Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Balbir Singh on 29 October, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI B.R. KEDIA, SPECIAL JUDGE07
(CENTRAL), (PC ACT CASES OF ACB, GNCTD), DELHI
C.C.NO. : 46/12
Unique Case ID : 02401R0568612012
STATE VS. 1. Balbir Singh
S/o Sh. Ganga Ram
R/o G789, Palam Extn.,
New Delhi.
2. Trilok Chand,
S/o Sh. Lakhi Ram,
R/o 150, Village Khera Khurd,
Delhi.
3. Dinesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Suresh Prakash,
R/o H1/3, Police Colony,
P.S.Model Town, Delhi.
FIR NO. : 07/2010
U/S : 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 r/w 384/120B I.P.C.
P.S. : Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi
C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 1 of 45
Date of Institution 04.12.2012
Judgment reserved on 24.10.2013
Judgment delivered on 29.10.2013
JUDGMENT
1. The precise case of the prosecution is that on dated 12.02.2010 the complainant Aas Mohamad S/o Sh. Idda came to Anti Corruption Branch and got lodged his Complaint Ex.PW18/A before the Inspector Yashpal Singh/PW24 regarding the demand of bribe of Rs.1 Lac, with the threat that in case of nonpayment of said bribe, the complainant and his son Irshad would be arrested in some false case of theft, by the accused SI Balbir Singh, accused HC Trilok Chand and accused HC Dinesh Kumar who were posted in Delhi Police, Special Staff, North West District, Delhi.
2. The gist of the said complaint is that the complainant has been running a Scrap Shop in Jhuggi No.2, Naniwala Bagh, near Akash Cinema, Azadpur, Delhi and on 28.01.2010 at around 11:00/11:30 a.m. while he along with his younger son Irshad were present at said Shop, all the three accused in civil cloths came to his Shop in a white Santro Car and introduced themselves as SI Balbir Singh, HC Trilok Chand C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 2 of 45 and HC Dinesh from Special Staff, Rohini and demanded the Receipts of the Iron Scrap lying in the Shop, on which the complainant responded since those were scrap material and do not have any Receipt and accused Dinesh demanded bribe of Rs.3 Lacs otherwise they would arrest him and his son in the case of theft and at his earnest request, accused Balbir Singh scaled down the demand of bribe to Rs.1 Lac and the complainant under compulsion agreed to arrange for the same. Thereafter, the complainant went in the said Santro Car along with accused Trilok to the Shop of his elder son Naushad to arrange money. Accused Trilok remained in the Santro Car and complainant went inside the shop and informed all the facts to his son Naushad, on which he arranged for Rs.78,000/ and delivered the same to his father and placed one mobile phone in his pocket after keeping it on for recording purpose. Thereafter, the complainant came back in the said Santro Car along with accused Trilok Chand and informed him regarding arrangement of said amount of Rs.78,000/ and thereafter, accused Trilok Chand brought him near Bus Terminal Azadpur where accused Balbir Singh and Dinesh were waiting. Thereafter, the complainant on demand of accused Dinesh delivered him Rs.78,000/. The complainant got recorded the said conversation in that mobile phone and thereafter, switch off the same and came back to his Scrap C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 3 of 45 Shop. Thereafter, on 05.02.2010 the accused Dinesh again met the complainant and asked him not to tell anything about the same to anyone. The complainant also got recorded the said conversation of 05.02.2010. Since the complainant was against giving of bribe, he went to Anti Corruption Branch and got his complaint lodged before the Inspector Yashpal Singh/PW24.
3. The further case of the prosecution is that the complainant produced 2 CDs along with their copies regarding the conversation dated 28.01.2010 and 05.02.2010 along with Transcript of said conversation. Said CDs were played in the Office Computer in presence of the complainant and Panch witness and same were tallied with the Transcript and the said CDs were taken into possession vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW18/B along with the Transcription. On the basis of said Complaint, PW24/IO prepared Rukka and got registered the FIR, copy of which is Ex.PW2/A.
4. The further case of the prosecution is that during the course of the investigation, the voice as contained in the said CDs were got identified through Inspector Rajesh Vijay posted in Special Staff, North West District and Observation Memo Ex.PW24/B was prepared C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 4 of 45 by the IO in this respect. Accused Balbir Singh and Trilok Chand were arrested vide arrest Memo Ex.PW18/F and Ex.PW18/E and their Personal Search Memos are Ex.PW18/H and Ex.PW18/G respectively and their Disclosure Statement Ex.PW18/J and Ex.PW18/I were recorded. House search of both said accused were made by the IO vide Memo Ex.PW17/B and Ex.PW24/C. Sample voice of accused Trilok Chand was taken at FSL, Rohini in the presence of the Panch witness and cassette was taken into possession vide Memo Ex.PW17/A.
5. The further case of the prosecution is that as on 12.02.2010, the accused Dinesh surrendered in the court and was interrogated and formally arrested vide Memo Ex.PW16/A and his Personal Search Memo Ex.PW16/B and Disclosure Statement Ex.PW16/C was recorded. Sample voice of accused Dinesh was taken in FSL, Rohini and cassette was seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW24/A. During course of Investigation, IO also collected the Biodata of the accused persons which are Ex.PW14/B, Ex.PW14/C and Ex.PW14/D and their TransferPosting Orders Ex.PW9/B and Ex.PW9/C and collected the call details of Mobile numbers which were used by the accused persons though in the name of other persons. During course of Investigation, the relevant exhibits were sent to FSL and subsequently IO obtained C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 5 of 45 the FSL Report Ex.PW24/I and Ex.PW24/J. IO also obtained Sanction Order Ex.PW12/A concerning all the accused persons for launching prosecution as against them. IO on recording the statement of the witnesses and after completion of the Investigation, prepared the chargessheet and filed in the court.
