Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Sompal Singh on 12 December, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI B.R. KEDIA, SPECIAL JUDGE07
(CENTRAL), (PC ACT CASES OF ACB, GNCTD), DELHI
C.C.NO. : 06/12
Unique Case ID : 02401R0575032011
STATE VS. 1. SOMPAL SINGH
S/o Sh. Asha Ram,
R/o H.No. G46A,
Ganga Vihar, Delhi.
2. BALRAJ SINGH
Sh. Sheetal Singh,
R/o Vill & PO Nistoli,
PS Sahibabad,
Distt. Gaziabad, U.P.
FIR NO. : 45/2009
U/S : 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988
P.S. : Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi
Date of Institution 09.12.2011
Judgment reserved on 12.12.2012
Judgment delivered on 12.12.2012
C.C. No. 06/12 Page No. 1 of 19
JUDGMENT
1. The precise case of the prosecution is that on dated 18.12.2009 the complainant Rajudin S/o Abdul Latif came to Anti Corruption Branch and got lodged his Complaint Ex.PW4/A before the Inspector Naresh Kumar, IO/PW22 in the presence of Panch witness Yogesh Kumar regarding demand of bribe of Rs.30,000/ by the accused HC Sompal Singh and Ct.Balraj Singh who were posted in Special Staff, South East District, Delhi for releasing Rajudin and Narender.
2. The gist of the said complaint is that the complainant had been working as Driver of Bus No. DL 1PB 2135 plying in Route No. 540 from Tara Apartment to Central Terminal. On 14.12.2009 at about 3:50 p.m. after completing the duty when the complainant had parked said Bus at Tara Apartment, three persons including Sompal, Sanjiv from Special Staff, Delhi Police came to the complainant and demanded his Driving License and on seeing the same stated that the said Driving License was not genuine and thereafter, complainant and his Helper Narender were taken to their office at Madangir and locked up them. Thereafter, in the night at 1:30 a.m. they demanded Rs. 50,000/ which was scaled down to Rs.30,000/ on request of the C.C. No. 06/12 Page No. 2 of 19 complainant for releasing them. Thereafter, the complainant came out from there on a Motorcycle provided by said Police Officials for arranging money and arranged Rs.6800/ from one Rajinder and Rs. 7200/ from one Mustaq and Rs.1000/ from Balwan Singh and paid Rs.15,000/ to said Police Officials on which they released him and said Police Officials demanded further Rs.15,000/ for releasing the Helper Narender otherwise they would produce him in the court on the next day but they have not produced him in the court. Thereafter on 16.12.2009 complainant obtained Rs.10,000/ from his wife and gave it to his friend Madan for delivering the same to said Police Officials through said Madan and thereafter, they went to Special Staff Office, Madangir and met said three Police Officials and on demand Madan delivered Rs.10,000/ to Sompal and complainant got recorded the conversation through his mobile and submitted said complaint for taking action as against the said Police Officials.
3. The further case of the prosecution is that the complainant has produced 2 CDs and on hearing the same, demand of bribe was found on which Inspector Naresh Kumar/IO prepared Rukka and got the case registered. The complainant also delivered one mobile phone alongwith Sim and Memory Card which were seized by the IO. C.C. No. 06/12 Page No. 3 of 19
4. During course of Investigation, the IO got identified the voice of accused Sompal and Balraj as contained in said CD and thereafter, obtained the voice sample of both these accused besides the complainant and his friend Madan in Audio Cassette and thereafter, said Audio Cassettes and the CD were sent to FSL and later on, FSL Report Ex.PW22/D was obtained. During the course of Investigation both these accused were arrested vide Arrest Memo Ex.PW22/E and PW22/F and their personal search was conducted vide Memo Ex.PW22/G and PW22/H. IO also obtained the Sanction Order as against accused Sompal Singh which is Ex.PX and as against accused Balraj which is Ex.PW16/A. IO on recording the statement of the witnesses and after completion of the Investigation, prepared the chargesheet and filed in the court.
