Delhi District Court
State (Cbi) vs Tej Singh on 22 August, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHARMESH SHARMA
SPECIAL JUDGE03,CBI
NEW DELHI,DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
CC No. 16/2011
Case ID No. 02403R0390042009
RC No. 16 (A)/2009/CBI/ACB/ND
In re:
STATE (CBI)
VS
TEJ SINGH
S/O LATE SH. MANGE RAM
R/O RZ108, X BLOCK,
NEW ROSHANPURA,
NAJAFGARH, NEW DELHI
Date on which charge sheet was filed 30.11.2009
Date on which charges were framed 18.03.2010
Date on which judgment was reserved 31.07.2012
Date on which judgment was
pronounced 21.08.2012
APPEARANCES:
Mr. S.C.Sharma, Ld. PP for the State (CBI).
Mr. Jai Dev Sharma along with Mr. Rajiv Kumar Ld.Counsel
for the accused.
21.08.2012
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Tej Singh S/o Late Sh. Mange Ram, a public servant posted as Assistant Sub Inspector at PS Bindapur, Delhi has been State (CBI v. Tej Singh Page No.1/25 2 arraigned for trial by the State (CBI) on the charge that on 21.02.2009 and later on 23.02.2009 he demanded illegal gratification from complainant Rajesh Kumar to inquire into his complaint dated 01.08.2008 and on 24.02.2009 at about 6:30p.m at PS Bindapur he accepted illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/ to proceed on his complaint dated 01.08.2008 when he was caught red handed.
FACTS
2. The instant case was registered on the basis of written complaint on 23.02.2009 Ex.PW 4/A by Sh. Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Chotu Ram (PW6). The gist of which is that he had lodged a complaint dated 01.08.2008 (Ex.PW6/A) addressed to SHO PS Bindapur, Delhi stating that Plot No. 72, B1, Extension, Sewak Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, belonged to one Rupesh Sharma and his tenant Rajesh along with his younger brother Ashok and other goonda elements had prepared forged and fabricated documents in order to illegally lay claim upon the said property in their name which documents had been filed in a sub judice civil action and despite lapse of six seven months during which he made several rounds to PS Bindapur, nothing had been done on his complaint and that on 21.02.2009 he met investigating officer ASI Tej Singh of PS Bindapur, Delhi, who greedily commented that the property was worth several crores and wanted a share in the booty State (CBI v. Tej Singh Page No.2/25 3 to conduct inquiries on his complaint. The complainant stated that he was not willing to pay any bribe to the accused and instead action be action against the ASI.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the complaint was marked to Inspector Manas Kumar Dey (PW8) for verification of its contents and lay a trap, if necessary; that Inspector Manas Kumar Dey introduced the complainant to Inspector Pramod Kumar and independent witness Jagdish Dagar (PW1), a UDC from Department of Education, GNCT of Delhi; that a digital voice recorder was arranged and after ensuring its blankness, introductory voice of Jagdish Dagar (PW1) was recorded and complainant Rajesh Kumar was directed to call on the mobile no. 9312000997 of accused ASI Tej Singh from his mobile no. 9868226858; that when call was made there was no response and after some time accused ASI Tej Singh called but it was a 'missed call' and, thereafter, complainant (PW6) called on the mobile of accused ASI Tej Singh and their conversation was recorded that indicated about the demand of bribe and accused asking the complainant to meet him personally; that in order to verify the complaint further, the police team went to PS Bindapur where as instructed complainant Rajesh Kumar along with PW1 Jagdish Dagar( who was to be introduced as Rupesh Sharma,that is the owner of the disputed plot and executor of GPA in favour of State (CBI v. Tej Singh Page No.3/25 4 complainant) met the accused who was sitting in his room.
4. It is the case of the CBI that during conversation accused told the complainant that his work had almost been done and showed him the relevant case file as well and further told the complainant Rajesh Kumar to give him Rs.10,000/ to Rs.20,000/ initially and Rs.20,000/ to Rs.30,000/ later; that the complainant requested the accused to give him sometime to make arrangement for the money and they agreed to meet the following day; that the entire conversation was recorded in the digital voice recorder; that since it was late in the evening, complainant excuse himself and went back home and then they met the CBI officials on 24.02.2009.