6. After compliance with the provision U/S 207 of Cr.P.C and after hearing both sides on the point of charge, charge for offence punishable U/S 120B IPC r/w Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and U/S 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w Section 120B IPC and U/S 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w Section 120B IPC and U/S 384 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC was framed against all the accused persons on dated 02.05.2013 to which all the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. Thereafter, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined 25 prosecution witnesses namely Rajinder Kumar Jain, the then Sub Inspector, PS Anti Corruption Branch, Duty Officer, a formal witness as PW1, HC Surender Pal, a formal witness as PW2, Ct.Dinesh Kumar, a formal witness as PW3, HC Suraj Pal Singh, a formal witness as PW4, Vijay Kumar Paul, a C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 6 of 45 formal witness as PW5, Sh.Sandeep Kumar, a formal witness as PW6, HC Jai Prakash, the then MHC(M), PS Civil Lines, a formal witness as PW7, ACP Jagdish Prasad, a formal witness as PW8, Sh.Prem Nath, the then ACP, PG Cell, North West District, a formal witness as PW9, Sh.Amarnath Singh, Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd., a formal witness as PW10, Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Service Ltd., a formal witness as PW11, Sh.O.P.Mishsra, the then Deputy Commissioner of Police, 7th Batallion, DAP, Delhi, Sanctioning Authority against the accused persons as PW12, Ct.Narender, a formal witness as PW13, Kuldeep Rai Sharma, the then ACP, 7th Batallion DAP, Delhi, a formal witness as PW14, Pankaj Katyal, a formal witness as PW15, Ct.Ram Swaroop, a formal witness as PW16, Rakesh Kumar, a formal witness as PW17, Aas Mohamad, the complainant as PW18, Irshad who is the son of the complainant as PW19, Tej Singh, a formal witness as PW20, Ct.Dinesh Kumar, a formal witness as PW21, HC Anand Prakash, a formal witness as PW22, Naushad who is also the son of the complainant as PW23, Inspector Yashpal Singh/IO as PW24 and Inspector Rajesh Vijay, a formal witness as PW25.
8. After closure of the PE, statement of accused under Section C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 7 of 45 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which the accused persons denied about any demand and acceptance of the bribe from the complainant. Accused claimed to be falsely implicated in this case having no concern with the alleged offence. Thereafter, the accused in their defense got examined one DW namely HC Mukesh Kumar as DW1.
9. I have heard Final Arguments as addressed by Sh. Yogesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Ld. Counsel for accused Balbir Singh, Sh. Pradeep Sharma, Adv. Ld. Counsel for accused Trilok Chand and Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Adv. Ld. Counsel for accused Dinesh and Sh. I.U.H.Siddiqi, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and perused the relevant record.
10. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Balbir Singh that this accused was working as Sub Inspector in Special Staff, North West District and had been performing his official duty honestly and sincerely and has neither gone to the Scrap Shop of complainant on dated 28.01.2010 along with other two accused persons nor had demanded or received any bribe from the complainant but has been falsely implicated by him in this case. It is further added by him that the case of the prosecution also found falsified even from the record of C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 8 of 45 the prosecution itself in view of the fact that as per DD No.5 of copy of DD Register dated 28.01.2010 of Special Staff, North West which is Ex.PW8/A, this accused SI Balbir Singh had left the Office of Special Staff on dated 28.01.2010 at 10:40 a.m. along with Ct. Anand Kumar on official duty for collecting secret information and as per DD No.10 of copy of said DD Register Ex.PW8/A, said accused SI Balbir Singh came back to the Office of Special Staff from official duty along with said Ct. Anand Kumar at 5:10 p.m. and there was no occasion on the part of this accused to visit at the Scrap Shop of the complainant at Azadpur for demanding and accepting any bribe from him. It is further added by him that though said Ct.Anand Kumar who had accompanied with the accused Balbir Singh on that day, was a material witness in this case for ascertaining the truth but he has not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them. It is further added by him that the innocence of this accused is also found reflected from the very fact that even as per the Mobile Location Chart relating to Mobile Phone No.9911110611 Ex.PW24/H1 as prepared by the IO on the basis of said Mobile Phone Call Detailed Record, the location of the accused Balbir Singh on dated 28.01.2010 from 11:02 a.m. to 12:34 p.m., has been shown in the area of Rohini and not in the area of Azadpur and therefore, the case of the prosecution that this accused C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 9 of 45 Balbir Singh along with other two accused persons had visited the said Scrap Shop of the complainant at Azadpur on dated 28.01.2010 at about 11/11:30 a.m. and had demanded and accepted bribe from the complainant is clearly found falsified. It is further added by him that even the complainant Aas Mohamad who has been examined as PW18 has clearly deposed that three police officials who visited his Shop, did not disclose their names and even subsequently also they did not disclose their names, there was no reason on the part of the complainant to state about the name and designation of the accused persons in the Complaint Ex.PW18/A and therefore, the said fact clearly establish the false implications of the accused persons. It is further added by him that PW18 Complainant has clearly deposed that he is an illiterate and cannot write any application and the Complaint Ex.PW18/A was not written by him but by his son Naushad and said Complaint does not bear signatures of his son Naushad anywhere but neither the IO nor PW23 Naushad has stated any such thing to the effect that said Complaint Ex.PW18/A was written by him and said fact also falsify the case of the prosecution against the accused persons. It is further added by him that since the complainant had no reason to know about the name and designation of the accused persons nor he had stated in his deposition as to which accused demanded bribe from C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 10 of 45 him and as to which accused had received any such bribe amount and therefore, mentioning about the name of specific accused person in the Complaint Ex.PW18/A clearly falsify the contents of the said Complaint and reflect about the false implication of the accused persons. It is further added by him that the complainant is stated to have paid Rs.78,000/ to the accused persons which was arranged by his son Naushad but said facts are found falsified from the very fact that neither