Delhi District Court
State vs . Raman Kumar on 29 March, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI17, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI State vs. Raman Kumar C.C. No. : 01/20 I.D. No. : 08/20 CNR No. : DLCT110000312020 FIR No. : RC30(A)/2019/ACIII Branch : CBI/ACB/New Delhi U/s : : 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018). Date of institution : 09.01.2020 Decision reserved on : 13.03.2023 Date of decision : 29.03.2023 In the matter of : State (through/Investigated by Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi) Versus Raman Kumar S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram R/o Flat No. 271, Tower16, River Heights, Raj Nagar Extension, Ghaziabad, U.P. ........ Accused CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 1 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 JUDGMENT
1. This case was registered on the complaint dated 19.08.2019 made by one Sh. Ramesh Chand Bali who deals in bottled water business and was holding SDMC Health Trade licence (in short "HTL licence"). It is alleged in the complaint that complainant Sh. Ramesh Chand Bali visited SDMC office at Jal Vihar, Lajpat Nagar on 08.08.2019 for getting his bottled health trade licence renewed where he met Sh. R.S. Yadav, Public Health Inspector who asked him to come again on 09.08.2019 with all necessary documents. On 09.08.2019, the complainant again met Sh. R.S. Yadav who took documents from the complainant and told him that he would convey other details on phone. It is further alleged that on 14.08.2019, the complainant received a phone call from Sh. R.S. Yadav who informed the complainant that his licence had been renewed for which a fee of Rs. 1000/ was paid by Sh.R.S. Yadav himself and he demanded Rs. 10,000/ from the complainant as bribe for getting his licence renewed.
2. Upon receipt of complaint dated 19.08.2019 of Sh. Ramesh Chand Bali, the same was marked to Sh. C.M.S. Negi, Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, New Delhi for verification who conducted the verification on two dates i.e. on 19.08.2019 and 20.08.2019 in the presence of independent witnesses. The relevant transcription in the verification memo revealed clear demand of the bribe from the complainant by the accused and the CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 2 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 mobile number used by accused clearly reveal his name to be R.K. Yadav @ Raman Kumar. On the basis of recommendation of Sh. C.M.S. Negi, Inspector, the present case FIR was registered on 21.08.2019 in the Office of SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi against the accused. Thereafter, a trap team was constituted on 21.08.2019 for laying of trap to apprehend the accused. All the members of the trap team were explained the purpose of laying of trap and the contents of the FIR.
3. The complainant produced a sum of Rs. 11,000/ comprising of 3 GC notes of Rs. 2,000/ denomination and 10 GC notes of Rs. 500/ denomination to be given to the accused as demanded by him. Numbers of the GC notes were noted and Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla treated all GC notes produced by the complainant with phenolphthalein powder. He demonstrated and explained to all the members present the purpose and significance of use of phenolphthalein power and its chemical reaction with sodium carbonate and water.
4. The tainted bribe amount of Rs. 11,000/ then was kept inside the right side pocket of kurta worn by the complainant and he was also allowed to keep Rs. 1,000/ as he had apprehension of demand of more money by the accused, numbers of which were also noted and were treated with phenolphthalein powder by Inspector Sh. Raman Kumar Shukla. Thereafter, the complainant was directed to give the tainted bribe money to accused only on his specific demand and Sh. Kundan Kumar Singh, the independent witness was asked to act as a shadow CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 3 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 witness and to remain close to the complainant to overhear the conversation and see the transaction of bribe amount that might take place between the complainant and the accused. The other witness Yashwant Saran was directed to remain with the trap team.
5. A new memory card make SanDisk 8GB was arranged and after explaining function of the DVR to the complainant and the independent witnesses, the introductory voice of both the independent witnesses were recorded after ensuring its blankness. The complainant, thereafter, called the accused telephonically and all the pretrap proceedings were recorded in handing over memo dated 21.08.2019. After conducting pretrap proceedings, trap team alongwith independent witnesses and the complainant reached at the Office of Dy. Commissioner, SDMC, Lajpat Natgar, Delhi at 11.35 AM. The complainant met accused Raman Kumar in his office who asked the complainant to accompany him and they came out of the SDMC building. They were followed by the independent witnesses and CBI officers. The complainant and accused Raman Kumar reached near a white Santro Car parked opposite to the SDMC office gate and started talking with each other. Accused Raman Kumar demanded the bribe from the complainant by gesture in lieu of renewal of licence which was seen by the independent witnesses. The complainant thereafter took out the tainted bribe money of Rs. 11,000/ and handed over the same to accused Raman Kumar. Accused Raman Kumar took the said bribe amount of CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 4 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 Rs. 11,000/ and kept the same in his left side front pocket of his worn pant. The accused further demanded Rs.2000/ from the complainant on which the complainant told the accused that he had brought Rs. 1000/ extra and handed over the same to the accused who accepted the said Rs. 1000/. Thereafter, the accused handed over the print copy of complainant's Health Trade licence, Receipt of licence fee and copy of complainant's Voter ID which he had taken out from the Santro Car to the complainant.
6. Thereafter, the complainant gave predecided signal on which CBI team rushed towards them and the accused was apprehended and Rs. 12,000/, the tainted bribe money, was recovered from him. The GC notes were matched with those mentioned in pretrap memo. The right hand wash as well as left hand wash of the accused were taken separately in solution of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate which turned pink in colour. Investigation further revealed that mobile no. 9958821690 and 8920462041 were being used by the accused though SIMs of the same were issued in the name of his wife Smt. Madhu Yadav. As per the service book of the accused seized from the SDMC office, it was confirmed that the accused Raman Kumar is known as Raman Yadav and also as Raman Kumar Yadav and he was present in the office on 21.08.2019. He was also looking after the work of Kalkaji Ward as Public Health Inspector. Investigation further revealed that as per the receipt in respect of application of Ramesh Chand Bali, the amount CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 5 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 deposited is Rs. 7,250/, breakup of which is Rs. 1,000/ for licence processing fees, Rs. 5,000/ for licence fees and Rs. 1,250/ as late fees.
7. Investigation further revealed that the accused gave the documents of the complainant to one Sh. Pankaj who operates a Cyber Cafe and the said documents were uploaded by Sh. Pankaj. As per the statement of Sh. Pankaj, the break up of the payment is Rs. 7,250/ to the SDMC, Rs. 150/ as bank charges for ATM, Rs. 2,500/ to the Architect for preparing the site plan and Rs. 1500/ as charges demanded by Sh. Pankaj as his fees for uploading the documents, arranging the ATM card etc. Investigation further revealed that site plan prepared by Sh. Surender Kumar and used in the year 201819 was reused and therefore, there is no question of giving Rs. 2500/ to the Architect. The transcription of recorded conversation between the accused and the complainant was prepared and the complainant identified the voice of the accused and besides the complainant, Dr. Vivekananda Bhagat, Deputy Health officer also identified the voice of the accused in the recorded conversation.
8. After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short "PC Act"), 1988 as amended in 2018 against the accused.
COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCE :
9. Ld Predecessor of this Court took cognizance of offence CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 6 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 against the accused as per the chargesheet and the accused accordingly was summoned vide order dated 05.03.2020.
10. Pursuant to service of summons, the accused appeared before the Court and he was supplied with the copy of charge sheet and documents relied upon by the prosecution in compliance of the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
CHARGE :
11. After hearing the arguments of the Ld. Predecessor and of the Ld. Defence Counsel on the point of charge, this Court vide order dated 07.01.2021 formed an opinion that a prima facie case for commission of offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988 as amended by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2018 was made out against the accused and accordingly vide order dated 15.01.2021, requisite charge for the aforesaid offence was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :
12. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 26 witnesses. The witnesses so examined by the prosecution can be categorized in four categories as under: i. Complainant and independent public witnesses ii. CBI witnesses of verification and trap proceedings iii. Expert witnesses from CFSL iv. Formal witnesses CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 7 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 COMPLAINANT AND INDEPENDENT PUBLIC WITNESSES
13. The complainant was examined as PW1 who supported his complaint and the prosecution case. He deposed that he is running water bottle business since 1990 for which he has been issued Health Trade licence (HTL) from SDMC. He visited SDMC office on 08.08.2019 and met the accused who demanded amount of Rs. 1000/ and Rs. 10,000/ totaling to Rs. 11,000/ as bribe for renewal of his licence for which he lodged a written complaint against the accused in the CBI office dated 19.08.2019 Ex. PW1/1. He further deposed that to verify the genuineness of his complaint, one Mr. Negi, Inspector was deputed for verification who conducted the verification on the same day itself in post lunch session in the presence of an independent witness, namely, Sh. Kundan Singh. During verification proceedings, the complainant met the accused at SDMC Office and informed the latter that he was not carrying the money at that moment on which the accused told the complainant that he had already paid Rs. 1000/ and asked the complainant to come on the next day i.e. on 20.08.2019 and to bring Rs.10,000/ more totaling to Rs. 11,000/. The conversation took place between the complainant and the accused was recorded in a new and blank memory card marked as 'Q1' through DVR, which the complainant was carrying in his shirt pocket. The said conversation was heard at CBI office after the verification CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 8 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 proceedings which corroborated the version of the complainant and a verification memo dated 19.08.2019 Ex.PW1/6 was prepared.
14. As per PW1 (the complainant), verification was again conducted on 20.08.2019 in the presence of two independent witnesses, namely, Sh. Kundan Singh and Sh. Yashwant Saran. On that day, the complainant could not meet the accused in SDMC office as the latter had gone to the site. The complainant then made a phone call to the accused from his mobile number and the accused asked the complainant to come on the next day to meet him in the office as he was busy on 20.08.2019. The said conversation was also recorded in another blank memory card marked as 'Q2' through DVR, which was heard at CBI office and verification memo dated 20.08.2019 Ex.PW1/10 was prepared.
