something to accused Jagdish Prasad................................................................................... In the said CD, accused Jagdish Prasad was telling that the amount of Beatwalas are separate and they are entitled for Rs.200/ accused was showing his two fingers in this respect. Accused Jagdish kept the thing given by the said person in his pocket.................................................. It is correct that in the said CD, I saw that the said boy gave some amount to HC Jagdish and he kept the same in his pocket (objected to by Ld. Defense Counsel)."
No doubt, Ld. Counsel for the accused has taken objection C.C. No. 19/13 Page No. 18 of 25 on the aforesaid deposition of PW8 as well as PW14 but both these PWs are found to have deposed regarding their observation on seeing the VCD being shown to them by the IO and therefore, I do not find any force in the objection of Ld. Counsel in this respect. I would like to add it that even during the course of perusal of the case file, I have also seen said VCD Ex.P1 as available on the case file after getting played on the Court Laptop and the same clearly displayed about the demand of bribe of Rs.200/ by the accused from Ashraf Ali Siddiqui and acceptance of the same from Rizwan Ali Siddiqui at the construction site.
17. From the perusal of the deposition of PW10 Aftab Azhar as well as PW21 ACP Sheesh Ram/IO, it is clearly reflected that the voice sample of the accused was taken at FSL, Rohini on dated 15.03.2011, vide two Audio CDs Mark SV1 and SV2 which were seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW10/A. As PW21/IO has deposed in this respect as under: "Thereafter, I moved the application for obtaining the voice sample of the accused. The accused was taken to the FSL, Rohini for taking the voice sample C.C. No. 19/13 Page No. 19 of 25 in the presence of two public witnesses, namely, Shaukat Ali and Aftab Azhar. The sample voice was recorded in the presence of the witnesses and thereafter two recorded CDs were given to me and the same was seized by me marked as SV1 & SV2 vide memo Ex.PW10/A. I also recorded the statement of Aftab Azhar and Shaukat Ali."
Said PW21/IO has duly identified the Audio Cassette Mark SV1 which was taken out from Parcel No.2 sealed with the seal of Dr.C.P.Singh, Delhi as the same having the voice sample of accused as taken at FSL and seized by him vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW10/A and said Audio Cassette is Ex.P3.
18. Similarly, PW10 Aftab Azhar has also deposed regarding the taking of voice sample of the accused at FSL, Rohini on dated 15.03.2011 as he has deposed in this respect as under: "On 15.3.2011, I joined the investigation of this case at the request of the IO. On that day, I along with C.C. No. 19/13 Page No. 20 of 25 Shaukat had gone to FSL, Rohini with IO where accused Jagdish (present in the court today) was also brought by some police officials where voice sample of accused Jagdish was taken by the FSL Official after obtaining his consent. He was given a paper and asked to read over the same. His voice was recorded in two Cassettes. Said Cassettes were taken into police possession through seizure memo after keeping in parcel. Seizure memo Ex.PW10/A bears my signatures at point A."
19. PW21/IO also has deposed that the voice sample of the accused was sent to FSL, Rohini for expert opinion and the opinion in this regard was received by him vide FSL Report Ex.PW21/E. Said FSL Report Ex.PW21/E in Para 3 state about the result of the examination/opinion as under: "On auditory analysis by critical listening and subsequent waveform and spectrographic analysis of the audio recording in video file, namely, "PS.3gp" in CD C.C. No. 19/13 Page No. 21 of 25 marked "Exhibit1", there is no indication of any form of alteration.
The auditory analysis of recorded speech samples of speakers marked "Exhibit Q1" & "ExhibitS1" and subsequent acoustic analysis of speech samples by using CSL (Computerize Speech Lab) revealed the the voice exhibits of speaker marked "Exhibit Q1" are similar to the voice exhibits of speaker marked "ExhibitS1 in respect of their acoustic cues and other linguistic and phonetic features."
OPINION: The voice exhibits of speakers marked "ExhibitQ1" and "ExhibitS1" are the voice of same person (i.e. Sh.Jagdish)."
20. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Defense Counsel that as Dr.C.P.Singh has not been examined as PW, his FSL Report cannot be looked into as against the accused. However, during the course of arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP that the case of the prosecution is found corroborated even from the FSL Report Ex.PW21/E which is duly admissible in view of C.C. No. 19/13 Page No. 22 of 25 Section 293 Cr.P.C. and mere fact that Dr.C.P.Singh has not been as a PW, can be of no consequence. From the perusal of the FSL Report Ex.PW21/E, it is clearly reflected that said Report is prepared by Dr.C.P.Singh who is Assistant Director (Physics), FSL, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and therefore, said FSL Report is per se admissible under Section 293 Cr.P.C. and mere fact that said Dr.C.P.Singh has not been examined as a PW, can be of no consequence and therefore, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Defense Counsel in this respect.
21. During the course of the arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Defense Counsel that there is no reason as to why the Mobile phone of the complainant in which the complainant is alleged to have made Video Recording of transaction of the bribe, was not seized by the IO and therefore, said CD alleged to be given by the complainant, cannot be looked into. From the perusal of the deposition of PW19 Dr.Abdul Salam/complainant, it is clearly reflected that he has deposed that one person had taken his Mobile phone and from said Mobile phone he made recording of the Police Official of taking money and thereafter, he has got prepared the CD from said recording. Said PW19/complainant has also deposed about sending a CD along with C.C. No. 19/13 Page No. 23 of 25 his Complaint Ex.PW19/A to the Senior Police Officer. He has also deposed that he has given the CD containing the recording of taking the money by the accused to the IO which was seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW19/B and bears his signatures at point A. Said part of deposition of PW19/complainant is found corroborated from the deposition of PW21 ACP Sheesh Ram/IO. Said PW21/IO has also deposed that he had not seized the Mobile phone from Dr.Abdul Salam as he had stated that said Mobile phone was damaged and missing. Thus, from the deposition of PW21/IO, it is reflected that no doubt the Mobile phone through which the recording regarding the transaction was made, was not seized by the IO from the complainant but since the VCD as got prepared from the said recording by the complainant is available on the record and was duly examined at FSL, Rohini vide FSL Report Ex.PW21/E, I am of the considered view that nonseizure of the Mobile phone from the complainant cannot be treated as fatal for the case of the prosecution nor it can be treated as a ground for throwing out the said VCD and therefore, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Defense Counsel in this respect.
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that the prosecution has successfully established its C.C. No. 19/13 Page No. 24 of 25 case for offence punishable U/S 7 and U/S 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as against the accused.
23. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that accused Jagdish Prasad is found guilty and convicted for offence punishable U/S 7 and U/S 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
24. Let this accused be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open court on this 14th day of December, 2013 (B.R. Kedia) Special Judge07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC, Delhi C.C. No. 19/13 Page No. 25 of 25