5. It is the case of the State (CBI) that on 24.02.2009 the conversation which was recorded on 23.02.2009 was played in front of Jagdish Dagar (PW1) as well as complainant which confirmed the demand of bribe or illegal gratification by the accused; the said conversation was transferred into two blank CDs one of which was mark Q1 and sealed. Accordingly, verification memo Ex.PW 1/A was prepared and the present FIR Ex.PW 8/A was recorded and a decision was taken to lay a trap; that a team was constituted by Inspector Manas Kumar Dey comprising himself, Inspector Pramod Kumar, SI Gaurav Singh, independent witness Jagdish Dagar and another independent witness Mukul Kumar (PW4) UDC from Delhi Jal Board; that during the so called pretrap State (CBI v. Tej Singh Page No.4/25 5 proceedings; the members of the team were briefed about the complaint lodged by complainant Rajesh Kumar and verification done till then; that Rs. 10,000/ in the form of 20 GC notes of Rs. 500/ denomination were produced by the complainant and the numbers of the currency notes were noted down in the handing over memo Ex.PW 2/B; a demo was given treating the currency notes with phenolphthalein powder which was touched by PW1 Jagdish Dagar and his hand wash with solution of sodium carbonate was taken that turned pink; thereafter, the treated currency notes were given to complainant Rajesh Kumar which was kept by him in his shirt pocket and, thereafter, all the members of the team washed their hands and PW1 was directed to remain with complainant as shadow witness and over see the entire transaction with specific instruction to the complainant to hand over the tainted money on specific demand of bribe raised by the accused; and on the completion of the transaction the complainant was directed to place a 'missed call' on the mobile of Inspector Manas Kumar Dey and the proceedings were recorded in handing over memo Ex.PW 2/B.
6. It is the case of the CBI that trap team left the CBI office and reached PS Bindapur at about 6:30p.m. Complainant accompanied PW1 went separately on a motor cycle while remaining members of the team on reaching the spot remained around observing the State (CBI v. Tej Singh Page No.5/25 6 movements of the complainant and the shadow witness. It is the case of the CBI that complainant Rajesh went inside the PS Bindapur where accused Tej Singh was not present who returned after sometime and was seen near the entrance gate of PS Bindapur ; it was seen that complainant and PW1 went up to accused Tej Singh who took them across the road and it was seen that money was demanded by the accused by gesture and complainant took over Rs. 10,000/ from his left side shirt pocket and extended towards right hand of accused Tej Singh who received the amount and kept it in his right side pocket of his pant.
7. It is the case of the CBI that the conversation that took place between the accused Tej Singh and the complainant was recorded by using a digital recorder and soon on completion of transaction, missed call was placed by the complainant on which the members of the CBI reached towards the spot and accused ASI Tej Singh was caught by his wrists by Inspector Pramod Kumar and SI Anil Kumar ; that they were taken inside the Police Station where Inspector Hoshiyar Singh SHO PS Bindapur (PW7) was also called and joined during the proceedings; that hand wash of right hand of accused ASI Tej Singh was taken with the solution of Sodium Carbonate which turned pink and, thereafter, wash of his right side pant pocket Ex.P31 besides handkerchief Ex.P30 were taken with the solution of sodium carbonate that also turned pink and the State (CBI v. Tej Singh Page No.6/25 7 money was retrieved from the pant pocket of accused by PW4 Ex.P10 to Ex.P29 and numbers of which were tallied with handing over memo besides the fact that the recorded conversation was heard at the spot and the entire proceedings were recorded in the post trap proceedings / recovery memo Ex.PW 1/C.
8. It is the case of the CBI that that Site Plan Ex.PW 1/D was prepared and search of the room of the accused ASI Tej Singh was conducted and file pertaining to complaint dt. 01.08.2008 of complainant was recovered. Since the file was required for investigation, its photocopies were taken (running into 39 pages) signed by the independent witnesses that were seized vide memo Ex.PW 1/E; and thereafter the accused was arrested. The entire case property was sealed at the spot using the seal Ex.P32 which was given to Jagdish Dagar (PW1).
9. It is the case of the CBI that digital voice recorder was played in presence of all members and recorded conversation was transferred into two blank CDs one of which was mark Q2 and sealed at the spot and the other was kept for the purpose of investigation. Needless to state that accused was arrested and during the investigation statement of witnesses were recorded. The specimen voice of accused was taken in a CD which was mark S1. The sealed CD Q1 and Q2 besides S1 were sent to CFSL for expert opinion and so also the hand wash; that the reports were State (CBI v. Tej Singh Page No.7/25 8 obtained in the ordinary course of business and after obtaining sanction for prosecution, the present charge sheet was filed against the accused.
CHARGE
10. Needless to state that charge was framed against the accused for demanding and accepting bribe and thereby committing criminal misconduct in terms of Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) r/w section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short PC Act). The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
11. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 11 witnesses.