15. PW1 (the complainant) further deposed that on 21.08.2019, a trap team was constituted in the CBI office led by Sh. Harnam Singh, Inspector (TLO) which also included independent witnesses Sh. Kundan Singh and Sh. Yashwant Saran apart from him and CBI officers. He produced a sum of Rs.11,000/ consisting of 3 GC notes of Rs.2,000/ denomination and 10 GC notes of Rs.500/ denomination and extra 2 GC notes of Rs. 500/ to be given to the accused and also arranged Rs. 1000/ extra because he had apprehension that the accused might ask for more money. The complainant made a phone call to the accused to know his availability/whereabouts. The accused asked CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 9 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 the complainant to come to meet him in the office. Accordingly, the trap team including the complainant and independent witnesses reached SDMC office at Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi at about 11.50 am where the complainant was briefed and instructed by CBI officials to hand over the bribe amount to the accused only on the specific demand and to give signal by moving his right hand over his head after completion of transaction of bribe. Similar instructions were given to the independent witnesses and they were also instructed to remain close with the complainant and see/overhear the transaction/conversation which might take place between the complainant and the accused. The complainant went inside the SDMC office and met the accused in his room who instructed the complainant to go outside with him. After some time, they came out from the office and reached near Santro Car parked at Kasturba Niketan Colony opposite to SDMC office where the accused demanded bribe money in lieu of renewal of licence of the complainant. The complainant then took out the tainted bribe money of Rs. 11,000/ from his pocket of the kurta and handed over the same to the accused. Thereafter, the accused demanded extra money of Rs. 2000/ on which the complainant told the accused that he was carrying Rs. 1000/ only at that moment and would pay Rs. 1000/ later on to which the accused agreed. Accordingly, the complainant paid Rs. 1000/ to the accused apart from Rs. 11,000/ which the accused accepted and kept in the pocket of his wearing pant. The accused thereafter took out licence of the complainant from his Santro car and handed over CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 10 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 the same to the complainant asking to pay Rs.1,000/ more later on.
16. PW1 (the complainant) further deposed that he gave predecided signal of transaction of bribe by rubbing his head on which the trap team members of the CBI reached in front of gate of Kasturba Niketan Colony which was just opposite to SDMC office and apprehended the accused. The tainted amount of Rs. 12,000/ was recovered by independent witness Sh. Yashwant Saran from the left side pant pocket of the accused. Thereafter, washes of the accused were collected in clean glass bottles in the presence of independent witnesses. The conversation took place between the complainant and the accused during the trap proceedings were recorded in a new memory card marked as 'Q3' through DVR which the complainant was carrying in his left front side pocket of Kurta.
17. In the crossexamination, PW1 (the complainant) stated that his HTL licence got expired on 31.03.2019 and since he could not get it renewed in time, he had gone to the office of MCD at Jal Vihar in the month of August 2019 to enquire the procedure for renewal of the HTL licence. He had approached the MCD office for renewal of his licence as the person who had earlier got issued his HTL licence advised to go straightway to the MCD office for the inquiries. The enquiry officer at ground floor of the said MCD office told him to go to room no. 214 where he met Raman Kumar, Inspector (accused) who told him that his licence was fake and how he got it prepared and then he CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 11 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 requested the accused to get his licence renewed. On the said day, no talks of money took place and then he returned to his home. He further stated that after 12 days, he again visited the SDMC Office Jal Vihar and met the accused who told him that he would have to bear the expenditure of Rs. 10,000 11,000/ for renewal of licence, out of which Rs. 5,000/ would be the licence fees. Thereafter, he decided to make a complaint with the CBI because he had told the accused that he could pay Rs. 5000/, the licence fee through cheque but the accused did not agree and demanded Rs. 10,000 11,000/ in cash. He stated that he narrated in his complaint what had happened with him and nobody tutored him and that on the second visit to the accused, he had told the accused to get his licence renewed. He did not know if the CBI team enquired whether the demand of Rs. 10,000/ and Rs. 1,000/ by the accused was bribe or the same were expenses for the renewal of licence. He denied the suggestion that he had gone to the accused for help in getting his HTL licence renewed. He further denied the suggestion that accused had not demanded any bribe from him or that the accused had only taken genuine expenses which he had spent on the renewal of his licence. He further denied the suggestion that he had given his signed copies of Adhar card, electricity bill, voter ID card, PAN card and HTL licence to the accused for renewal of his licence.
18. PW6 Sh. Kundan Kumar Singh is a witness to the verification conducted on 19.08.2019 and 20.08.2019 as well as CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 12 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 to the trap proceedings conducted on 21.08.2019. He deposed that in the year 2019, he was posted as LDC in Directorate of Health Services, Karkardooma, Delhi and he was asked by his department vide letter dated 16.08.2019 to report to CBI office on 19.08.2019 for some secret official duty. Accordingly, he reached CBI office, Lodhi Road on 19.08.2019 where he was introduced to complainant Ramesh Bali and was shown complaint Ex.PW1/1. He was informed that the complainant had water business and one R.S. Yadav, the MCD official was demanding Rs.10,000/ from the complainant for renewal of his licence, while the licence renewal fees was Rs.1000/. Thereafter, for verification of the complaint, he alongwith Inspector C.M.S. Negi and complainant reached to SDMC office, South Delhi where he was briefed to discreetly follow the complainant and if possible to over hear the likely conversation between the complainant and the suspect officer. He further deposed that the complainant went inside the office at SDMC building and he was standing outside the office room and he saw the complainant talking to some person but he could not hear their conversation. After some time, the complainant came out from the office and narrated that he (the complainant) met the accused in the office and asked as to how much amount he should bring and whether he should pay '10', to which accused confirmed. The complainant also informed that Raman Kumar (the accused) told him that he had already paid Rs 1,000/ for complainant. Thereafter, they returned to CBI office where conversation took place between the complainant and the accused recorded in the memory card CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 13 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 through DVR was heard and the complainant was instructed by CBI team to bring Rs 10,000/ next day. He was also directed to appear in the CBI Office on the next day with the brass seal and DVR handed over to him.
19. PW6 Sh. Kundan Kumar Singh further deposed that on 20.08.2019, he reported in the CBI office at about 10 AM where he was introduced to another independent witness Yashwant Saran and they were explained the purpose of assembling to conduct further verification. He was assigned the task of discretely follow the complainant and Yashwant Saran was assigned the task of observing him and the complainant. Thereafter, they reached to SDMC office. On reaching there, the complainant went inside the SDMC office with the DVR on recording mode and he followed the complainant. After some time, the complainant came back and told that Raman Kumar (the accused) was not in his office. Thereafter, the CBI team made the complainant talk to the accused over the mobile phone while keeping the mobile phone of the complainant on speaker mode. During the said conversation, accused Raman Kumar asked the complainant to meet him in the office on the next day. Thereafter, they returned to CBI office where he was handed over the brass seal and DVR with the direction by CBI to bring the same on the next day and the complainant was instructed to arrange the money.
20. This witness further deposed that on 21.08.2019 again, he reached to CBI office in the morning where Yashwant Saran, CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 14 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 complainant and CBI team were already present. The CBI team briefed the purpose of assembling to lay a trap to apprehend the accused red handed while accepting the bribe amount from the complainant. The complainant had brought Rs 11,000/ in the denomination of Rs. 2000/ and Rs. 500/, but he did not remember the exact currency notes and their denominations. The said currency notes of Rs. 11,000/ were treated with some powder and then were kept in the pocket of the complainant and after ensuring the availability of the accused in the office by the complainant through a phone call, they left the CBI office and reached SDMC office in the morning. He was instructed by the CBI team to discretely follow the complainant and to hear the conversation, if possible and to observe the proceedings. Thereafter, the complainant went into an office in the SDMC building and after few minutes came out of the building with the accused and they went towards a car which was parked there. The accused took out some papers from the car and there was some conversation between the complainant and the accused which he could not hear. On predecided signal made by the complainant, the CBI team immediately reached there and apprehended the accused. The tainted money was recovered from accused Raman Kumar and the same was counted but he did not remember how much money was recovered. Thereafter, some formalities were completed and they returned to CBI office.
21. In the crossexamination, PW6 Sh. Kundan Kumar CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 15 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 Singh stated that he did not remember the contents of the complaint shown to him in the CBI office on 19.08.2019. He did not know the Room number of the office of the accused. He further stated that the complainant was asked by the CBI team to bring Rs.10,000/ on 20.08.2019 but he did not know if the complainant had brought Rs.10,000/ with him on 20.08.2019 or not. He did not know Sh. Yashwant Saran and he met him in the CBI office for the first time. Upon nonavailability of accused in his office on 20.08.2019, the CBI staff had asked the complainant to make a telephonic call to the accused and he had heard the said call as the same was on speaker mode. He did not remember as to how much money the complainant had brought on 21.08.2019. He further stated that the accused was found in his office on 21.08.2019. He did not enter in the office room of the accused and only the complainant went there. He did not remember exactly the distance by which Sh. Yashwant Saran was following him but he was behind and following him. The complainant and the accused came out from the SDMC building and went outside towards a car. He did not hear the conversation between them near the car. He further stated that he had seen the complainant and the accused exchanging the documents. The accused was apprehended on the road and Sh. Yashwant Saran had recovered the tainted money from the accused. He denied the suggestion that he did not join the verification proceedings or the trap proceedings in the present case or that he had signed the documents later on and not at the time of proceedings.
CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 16 of 65State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023
22. Another independent witness examined by the prosecution is PW10 Sh. Yashwant Saran who is witness to the verification proceedings dated 20.08.2019 and trap proceedings dated 21.08.2019. He deposed that in the year 2019, he was posted as Junior Engineer, PWD Delhi and he was instructed by his officer to report for duty at CBI office on 20.08.2019. Accordingly, he reached CBI office on 20.08.2019 where he was introduced to complainant Sh Ramesh Chand Bali and Kundan Kumar, another independent witness. He was informed about the complaint made by the complainant and that the verification of the complaint had already been conducted on 19.08.2019 and the same was to be further verified on 20.08.2019. He further deposed that he, complainant Ramesh Chand Bali, Kundan Kumar Singh and CBI Officials proceeded to SDMC Office and on reaching there, Kundan Kumar Singh was directed to act as shadow witness and he was directed to observe the complainant and Kundan Kumar Singh. He deposed that the complainant went towards SDMC office and Kundan Kumar Singh was following him and he was following both of them and after sometime he saw the complainant and Kundan Kumar Singh coming from the SDMC office. The complainant told that the accused was not in the office and on the direction of the CBI team, the complainant made a phone call to the accused who asked the complainant to meet him in the office on the next day. Thereafter, they returned to CBI office and the complainant was asked to come to CBI office alongwith bribe money to be paid to the accused on CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 17 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 21.08.2019. He and Kundan Kumar Singh were also asked to report at CBI office on 21.08.2019.