5. After compliance with the provision U/S 207 of Cr.P.C and after hearing both sides on the point of charge, charge for offence punishable U/S 120B IPC r/w Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and U/S 7 and 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed against both the accused on 10.05.2012 to which both accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
C.C. No. 06/12 Page No. 4 of 19
6. Thereafter, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined 22 prosecution witnesses namely HC Ram Kumar, a formal witness as PW1, HC Krishan Dasan, Duty Officer, a formal witness as PW2, Ct.Ashok Kumar, a formal witness as PW3, Rajudin, complainant as PW4, Ct.Krishan Kumar, a formal witness as PW5, Ct.Kuldeep Singh, a formal witness as PW6, Madan Nagar, who is the friend of the complainant and is material witness as PW7, Chander Pahwa, a formal witness as PW8, Balwan Singh, a formal witness as PW9, Vijay Shankar, a formal witness as PW10, Sh.Mangra, a formal witness as PW11, Narender Kumar, a material witness as PW12, Abdul Hussain, a formal witness as PW13, SI Brijesh Malik, a formal witness as PW14, Jagpal Kaur, ACP, 3rd Batallion, a formal witness as PW15, A.K.Singh, Addl. DCP, Ist Batallion, North Sanctioning Authority as against accused Balraj as PW16, Inspector K.P.Malik, a formal witness as PW17, Anup Kumar, GradeIII (DASS), Directorate of Vigilance, Govt. of NCT Delhi, a formal witness as PW18, Mahesh Verma, Inspector at Zonal Office, Palam, Janak Puri, Transport Department, a formal witness as PW19, Sunil Kumar, Lab Assistant, CFSL, CBI, a formal witness as PW20, ASI Bijender Singh, a formal witness as PW21 and Inspector Naresh Kumar, IO as PW22.
C.C. No. 06/12 Page No. 5 of 19
7. After closure of the PE, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which the accused persons denied about any demand and acceptance of the bribe from the complainant. Accused claimed to be falsely implicated in this case having no concern with the alleged offence.
8. I have heard Final Arguments as addressed by Sh. R.S. Singhal, Adv. Ld. Counsel for accused Sompal Singh, Sh. Vipin Sanduja Adv. Ld. Counsel for accused Balraj Singh and Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and perused the relevant record.
9. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Sompal Singh that this accused is innocent and has been discharging his official duty sincerely and lawfully and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that this accused has neither demanded nor accepted any bribe from the complainant and prosecution has failed to prove about the said aspects and hence, said accused deserves to be acquitted. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that all the material PWs including PW4/complainant, PW7/Madan, friend of the complainant, PW12 Narender have not supported the C.C. No. 06/12 Page No. 6 of 19 stand of the prosecution and have not deposed anything as regards demand and acceptance of bribe as against this accused and hence, this accused deserves to be acquitted. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that since PW4/Rajudin, complainant and PW7/Madan, friend of the complainant have denied about any demand and acceptance of bribe as against the accused persons, the alleged conversation in the CD can be of no help for the prosecution and therefore, the accused deserves to be acquitted. Thus, Ld. Counsel for the accused Sompal Singh urged for acquittal of this accused.
10. Similarly, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Balraj Singh that this accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe as against the accused persons could not be established by the prosecution as all the material PWs i.e. PW4/Rajudin, complainant, PW7/Madan, friend of the complainant, PW12/Narender have not deposed anything as against the accused persons. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that all the material PWs have not even identified the accused persons. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the CD alleged to be containing the conversation of demand and acceptance of bribe could not be properly C.C. No. 06/12 Page No. 7 of 19 proved as PW4/complainant denied to have recorded any such conversation and said PW4/complainant as well as PW17/Inspector K.P.Malik have clearly deposed that the voices of conversation in the said CD are not clearly audible. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the conversation as alleged to have been recorded in mobile phone was not compared with the specimen voice of the accused persons but were compared with the conversation as contained in the CD and since PW4/complainant denied to have given any such CD to the police officials, the FSL Report can be of no help for the prosecution specifically when there is no substantive evidence regarding demand and acceptance of bribe in view of the fact that PW4/complainant and PW7/friend of the complainant and PW12/Narender have not deposed as against the accused persons in this respect. Thus, Ld. Counsel for accused Balraj Singh urged for acquittal of this accused.
11. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution by examining 22 PWs have clearly established its case as against both the accused and therefore, both the accused deserve to be convicted for the charged offence. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the PW4/complainant, PW7/friend of the complainant and PW12 Narender have turned hostile by being C.C. No. 06/12 Page No. 8 of 19 won over by the accused persons but same can be of no help for the said accused as the prosecution has successfully established its case as against the accused through the deposition of other witnesses and there is no reason to disbelieve them. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP that PW4/complainant had admitted about getting prepared two CDs from the conversation recorded in the mobile phone and handing over the same to the police and preparation of the Transcript in his presence. It is also added by Ld. Addl. PP that FSL Report is positive and same supports the stand of the prosecution. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has added that prosecution has been successful in establishing its case as against the accused persons for the charged offence and hence, both the accused deserve to be convicted.
12. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that all the four material PWs i.e. PW4 Rajudin, complainant, PW7 Madan, friend of the complainant, PW9 Balwan Singh who is a Driver and known to the complainant and PW12 Narender Kumar who was a Helper of the Bus, working under the complainant are found to have turned hostile and have not supported the stand of the prosecution and despite searching cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, they maintained the same stand.
C.C. No. 06/12 Page No. 9 of 19
13. PW4 Rajudin, complainant has deposed that in the month of December 2009, he was driving Bus No.DL 1PB 2135 between Tara Apartment to Kendriya Terminal and Narender was working as Helper under him. He came to know that said Narender was apprehended by police officials of Special Staff, Madangir on the allegation of having fake Driving License and Batch and as he was known to one police official of Special Staff namely Sanjiv who informed him that Narender had committed the offence and asked him to arrange a surety for him. Thereafter, said PW4 contacted his friend Madan Kumar and on his asking, he delivered him total amount of Rs. 25,000/ from 15.12.09 to 18.12.09 for arranging the release of Narender on paying money to police officials of Special Staff but Narender was not released. Said PW4 narrated about said facts to wife of Narender and as Madan told that he had delivered money to police officials of Special Staff on asking of wife of Narender Kumar, Complaint Ex.PW4/A was got lodged at Anti Corruption Branch. Said PW4 further deposed that he had not handed over anything to police officials of Anti Corruption Branch as Madan was handling the matter with the police officials of Anti Corruption Branch. Said PW4 categorically deposed in the court that he do not know the accused persons nor any demand was made by them. He further deposed that C.C. No. 06/12 Page No. 10 of 19 no police official had demanded money from him as bribe to release Narender. He further deposed that he was released after checking of his license and at that time he had not given any bribe to the police officials of Special Staff. Said PW4 in his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, added that he had not stated in his Complaint that he was taken to another Room and at that time Sompal, Sanjiv and third police official demanded Rs.50,000/ to settle the matter. He has further deposed that he had not mentioned in his Complaint that Sompal had demanded Rs.10,000/ from him as gesture and he asked Madan to hand over Rs.10,000/ and Madan had handed over Rs. 10,000/ to Sompal. He further denied the suggestion of Ld. Addl. PP that accused Sompal is the same person who had participated in the incident and had demanded Rs.10,000/ from him. He has also denied the suggestion of Ld. Addl. PP that voice of accused Sompal and Balraj were recorded by him. As said PW4/complainant in the cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP has deposed in this respect as under: "It is wrong to suggest that the accused Sompal present in the court is the same person about whom I had mentioned in my complaint Ex.PW4/A. It is incorrect to suggest that the accused Sompal is the same person who had participated in this incident and demanded Rs. C.C. No. 06/12 Page No. 11 of 19 10,000/ from me by gesture. It is further incorrect to suggest that the voice of Sompal and Balraj present in the court were recorded by me."
In the cross examination by Defence Counsel, said PW4 further added that the conversation in the said CD was not clearly audible and he cannot tell the name of the persons between whom the conversation was going on.