The main witnesses for the prosecution were of course PW1 Jagdish Dagar who was a shadow witness, PW4 Mukul Sharma and PW6 complainant. I shall dwell on their testimony in the reasoning part of this judgment.
12. In the category of expert witnesses were examined as PW2 V. B. Ramteke , Sr. Scientific Officer, GradeII, Chemistry, CFSL, Delhi. He deposed that he examined the contents of the three sealed bottles Ex.P32 to P34 containing right hand wash , pant wash and handkerchief wash and deposed that as per report Ex.PW 2/A he found the presence of phenolphthalein and sodium State (CBI v. Tej Singh Page No.8/25 9 carbonate in the wash. In this category PW9 Dr. Rajinder Singh, Director CFSL, was also examined who deposed that he examined the parcels containing Q1, Q2, specimen voice CD S1 of the accused and he proved his report Ex.PW 9/A to the effect that questioned voice in Q1 and Q2 were the voice of the accused ASI Tej Singh.
13. In regard to mobile record of the accused and complainant, two witnesses were examined. PW3 Mr. R. S. Yadav, Jr. Telecom Officer, MTNL, Delhi. He produced the call data record of mobile no. 9868226858 in the name of Rajesh Kumar w.e.f. 15.02.2009 to 25.02.2009 Ex.PW 3/B; PW11 was Mr. Shivji A. V., Duty Executive from Reliance Communication, Delhi. He produced the Customer Application Form , ID proof etc. of mobile no. 9312000997 of accused Tej Singh and also call data record for the relevant period which is mark Ex. X2 (Colly) for identification. The said document were supplied by him to the CBI vide Ex.PW 11/A.
14. As regards sanction for prosecution, the State CBI examined Mr. Jegdesan Kannan (PW5) posted as DCP, South West Delhi during the relevant time who deposed that he granted sanction for prosecution on 26.11.2009 Ex.PW 5/A.
15. Then there were Witnesses from Delhi Police and CBI. PW7 was Inspector Hoshiyar Singh, who was SHO, PS Bindapur, Delhi during the relevant time. He supported the prosecution case in so State (CBI v. Tej Singh Page No.9/25 10 far as the recovery of tainted amount from the accused and the proceedings in regard to hand wash besides search of his room vide memo Ex.PW 1/C and Ex.PW 1/E respectively. He further deposed that complaint Ex.PW 6/A was lodged by complainant on 27.12.2008 which was recorded vide DD No. 13B dt. 27.12.2008 and another complaint was received Ex.PW 6/C vide DD No. 24A dt. 01.08.2008. PW8 was obviously Inspector Manas Kumar Dey.
16. PW10 was Inspector Anmol Sachan who was handed over the investigation by the SP CBI vide order dt. 02.03.2009 in terms of order passed by the Ld. Special Judge, Delhi vide order dated 27.02.2009 Ex.PW 10/A. He deposed about the investigation on various facets conducted by him including the preparation of the transcript of the recorded conversation.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED & DEFENCE EVIDENCE
17. On the close of the prosecution evidence, all the incriminating facts and circumstances were put to the accused who denied the case of the prosecution. He challenged the sanction for prosecution and stated that the same has been granted mechanically. He disputed the correctness of the expert evidence and the authenticity of the tape recorded conversation and submitted that he has been falsely implicated by the complainant under the pressure of the CBI.
18. In his defence, the accused examined HC Surender Kumar as State (CBI v. Tej Singh Page No.10/25 11 DW1 who deposed that he was posted as Constable in PS Bindapur during the relevant time and on 22nd or 23rd January he was sent to C20, Hari Vihar, near Dwarka Metro Station along with complainant to summon a girl named Manisha in connection with the complaint of Rajesh Kumar. Suffice to state that his evidence is not of any significance in so far as the decision in the present case is concerned.
19. I have heard Ld. PP for the State (CBI) and Ld.Defence Counsel for the accused. I have perused the record carefully and minutely.
DEMAND AND ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBE
20. The prosecution in order to bring home the charge u/s 7 of PC Act is required to prove that the accused either accepted , obtained or attempted to attain illegal gratification from the complainant; and in order to establish the guilt of the accused u/s 13(2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, the prosecution is required to establish that the accused by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his official position, obtained advantage or a valuable for himself or any other person. In the case of Krishna Ram. v. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 147 and (2009) 11 SCC 708, it was held that every acceptance of illegal gratification, whether preceded by a demand or not, would be covered by Section 7 of the Act. But, if the acceptance of an illegal gratification is in pursuance State (CBI v. Tej Singh Page No.11/25 12 of a demand by the public servant, then it would also fall under Section 13 (1)(d) of the PC Act.