23. PW10 Sh. Yashwant Saran further deposed that on 21.08.2019, he reached CBI office at about 9.30 AM and the complainant, Kundan Kumar Singh and CBI team assembled at 10 AM there. The CBI team explained the purpose of assembling to them i.e. to trap the accused. The complainant had brought Rs. 11,000/ with him to be given to the accused which were in the denomination of Rs. 2000 X 3 and Rs. 500 X 10 and treated with phenolphthalein powder and then he put said Rs.11,000/ in the pocket of kurta of complainant. He had also put Rs. 1,000/ extra brought by the complainant in baniyan (vest) of the complainant to meet the situation in case the accused demanded more money. The complainant was instructed to make a call to the accused to check his availability in his office and after ensuring the availability of the accused in his office, they reached SDMC office at about 11.50 AM on 21.08.2019. The complainant and shadow witness Kundan Singh went inside the SDMC building and he was directed to observe them from a safe distance. After sometime, the complainant, shadow witness Kundan Singh and accused Raman Kumar came out from the SDMC building and headed towards the opposite side of the road where a white colour Santro car was parked. They all stopped near the said car. The complainant gave some money to the accused and thereafter there was some conversation and again some money was handed over by the complainant to accused and CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 18 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 thereafter accused took out some papers from the car and handed over to the complainant. Thereafter, complainant waived his hand over his head as a signal and then immediately CBI team rushed towards the spot and apprehended accused Raman Kumar. TLO challenged the accused on which Raman Kumar admitted that he had taken Rs 12,000/ from the complainant in lieu of getting the licence of the complainant renewed. Thereafter, washes of right hand, left hand and pant pocket of the accused were obtained, which were turned pink and other formalities were completed.
24. In the crossexamination, PW10 Sh. Yashwant Saran stated that he did not remember fully the contents of complaint shown to him nor remembered the name of the officer mentioned in the complaint. He stated that the name of the complainant was Ramesh Chand Bali and his age must have been around 60 years. He did not remember what clothes were worn by complainant on 20.08.2019 or that how much money was brought by the complainant on 20.08.2019. He stated that he followed the complainant and the shadow witness in the SDMC building but he did not enter the office in which the complainant and shadow witness had gone. He did not know the room number in which the complainant and shadow witness had gone. He stated that on 21.08.2019, the complainant had brought Rs. 12,000/ and some extra money which he did not know. On that day, the complainant was wearing kurtapyjama of white colour and shadow witness Kundan Singh had put Rs 10,000/ in one pocket CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 19 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 of kurta and Rs. 2,000/ in the baniyan of the complainant. He denied the suggestion that he was not present in the trap laying proceedings on 21.08.2019 or that he carried his mobile phone in the trap laying proceedings. He further denied the suggestion that the further proceedings after the arrest of the accused was not done in the SDMC premises.
CBI WITNESSES OF VERIFICATION AND TRAP PROCEEDINGS
25. PW24 is Inspector Sh. C.M.S. Negi who is the verification officer and conducted the verification proceedings on 19.08.2019 and 20.08.2019. He deposed that in the year 2019, he was posted as Inspector in CBI ACB Delhi and on 19.08.2019, he was directed by the then SP CBI ACB Delhi to conduct verification into the allegation contained in a complaint Ex. PW1/1 submitted by complainant Sh Ramesh Chand Bali. To verify the genuineness of the complaint, an independent witness Sh. Kundan Kumar Singh, LDC, Directorate of Health Service was arranged through the office who was introduced to the complainant and was also read over the complaint Ex.PW1/1 and thereafter it was decided to visit the office of accused at SDMC Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi for the purpose of verification. Accordingly, he alongwith the independent witness and the complainant proceeded to SDMC Lajpat Nagar and reached in the vicinity of the same at about 1400 hours. The complainant was directed to meet the accused in his office and the CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 20 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 independent witness was directed to follow the complainant discretely and to try to remain as close as possible to the complainant and to overhear the conversation that might take place between the complainant and the accused. He further deposed that both the complainant and the independent witness then proceeded towards the office of accused in the SDMC building. After about 1015 minutes, the complainant and the independent witness came back to the spot and the complainant narrated that he had a conversation with the accused about his licence who told the complainant that apart from Rs. 1,000/ for the seat, the complainant was to pay what he had already been told. The complainant further narrated that when he confirmed from the accused whether he has to pay 10 meaning thereby Rs. 10,000/, the accused said 'theek hai'. The complainant further narrated that the accused also enquired from him as to whether he (the complainant) was going to pay the amount on that day itself on which the complainant said that he would visit the next day for the same. The witness further deposed that the independent witness also narrated the sequence of events but the independent witness denied having overheard the conversation between the complainant and the accused and, thereafter, he alongwith the complainant and the independent witness returned to the CBI office where conversation recorded in the memory card through DVR which the complainant was carrying with him was heard which corroborated the version of the complainant.
26. PW24 Inspector Sh. C.M.S. Negi further deposed that CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 21 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 complainant Sh. Ramesh Chand Bali and the independent witness Sh Kundan Kumar Singh reported on 20.08.2019 as directed and one more independent witness Sh. Yashwant Saran, JE, PWD also joined them for further verification proceedings, was introduced to the complainant and independent witness Sh Kundan Kumar Singh and the purpose of the assembly was also explained to him. The complainant reconfirmed that he had been told by the accused that the fee for renewal of his licence was Rs. 1,000/. The witness further deposed that he alongwith the complainant and the independent witnesses left the CBI office and reached in the vicinity of SDMC office Lajpat Nagar at about 1115 hours and on reaching there, the complainant and independent witness Sh. Kundan Kumar Singh proceeded towards the office of the accused and he alongwith the other independent witness followed them discretely and remained positioned on the ground floor. After about ten minutes, the complainant and independent witness came back to the spot and the complainant informed that the accused was not available in the office on that day and was in field for some inspection. Thereafter, a call was made from the mobile phone of the complainant to the mobile phone of the accused while keeping the mobile phone of the complainant in the speaker mode and the same got recorded in the memory card through the DVR. During the said conversation, the accused asked the complainant to visit his office next day to settle the demand made by him. Thereafter, he alongwith the complainant and both independent witnesses returned to the CBI office where some formalities were done.
CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 22 of 65State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 The complainant and the independent witnesses were asked to report for further proceedings on 21.08.2019 as it was confirmed during the verification that the suspect official/ the accused would settle his demand with the complainant on 21.08.2019. The complainant was also directed to arrange Rs. 10,000/ as demanded as bribe by the accused. After conducting the verification, he submitted his report alongwith documents to SP, CBI, ACB, Delhi.
27. In the crossexamination, PW24 Inspector Sh. C.M.S. Negi stated that the verification could not be concluded on 19.08.2019 as the time was not fixed by the accused for handing over the bribe money. He concluded his verification on 20.08.2019 at around 4.30 PM as though the accused did not meet the complainant in his office but they had spoken over the mobile in which it was decided by the accused to see the complainant next day. He submitted his report on 20.08.2019 to the SP in the evening and he had instructed the complainant to bring money on 21.08.2019 also. He denied the suggestion that he has not followed the CBI manual instructions.
28. PW26 Inspector Harnam Singh who was the Trap Laying Officer (TLO) of this case deposed that in the year 2019, he was posted as Inspector, CBI, ACB, New Delhi and on 21.08.2019, FIR of the present case Ex.PW25/A was entrusted to him by his supervisory SP S. K. Sinha for further investigation and he decided to lay trap on the same day. A trap team was constituted including complainant and independent witnesses Sh.
CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 23 of 65State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 Kundan Singh and Sh. Yashwant Saran. The complainant produced an amount of Rs. 11,000/ (in denomination of 10 notes of 500 and 3 notes of 2000 rupees) which he brought to give to accused as per his demand and a handing over memo was prepared mentioning the number of aforesaid currency notes. All the trap members were explained by Sh. Raman Kumar Shukla, Inspector the demonstration of phenolphthalein powder and the notes brought by complainant were treated with phenolphthalein powder and Sh. Kundan Kumar, the independent witness put the treated currency notes in the right side pocket of the kurta of the complainant. Sh. Kundan Kumar, independent witness put the treated currency notes in the right side pocket of the kurta of the complainant. In the meantime, complainant informed that the accused may demand some more money, hence, Rs. 1000/ (in the denomination of 2 notes of 500) which were produced by complainant from his purse were also treated with the phenolphthalein powder and were kept in the pocket of vest of complainant. Sh. Kundan Kumar, independent witness was directed to act as shadow witness and to remain close to the complainant in order to hear and see the transaction if any, happens between the complainant and the accused.
29. The witness further deposed that the CBI team alongwith both the independent witnesses and the complainant departed from the CBI office at about 11.35 AM and reached near the office of Deputy Commissioner, SDMC, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi where the complainant was briefed to hand over the CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 24 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 bribe amount to the accused or to any person referred by the accused only on specific demand and not otherwise. The complainant alongwith the shadow witness moved inside the office of Deputy commissioner, SDMC, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and the remiaing CBI tema followed them. They entered in room no. 111 situated at first floor and within few minutes they came out of the room alongwith the accused and they moved outside the office. The complainant alongwith accused reached near gate no. 1 of Kasturba Apartment situated in front of the above said office. After sometime, the complainant gave the pre decided signal and all the team members reached near the complainant and the accused standing with him. The DVR was taken back from the complainant and was switched off by Sh Ajay Kumar Singh Inspector. On the indication of the complainant, he challenged accused who was working as PHI in the office of Deputy Commissioner, SDMC, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi on which accused Raman Kumar got perplexed and accepted that he had taken Rs 12,000/ from the complainant in lieu of renewal of his licence. The complainant was asked about the transaction on which the complainant explained that he alongwith the shadow witness reached in room no. 111 situated at 1st floor in the above office where he talked to accused Raman Kumar about renewal of his licence on which the accused asked him to follow him outside the above office. The complainant alongwith the accused reached near gate no. 1 of Kasturba Apartment situated in front of the above office where a Santro car was already parked and the accused demanded the bribe CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 25 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 amount from the complainant through gesture, on which the complainant took out the bribe amount of Rs 11,000/ from his pocket and handed over the same to the accused. The accused kept the same in his left side front pocket of the wearing pant after counting the same. The accused further demanded money, on which the complainant took out Rs 1000/ from the pocket of his vest and handed over the same to the accused which the accused also kept in his left side front pocket of the wearing pant. The accused thereafter took out some papers from the above Santro car and handed over a print out of licence, a receipt of Rs 7,250/ and copy of election ID card to the complainant. The version of the complainant was also supported by the shadow witness. The washes of the right hand, left hand of the accused were taken followed by the recovery of tainted bribe amount of Rs. 12,000/ from the left front pocket of the wearign pant of the accused by independent witness Sh. Yashwant Saran. The wash of the pant pocket of the accused was also taken. At about 04:00pm, the grounds of arrest were explained to the accused and he was arrested vide separate arrest cum personal search memo and the specimen voice of the accused were taken which he gave voluntarily.