the complainant nor said Naushad could state as to how and from whom he had arranged said amount of Rs.78,000/ and said facts also falsify the case of the prosecution. It is further added by him that though the complainant has alleged that the accused persons have come to his shop in a Santro Car on that day but there is no reason as to why said Santro Car was not seized by the IO during course of Investigation and said facts also falsify the case of the prosecution specifically when this accused was on official duty at that time and even as per Mobile Location Chart Ex.PW24/H1, the location of this accused at the relevant time i.e. 11/11:30 a.m. on dated 28.01.2010, was not in the area of Azadpur. It is further added by him that the falsity of this case is also found corroborated from the very fact that though the alleged incident is stated to have taken place on 28.01.2010, there is no explanation as to why the Complaint Ex.PW18/A was C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 11 of 45 lodged after delay of 15 days i.e. on 12.02.2010 and FIR was registered after further delay i.e. on 17.02.2010. It is further added by him that the falsity of this case also found supported from the fact that the IO had not seized the Mobile Phone and the Chip in which the alleged conversation was recorded and there is no explanation on the part of the IO in this respect and same is fatal for the case of the prosecution. It is further added by him that though IO has stated that he kept the case pending for conducting Preliminary Inquiry before registration of the FIR but the IO has not placed on record any material which was collected by him during Preliminary Inquiry and said facts also falsify the stand of the prosecution. It is further added by him that there is no explanation by the IO as to what material was collected by him during Preliminary Inquiry to ascertain about the genuineness of the Complaint. It is further added by him that the Transcript of conversation Ex.PW18/B and Ex.PW18/C cannot be looked into in view of the fact that neither the author of said Transcript has been examined nor the original Chip/Mobile Phone through which the conversation is alleged to have been recorded, were seized by the IO and therefore, the CDs and the conversation Transcript cannot be considered. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that even otherwise as per case of prosecution, there is no voice of accused Balbir Singh in the C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 12 of 45 said Conversation Transcript Ex.PW18/B and Ex.PW18/C. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that as PW12 Sanctioning Authority has not given the personal hearing to the accused persons before according the Sanction and had mechanically passed the Sanction Order without proper application of mind and therefore, said Sanction Order is legally Invalid and hence, the accused persons deserve to be acquitted on this count itself. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that as Sanctioning Authority has not personally conducted any Investigation as against the accused before according Sanction and therefore, said Sanction Order is legally Invalid. Thus, Ld. Counsel for the accused Balbir Singh has submitted that as this accused has been falsely implicated in this case, he deserves to be acquitted.
11. Similarly, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Trilok Chand that this accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant. It is further added by him that this accused Trilok Chand has neither accompanied with accused Balbir Singh nor with the accused Dinesh when they left Office of Special Staff on dated 28.01.2010 and said facts are also found corroborated even from the perusal of the DD Entry Register dated 28.01.2010 of Special Staff, North West District, Delhi, copy of which C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 13 of 45 is Ex.PW8/A and the case of the prosecution to the effect that this accused being accompanied with accused Balbir Singh and Dinesh had visited the Scrap Shop of the complainant at about 11/11:30 a.m.at Azadpur and had demanded and accepted bribe found falsified from the same. It is further added by him that this accused is stated to be using Mobile No.9654412878 which is found supported from the Reply of this accused Ex.PW5/B given in response to the Notice of IO which is Ex.PW24/G but as per Location Chart Ex.PW24/H2 as prepared by the IO/PW24 on the basis of CDR of said Mobile Phone, the location of this accused Trilok Chand is indicated on 28.01.2010 from 11:10 a.m. to 12:13 a.m. in the area of Rohini and not at Azadpur and said facts also clearly falsify the case of the prosecution as against the accused. It is further added by him that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case as against the accused. It is further added by him that this accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and therefore, he deserves to be acquitted. It is further added by him that the contents of the complaint itself are full of contradiction as compared to the deposition of the complainant/PW18 and same clearly falsify the case of the prosecution. It is also added by him that as the prosecution has failed to prove as to who was the Owner of the said Mobile Phone in which the alleged conversation was C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 14 of 45 recorded and neither the said Owner of Mobile Phone nor the Mobile Phone/Chip in which the alleged conversation was recorded, was produced in the court and as the IO had obtained signatures of this accused on certain blank papers while he was in police custody and had misused the same and therefore, the CDs and Conversation Transcript cannot be considered by this Court. It is further added by him that the prosecution also failed to establish as regards the source of said amount of Rs.78,000/, alleged to have been paid towards bribe as Naushad, Son of the complainant has not disclosed about the name and address of the persons from whom said money was borrowed by him and therefore, the same also falsify the case of the prosecution. Ld. Counsel also added that he adopted the final arguments as addressed by Ld. Counsel for the accused Balbir Singh in support of his submission on behalf of this accused. Ld. Counsel also added that even the deposition of DW1 HC Mukesh Kumar coupled with the contents of DD Register dated 28.01.2010 of Special Staff, North West District, Ex.PW8/A and DD Register dated 5.2.2010 of Special Staff, North West District, copy of which is Ex.DW1/A falsify the case of the prosecution and support the stand of the accused persons. Ld. Counsel thus urged for acquittal of this accused and referred and relied upon following Judgments: 2004 (3) RCR (Crl.) (SC) 774 Anil Sharma & C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 15 of 45 Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2008 (1) CC Cases (HC) 346 Ms.Shreya Jha Vs. CBI, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 965 Tukaram S. Dighole Vs. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate.