21. In the light of the said legal position, let us scan the evidence brought on the record to render a decision in this case. DUTIES/FUNCTIONS ASSIGNED TO ACCUSED AND SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION.
22. Admittedly, accused was entrusted with the investigation of the complaint Ex.PW6/A dated 01.08.2008 filed by the complainant PW6 Rajesh Kumar. Perusal of the contents of the complaint Ex.PW6/A visavis the testimony of PW6 Rajesh Kumar brings out that complainant was appointed as attorney by one Rupesh Sharma who was claiming the ownership in respect of plot no.72, B1 Extension, Sewak Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and dispute arose since tenant Rajesh Kumar and his younger brother Ashok Kumar were claiming that plot belonged to somebody else and had stopped paying rent to him. The complaint Ex.PW6/A inter alia alleged that the tenant Rajesh Kumar, his brother Ashok kumar in collusion with some unknown persons had forged certain documents filed in the pending civil case in order to falsely claim their ownership in the plot in dispute and usurp upon some to the detriment of the true owner Bhupesh Sharma.
23. It is in evidence of PW6 Rajesh Kumar that after lodging the State (CBI v. Tej Singh Page No.12/25 13 complaint, he met the SHO about 20 times or so but no action had been taken on his complaint by initial IO ASI Mahinder Singh and when he met SHO on 21.02.2009 he was told by the SHO that the case had been entrusted to accused ASI Tej Singh. The plea of ld. Defence counsel is that prosecution has not made clear from the testimony of PW6 Rajesh Kumar as to what he actually wanted from the accused to do or what kind of favour was expected. Well, apparently what the complainant only wanted from the accused, was to inquire into the allegations of fabrication of documents in respect of plot in dispute , get the FIR registered and thereafter initiate action against the offenders. There could be no doubt that accused being the investigating officer was in a position to expedite the investigation on the complaint lodged by the complainant and thereby look into his grievances. The plea that complainant wanted the accused to get the FIR registered in a dispute of civil nature does cut much ice. Indeed there was pending a civil dispute over the same property but at the same time, if there was allegation that documents had been forged or fabricated, that gave rise to initiations of criminal proceedings and as ultimately turned out soon after this incident the FIR indeed was lodged in the same police station.
24. In so far as, the sanction for prosecution is concerned, no serious objection has been taken to the sanction order dated State (CBI v. Tej Singh Page No.13/25 14 26.11.2009 Ex.PW5/A. The plea that the sanction order has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of mind is ill conceived since the sanction order read as a whole appears to be a speaking order, that appears to have been passed by the Competent Authority after going through all the relevant documents submitted by the CBI.
PRE TRAP PROCEEDINGS
25. It is in evidence of PW6 Rajesh Kumar that when he met the accused on 21.02.2009 and inquired about the action taken on his pending complaint, accused made a comment that the property was worth in crores and demanded some share in order to get back the property from the clutches of its occupants and he did not want to grease the palms of accused by paying bribe, he lodged a complaint Ex.PW4/B. It is then in his evidence corroborated by PW1 Jagdish Dagar besides PW8 Inspector Manas Dey that in order to verify the contents of complaint Ex.PW4/B, PW6 complainant Rajesh Kumar placed a call from mobile phone no.9868226858 to the mobile of accused at 4.00 PM on 23.02.2009; that accused did not take up the call but there was a missed call from the accused, and thereafter PW6 Rajesh Kumar dialed him again and accused asked him to come over to the police station to discuss the matter in person. It is then in evidence that at the instance of the PW8 IO Inspector Manas Dey complainant PW6 Rajesh Kumar alongwith State (CBI v. Tej Singh Page No.14/25 15 independent witness PW1 Jagdish Dagar reached the police station Bindapur at about 6.30 PM or 7.00 PM and they had a conversation with accused during which accused not only showed the concerned file to PW6 Rajesh Kumar and briefed him about the progress of the case and on being asked by the complainant PW6 Rajesh Kumar about his demand, accused replied that he be given Rs.10,000/ to 20,000/ initially and be paid Rs.20,000/ to 30,000/ later on.