30. In the crossexamination, PW26 Inspector Harnam Singh stated that the complainant had told me that accused was demanding Rs.10,000/ as bribe and Rs.1,000/ as renewal charges. He had seized a receipt during the trap which showed that renewal charges of the licence were Rs.7,250/. He denied CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 26 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 the suggestion that the proceedings were not conducted in the manner as stated by him. He further denied the suggestion that the accused has not demanded any bribe and he just helped out the complainant and received the genuine expenses.
31. PW25 Sh. Joseph Krelo who in the year 2019 was posted as DSP, CBI ACB, New Delhi is the Investigating Officer (IO) of the present case. He during the investigation, recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C., sent letters to various persons /authorities, received letters from various persons/authorities, collected documents, sent exhibits / articles to CFSL, sent request for sanction for prosecution against accused Raman Kumar to the sanctioning authority, prepared transcription memos, received sanction order and CFSL opinion qua washes and thereafter submitted the present chargesheet.
32. In the crossexamination, he stated that he made inquiry regarding the renewal charges of HTL of bottled water business. He could not recollect that during investigation, how much amount was found to have been spent on preparation of HTL licence nor he could tell how much was the bribe amount demanded by the accused in this case. He denied the suggestion that the accused has not demanded any bribe from complainant or that the accused had only helped the complainant in renewal of his licence on the persistent request of the complainant who was an old man. He further denied the suggestion that the accused has only asked the genuine expenses which were incurred by him for renewal of licence of the complainant. He CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 27 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 also denied the suggestion that the exact renewal charges were not decided and paid to the Cyber Cafe Owner and that is why the accused had asked the complainant to pay Rs. 1,000/ more while handing over the licence. He further denied the suggestion that he had done shoddy investigation and falsely implicated the accused in this case.
EXPERT WITNESSES FROM CFSL
33. PW13 Sh. Deepak Kumar Tanwar is the Principal Scientific Officer (Physics) at CFSL New Delhi who examined the voices recorded in the memory cards Q1, Q2, Q3, S1 and gave his detailed report dated 25.09.2020 Ex.PW13/F. He has proved the letter dated 19.09.2019 written by SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi by which his office received four parcels which were marked as Q1,Q2, Q3 & S1 alongwith other documents as Ex.PW13/A for voice examination. As per his report, questioned voices marked as Q1 (R), Q2 (4), Q3 (3) and Q3 (4) are the probable voices of accused Raman Kumar whose specimen voice is marked as S1 (R). In the crossexamination, this witness stated that he carried out three examinations, namely, Waveform Analysis, Spectrographic Examination and Critical Auditory Examination of the recordings and did not find any discontinuity in the recordings. He denied the suggestion that some files in between File No. after 1027 in Q2 and File No.1117 in Q2 are missing or deleted.
34. PW14 is Ms. Deepti Bhargava, Sr. Scientific Officer CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 28 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 Grade II (Chemistry), CFSL, New Delhi. She examined the washes collected by the TLO and gave her report dated 30.09.2019 Ex.PW14/B and opined that all the three glass bottles marked as RHW, LHW and left front pant pocket wash tested positive for the presence of phenolphthalein powder. She also proved on record the letter dated 11.09.2019 by which the exhibits were received at CFSL for laboratory examination and expert opinion as Ex. PW14/A. She also identified her signatures on three bottles at point C which were already Ex.PW6/4, Ex. PW6/5 & Ex.PW6/6 as well as on cloth wrappers at point B which were already Ex. PW6/7, Ex. PW6/8 & Ex. PW6/9. In her crossexamination, she stated that with the passage of time, the colour of solution fades away due to chemical degradation of phenolphthalein. She denied the suggestion that the exhibits were not having the pink colour.
FORMAL WITNESSES
35. Under this category, the prosecution has examined Nodal Officers, witnesses from SDMC Office and other witnesses to prove its case.
36. PW2 Sh. Pawan Singh is Alternate Nodal Officer in Vodafome Idea Ltd. He vide letters dated 06.09.2019 Ex. PW2/A & 06.11.2019 Ex. PW2/F had supplied the Call Detail Records (CDR) of Mobile Phone No. 9868999211 of the complainant Ex. PW2/B & Ex.PW2/G, Customer Application Form (CAF) Ex. PW2/C & Ex.PW2/H, cell ID charts Ex. PW2/D & Ex.PW2/I and CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 29 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 certificates u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW2/E & Ex.PW2/J to the CBI. There is nothing material in the cross examination of this witness. In the crossexamination, he stated that there is typographical mistake in his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. dated 14.06.2019 Ex.PW2/DX1 where he stated that there was a call on 14.06.2019 at 15:44:43 between the mobile phone no. 9958821690 and 986899921 as first para of the said statement clearly shows that CDR was for the period from 14.08.2019 to 16.08.2019.
37. PW4 Sh. Pankaj Sharma is Nodal Officer in Reliance Jio and he vide letter dated 19.09.2019 Ex. PW4/A had supplied the CDR of Mobile Phone No. 8920462041 of wife of the accused Ex.PW4/B, CAF Ex.PW4/C, cell ID chart Ex.PW4/D and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW4/E to the CBI. This witness was not crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
38. PW7 Sh. Surender Kumar, the Nodal Officer in Bharti Airtel Ltd. vide letter dated 14.09.2019 Ex.PW7/A had supplied the CDR of Mobile Phone No. 9958821690 of wife of the accused Ex.PW7/B, CAF Ex.PW7/C, cell ID chart Ex.PW7/D and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW7/E to the CBI. This witness was also not crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
39. PW3 is Sh. Gyanesh Bharti who in the year 2019 was posted as Commissioner, SDMC, Civic Centre, JLN Marg, Minto CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 30 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 Road, New Delhi and granted prosecution sanction against accused Raman Kumar, who was working as Public Health Inspector in SDMC vide sanction order dated 04.12.2019 Ex. PW3/B. He supplied the sanction order to the CBI vide letter dated 04.12.2019 Ex. PW3/A. In the crossexamination, he stated that Anyone can apply for renewal of the licence online alongwith requisite documents. If someone faces difficulty in applying through online, they can also have interaction with the MCD officials. The officer is supposed to guide the public if needed. He denied the suggestion that the sanction for the prosecution against the accused was given without application of mind by him.
40. PW5 Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma is Draftsman (Civil) by profession who had prepared the site plan and key plan Ex. PW5/A of shop of the complainant on the basis of rough site plan brought by a person for which he was paid Rs. 2000/ or Rs. 2500/ in cash. In the crossexamination, this witness was confronted with the photocopy of site plans Ex. PW5/DX1 & Ex. PW5/DX2 and he denied to have prepared the site plan Ex.PW5/A on the basis of said site plans. He stated that there are no fix charges for making the site plan and key plan and charges differ from work to work.
41. PW8 Ms. Babita Kaushik was posted as Senior Secretariat Assistant in the office of SDMC, at Lajpat Nagar New Delhi in the year 2019. She clarified that correct name of accused is "Raman Kumar" whose name inadvertently is mentioned as CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 31 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 "Raman Yadav" at Serial No. 03 in the office order dated 31.10.2018 Ex. PW8/A. There is nothing material in cross examination of this witness. Otherwise also, the accused has not disputed the fact that his correct name is "Raman Kumar".
42. PW9 Sh. Pankaj Sharma was posted as Public Health Inspector, SDMC Office, Lajpat Nagar, Near Jal Board Office, New Delhi in the year 2019 and was successor of the accused who was assigned the renewal file of the complainant after suspension of the accused from services. He after inspecting the premises of the accused recommended for renewal of licence. He stated that for the renewal of HTL licence, the applicant is required to submit ownership proof, identity proof, copy of PAN, one photograph and copy of site plan on the website and the renewal fees was Rs 10,000/. Nothing relevant came in the crossexamination of this witness.
43. PW11 is Sh. Sushil Bhatia who runs a general store shop in the name of M/s Bhatia Stores at Firoz Shah Kotla, Vikram Nagar, New Delhi. About 34 years ago, he wanted to have a Health Trade Licence for his shop for which he visited SDMC office at Lajpat Nagar and met accused Raman Kumar who asked him to meet one Pankaj outside SDMC office who used to do the documentation work of Health Trade licence. Accordingly, he met Pankaj who took some documents from him and charged Rs. 500/ as his fees. He deposed that he had paid Rs 9,600/ as fees for the Health Trade licence which he paid to the SDMC through ATM Card of his friend Sachin Kapoor. He CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 32 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 also deposed that he had not provided any site plan of his shop to Pankaj. In the crossexamination, he stated that he had got his licence renewed through Pankaj and at that time also, the said Pankaj charged Rs. 500/ as his fees. He did not remember exactly but the SDMC fees he has paid may be around Rs. 5,000/ or Rs. 6,000/.
44. PW12 Smt. Madhu Yadav is wife of accused Raman Kumar who deposed that official name of her husband is Raman Kumar and their surname is Yadav. She further deposed that in the month of August 2019, her husband was using mobile phone Nos. 8920462041 & 9958821690, which were got issued by her by using her identify card. She was not crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
45. PW15 Dr Vivekanand Bhagat joined MCD in the year 1997 as General Duty Medical Officer and in the year 2018, he was posted as Deputy Health Officer in Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. He explained the process for granting renewal of Health Trade licence. He also deposed that IO had seized various documents pertaining to the accused from him during investigation. He also identified the voice of accused Raman Kumar in the recorded conversation recorded in memory cards Q1, Q2 & Q3. In the crossexamination, he stated that in the year 2019, the fees for renewal of licence was revised.