12. Similarly, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Dinesh that this accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant. It is further added by him that the case of the prosecution to the effect that this accused Dinesh along with other two accused persons had come to the Scrap Shop of the complainant at Azadpur on dated 28.01.2010 at about 11/11:30 a.m.and have demanded the bribe from the complainant on the threatening that in case of nonpayment of bribe, the complainant and his son would be arrested in false case of theft, is found falsified from the very fact that this accused HC Dinesh had left for official duty from the Office of Special Staff on dated 28.01.2010 at 11:30 a.m.which is found corroborated from the contents of DD No.6 of DD Register of dated 28.01.2010 of Special Staff, North West District, copy of which is Ex.PW8/A and therefore, the same reflect the innocence of this accused. It is further added by him that even as per the case of the prosecution, this accused Dinesh was using Mobile No.9891115135 and as per the Location Chart as prepared by the IO on the basis of C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 16 of 45 CDR of said Mobile Phone, the location of the accused Dinesh is shown to be on dated 28.01.2010 from 11:01 a.m. to 11:49 a.m.was at Kingsway Camp, Model Town, Delhi and not at Azadpur and the same also falsify the stand of the prosecution. It is further added by him that though there is further allegation as against this accused Dinesh that once he had visited the complainant at his Shop on 05.02.2010 but said fact has been falsified even from the fact that as per copy of the DD Register pertaining to entry dated 05.02.2010 of Special Staff, North West District, which is Ex.DW1/A, there is no arrival and departure entry relating to the accused Dinesh as he remained in the Special Staff Office and said facts also found supported from the deposition of DW1 HC Mukesh Kumar coupled with the copy of DD Register dated 05.02.2010 Ex.DW1/A. It is also added by him that even the Call Detail Record of dated 05.02.2010 concerning said Mobile No. 9891115135 of accused Dinesh could have substantiate the said stand of the accused and that is why the IO had deliberately not placed the same on record. It is further added by him that as this accused had not gone to the Shop of the complainant either on dated 28.01.2010 or on dated 05.02.2010, there was no talk on the part of this accused with the complainant on any bribe aspect and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also added by him that as neither the Mobile Phone nor C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 17 of 45 the Mobile Chip in which the alleged conversation was recorded, was seized by the IO nor the Owner of said Mobile Phone was examined by the prosecution as PW and the signatures of this accused were obtained on certain blank papers during the police custody by the IO and same have been misused afterwards, and as the author of alleged Conversation Transcript was not examined as PW in the Court, the contents of the said CDs and Transcript being not legally admissible cannot be looked into by this Court against this accused. It is further added by him that he also adopted the aforesaid final arguments as addressed by Ld. Counsel for the accused Balbir Singh, in support of submission on behalf of this accused Dinesh. It is also added by him that as this accused has been falsely implicated in this case which is found supported from the deposition of DW1 HC Mukesh Kumar coupled with the contents of the DD Entry of dated 28.01.2010, copy of which is Ex.PW8/A and contents of DD Entry of dated 05.02.2010, copy of which is Ex.DW1/A and even otherwise the prosecution has failed to prove its case as against the accused and therefore, this accused Dinesh deserves to be acquitted. Ld. Counsel in support of his said contention referred and relied upon the Judgment as reported in 2009 (4) CC Cases (SC) 31 State of Maharashtra Vs.Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede.
C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 18 of 45
13. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution by examining 25 PWs have clearly established its case as against all the accused and therefore, all the accused deserve to be convicted for the charged offence. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the case of the prosecution stands fully established against all the accused persons through the deposition of PW18 Aas Mohamad, complainant, PW19 Irshad and PW23 Naushad, Sons of the complainant. It is also added by Ld. Addl. PP that there is no reason as to why PW18 Aas Mohamad, complainant, PW19 Irshad and PW23 Naushad, Sons of the complainant would falsely implicate the accused persons specifically when there is no previous enmity as against the accused by them. It is also added by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that PW12/Sanctioning Authority has rightly passed the Sanction Order Ex.PW12/A as against the accused persons after due appreciation of the relevant material and said Sanction Order is legally valid. It is also added by Ld. Addl. PP that even the FSL Report gives positive result and there is no reason as to why the recorded conversation cannot be looked into and said conversation goes against the accused persons. It is also added by Ld. Addl. PP that certain delay on the part of the IO for registration of the case cannot be treated fatal for the case of the C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 19 of 45 prosecution. It is also added by Ld. Addl. PP that certain lapses on the part of the IO in not examining certain persons as PW or nonseizure of certain material during course of Investigation, cannot be escape ground for the accused persons. It is also added by Ld. Addl. PP that mere fact that the Santro Car in which the accused persons had come to the Shop of the complainant was not seized by the IO, cannot have any adverse implication on the case of the prosecution. It is also added by Ld. Addl. PP that the Judgments as referred by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons, can be of no help for the accused persons. Thus Ld. Addl. PP urged for conviction of all the accused persons.
14. The first and foremost question having significant bearing on the fate of this case is whether prosecution has proved that valid Sanction has been accorded by the Competent Authority as against the all the accused as per Section 19 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is submitted by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons that as PW12 Sanctioning Authority has not given the personal hearing to the accused persons before according the Sanction and had mechanically passed the Sanction Order without proper application of mind and therefore, said Sanction Order is legally Invalid. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that PW12/Sanctioning C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 20 of 45 Authority has rightly passed the Sanction Order Ex.PW12/A as against the accused persons after due appreciation of the relevant material and said Sanction Order is legally valid.
15. That in order to prove the Sanction concerning the accused persons, the prosecution has examined PW12 Sh.O.P.Mishra, the then Deputy Commissioner of Police, 7th Batallion, DAP, Delhi who has categorically deposed that on 31.10.2011 he was posted as Deputy Commissioner of Police, 7th Batallion, DAP, Delhi and on going through the File containing complaint, FIR, Memos, Statement of witnesses and other documents collected during investigation and after applying his mind and examining the facts and circumstances of the case and being the Authority competent to remove the accused SI Balbir Singh, HC Trilok Chand and HC Dinesh from service, he accorded Sanction for launching prosecution as against the accused persons vide Sanction Order Ex.PW12/A bearing his signature at point A. In the cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused Balbir Singh, said PW12 has denied the suggestion that he had not applied his mind and accorded the Sanction mechanically. He also denied the suggest that he was not competent to grant Sanction of the accused. No doubt, he further added that he had not given personal hearing to C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 21 of 45 the accused persons before according Sanction to the accused persons.