26. It is in evidence of PW6 Rajesh Kumar that he requested the accused to give him some time so as to arrange the money as he was hard of cash and they decided to meet the following day. The entire events leading to such stage were recorded in pre verification memo Ex.PW1/A that also inter alia records the gist of the conversation about the demand made by the accused on which I would dwelve later. It is in evidence that after registration of the FIR Ex.PW8/A, a CBI team was constituted and during the pre trap proceedings, bribe money of Rs.10,000/ in the denomination of 20 GC notes of Rs.500/ were produced by the complainant; that the numbers of the currency notes were noted down and a demo was conducted about application of Phenolphthalein Powder, which was touched by PW1 Jagdish Dagar and then his hand wash with the solution of Sodium Carbonate was taken and the team members were explained the significance of such procedure and entire proceedings were recorded in the Handing Over Memo i.e. State (CBI v. Tej Singh Page No.15/25 16 Ex.PW2/B.
27. I may say here that so far as pre trap proceedings are concerned, the evidence led on the record is one coherent unimpeachable story except that PW4 Mukul Sharma failed to recount what was the amount of bribe that was brought by the complainant which could be attributed to lapse of memory due to passage of time. It has also been brought in the evidence that before proceeding for the raid, the members of the trap team including the independent witnesses and complainant washed their hands and the members of the team took personal search of one another so as to rule out any other unwanted substance or money in their possession, which fact was not controverted in the cross examination of PW1 Jagdish Dagar, PW4 Mukul Sharma and for that matter PW8 IO Inspector Manas Dey.
TRAP PROCEEDINGS
28. It is in evidence of PW6 Rajesh Kumar corroborated by PW1 Jagdish Dagar besides PW8 Inspector Manas Dey that they left the CBI office for PS Bindapur at around 6.30 PM or so. It is pertinent to mention here that PW6 complainant Rajesh Kumar deposed that on the way to PS accused Tej Singh called him to confirm about his proposed visit to the PS. The call data records Mark X2 indicates that from mobile no.9312000997 belonging to the accused a call was placed on 24.02.2009 at 18:28:14 on the mobile of complainant State (CBI v. Tej Singh Page No.16/25 17 no. 9868226858, which is confirmed in the call data records of PW6 Ex.PW4/B.
29. It is in the evidence of PW6 that he reached the PS alongwith PW1 Jagdish Dagar on a motor cycle and as instructed by PW8 Inspector Manas Dey, they went inside the PS to meet the accused but he wasn't present which fact was confirmed by PW8 Inspector Manas Day and PW4 Mukul Sharma in their testimony. PW6 Rajesh Kumar then testified that after few minutes, he saw the accused at the entrance/gate of the PS and on seeing them accused took him and PW1 across the road and struck a conversation. He testified that during the conversation, he expressed his doubt that SHO might ask something more or trouble him later, and on that accused assured him that whatever would be done, would be done through him alone and he need not apprehend any trouble from the side of SHO. PW6 Rajesh Kumar testified that accused then by show of hands demanded the money and he took out the bribe amount from his shirt pocket and handed over the same to the accused, who took the money in his right hand and kept the same in the right side pocket of his pant. It may be stated here that the testimony of PW6 was not only corroborated by PW1 Jagdish Dagar but also by PW4 Mukul Sharma who testified that accused alongwith complainant PW6 and PW1 Jagdish Dagar went across the road where they were seen having conversation and they saw State (CBI v. Tej Singh Page No.17/25 18 the complainant PW6 Rajesh Kumar handing over a bundle to the accused from a distance.
30. The prosecution case as brought out in the evidence of PW6 Rajesh Kumar and PW1 Jagdish Dagar besides PW4 Mukul Sharma is that on the 'missed call' placed by the complainant on the mobile of PW8 Inspector Manas Dey, accused was caught hold by his writs by Inspector Promod Kumar and Inspector Anil Bhist, and thereafter accused was taken inside the PS where SHO was called. The evidence brought on record clearly brings out that tainted money was taken from the pant pocket of accused by PW4 Mukul sharma and the hand wash of accused were taken which turned pink. It further in evidence that the right side pant pocket wash was taken which also turned pink. The said evidence clearly brings out that tainted money was handled by the accused. The said proceedings were duly recorded in the post raid proceedings or the recovery memo Ex.PW1/C that also brings out that numbers of tainted currency notes taken out from the pant pocket of accused were tallied with the numbers recorded in the handing over memo Ex.PW2/B and were found identical.
31. It may be indicated that both PW6 Rajesh Kumar and PW1 Jagdish Dagar were put to a lengthy and gruelling searching cross examination and to my mind, both out unscathed. The whole testimony of PW1 and PW6 read as a whole appear to be a very State (CBI v. Tej Singh Page No.18/25 19 natural, coherent and cogent version of the incident. Nothing has been brought out in the cross examination of PW6 Rajesh Kumar that he had any grudge or motive to falsely implicate the accused ASI Tej Singh. The plea that an altercation had taken palce few days prior to the incident in the presence of one colleague advocate of PW6 hardly inspires confidence. There is no reference of such episode in the tape recorded conversation.