46. PW16 Sh. Narender was posted as Public Health Inspector in Lajpat Nagar in SDMC Office in the year 2019 and CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 33 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 was one of the colleagues of the accused. He deposed that Ramesh Chand Bali wanted to have renewal of his Health Trade Licence for the business of water bottles for which he had approached accused Raman Kumar for helping him out in renewal of his Health Trade Licence. Accused Raman Kumar asked the complainant to take help from outside as the entire system was online, but Ramesh Chand Bali persisted Raman Kumar to help in renewal of licence. He further deposed that for the renewal of licence, the applicant has to submit ownership proof, ID proof, PAN card, photo and the site plan. He further deposed that in the year 2019, the licence fee for renewal of bottle trade business was Rs. 7500/; and that at the time of renewal of licence, site plan is required to be submitted but not necessarily the fresh site plan. In the crossexamination, he stated that the accused told the complainant that the latter would have to pay the licence fee for renewal of licence as per rules. On being asked by Raman Kumar that the licence fees would have to be paid through card, the complainant told that he did not have any such card on which Raman Kumar offered to help him.
47. PW17 is Sh. Satish Kumar who in the year 2019 was posted as Domestic Breeding Checker on contract basis in MCD / SDMC. He deposed that his friend Mr. Pankaj was running a Cyber Cafe in front of SDMC office who asked him to lend Rs 7,400/ and he paid the same digitally by providing the OTP number. In the crossexamination, he stated that he did not work for Raman Kumar.
CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 34 of 65State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023
48. PW18 Mohd. Adnan Khan is running a tea stall at Dargah, Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi. In the year 2019, he wanted to have a fresh MCD licence for running the tea stall. Accordingly, he applied online and uploaded voter ID card, Adahar Card, PAN Card, map of shop, one passport size photo, electricity bill and also paid Rs. 7000/ as fees for the licence through ATM of his wife. Ld. Defence Counsel did not cross examine this witness.
49. PW19 Sh. Pankaj is running a Cyber Cafe opposite MCD Office, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. He deposed that accused Raman Kumar who was working in MCD gave him some documents for renewal of Health Trade Licence for bottle water business of some person and also gave him rough site plan and he was to prepare the fair site plan on the basis of said rough site plan. He further deposed that Raman Kumar had paid him Rs. 7500 8000/ which was to be submitted at the time of uploading the documents for renewal of Health Trade Licence. He generally charges Rs. 12,000 13,000/ for renewal of Health Trade Licence of bottle water business including the fees. He deposed that in this case, apart from Rs. 8,000/ the licence fees he had to charge approximately Rs. 5000/ for his expenses which includes preparation of site plan, key plan, ATM charges and his charges for uploading the documents. Raman Kumar had paid him Rs. 7,500 8,000/ in cash and since the renewal fees was to be submitted online, therefore he had arranged money from his friend Satish Kumar. In this case, he had told Raman CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 35 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 Kumar that roughly the expenses to be incurred on renewal of bottle water trade licence would be Rs 13,000/ besides liaisoning charges, though later on he had given up his liaisoning charges. He further deposed that he had received only Rs. 7,500
- 8,000/ from Raman Kumar and remaining amount was to be paid by Raman Kumar after renewal of Health Trade Licence.
50. This witness was crossexamined by Ld. Prosecutor as he resiled from his earlier statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He admitted that he has stated in his statement recorded on 19.09.2019 & 26.09.2019 that his fees for making the renewal of licence is Rs. 12,000/ which includes Rs. 7,250/ online fees, Rs. 150/ bank charges, Rs. 3,000/ site plan charges & key plan and his fees of Rs. 1500/. He denied the suggestion that he would have taken in total Rs. 12,000/ from Raman Kumar for renewal of Health Trade Licence. He voluntarily stated that he would have taken Rs. 2000/ more because of his visit to Tis Hazari Court for preparation of key plan and site plan. He denied the suggestion that he would have charged Rs. 12000/ from Raman Kumar. He voluntarily stated that he had told the accused the renewal charges as Rs 14,000/ which was subject to bargaining and nothing was fixed. He admitted that site plan prepared from the Architect was not uploaded. He voluntarily stated that he was instructed by Raman Kumar to get prepared the site plan from the Architect and accordingly he got prepared and incurred the expenses. He further voluntarily stated that in this case, Raman Kumar did not have any site plan and he had only rough CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 36 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 hand made sketch of the shop and asked him to get prepared a site plan from the Architect and the person for whom the licence was to be renewed was an old man and the site plan would be used in future also by him. A suggestion was put to him that he had to charge only Rs. 12,000/ from Raman Kumar and it was also in his knowledge, which he denied. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he stated that accused Raman Kumar had not approached him ever to apply for renewal of licence prior to the present case.
51. PW20 Sh. Surender Kumar is a Draftsman (civil) and prepares the site plans. He prepared the site plan Ex.PW5/DX2 of shop of the complainant on the asking of one Mr. Rahul Jha for which he was paid around Rs. 700/. He further deposed that the site plans Mark PW20/1 and Ex. PW20/2 are the photocopies of original site plan Ex. PW5/DX2. In the crossexamination, he stated that he also used to charge expenses of site visit and Rs. 700/ includes site visit and preparation of site plan.
52. PW21 is Sh. Dugesh Kumar who in the year 2019 was working as a consultant (IT), SDMC, IT Department, Civic Centre, SDMC, JLN Marg, New Delhi on contract basis. He deposed that for the purpose of renewal, applicant must have a valid licence and its tenure must complete by 31 st of March. The system will then allow the applicant to proceed further for renewal of the licence. In the case of renewal of bottle water licence, if any deficiency is found in the documents, the same can be rectified by the applicant when the same is raised by CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 37 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 concerned Deputy Health Officer and once the documents are uploaded on the system, the same cannot be changed. In the crossexamination, he stated that only services can be accessed from the server of SDMC which have been put on public domain.
53. PW22 Dr Naveen Rai Tuli was posted as Deputy Health Officer, Public Health Department, office of Deputy Commissioner, South Zone, SDMC, Green Park, New Delhi in the year 20182019 under whom the accused used to work as Public Health Inspector. He deposed that in the year 20162017, SDMC made the process of grant of Health Trade Licence as online process and the applicant was required to submit four documents i.e. proof of legal occupancy, ID proof, PAN card and site plan of the property. He deposed that same documents were required for the renewal of the licence. The same site plan which was submitted at the time of grant of licence could be used for renewal also if there was no deviation in the property. He further deposed that there were no clear guidelines whether site plan so required to be submitted should have been verified by the Architect. Nothing relevant came in the crossexamination of this witness.
54. PW23 Sh. Rahul Ranjan was working as Consultant for GST, Trade Mark and other legal works in the year 20182019 and he knew complainant Ramesh Chand Bali. He deposed that he had applied for HTL for the complainant in the year 2018 for which he had arranged one Architect who visited the premises of complainant and prepared the site plan and key plan. He had CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 38 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 uploaded the said site plan and key plan alongwith Adhar Card, PAN Card and electricity bill of complainant Ramesh Chand Bali. He further deposed that in the year 2018, the licence fees for water bottle business licence was around Rs. 11,000/ and for renewal it was around Rs. 6,000 - 7,000/ and the licence is valid upto 31st of March. In the year 2019, the renewal fees was Rs. 6000 7000/.
55. In the crossexamination, this witness stated that he has got prepared 1012 HTL upto 2019, though he has no idea about the late fees charges. He stated that he has charged Rs. 19,000/ in the year 2018 from Ramesh Chand Bali for his water bottle business licence and FSSAI licence. The fees for FSSAI licence was Rs 500/. He had charged Rs. 18,500/ for water bottle business licence out of which Rs. 11,000/ was Govt. fees for HTL licence, Rs. 1200 1600/ were Architect charges for both licences and Rs. 6,000/was his professional charges for both licences.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
56. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 07.03.2023 in which entire incriminating evidence against him was put which was denied by him and he pleaded innocence. While denying the prosecution evidence incriminating against him, the accused stated that he has not demanded any bribe from the complainant and a false case has been foisted upon him by the CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 39 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 CBI on the baseless complaint of the complainant. He explained that in the month of August 2019, the complainant had approached him seeking help in renewal of his HTL licence which had already expired in March 2019. The accused told the complainant to apply through online mode, however the complainant being old man insisted for the help of the accused as the complainant did not know the online procedure of renewal of HTL licence. The accused then asked the complainant to go in a Cafe to apply online for the licence but the complainant insisted the accused to get renewal of his HTL licence done as the complainant did not have any faith in outsiders. The accused then gave some documents of the complainant and Rs. 8000/ in cash to Sh. Pankaj, the Cafe Owner who is having his seat in front of SDMC office at Lajpat Nagar to renew the HTL licence of complainant Ramesh Chand Bali. Sh. Pankaj, however, asked for the payment of Rs. 15,000/ but due to negotiation made by the accused, said Sh. Pankaj agreed to take Rs. 13,000/ inclusive of the licence renewal fee and site plan making charges. The expenses borne by accused had already been communicated to the complainant and the total expenses of Rs. 13,000/ as quoted by Sh. Pankaj, the Cafe Owner was also brought into the knowledge of the complainant. The accused also informed the complainant that the former had already made payment of Rs. 8,000/ and the remaining payment was to be made to Sh. Pankaj as soon as possible. He asked the complainant to pay the same directly to Mr. Pankaj but the complainant hesitated and said that he would pay the remaining amount to the accused only CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 40 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 and not to anyone else. The accused reiterated that he has not asked for any bribe from the complainant and he has taken the genuine expenses from the complainant which he had incurred for renewal of licence.
ARGUMENTS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES
57. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
58. Ld. Public Prosecutor submitted that the complainant is in the bottled water business and he wanted to renew his health trade licence which got expired and for the said purpose, the complainant approached the accused who during the relevant time was posted as Public Health Inspector in SDMC Office, Jal Vihar, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. He contended that the accused demanded bribe of Rs. 11,000/ from the complainant for renewal of his licence upon which the complainant made a complaint Ex. PW1/1 on the basis of which, the present case was registered against the accused. Ld. Prosecutor has argued that complaint Ex. PW1/1 has been duly proved during the testimony of PW1 (the complainant). He further argued that the complaint was made on 19.08.2019 which was verified on two dates on 19.08.2019 and 20.08.2019 in the presence of independent witnesses and, thereafter, FIR was registered on 21.08.2019 and the accused was caught red handed while demanding and accepting bribe of Rs. 13,000/ from the complainant during the trap proceedings conducted on 21.08.2019.
CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 41 of 65State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023
59. It is further submitted by the Ld. Prosecutor that the accused was chargesheeted for the offence punishable u/s 7 of the PC, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and sanction for prosecution of the accused under Section19 of the PC Act was taken from the competent authority which was duly proved through the testimony of PW3 Sh. Gyanesh Bharti who was the sanctioning authority. He further submitted that the prosecution has examined 26 witnesses and has duly proved all the ingredients of Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) through oral and documentary evidence. He further submitted that the fact of demand of bribe has been proved through the testimony of PW1 (the complainant), PW24 Sh. C.M.S. Negi (the verification officer), PW6 Sh. Kundan Kumar Singh & PW10 Sh. Yashwant Saran (the independent witness) apart from recorded conversation contained in original memory cards marked as Q1 to Q3. He further submitted that in this case, the accused has not disputed the fact that he had accepted Rs. 12,000/ from the complainant and the factum of recovery of the said amount from his possession has also not been disputed by the accused.
60. Ld. Public Prosecutor has further submitted that the accused through PW19 Sh. Pankaj, the Cafe Owner who got prepared the licence of the complainant has included the expenses of fresh site plan in the amount to be paid by the complainant as expenses towards renewal of his licence to the accused, whereas from the testimony of PW16 Sh. Narender Kumar who was Public Health Inspector in SDMC Office, it is CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 42 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 evident that fresh site plan was not required to be submitted for renewal of licence. He, thus, argued that the accused has taken undue advantage from the complainant in the form of site plan expenses. He further argued that PW19 Sh. Pankaj has stated that he generally charges Rs. 12,000/ or Rs. 13,000/ for renewal of licence and it shows that he was in league with accused and the accused was to get his share from him for renewal of HTL, otherwise the expenses for site plan were unnecessarily charged from the complainant which was not required to be submitted. He further submitted that the prosecution has also proved the scientific evidence regarding the presence of phenolphthalein powder in all the washes collected from the accused. The transcript has also been duly proved besides the voice of accused in the memory card through the scientific evidence. He also submitted that there was a motive with the accused to take bribe from the complainant as the file for renewal of licence of the complainant was pending with the accused. He submitted that there is direct evidence against the accused of demand and acceptance of bribe with motive and the prosecution has successfully proved the charge against the accused and hence the accused is liable to be convicted.
61. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused argued that the complaint is motivated and manipulated. He submitted that in the present case, the Verification Officer did not try to find out as to what was the licence fees for renewal of HTL and he drew inferences only on the basis of conversation recorded between CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 43 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 the complainant and the accused in the memory cards. He further submitted that the complainant had approached the accused for the help of the latter in getting his licence renewed and the accused told the complainant clearly that the entire process was online and to take help from outside, however the complainant persisted for the help of the accused as the complainant did not have the ATM card to make the payment of licence fee online. It is further submitted that on the persistent request of the complainant, the accused asked the complainant to meet Sh. Pankaj, the Cafe Owner for renewal of HTL. Ld. Defence Counsel further submitted that the accused also told the complainant about the expenses of Rs. 13,000/ for renewal of licence and the complainant very well knew that Rs. 13,000/ was to be paid to the accused as charges for renewal of HTL and that is why the complainant had brought Rs. 2000/ extra at the time of laying trap besides Rs. 11,000/ to be paid to the accused which were treated with phenolphthalein powder. He further submitted that there was no demand of bribe by the accused and the accused took only the genuine expenses which he incurred in getting the licence of the complaint renewed and the said fact is corroborated by PW19 Sh. Pankaj and PW16 Sh. Narender. He further submitted that there is no allegation by any prosecution witness that the accused was to get his share from PW19 Pankaj, the Cafe Owner for renewal of HTL and the accused has only helped out the complainant in getting the licence renewed but the complainant got him trapped in a false case. He further submitted that the Verification Officer has not carried out the proper CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 44 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 verification of the complaint and the Investigating Officer also did not ascertain during the investigation that what were the genuine expenses to be incurred in renewal of licence and it shows that the Investigating Officer has carried out shoddy investigation. He submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case and the accused is liable to be acquitted.
62. Ld. Defence counsel in support of his submissions has relied upon the following judgments: Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. vs. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi @ T.H. Vijayalakshmi & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No. 1597/2021 decided on 08.10.2021/ 2021 SCC Online SC 923;
Joginder Singh Malik vs. CBI, Crimial Appeal No. 1302/2010 dcided on 08.12.2002/ 2022 SCC Onlne Del 4298;
Satyanarayana Murthy vs. District Inspector of Police, State of andhra Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Appeal/31/2009 decided on 14.09.2015/ (2015) 10 SCC 152 ;
K. Shanthamma vs. State of Telangana, Criminal Appeal/261/2022 decided on 21.02.2022/ (2022) 4 SCC 574;
State vs. Bijender Singh, Criminal Appeal/ 341/2011 decided on 13.02.2023, 2023 SCC Online Del 1208 B. Jayaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Criminal Appeal/ 696/2014 decided on 28.03.2014/ (2014) 13 SCC 55 and Premchand vs. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 211/2013, decided on 03.03.2023/ (2023) SCC Online 218.
63. To constitute an offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988 (as amended in 2008), the demand of bribe by the accused is sine qua non. As such, it is to be seen as to whether there was demand of bribe by the accused or not from the complainant.
CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 45 of 65State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023
64. In this case, it is not in dispute that at the relevant time, accused R.K. Yadav @ Raman Kumar was working as Public Health Inspector in SDMC Office, Jal Vihar, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. It is also not in dispute that complainant Ramesh Chand Bali had approached the accused for renewal of HTL for his bottled water business which had got expired. It is also not in dispute that accused Raman Kumar had accepted Rs. 12,000/ from the complainant for renewal of HTL of the complainant. However, the bone of contention between the parties is that as per the accused, the complainant who was an old man insisted him to get his HTL renewed as the entire process of the same was online and the complainant did not have ATM card to make the online payment for licence fee and other charges, and the accused out of courtesy helped the complainant in getting his licencee renewed and sent the complainant to PW19 Sh. Pankaj, the Cafe Owner who got renewed the HTL of the complainant and told the expenses incurred by him in getting the licence renewed to the tune of Rs. 13,000/. The accused, therefore, contended that he had taken only the genuine expenses from the complainant which he had incurred in getting the licence of the complainant renewed which was to be paid to Sh. Pankaj, the Cafe Owner.
65. On the other hand, the prosecution has alleged that the accused had demanded bribe of Rs. 11,000/ from the complainant for getting renewed the licence and has taken undue advantage by demanding the extra money from the complainant under the guise of genuine expenses for renewal of HTL of the CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 46 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 complainant.
66. The criminal law was set into motion pursuant to complaint Ex.PW1/1 in which complainant Ramesh Chand Bali has alleged that he deals in bottled water business and was holding SDMC Health Trade licence for the same which got expired and he wanted to get the same renewed. Accordingly, he visited SDMC Office and met accused R.K. Yadav @ Raman Kumar, the then Public Health Inspector. It is further alleged that the accused informed the complainant about renewal of his licence and asked the complainant to pay licence fee of Rs. 1,000/ which was paid by the accused and demanded bribe of Rs 10,000/ for getting renewed the licence and since the complainant did not want to pay the bribe, he lodged the complaint. The said complaint was got verified and after verification, the FIR was registered and the same culminated into filing of the chargesheet against the accused.
67. When the complainant appeared in the witness box as PW1, he reiterated the allegations made in the complaint Ex.PW1/1 and deposed that the accused told him that Rs. 1000/ had been paid by him (the accused) and asked him (the complainant)to bring Rs. 10,000/ more totaling to Rs. 11,000/. In the crossexamination, PW1 (the complainant) stated that for the first time he was issued licence in the year 2018. He also got issued FSSAI licence in the year 2018 and he got prepared the said licence from one person to whom he paid around Rs. 20,000/, out of which Rs 5000/ was licence fee for HTL CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 47 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 licence. He further stated that he had gone to the accused to ask the procedure for renewal of licence and the accused told him that he (the complainant) would have to bear the expenditure of Rs. 10,000 11,000/ for renewal of licence, out of which Rs. 5,000/ would be the licence fees.
68. The aforesaid statement of the complainant reveals that he was aware about the licence fees which was to be deposited with the SDMC for renewal of his HTL as he was issued HTL for the first time in the year 2018 and at that time he had paid Rs. 5,000/ as licence fee for the same. It also shows that the complainant though has given an impression in the complaint Ex. PW1/1 and during his examinationinchief that the accused had demanded Rs. 10,000/ as bribe for getting his HTL renewed but in the crossexamination this stand is completely demolished when he stated that the accused had clearly told him that out of expenditure of Rs. 10,000 11,000/ for renewal of licence, Rs. 5000/ would be the licence fees. Thus, it shows that the complainant has not disclosed the true and complete facts. Moreover, it cannot be accepted that the complainant did not know that out of Rs. 11,000/ the accused was not demanding Rs. 10,000/ allegedly as bribe when the accused had categorically told him that Rs. 5,000/ will be the licence fees.
69. In the later part of his crossexamination, the complainant further categorically stated that the accused had not stated that Rs. 10,000 11,000/ was bribe but he has demanded the said amount by saying that it was the total expenditure in CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 48 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 getting the licence renewed. He further stated that accused had stated that he will have to pay Rs. 10,000/ and Rs. 1,000/ for renewal of licence as expenses. So, this again shows that the version of the complainant in the complaint and chief examination is contrary to what he has disclosed in the cross examination.
70. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that there was no motive for demand of bribe by the accused as the entire process for renewal of licence was online, while the Ld. Prosecutor has argued that the renewal file was pending with the accused and, therefore, he had motive to demand the bribe from the complainant.
71. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer the evidence of PW16 Narender who was posted as Public Health Inspector in Lajpat Nagar in SDMC Office in the year 2019. He categorically deposed that Ramesh Chand Bali wanted to have renewed his Health Trade licence for the business of water bottles for which he had approached accused Raman Kumar for helping him out in renewal of his Health Trade licence. Accused Raman Kumar asked the complainant to take help from outside as the entire system was online, but Ramesh Chand Bali persisted Raman Kumar to help in renewal of licence. During crossexamination, he categorically stated that Raman Kumar had told Ramesh Chand Bali that he will have to pay the licence fee for renewal of licence as per rules. He further stated that on being asked by Raman Kumar that the licence fees will have to be paid through CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 49 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 card, the complainant told that he did not have any such card on which Raman Kumar agreed to help the complainant.