16. Furthermore, in the case reported as "2011 V A.D. (Delhi) 1 Kiran Pal Singh Vs. State" while dealing with the similar aspect relating to Sanction, in Para 6 of the Judgment, it was observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court as under:
"It is settled legal position that draft sanction order can be placed before competent authority along with the material and if the competent authority after perusing the material signs the draft sanction order, it cannot be said to suffer from nonapplication of mind. In Indu Bhushan Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1958 SC 148, wherein the sanction order was prepared by the police and put before the sanctioning authority by the personal branch of his Office and that before according the sanction he went through all the relevant papers put before him, it was held by the Hon'ble C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 22 of 45 Supreme Court to be a valid sanction".
17. In the case reported as "State of Maharashtra and Ors. V/s Ishvar Piraji Kelpatri & Ors. 1996 Cri.L.J.1127", where Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down that if the Authority according Sanction makes statement that while signing the order of Sanction, it had personally scrutinized the file and had arrived at required satisfaction, it is not necessary to look for, that there was application of mind or not or that material on record was examined by the concerned Officer or not before according sanction, especially when order prima facie shows that, he had done so.
18. Furthermore, in the case reported as "2004 (13) SCC 487, Shankar Bhai Lalji Bhai Vs. State of Gujrat", it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "So far as the question of Sanction is concerned, in the absence of anything to show that any defect or irregularity therein caused failure of justice, that plea is without substance."
C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 23 of 45
19. In the case reported in "2011 I AD (CRI.) (S.C.) 1, Kootha Perumal Vs. State (through) Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption", it was held in Para 14 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "Keeping in view the aforesaid statement of law, it would not be possible to conclude that the sanction order in the present case was not valid. Ex.P2 with the present appeal is the copy of the sanction order. A perusal of the same would show that the sanctioning authority has adverted to all the necessary facts which have been actually proved by the prosecution in the trial. Upon examination of the material facts, the sanctioning authority has certified that it is the authority competent to remove the appellant from the Office. It is specifically stated that the statements of the witnesses have been duly examined. Sanction order also states that the other materials such as copy of the FIR as well as other official documents such as the different mahazars were carefully examined.
Upon examination of the statements of the witnesses as also the material on record, the sanctioning authority has duly recorded its satisfaction that the appellant should be prosecuted for the offences, as noticed above.
We, therefore, find no merit in the C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 24 of 45 submission of the learned counsel that the sanctioning order to prosecute the appellant was not legal".
20. I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused persons to the effect that the Sanction Order is legally Invalid in view of the fact that the Sanctioning Authority has not granted the opportunity of hearing to the accused persons before according the Sanction against the accused persons. My said view is found supported from the Judgment as rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported as Superintendent of Police (CBI) Vs. Deepak Chaudhary 1996 Cr.L.J. 405 (SC) wherein it was observed as under: "So far as giving opportunity of hearing to the accused is concerned, the law is clear that Sanctioning Authority is not required to give any opportunity of hearing to the accused before according Sanction".
21. No doubt, PW12/Sanctioning Authority in his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused Balbir Singh has admitted C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 25 of 45 that he has not personally conducted any Investigation as against the accused but volunteered that the relevant record was produced before him in this respect. I am of the considered view that the Sanctioning Authority is not supposed to conduct any separate Investigation as against the accused before according the Sanction. My said view is found supported from the Judgment as rendered by Hon'ble supreme Court of India in the case reported as "Indu Bhushan Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1958 SC 148" where it was observed as under: "It is not for the Sanctioning Authority to judge truth of the allegation made by the accused by calling for the record of the case. It is enough if he goes through all the relevant papers put before him and satisfied that it was necessary in the ends of justice to accord Sanction."
22. By taking cue from the aforesaid judgments and applying the same to the facts of the present case, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused Balbir Singh to the effect that as the Sanctioning Authority has not given personal hearing to the C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 26 of 45 accused persons and not personally conducted any Investigation as against the accused and has passed the Sanction Order mechanically and without application of mind and hence, said Sanction Order is legally Invalid. I am of considered view that the Sanction concerning the accused persons has been validly granted by PW12 Sh. O.P.Mishra, the then Deputy Commissioner of Police, 7th Batallion, DAP, Delhi who was competent to do so.
23. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that the precise case of the prosecution as per deposition of the complainant Aas Mohamad is that on dated 28.01.2010 at about 11:00/11:30 a.m., the accused persons had come to his Scrap Shop at Naniwala Bagh, near Akash Cinema, Azadpur, Delhi and demanded bribe of Rs.1 Lac with the threatening that in case of nonpayment of said bribe, the complainant and his son would be implicated in case of theft and thereafter, the complainant could arrange Rs.78,000/ through his son Naushad and delivered the same to the accused persons.
24. During the course of the arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Balbir Singh that even the complainant Aas Mohamad who has been examined as PW18 has clearly deposed that C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 27 of 45 three police officials who visited his Shop, did not disclose their names and even subsequently also they did not disclose their names, there was no reason on the part of the complainant to state about the name and designation of the accused persons in the Complaint Ex.PW18/A and therefore, the said fact clearly establish the false implications of the accused persons. It is further added by him that PW18 Complainant has clearly deposed that he is an illiterate and cannot write any application and the Complaint Ex.PW18/A was not written by him but by his son Naushad and said Complaint does not bear signatures of his son Naushad anywhere but neither the IO nor PW23 Naushad has stated any such thing to the effect that said Complaint Ex.PW18/A was written by him and said fact also falsify the case of the prosecution against the accused persons. It is further added by him that since the complainant had no reason to know about the name and designation of the accused persons nor he had stated in his deposition as to which accused demanded bribe from him and as to which accused had received any such bribe amount and therefore, mentioning about the name of specific accused person in the Complaint Ex.PW18/A clearly falsify the contents of the said Complaint and reflect about the false implication of the accused persons. However, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP during course of his arguments that the case of the C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 28 of 45 prosecution has been established against all the accused persons through the deposition of PW18/Aas Mohamad,complainant PW19/Irshad and PW23 Naushad, both Sons of the complainant. It is further added by him that there is no reason as to why they would falsely implicate the accused persons when there is no previous enmity as against the accused persons.