32. In so far as the proceedings conducted after apprehending the accused, there is no doubt about the presence of PW7 Inspector Hoshiar Singh at the spot, who supported the prosecution case. Not much can be read into the DD Ex.PW7/D1 that he left the PS at around 9.45 AM and came back later in the night at 11.35 PM vide DD No.7/D2. It is said that while "the men may lie but not the circumstances." It is common knowledge that many times the arrival and departure entries are not recorded in a rigorous manner. The testimony of PW1 Jagdish Dagar and PW6 Rajesh Kumar besides PW8 Inspector Manas Dey were categorical that SHO was present during the entire proceedings that remain unshaken and unimpeached.
33. To sum up, the testimony of PW6 Rajesh Kumar read has a ring of truth around it and inspires confidence. Although conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the complainant, as a matter of caution and prudence, his version of the incident is State (CBI v. Tej Singh Page No.19/25 20 amply corroborated by the testimony of PW1 Jagdish Dagar and PW4 Mukul Sharma. The version of the witnesses that on the show of hands or gestures of hands, money was handed over to the accused, appears to be truthful in the face of the fact that no suggestion was given nor any case was made by defence that the bribe amount was thrusted upon the accused.
TAPE RECORDED CONVERSATION
34. Ld. defence counsel tried to take much mileage of the fact that the original DVR that was used to record the conversation on 23.02.2009 and on the following day was not preserved nor sent to the CFSL and not produced during the trial. It was urged with great vehemence that no certificate u/s. 65B of Indian Evidence Act was given in regard to the CDs in which the recorded voice was transferred from the DVR. It was urged that tampering was possible in the entire process and it was argued that the tape recording must be discarded as a whole. I am afraid that I am not impressed by the said contentions. It is in evidence that so far as recording of conversation on 23.02.2009 is concerned, the same was played and heard by the witnesses including PW6 Rajesh Kumar in the office of CBI on 24.02.2009 and it is in their presence that the recording was transferred from the DVR in a very transparent manner on two blank CDs; one of which was marked Q1 (also Ex.P4). The CD Mark Q1 (Ex.P4) was played in the State (CBI v. Tej Singh Page No.20/25 21 court and PW6 besides the IO PW8 Inspector Manas Dey identified the voice of the accused in the same. The transcript of the CD Mark Q1 (Ex.P4) was proved as Ex.PW4/D1(also Ex.PW1/F) that shows that during pre verification stage, PW6 entered into a long conversation with the accused during which time accused informed him about difficulty that he has faced in the investigation of his case and finally the conversation concluded as under : "RAJESH KR. JANAB ISA HAI KEY PAISE TO HAMARE DONOAO KE LAAG RAHE HAIN KHARCHA PAANI BHI DONAA KA HI HOTA HAI BUS HAMARI AAPAS ME KAR KEY KARTA HAI KI PHIR DIKKAT BAAJI NA HO IB GOLMOL MEIN PHIR GOLMOL HAI KI AAPKA KOI GILA SHIKWA HO ISME.
TEJ SINGH AISA HAI SUN MERI BAAT. . . MAIN TO DEKH CHIK CHIK NAHI KARTA AB TO MAHRE SE KAHAVE HAI TO SUN LE MERI BAAT, 1020 TO IB DE DE. (emphasis supplied) RAJESH KR. ACHA TEJ SINGH ARORO KI THARI PROPERTY HAI RAJESH KR . KARORO KI TO NA HAI PAR 3040 KI TEJ SINGH CHALO BHAG DAUR SEJO BHI HAI NEEND SO JAO AARAM KI NEEND, PHIR POLICE KA KAAM HAI APNE AAP KABJA MIL JAYEGA, CASE REGISTER HOE PACHEY, THIK HAI, BAAKI JO BHI 2030 HAZAAR BAAD MEIN YARI ICHA HO TO, MERA TO HISAAB CHOTA CHOTA BATA DIYA State (CBI v. Tej Singh Page No.21/25 22 TUMSE, GHAR KA AADMI, TO BHI JAAT ADMI HAI MAI BE JAAT HU, RISHTEDARI HAI, THIK HAI RAJESH KR. CHALO
35. This was the gist of the conversation that was recorded in the pre verification memo Ex.PW1/A. Similarly, the recording in the DVR at the time of actual trap of the accused was transferred on two blank CDs in a very transparent manner in the presence of witnesses , one of which was marked Q2. The said CD was played in the court and the voice of the accused was identified by PW6 and IO PW8 Inspector Manas Dey. The transcript of the CD Q2 Ex.PW4/D2 and perusal whereof shows that accused exchanged pleasantries with the complainant and shadow witness PW1 and thereafter they started discussing status of the complaint and the relevant portion whereas the demand was made by the accused goes as under : "RAJESH KR. ACHA--TEJ SINGH JI WAISE BHAI YOU KAH RAHA HAI KI WOH SHO SAHAB ALAG TAE MANGAT LAAG GEI TAI KAIR KE HOGA TEJ SINGH - NO - NO NO NO WOH SAB MERI MARFAT HOGA JO KUCH HOGA.