14. PW7/Madan Nagar who is friend of the complainant and is a material witness, is also found to have turned hostile and not supported the stand of the prosecution. Said PW7 has deposed that on 14.12.2009 Rajudin asked him to talk to Ct.Sanjiv who was posted in Special Staff as his brother in law Amil and one Narender were involved in a case of forged license and thereafter, he alongwith Rajudin went to Office of Special Staff Madangir to talk to Ct.Sanjiv but he was not found there. Said PW7 further deposed that again on 16.12.2009, he alongwith Rajudin went to Office of Special Staff Madangir and found Narender alongwith another person in plain clothes and said persons advised them to reach court as Narender would be produced in the court by them. Said PW7 further deposed that thereafter, they came out and found some Traffic Police Officials C.C. No. 06/12 Page No. 12 of 19 outside and had talked with them and Rajudin recorded their conversation in mobile phone. Thereafter, they came to Tara Apartment where in a Cyber Cafe, mobile chip was played but there was no voice in the said chip. Said PW7 further deposed that on 18.12.2009, Rajudin informed him that he went to Anti Corruption Branch and tried to raid upon the police officials of Special Staff but no one was apprehended. Said PW7 has categorically deposed that no talk regarding demand of bribe has taken place in his presence. Said PW7 was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP in which he added that his statement was not recorded by police officials but his signatures on blank papers were obtained. He further added that no CD was supplied to the police officials of Anti Corruption Branch in his presence. He categorically deposed that he did not know the accused persons as present in the court. Said PW7 denied to have made any such statement Mark PW7/A. He denied to have made any such statement to the police that Rajudin told him on 16.12.2009 that police officials were demanding money and he has settled the deal in Rs.30,000/ and he had already paid Rs.15,000/ to the police and Rajudin further told him that in case he would not pay Rs.30,000/ to them, they will falsely implicate him in a case of fake driving license. He also denied that accused Sompal had demanded money from C.C. No. 06/12 Page No. 13 of 19 Rajudin through gesture and as per instructions of Rajudin, he had handed over Rs.10,000/ to Sompal. He also denied to have stated to the police that a Transcript had been prepared with the help of CD which was handed over to police officials of Anti Corruption Branch in the presence of Panch witness Yogesh Kumar and he, Rajudin and Panch witness had signed on the said Transcript. Said PW7 in his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP has denied about handing over of two CDs by Rajudin to police or demand of Rs.10,000/ by accused Sompal in his presence as he had deposed in this respect as under: "It is wrong to suggest that Rajudin had handed over 2 CDs to the police in my presence and the IO of this case had prepared their transcription or that Rs.10,000/ was demanded by Sompal in the presence of IO of that case and Balraj Singh. It is further incorrect to say that at that time conversation was recorded by Rajudin when I handed over Rs.10,000/ to the accused Sompal as a bribe."
15. PW9/Balwan Singh is also found to have turned hostile and not supported the stand of the prosecution. He deposed that he was Driver on Bus bearing No. DL 1PB 0422 and he know Rajudin who C.C. No. 06/12 Page No. 14 of 19 was Driver on Bus No. DL 1PB 4397. He deposed that Rajudin had not met him on the intervening night of 14/15.12.2009. Said PW9 has been cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP but it is of no help for the prosecution. He denied to have made any such statement to the police as per statement Mark PW9/A. He denied the suggestion of Ld. Addl. PP that he handed over Rs.1000/ to Rajudin in the intervening night of 14/15.12.2009 to fulfill the illegal demands of police officials of Special Staff, Madangir.