25. From the perusal of the deposition of PW18/Aas Mohamad, complainant, it is clearly reflected that three police officials in civil clothes who came to his Scrap Shop at Azadpur on dated 28.01.2010 at about 11:00/11:30 a.m.and demanded bribe from him on the threatening that the material lying in the said Scrap Shop were stolen goods and they have not disclosed their names to him and did not disclose their names even afterwards also. But surprisingly, the Complaint Ex.PW18/A dated 12.02.2010 is found mentioned the name and designation of all the three police officials and there is no explanation by the complainant as to how the name and designation of three police officials are found mentioned in the said Complaint Ex.PW18/A. Though said PW18/complainant has deposed that the said Complaint Ex.PW18/A was not written by him but by his son Naushad, but said Naushad who has been examined as PW23 has not C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 29 of 45 deposed anywhere that those police officials have met him on that day or afterwards nor he has deposed as to how he came to know about the name and designation of said three police officials which are found mentioned in the said Complaint Ex.PW18/A. Furthermore, neither said PW23/Naushad has deposed anything in this regard that said Complaint Ex.PW18/A was written by him nor it found bear his signatures anywhere and said facts raised a big question mark on the veracity of the said Complaint Ex.PW18/A. It is further revealed from the record that though the said incident of demand and acceptance of the bribe from the complainant, is stated to have taken place on dated 28.01.2010 but there is no explanation as to lodging of the Complaint Ex.PW18/A on the part of the complainant after 15 days as the Complaint has been lodged on dated 12.02.2010. Furthermore, there is no proper explanation even by the IO as to why he kept pending the said Complaint and has registered the FIR after 5 days further delay as the FIR has been registered on dated 17.02.2010. Though PW24/Inspector Yashpal Singh, IO has merely stated that he kept the said Complaint pending for Preliminary Inquiry but he has not placed on record any material as collected by him during any such Preliminary Inquiry and therefore, said facts also cannot be lost sight off.
C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 30 of 45
26. Furthermore, it is the case of the prosecution that the complainant had delivered two CDs containing the conversation dated 28.01.2010 and 05.02.2010 along with the Transcript of said conversation to the IO on 17.02.2010 as PW24/IO has deposed in this respect as under: "On 17.2.2010 complainant Aas Mohd. came to me in my Office and produced 2 CDs along with their copies having conversation of dated 28.1.2010 and 5.2.2010. He also produced Transcript of conversation containing in CDs.
The Transcript of conversation dated 28.1.2010 already Ex.PW18/B and Transcript of conversation dated 5.2.2010 already Ex.PW18/C bear my signatures at point X as I had signed on the documents when complainant produced the same in presence of Panch witness Sh.A.K.Sharma, was called by me."
C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 31 of 45
27. From the aforesaid deposition of PW24/IO, it is clearly reflected that Conversation Transcript Ex.PW18/B and Ex.PW18/C, were not prepared by the IO but stated to have been got prepared by the complainant who had delivered the same to the IO on 17.02.2010. Now, the question arises how the name and designation of the accused Trilok Chand and Dinesh are found mentioned at the top of said Transcript Ex.PW18/B and name and designation of accused Dinesh is found at the top of said Transcript Ex.PW18/C and there is no explanation as to who has inducted the said name and designation of the accused persons on said Transcripts specifically when the complainant/PW18 has clearly deposed that those three police officials who had visited his Scrap Shop on dated 28.01.2010 and had demanded and accepted bribe, have not disclosed their names to him and did not even disclose their names afterwards and said police officials were in civil clothes. It is further revealed from the record that the prosecution has not got examined any person as PW who has prepared the said Conversation Transcript. It is also revealed from the record that the prosecution has not examined any person as PW who has prepared the CDs containing the said conversation. It is also revealed from the record that though the complainant stated to have recorded the conversation through the Mobile Phone given to him by C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 32 of 45 his son Naushad but neither said Mobile Phone nor the Chip through which the conversation was got recorded, has been seized by the IO. No doubt, the IO/PW24 has stated that the said Mobile Phone/Chip could not be seized by him as the complainant could not produce the same being found to have lost.
28. During the course of the arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Balbir Singh that the case of the prosecution also found falsified even from the record of the prosecution itself in view of the fact that as per DD No.5 of copy of DD Register dated 28.01.2010 of Special Staff, North West which is Ex.PW8/A, this accused SI Balbir Singh had left the Office of Special Staff on dated 28.01.2010 at 10:40 a.m. along with Ct. Anand Kumar on official duty for collecting secret information and as per DD No.10 of copy of said DD Register Ex.PW8/A, said accused SI Balbir Singh came back to the Office of Special Staff from official duty along with said Ct. Anand Kumar at 5:10 p.m. and there was no occasion on the part of this accused to visit at the Scrap Shop of the complainant at Azadpur for demanding and accepting any bribe from him. It is further added by him that though said Ct.Anand Kumar who had accompanied with the accused Balbir Singh on that day, was a material witness in this case C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 33 of 45 for ascertaining the truth but he has not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them. Similarly, during the course of arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Trilok Chand that this accused Trilok Chand has neither accompanied with accused Balbir Singh nor with the accused Dinesh when they left Office of Special Staff on dated 28.01.2010 and said facts are also found corroborated even from the perusal of the DD Entry Register dated 28.01.2010 of Special Staff, North West District, Delhi, copy of which is Ex.PW8/A and the case of the prosecution to the effect that this accused being accompanied with accused Balbir Singh and Dinesh had visited the Scrap Shop of the complainant at about 11/11:30 a.m.at Azadpur and had demanded and accepted bribe found falsified from the same. Similarly, during the course of arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Dinesh that the case of the prosecution to the effect that this accused Dinesh along with other two accused persons had come to the Scrap Shop of the complainant at Azadpur on dated 28.01.2010 at about 11/11:30 a.m.and have demanded the bribe from the complainant on the threatening that in case of nonpayment of bribe, the complainant and his son would be arrested in false case of theft, is found falsified from the very fact that this accused HC Dinesh had left for official duty from the Office of Special Staff on dated C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 34 of 45 28.01.2010 at 11:30 a.m.which is found corroborated from the contents of DD No.6 of DD Register of dated 28.01.2010 of Special Staff, North West District, copy of which is Ex.PW8/A and therefore, the same reflect the innocence of this accused.