RAJESH KR. CHALO THIK HAI JI
TEJ SINGH NO NO JAB MAIN BAITHA HUN TA HUM
LOG KOI KACHHA KAAM NAHI KHELTI GAME NAHI KHELTE. State (CBI v. Tej Singh Page No.22/25 23
RAJESH KR ISA HAI AAJ TO DUS LAYE HAIN HUM . . .
YAHIN LOGE YA ANDAR. . .
TEJ SINGH YAAR KAISI . . . GHAR KI BAAT HAI KAI BAAT
HAI JAB . . . TU KALA COAT PAHRE KHARA PHIR KI HIMMAT LAVE AA JA.
RAJESH KR HAN YA TO BAAT HAI.
TEJ SINGH GHAR KI BAAT HAI AB AAP MERE SE BAAT
KARYO AAJ KEY BAR HAI SHUKARVAR YA TO PHONE KAR DUNGA KI STATEMENT AAPKI ALREADY HAI UNI PAR ENDORSEMENT KARNI HAI WOH THIK HAI NA JO PARE THE AAPNE . . . "
36. It may be noted here that the audio quality in the two CDs Q1 (Ex.P4) and Q2 (Ex.P6) played in the court was quite good, free from any background noises or interference so as to cloud the the conversation and the dialoges were clearly audible . It is also brought by the prosecution that the questioned CDs alongwith specimen CD S1 of accused were examined by PW9 Dr. Rajinder Singh, who as per detailed report opined that the questioned CDs contained the voice of accused . There is no serious challenge to the report Ex.PW9/A except for suggesting that since the DVR had the facility of editing, tampering was possible. Indeed Certificate u/s. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act has not been given in this case State (CBI v. Tej Singh Page No.23/25 24 by the IO in regard to the process adopted for transferring the audio recording from the original DVR to the questioned CDs Q1 and Q2. All the same that does not wash away the evidence from the face of the record. The digital or electronic evidence has to be appreciated in the background of the traditional principles of appreciation of evidence that the evidence must be relevant to the matters in issue, it must be authenticate and must have some probative value. Seen from that angle, the relevancy of tape recording conversation cannot be questioned. In so far as, authenticity is concerned, IO explained the process that was adopted to transfer the recorded conversation from the DVR on to the CDs and there is nothing in the cross examination or for that matter in the cross examination of other witnesses that during such process any tampering or editing was done. The report Ex.PW9/A further shows without any challenge that there was nothing wrong in the continuity of recording.
37. The conversation between the complainant and the accused borne out from the transcript Ex.PW4/D2 clearly demonstrates that accused demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.10,000/ from the complainant. In such circumstances, presumption for Section 20 of the PC Act is also invited and there has been put forth no plausible explanation from the side of accused as to how come he was in possession of the tainted money.
State (CBI v. Tej Singh Page No.24/25 25 FINAL CONCLUSION
38. In the said view of the discussion, I find that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is convicted u/s. 7 and 13 (1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of the P.C.Act, 1988. Let the accused be heard on the point of sentence on 22.08.2012.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT TODAY i.e ON 21.08.2012.
(DHARMESH SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE 03,CBI NEW DELHI.
State (CBI v. Tej Singh Page No.25/25 26 IN THE COURT OF SH. DHARMESH SHARMA SPECIAL JUDGE03,CBI NEW DELHI,DISTRICT, NEW DELHI CC No. 16/2011 Case ID No. 02403R0390042009 RC No. 16 (A)/2009/CBI/ACB/ND In re:
STATE (CBI) VS
1.TEJ SINGH S/O LATE SH. MANGE RAM R/O RZ108, X BLOCK, NEW ROSHANPURA, NAJAFGARH, NEW DELHI APPEARANCES: Mr. SC Sharma, Ld.PP for CBI.
Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Ld.Counsel for the convict .
22.08.2012 ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE.
1. Heard on the point of sentence and perused the record.
2. It is submitted that convict Tej Singh is about 57 years of age, and he had put in 34 years of unblemished service with Delhi Police when this case was slapped upon him; that his family State (CBI v. Tej Singh Page No.26/25 27 consists of his wife, two married daughters and one unmarried son, aged 24 years of age. It is urged that the convict has recently had a paralytic attack and was hospitalised and movement of his right arm is restricted. That the convict is under regular medication. It is pointed out that the convict has suffered the agony of trial for 3 years now and was in Judicial Custody from 25.02.2009 to 16.04.2009. It is pointed out that convict has been under suspension and getting a meagre sustenance allowance. It is also urged that on conviction the convict shall not be given his service benefits and will not be eligible to get pension. It is, therefore, requested that a lenient view may be taken in favour of the convict.
3. Per contra, Mr. SC Sharma, Ld. Special PP for the CBI has urged that no mitigating circumstance exists in this case so as to take a lenient view in favour of the convicts and it is urged that exemplary punishment be awarded under the law.
4. It bears repetition that the convict Tej Singh was posted as Asssitant Sub Inspector in Delhi Police and he demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/ from the complainant Rajesh Kumar and was vying for more out of greed. The detail facts and circumstances under which the convict demanded illegal gratification from the complainant have already been detailed in judgment dated 21.08.2012. In the case of B.C. State (CBI v. Tej Singh Page No.27/25 28 Goswami v. Delhi Administration, (SC) 1973 A.I.R. (SC) 1457 :
1974(1) SCR 222 : 1974(3) S.C.C. 85 : 1973 SCC(Cri) 796, on the issue of sentencing, it was observed:
The main purpose of the sentence broadly stated is that the sustenance accused must realize that he has committed an act which is not only harmful to the society of which he forms an integral part but is also harmful to his own future, both as an individual and as a member of the society. Punishment is designed to protect society by deterring potential offenders as also by preventing the guilty party from repeating the offence. it is also designed to reform the offender and reclaim him as a law abiding citizen for the good of the society as a whole. Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment thus play their due part in judicial thinking while determining this question. In modern civilized societies, however, reformatory aspect is being given somewhat greater importance. Too lenient as well as too harsh sentences both lose their efficaciousness. One does not deter and the other may frustrate thereby making the offender a hardened criminal. (Emphasis supplied)
5. How corruption is threatening the mandate of welfare of the people enshrined in the Constitution of India was explained by tate of Madhya their lordships of the Apex Court in the case of S Pradesh v.
Shambhu Dayal Nagar , 2007 A.I.R. (SC) 163 :: 2006(8) S.C.C. 693 : 2007(1) SCC(Cri), wherein their lordships observed that "Corruption is corroding like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politics, social fabric of efficiency in the public service and demoralizing the honest officers." It was State (CBI v. Tej Singh Page No.28/25 29 further observed that"Efficiency in public service would improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does his duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post. The reputation of corrupt would gather thick and unchaseably clouds around the conduct of the officer and gain notoriety much faster than the smoke."
6. The Transparency International on its web site defines corruption to mean"the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It hurts everyone who depends on the integrity of people in a position of authority." There is no gainsaying that Police is one department that has wide degree of interface with the people and demands high degree of integrity. It is policeman like the convict driven by greed that give a bad reputation to the entire police force and erodes the confidence of the people in the system of administration of criminal justice. The instant case is one where the convict was harassing the complainant by delaying fair and impartial inquiries into his complaint who was a lawyer at one time and the criminal misconduct speaks volume of the lack of probity exhibited by him. I don't see as to how a lenient view could be taken in favour of the convict.
7. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I sentence the convict Tej Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years u/s Section 7 of PC Act and also pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/ in default to further undergo RI for a period of six months.
8. I further sentence the convict Tej Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act and also pay fine of Rs.25,000/ in default to State (CBI v. Tej Singh Page No.29/25 30 further undergo RI for a period of six months.
9. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Convict Tej Singh remained in judicial custody w.e.f 25.02.2009 to 16.04.2009. Benefit u/s. 428 Cr.PC. for the period he remained in judicial custody, shall be given to the convict.
10. Copy of the judgment dated 21.08.2012 and order on sentence dated 22.08.2012 be given free of cost to the convict.
11. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT TODAY: ON 22.08.2012.
(DHARMESH SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE 03,CBI NEW DELHI.
...
State (CBI v. Tej Singh Page No.30/25