72. The aforesaid testimony of PW16 Sh. Narender brings out the fact that it was the complainant who insisted the accused to get his licence renewed as the entire process for renewal of HTL was online and the complainant did not have ATM card to make the payment of licence fee online. On the persistent request of the complainant, the accused agreed to get his licence renewed and at that time he had told the complainant to pay the licence fee for renewal of licence as per rules. Therefore, it cannot be said that the file of the complainant for renewal of HTL was pending with the accused and he had motive to demand the bribe as contended by Ld. Prosecutor.
73. In online procedure for renewal of a licence, a person can get the licence renewed himself after submitting the requisite documents and depositing the necessary licence fees online. This has also been deposed by PW15 Dr. Vivekanand Bhagat who was posted as Deputy Health Officer in Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi in the year 2018. He deposed that the procedure for granting renewal of Health Trade licence is online process. Any trader can apply online for renewal of his Health Trade licence who is required to upload proof of legal occupancy, ID proof, PAN Card/VAT registration and site plan of the premises. The trader has to accept the condition of the Health Trade licence and thereafter he has to make the payment online for renewal of licence.
CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 50 of 65State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023
74. So, motive on the part of the accused to demand the bribe is not established. On the other hand, the contention of the accused that he had demanded the genuine expenses from the complainant which he had incurred in getting the HTL of the complainant renewed and there was no iota of demand of bribe is established from the testimony of the prosecution witness itself. PW19 Sh. Pankaj is the material witness to substantiate the defence of the accused.
75. PW19 Sh. Pankaj deposed that he is running a Cyber Cafe opposite to MCD Office, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and accused Raman Kumar who was working in MCD gave him some documents for renewal of Health Trade Licence for bottle water business of some person and also gave him rough site plan and he was to prepare the fair site plan on the basis of said rough site plan. He further deposed that Raman Kumar had paid him Rs. 7,500 8,000/ which was to be submitted at the time of uploading the documents for renewal of Health Trade licence. He generally charges Rs. 12,000 13,000/ for renewal of Health Trade licence of bottle water business including the fees. He further deposed that in this case, apart from Rs. 8,000/ the licence fees, he had to charge approximately Rs. 5000/ for his expenses which includes preparation of site plan, key plan, ATM charges and his charges for uploading the documents. He further deposed that Raman Kumar had paid him Rs. 7,500 8,000/ in cash and since the renewal fees was to be submitted online, therefore he had arranged money from his friend Satish Kumar CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 51 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 who paid him some money through his ATM card. In this case, he had told Raman Kumar that roughly the expenses to be incurred on renewal of bottle water trade licence would be Rs. 13,000/ besides liaisoning charges, though later on he had given up his liaisoning charges. He further deposed that he had received only Rs. 7,500 8,000/ from Raman Kumar and remaining amount was to be paid by Raman Kumar after renewal of Health Trade licence.
76. The aforesaid statement of PW19 Pankaj made in his examinationinchief demonstrate that he had got renewed the HTL of the complainant on the asking of the accused for which the accused had paid him Rs. 7,500 8,000/ which was to be submitted at the time of uploading the documents for renewal of licence. He generally used to charge Rs 12,000 13,000/ for renewal of HTL. Since in this case, he had prepared the site plan, key plan and also incurred ATM charges for renewal of licence which were to be realized, he had to charge Rs. 5,000/ more. He clearly told the accused that roughly expenses to be incurred on renewal of bottle water trade licence would be Rs. 13,000/ besides liaisoning charges, though later on he gave up the liaisoning charges.
77. This witness was crossexamined by the Ld. Prosecutor as he was declared hostile. In his crossexamination, PW19 Sh. Pankaj admitted that he had stated that his fees for making the renewal of licence is Rs. 12,000/ which included Rs. 7,250/ online fees, Rs. 150/ bank charges, Rs. 3000/ site plan and key CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 52 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 plan charges, Rs 1500/ his fees, but voluntarily he stated that he had not calculated the liaisoning charges and that was only the general charges which he used to take. He voluntarily stated that he would have taken Rs. 2,000/ more because of his visit to Tis Hazari Courts for preparation of key plan and site plan. He also stated that initially he had told the renewal charges for Rs. 12,000/ but the same was not fixed and it was dependent on his incurring extra charges on preparation of site plan etc. He further stated that he would have charged at least Rs. 2,000/ more and it was different thing that what he (the accused) would have paid. He voluntarily stated that initially he had told him the renewal charges as Rs. 14,000/ which was subject to bargaining and nothing was fixed.
78. The aforesaid statement of the witness clearly demonstrate that PW19 Sh. Pankaj, the Café owner had not conclusively told the accused that what would be the exact expenses for renewal of HTL of the complainant and he roughly told the same in the range of Rs. 12,000/ to Rs 13,000/. The additional expenses were subject to his visit to Tis Hazari Courts for preparing the site plan and his liaisoning charges. Thus, from the testimony of PW19 Sh. Pankaj, it cannot be said that renewal charges which were to be paid by the accused to PW19 Sh. Pankaj was Rs. 12,000/ only.
79. The Ld. Prosecutor has vehemently contended that the accused had taken Rs. 12,000/ from the complainant on the day of trap and thereafter handed over the licence to the complainant CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 53 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 and asked the complainant to pay Rs. 1,000/ more later on. He, therefore, would argue that this amount of Rs. 1,000/ was undue advantage asked by the accused from the complainant. However, the testimony of PW19 Sh. Pankaj does not reflect so. As it is very clear from the statement of PW19 Sh. Pankaj that he would have charged Rs. 13,000/ from the accused for renewal of HTL of the complainant besides liaisoning charges and he had received Rs. 7,500 8,000/ from accused Raman Kumar and remaining amount was to be paid by the accused after renewal of HTL. As such, the accused had accepted Rs. 12,000/ from the complainant on the day of trap and asked the complainant to pay Rs. 1,000/ more later on and it was the genuine expenses which he had to pay to Sh. Pankaj, the Café owner for renewal of HTL of the complainant and it cannot be said that amount of Rs. 1000/ demanded by the accused from the complainant apart from Rs. 12,000/ was undue advantage.
80. The Ld. Prosecutor has also taken an exception from the statement of PW19 Pankaj when he stated that he generally charges Rs. 12,000 13,000/ for renewal of HTL of water bottle business including the fees and argued that in this case, since the accused was a Public Heath Inspector in SDMC Office, he used to send the clients to PW19 Sh. Pankaj, the Café Owner for preparation/renewal of licence for which he would have his own share in the expenses incurred for preparation/renewal of licence.
81. It is to be noted that PW19 Sh. Pankaj during his entire crossexamination by the Ld. Prosecutor did not say that any CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 54 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 commission was to be given to the accused or that the accused had any share in the charges for renewal of licence. Rather in the crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he categorically stated that accused Raman Kumar had not approached him ever to apply for renewal of licence prior to the present case. If that is the position, then the question of accused sending the clients to him for preparation/renewal of licence and having his share in the expenses does not arise.
82. Ld. Prosecutor has also argued that the site plan charges taken by the accused from the complainant through PW19 Sh. Pankaj, the café owner to the tune of Rs. 3,000/ was unwarranted and the site plan approved through an Architect was not required to be submitted for renewal of HTL. He further argued that in this case, old site plan was used, and therefore expenditure of Rs. 3,000/ towards site plan charges included in the break up given by PW19 Pankaj, the café owner of the expenses incurred for renewal of HTL of the complainant is an undue advantage on the part of the accused as he had forced complainant to pay the site plan charges which in fact was not required to be prepared by an Architect. He has referred to the testimonies of PW15 Dr. Vivekanand Bhagat & PW16 Sh. Narender in this regard.
83. PW15 Dr. Vivekanand Bhagat has deposed that for renewal of HTL, applicant is required to upload proof of legal occupancy, ID proof, Pan Card/ VAT registration and site plan of the premises. In his crossemanation, he stated that the site plan CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 55 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 should contain the measurement of the shop and it is not required to be certified by the architect and it can also be self made by the applicant. He further stated that it is written in the guidelines that self made site plan can also be submitted by the applicant.
84. PW16 Sh. Narender has also deposed that the applicant has to submit ownership proof, ID proof, PAN card, photo and the site plan for renewal of licence. He further stated that at the time of renewal of licence, site plan is required to be submitted but not necessarily the fresh site plan. During his cross examination, he stated that the site plan is not required to be approved by the Architect.
85. From the aforesaid testimonies of prosecution witnesses, it is revealed that one of the documents to be uploaded for renewal of a licence is the site plan but the same need not to be a fresh site plan and an old site plan can be uploaded for the said purpose. However, in this case, PW19 Sh. Pankaj had got prepared the fresh site plan from an Architect for which he had charged Rs. 3,000/. During his crossemanation, he admitted that site plan prepared from the Architect was not uploaded. He voluntarily stated that he was instructed by Raman Kumar to get prepared the site plan from the Architect and accordingly he got prepared and incurred the expenses. He admitted that even the old site plan can also be uploaded and the fresh site plan is not required to be uploaded. He voluntarily stated that in this case, Raman Kumar did not have any site plan and he was having only rough hand made sketch of the shop and asked him to get CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 56 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 prepared a site plan from the Architect and the person for whom the licence was to be renewed was an old man and the site plan would be used in future also by him. He was put a question by the Ld. Prosecutor that since he had uploaded hand made site plan, therefore the site pan prepared from the architect was not at all required to be uploaded to which he responded that he had uploaded the hand made site plan because the licence was to be renewed urgently and the site plan from the Architect was not yet ready and it was decided that if on account of uploading the hand made site plan there would be any deficiency it would be removed later on.
86. The accused through the testimony of PW19 has clarified the position that though the site plan approved by an Architect is not necessarily required to be submitted but since the complainant did not have any site plan, therefore he had asked PW19 Sh. Pankaj, the Cafe Owner to get prepared the site plan from an Architect which could have also been used in future by the complainant.