29. From the perusal of DD No.5 of DD Register dated 28.01.2010 of Special Staff, North West District, Delhi, copy of which is Ex.PW8/A, it is reflected that the accused Balbir Singh had left Office of Special Staff along with Ct.Anand Kumar on dated 28.01.2010 at 10:40 a.m.for collecting secret information. It is further revealed from DD No.10 of said DD Register dated 28.01.2010 of Special Staff, North West District, Delhi Ex.PW8/A, said Balbir Singh came back to Office of Special Staff along with Ct.Anand Kumar at 5:10 p.m. on dated 28.01.2010 but said Ct.Anand Kumar has not been examined by the prosecution to ascertain about the persons/places visited by them from 10:40 a.m. to 5:10 p.m. when they remained out of the Office of Special Staff on dated 28.01.2010 and there is no explanation by the IO/PW24 in this respect as he has deposed in this respect as under: "It is correct that in the Departure Entry No. 5 Ex.PW8/A, it is mentioned that accused Balbir C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 35 of 45 Singh left along with Ct.Anand Kumar for developing the information on 28.01.2010. I did not examine Ct.Anand Kumar in this respect".
30. It is further revealed from the record that as per DD No.6 of Ex.PW8/A, accused Dinesh had left Office of Special Staff on dated 28.01.2010 at 11:30 a.m. for collecting secret information and said facts are also found corroborated even from the deposition of PW24/IO as he has deposed in this respect as under: "It is correct that HC Dinesh Kumar had left the Staff at about 11:30 a.m. alone as per the DD No.6".
31. Thus, the contents of DD No.5, 6 and 10 of DD Register dated 28.01.2010 of Special Staff, North West District, Delhi, copy of which is Ex.PW8/A and nonexamination of Ct.Anand Kumar, who is stated to have accompanied with the accused Balbir Singh when they left the Office of Special Staff on dated 28.01.2010, raised a big question mark on the case of the prosecution as regards the visit of the accused persons at the Scrap Shop of the complainant at Azadpur on dated 28.01.2010 at about 11:00/11:30 a.m. and demand and acceptance of bribe from the complainant.
C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 36 of 45
32. During the course of the arguments, it is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Balbir Singh that the innocence of this accused is also found reflected from the very fact that even as per the Mobile Location Chart relating to Mobile Phone No.9911110611 Ex.PW24/H1 as prepared by the IO on the basis of said Mobile Phone Call Detailed Record, the location of the accused Balbir Singh on dated 28.01.2010 from 11:02 a.m. to 12:34 p.m., has been shown in the area of Rohini and not in the area of Azadpur and therefore, the case of the prosecution that this accused Balbir Singh along with other two accused persons had visited the said Scrap Shop of the complainant at Azadpur on dated 28.01.2010 at about 11/11:30 a.m. and had demanded and accepted bribe from the complainant is clearly found falsified. Similarly,during the course of arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Trilok Chand that this accused is stated to be using Mobile No.9654412878 which is found supported from the Reply of this accused Ex.PW5/B given in response to the Notice of IO which is Ex.PW24/G but as per Location Chart Ex.PW24/H2 as prepared by the IO/PW24 on the basis of CDR of said Mobile Phone, the location of this accused Trilok Chand is indicated on 28.01.2010 from 11:10 a.m. to 12:13 a.m. in the area of Rohini and not at Azadpur C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 37 of 45 and said facts also clearly falsify the case of the prosecution as against the accused. Similarly, during the course of the arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Dinesh that even as per the case of the prosecution, this accused Dinesh was using Mobile No. 9891115135 and as per the Location Chart as prepared by the IO on the basis of CDR of said Mobile Phone, the location of the accused Dinesh is shown to be on dated 28.01.2010 from 11:01 a.m. to 11:49 a.m.was at Kingsway Camp, Model Town, Delhi and not at Azadpur and the same also falsify the stand of the prosecution.
33. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused Balbir Singh was found using Mobile No.9911110611, which is found mentioned in relevant entry of Register No.16 on Ex.PW2/B at point Y. Similarly, as per the case of prosecution, the accused Dinesh Kumar is stated to be using Mobile No.9891115135, which is found mentioned in relevant entry of Register No.16 on Ex.PW2/D at point Y and said facts also found corroborated even from the deposition of PW24/IO as he has deposed in this respect as under: "I had obtained Biodata of the accused persons from Register No.16 from Office where they were posted vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW2/A. The C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 38 of 45 copies of the Biodata are already exhibited as Ex.PW2/B, C and D. In this record, Mobile Numbers of the accused were mentioned at point Y. I collected call details of respective Mobile Numbers of accused persons along with CAF."