16. PW12/Narender Kumar who was working as Helper in the same Bus being driven by the complainant Rajudin and is a material witness, is also found to have not supported the stand of the prosecution and maintained the same stand in the cross examination of Ld. Addl. PP. As said PW12/Narender Kumar has deposed that on 14.12.2009, while he alongwith Rajudin were sitting inside Bus No.DL 1PB 2135 in which he was working as Helper and Rajudin as Driver, three police officials from Special Staff in plain clothes brought them to PS Madangir but said PW12 has not identified the accused persons as the said police officials of Special Staff. He further deposed that those police officials asked him about his Driving License but he was not having the same at that time and thereafter, C.C. No. 06/12 Page No. 15 of 19 detained him in lock up for three days and thereafter, challaned by SI Bisht and was sent to jail and remained there for about one month. Said PW12 has categorically deposed that no one has demanded any bribe from him in the lock up. Said PW12 was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP but denied to have made any such statement as per Ex.PW12/A. He denied to have made any such statement to the police that on the intervening night of 14/15.12.2009 at about 1:30 a.m. Sompal and Balraj took out Rajudin from the lock up. He also denied suggestion of Ld. Addl. PP that Sompal told him that he had sent Rajudin to arrange Rs.30,000/ for his release or that Sompal directed him to inform Rajudin that he could not release both of them for Rs.30,000/.
17. In view of the aforesaid deposition of PW4/Rajudin, complainant, PW7/Madan Nagar, friend of the complainant, PW9/Balwan Singh, known person of complainant and PW12/ Narender Kumar who was working as Helper in the same Bus driven by the complainant, it is clearly reflected that none of them have deposed anything regarding demand and acceptance of bribe as against the accused persons. Though the prosecution is found to taking resort to the CD containing the conversation between the C.C. No. 06/12 Page No. 16 of 19 accused and the complainant showing the demand and acceptance of bribe but the same can be of no help for the prosecution in view of the fact that PW4/complainant has clearly denied the suggestion of Ld. Addl. PP that he had recorded the voice of accused Sompal and Balraj. Said PW4/complainant also denied to have delivered any such CD containing conversation to police officials. Furthermore, PW7/Madan Nagar, friend of the complainant has also denied regarding handing over of two CDs by the complainant Rajudin to the police official in his presence. Besides that PW4/complainant as well as PW17/Inspector K.P.Malik have clearly deposed that the voice in said CD were not clear. In view of the same, I am of the considered view that in the absence of substantive allegation regarding demand and acceptance of bribe as against the accused, mere FSL Report cannot provide nourishment for establishing said allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe as against the accused persons.
18. In the absence of proof of "Demand of Bribe" by the accused persons, I am of the considered view that the accused persons cannot be held liable for penal provisions U/S 7 and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for which they have been charged with and my said view is found C.C. No. 06/12 Page No. 17 of 19 supported from the following judgments: (1)2006 (1) SCC 401 "T.Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu"
(2) 2005 Crl.L.J. 1136 "State of H.P. Vs. Sukhdev Singh Rana"
(3) 2007 Crl.L.J. 2919 "State of M.P.vs. Anil Kumar Verma"
(4) 2006 (3) RCR (Crl.) 796 "Amrit Lal vs. State of Punjab"
(5) 2000 Crl,.L.J. 4591 "State of M.P. Vs. J.B.Singh"
(6) 2006 (1) RCR (Crl.) 314 "L.K.Jain vs. The State"
(7) 2005 (4) RCR (Crl) 716 "R.V.Subba Rao Vs. State"
(8) AIR 1979 SC 1408 "Suraj Mal Vs. State"
(9) 1992 (3) RCR (Crl.) 139 "Pritam Singh vs. State of Haryana"
(10) 2009 (4) LRC 275 (SC) "State of Maharastra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede"
19. Furthermore, there is nothing on record to establish that both the accused persons have entered into any criminal conspiracy to raise demand and accept any bribe amount from the complainant and therefore, they cannot be held liable for offence punishable U/S 120B r/w Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for which they have been charged with.
C.C. No. 06/12 Page No. 18 of 19
20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that the prosecution have failed to establish its case as against the accused persons for the charged offence and therefore, both the accused persons namely Sompal Singh and Balraj Singh are ordered to be acquitted of the charged offence. Resultantly, their bail bonds stand cancelled and their sureties stand discharged. Announced in the open court on this 12th day of December, 2012 (B.R. Kedia) Special Judge07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC, Delhi C.C. No. 06/12 Page No. 19 of 19