87. PW22 Dr. Naveen Rai Tuli has also deposed in his chief examination that the applicant was required to submit four documents i.e. proof of legal occupancy, ID proof, PAN card and site plan of the property and same documents were required for the renewal of the licence and the same site plan which was submitted at the time of grant of licence could be used for renewal also if there was no deviation in the property. He further stated that there were no clear guidelines whether site plan so CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 57 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 required to be submitted should have been verified by the Architect or not.
88. PW22 Dr. Naveen Rai Tuli is the Deputy Health Officer and when he stated that there were no clear guidelines whether the site plan to be submitted should be verified by the Architect or not, then in case, if out of abundant precaution, the accused has asked Sh. Pankaj, the Cafe Owner to get prepared site plan from an approved Architect which could also be used by the complainant in future, it cannot be said that the accused got any undue advantage in the guise of expenses of site plan. It is not the case of the prosecution that no site plan was got prepared by Sh. Pankaj from an approved Architect. Furthermore, if PW19 Sh. Pankaj has charged Rs. 3,000/ for getting prepared the site plan, the said charges were to be paid by the accused to Sh. Pankaj. Even if the said architect approved site plan was not necessary, still the accused has not gained anything out of this and it cannot be said that the accused took any undue advantage from the complainant by asking to pay site plan charges.
89. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the complainant is a dishonest and disgruntled person and he wanted to trap the accused in a false case, otherwise he very well knew that he had to pay Rs. 13,000/ as renewal charges of his licence to the accused and that is why he was carrying Rs. 2,000/ extra besides Rs. 11,000/ at the time of trap proceedings.
90. It is a matter of fact from the statement of PW24 Sh.
CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 58 of 65State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 C.M.S. Negi, the Verification Officer that in this case, verification of the complaint was done on two dates and on each date, the complainant was asked to bring Rs. 10,000/ as tainted bribe money to be paid to the accused. However, the complainant brought Rs. 11,000/ with him which was demanded by the accused and apart from that he had kept Rs. 2,000/ with him when the CBI had gone for conducting the raid on the accused as stated by the complainant during his crossexamination.
91. Now question arises that if the accused had demanded Rs. 10,000/ as bribe from the complainant apart from licence fee of Rs. 1000/ and Verification Officer Sh. C.M.S. Negi on the first date of verification and on the second concluding day of verification had asked the complainant to bring Rs. 10,000/ with him, then why the complainant had kept Rs. 2,000/ extra with him on the day of trap?
92. The justification given by the accused in this regard appears to be logical that the complainant had kept Rs. 2,000/ extra with him because by the core of the heart he knew that he had to pay Rs. 13,000/ to the accused as renewal charges. PW1 (the complainant) categorically stated in his crossexamination that the remaining extra amount of Rs. 2,000/ was not treated with the powder and he kept the same in the pocket of his vest. Though he has given an explanation that he had kept Rs. 2,000/ voluntarily for his expenses etc., however it is not discernible as to what expenses he had to incur during the trap proceedings. Therefore, I find substance in the argument of Ld. Defence CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 59 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 Counsel that the complainant had kept Rs. 2,000/ extra as he knew that he had to pay Rs. 13,000/ to the accused for renewal of HTL.
93. The conduct of the complainant does not inspire confidence because in the complaint Ex. PW1/1, he has alleged that the accused has demanded Rs. 11,000/ out of which Rs. 10,000/was bribe, while in the crossexamination, he stated that the accused had told him that out of expenditure of Rs. 11,000/, Rs. 5,000/ was the licence fees. Further, the complainant had got prepared his HTL for the first time in the year 2018 and at that time he had incurred expenditure of Rs. 19,000/, out of which Rs. 18,500/ was for water bottle business licence as per break up given by PW23 Sh. Rahul Ranjan Jha who had got prepared the HTL in the year 2018 for the complainant.
94. PW11 Sh. Sushil Bhatia who had got prepared the HTL licence for his shop from Pankaj, the Café owner stated that around in the year 201819 he had directly gone to Pankaj for renewal of his licence and the fees he had paid to SDMC might be approximately Rs. 5000/ or Rs. 6000/.
95. PW18 Mohd. Adnan Khan has also stated that he got prepared his MCD licence for running the tea stall in the year 2019 for which he had applied online and paid Rs. 7,000/ as fees for the licence through ATM.
96. It has also come through the testimony of PW15 Dr. Vivekanand Bhagat that in the year 2019, the fees for renewal of CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 60 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 licence was revised. PW16 Sh. Narender has also deposed that in the year 2019, the licence fee for renewal of bottle water trade business licence was Rs. 7,500/.
97. From the aforesaid statements of prosecution witnesses, it is evident that the licence fee for renewal of a HTL licence in the year 2018 was around Rs. 5000/, which was revised in the year 2019 and it increased to Rs. 7,500/ approximately.
98. In the present case, Rs. 7,250/ had been paid vide receipt dated 13.08.2019 Ex.PW16/B (Colly) (D17) as licence fees for renewal of HTL of the complainant. Since the complainant did not have the ATM card, Sh. Pankaj had made a payment of Rs. 7,400/ through ATM card of his friend PW17 Sh. Satish Kumar. PW19 Sh. Pankaj has given the other break up of expenses incurred in renewal of HTL of the complainant which apart from the licence fee of Rs. 7,250/ includes, bank charges, site plan charges, his fees and it comes roughly to Rs. 13,000/. Therefore, question of demand of bribe of Rs. 10,000/ by the accused as alleged by the complainant in his complaint and during his testimony does not arise.
99. The Ld. Counsel for accused has vehemently argued that in the present case, the Verification Officer did not verify the complaint properly and without proper verification, the FIR was registered and the accused was put on trial. He further contended that the Verification Officer did not take the pain to visit the SDMC office to know the genuine expenses for renewal of HTL.
CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 61 of 65State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 Ld. Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that it was not the job of Verification Officer to visit the SDMC office to know the expenses for renewal of HTL and if he had done so, the entire purpose of trapping the accused would have frustrated. He submitted that the Verification Officer was only required to verify the allegations made in the complaint which he verified on two dates and came to the conclusion that there was demand of bribe of Rs. 10,000/ by the accused from the complainant.
100. It may be noted that in this case, Sh. C.M.S. Negi, the Verification Officer was swayed by the conversations took place between the complainant and the accused which were recorded in the memory cards. In the conversation recorded in memory card 'Q1', the accused is telling the complainant that he had to pay of the receipt money, 1000/ extra and other charges which he had already told to the complainant. In the said conversation, the accused also confirmed to the complainant the amount by saying, "Theek hai, dus". In the conversation recorded on the day of trap in the memory card 'Q3', the accused is giving the break up of the amount and when the complainant gave him Rs. 12,000/, the accused asked the complainant to pay Rs. 1,000/ more later on.
101. It appears that primarily the Verification Officer was swayed by the fact that the demand of Rs. 10,000/ is matching with the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint by the words "theek hai, dus". Otherwise, if the entire conversation recorded in memory cards 'Q1' to 'Q3' is gone through, it is not CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 62 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 discernible that there was demand of bribe by the accused of Rs. 10,000/ as alleged by the complainant in his complaint Ex. PW1/1 and during his testimony in the Court.
102. It is also to be noted that PW24 Sh. C.M.S. Negi, the Verification Officer did not enquire the fact as to what were the expenses incurred by the accused in getting the licence renewed. He stated in the crossexamination that he did not verify from the SDMC whether the complainant has made any complaint there also. He also did not verify from the department about the renewal charges of the licence. He did not take the permission from HoD of SDMC to verify the complaint against the accused. He further stated that the need for further verification on 20.08.2019 arose as it was decided between the complainant and the accused on 19.08.2019 that they would meet again on 20.08.2019 and he had told the complainant to bring the bribe amount of Rs. 10,000/ on 20.08.2019 but the complainant was not instructed to hand over the said amount on that day. The amount was to be given when the trap was to be laid. He did not enquire the renewal charges on 20.08.2019 also.
103. If the argument of Ld. Prosecutor is accepted that the Verification Officer had not inquired from the SDMC about the renewal charges because if that had been done it might have frustrated the purpose of laying trap, still when the accused was trapped and investigation was started, the Investigating Officer, at least, could have done the said job. However, the Investigating Officer did not bother to even inquire from SDMC office the CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 63 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 renewal charges of HTL in the year 2019 and whether the money demanded by the accused was genuine expenses which he had incurred for renewal of HTL of the complainant and that too on the persistent request of the complainant to help him out in getting the licence renewed. In as much as, the Investigating Officer could not tell what was the bribe amount in this case.
104. PW25 Sh. Joseph Krelo, the Investigating Officer of the case though claimed in his crossemanation that he made inquiry regarding the renewal charges of HTL of bottled water business and vaguely stated that the same is reflected in the statement of prosecution witnesses. He could not recollect that during investigation, how much amount was found to have been spent on preparation of HTL licence. He could not tell as to how much was the bribe amount demanded by the accused in this case.
105. It shows that the Investigating Officer has done lopsided investigation in the present case and did not bother to investigate that how much licence fees for renewal of licence was paid by the accused and he even did not know as to what was the quantum of alleged bribe amount demanded by the accused from the complainant.
106. In view of the aforesaid discussions, in my considered opinion, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case that the accused has demanded the bribe of Rs. 10,000/ as alleged in the complaint Ex. PW1/1 or any other amount as CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 64 of 65 State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023 undue advantage from the complainant and could not establish the necessary ingredients of Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) against the accused. On the other hand, the stand of the accused taken in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C that he helped out the complainant in getting the renewal of his HTL and took the genuine expenses from the complainant which he had incurred in renewal of licence is established from the statement of prosecution witnesses itself and the material available on the record.
107. Consequently, accused R.K. Yadav @ Raman Kumar is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018). Bail bond furnished by him under Section 439 Cr.P.C. stands cancelled and his surety is discharged. He is required to furnish fresh bail bonds in compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C in the sum of Rs. 30,000/ each. The same shall remain in force for a period of six months from today.
108. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signed by BALWANT BALWANT RAI BANSAL
RAI Date:
2023.03.29
Announced in the open Court BANSAL 14:51:13
on 29th March, 2023 +0530
(Balwant Rai Bansal)
Special Judge (PC Act), CBI17,
Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi
CC No. 01/20 & ID No. 08/20 Page 65 of 65
State vs. Raman Kumar Judgment dt. 29.03.2023