34. As per the stand of the prosecution, the accused Trilok Chand was found using Mobile No.9654412878 and Mobile No. 9555615719 which is found corroborated from the Reply Ex.PW5/B given by accused Trilok Chand in response to the Notice of IO which is Ex.PW24/G. It is further revealed from the record that said PW24/IO has prepared separate Location Chart Ex.PW24/H, Ex.PW24/H1 and Ex.PW24/H2, on the basis of Call Detailed Record of Mobile Phone No.9891115135 being used by the accused Dinesh, Mobile Phone No.9911110611 being used by accused Balbir Singh and Mobile Phone No.9654412878 being used by accused Trilok Chand respectively which is found corroborated even from the deposition of PW24/IO. As per the Location Chart Ex.PW24/H relating to Mobile Phone No.98991115135, the location of the accused Dinesh on dated 28.01.2010 from 11:01:03 a.m. to 11:49:46 a.m., is shown to be at Kingsway Camp, Model TownII. Similarly, as per the Location Chart C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 39 of 45 Ex.PW24/H1 relating to Mobile Phone No.9911110611, the location of the accused Balbir on dated 28.01.2010 from 11:02:41 a.m. to 12:34:28 p.m., is shown to be at Rohini, Haiderpur and not at Azadpur. Similarly, as per the Location Chart Ex.PW24/H2 relating to Mobile Phone No. 9654412878, the location of the accused Trilok Chand on dated 28.01.2010 from 11:10:11 a.m. to 12:38:14 p.m., is shown to be at Rohini and not at Azadpur. Thus, from the perusal of the aforesaid Location Chart Ex.PW24/H, Ex.PW24/H1 and Ex.PW24/H2 as prepared by PW24/IO, on the basis of Call Detailed Record of Mobile Phone No. 98991115135 being used by accused Dinesh, Mobile Phone No. 9911110611 being used by accused Balbir Singh and Mobile Phone No. 9654412878 being used by accused Trilok Chand indicate the location of said accused persons at the relevant time on dated 28.01.2010, not at the Azadpur but at different places thereby raising a big question mark on the stand of the prosecution as regards the visit of the accused persons at the Scrap Shop of the complainant at Azadpur and demand of bribe from him at about 11:00/11:30 a.m. on dated 28.01.2010 and therefore, said facts cannot be lost sight off.
35. During the course of the arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Balbir Singh that the complainant stated to C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 40 of 45 have paid Rs.78,000/ to the accused persons which was arranged by his son Naushad but said facts are found falsified from the very fact that neither the complainant nor said Naushad could state as to how and from whom he arranged said amount of Rs.78,000/ and said facts falsify the case of the prosecution. Similarly, it is also submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Trilok chand during course of arguments by adding that the prosecution has failed to establish as regards the source of said amount of Rs.78,000/ alleged to have paid towards bribe as Naushad, son of the complainant has not disclosed the names and address of the persons from whom said money was borrowed by him and therefore, the same falsify the case of the prosecution.
36. From the perusal of the deposition of PW18/complainant, it is reflected that said complainant has deposed that his son Naushad had arranged Rs.78,000/ and delivered the same to him but he did not know from where he arranged the same. From the perusal of deposition of PW23/Naushad, it is also reflected that said Naushad could not disclose about the name and address of the persons and the amount as borrowed by him for arrangement of said amount of Rs.78,000/ which he stated to have paid to his father Aas Mohamad and said facts also raised a question mark on the stand of the prosecution regarding this C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 41 of 45 aspect.
37. During the course of the arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Balbir Singh that the falsity of this case is found supported from the fact that the IO had not seized the Mobile Phone and Chip in which the alleged conversation was recorded and there is no proper explanation on the part of the IO in this respect. It is further added by him that the Transcript of conversation Ex.PW18/B and Ex.PW18/C cannot be looked into in view of the fact that neither the author of said Transcript has been examined nor the original Chip of Mobile Phone through which the conversation is alleged to have been recorded, were seized by the IO and therefore, the said CD and conversation Transcript cannot be looked into. Similarly, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Trilok Chand that the prosecution has failed to prove that as to who was the Owner of the said Mobile Phone in which the conversation was recorded and neither the Owner of said Mobile Phone nor Mobile Phone/Chip in which the alleged conversation was recorded, was produced in the Court as the IO had obtained the signatures of the accused on certain blank papers while he was in police custody and had misused the same and therefore, the CDs and Conversation Transcript cannot be considered C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 42 of 45 by this Court. Similarly, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Dinesh that as neither the Mobile Phone nor the Chip in which the conversation was recorded was seized by the IO, nor the Owner of said Mobile Phone was examined by the prosecution as PW and as the author of the alleged Conversation Transcript was not examined in the Court and the contents of said CDs and Transcript cannot be looked into by this Court against the accused.
38. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that the Mobole Phone/Chip in which the conversation was stated to have been recorded by the complainant, was not produced by the complainant to the IO. There is no reason as to why said Mobile Phone/Chip was not seized by the IO from the complainant on dated 17.02.2010 when the IO claimed to have seized the CDs containing the conversation.
39. From the perusal of the deposition of PW24/IO, it is reflected that the IO has not asked from the complainant as regards the said Mobile Number, Ownership of said Mobile Number and as to how the complainant got prepared the CDs as he has deposed in this respect as under: "I had asked the complainant regarding the original C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 43 of 45 instrument of recording the conversation on which he stated that he would submit the same afterwards. It is correct that it is not mentioned in the Seizure Memo Ex.PW18/D that the complainant would submit the original instrument of recording afterwards. I had not asked from the complainant as regards the mobile number, make, model and colour of mobile phone on which the recording was made. I had not asked as regards the ownership of the said mobile phone from the complainant. I had not asked from the complainant as to from where and how he got prepared the CDs as delivered to me by him."
40. Furthermore, PW23/Naushad who has delivered said Mobile Phone to his father also found to have could not state as regards said Mobile Number nor about its Owner, Parentage, Address etc.and therefore, the Owner of said Mobile Phone could not be examined as PW in this respect. It is also revealed from the record that said Mobile Phone/Chip was not seized by the IO being could not be produced by the complainant before him and said fact also cannot be lost sight off. C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 44 of 45
41. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that the prosecution has failed to establish its case as against the accused persons for the charged offence. Therefore, all the accused persons namely Balbir Singh, Trilok Chand and Dinesh Kumar stand acquitted of the charged offence. Resultantly, their bail bonds stand cancelled and their sureties stand discharged. Announced in the open court on this 29th day of October, 2013 (B.R. Kedia) Special Judge07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC, Delhi C.C. No. 46/12 Page No. 45 of 45