Delhi District Court
State vs . Jaspal Singh on 27 November, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI B.R. KEDIA, SPECIAL JUDGE07
(CENTRAL), (PC ACT CASES OF ACB, GNCTD), DELHI
C.C.NO. : 35/11
Unique Case ID : 02401R1013712006
STATE VS. JASPAL SINGH
S/o Sh.Balwant Singh
R/o J2/20, Rajouri Garden,
Delhi.
FIR NO. : 487/2002
U/S : 13(1) (d) & Section 15 of Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988
P.S. : Rajouri Garden
Date of Institution 01.11.2006
Judgment reserved on 23.11.2012
Judgment delivered on 27.11.2012
JUDGMENT
1. The precise case of the prosecution is that on dated 05.07.2002 when PW 9 R.S.Dahiya was posted as ACP in CBT Section of Economic Offence Wing of Crime Branch, Delhi, he received a Letter from the Office of Addl. C.P., Crime which was received by him from the Office of Hon'ble LG, Delhi and copy of C.C. No. 35/11 Page No. 1 of 16 said Letter is Ex.PW6/A and its Annexure as issued from Raj Niwas, Delhi is Ex.PW6/B besides the Report of Lokayukta in Complaint No.C7 & C8/Lok/2002 which is Ex.PW9/A. After going through the same, ACP R.S.Dahiya called complainant Ravinder Balwani and recorded his statement which is Ex.PW9/B in which interalia there is allegation of demand of bribe of Rs.20,000/ as monthly as against the accused from the complainant and in case of nonpayment, the accused would get him transferred. On the basis of said statement of complainant Ravinder Balwani who was posted as Assistant Engineer in DVB in Zone No.1203, District Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, FIR bearing no.487/02, U/S 39/44 of Indian Electricity Act and Section 13(1)(d) & 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered at PS Rajouri Garden on dated 5.7.2002, copy of which is Ex.PW9/D.
2. After registration of the case, IO took up the Investigation and after conclusion of the same, separate Chargesheet was filed relating to offence U/S 39/39A/44 of the Indian Electricity Act before the court of concerned MM and separate Chargesheet relating to the offence U/S 7/13(1)(d) & 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was filed before the concerned designated Court. It is not out of place to mention herein that the Chargesheet relating to the offence C.C. No. 35/11 Page No. 2 of 16 U/S 39A/44 of Indian Electricity Act has already been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 14.09.2009 as passed in Crl. M.C.No.1734/2009 titled "Jaspal Singh Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi & Others)". During course of Investigation relating to this Chargesheet, IO had recorded statement of various PWs i.e. Budh Raj/JE, A.C.Nagpal/EE, N.P.Singh, Sh.Jagdish Sagar the then Chairman of DVB, Hira Lal Sharma, Union Leader of DVB etc. and collected the relevant documents. After conclusion of Investigation, Chargesheet relating to the offence U/S 7/13(1)(d) r/w Section 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused was filed in the court.
3. 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 7 and 13 (1)(d) r/w Section 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed against the accused on 31.10.2011 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Thereafter, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined 11 prosecution witnesses namely Sh.P.D.Raniwal, the then Assistant Personnel Officer in DVB, a C.C. No. 35/11 Page No. 3 of 16 formal witness as PW1, Sh.R.K.Dabral, the then Assistant Director in the Office of Lokayukta, Delhi, a formal witness as PW2, Budh Raj, the then JE in DVB who was posted alongwith the complainant, a material witness as PW3, Hira Lal Sharma, Union Leader in DVB, also a material witness as PW4, Jagdish Sagar, the then Chairman of DVB, a material witness as PW5, Sh.S.K.Raj, Senior P.A. to LG, a formal witness as PW6, A.C.Nagpal, the then Executive Engineer in DVB, a formal witness as PW7, Sh.N.P.Singh, the then AGM(DVB) as PW8, the then ACP R.S.Dahiya, Initial IO as PW9, the then ACP Vijay Malik, Last IO as PW10 and SI Hansa Ram, a formal witness as PW11.
5. After closure of the PE, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which the accused denied about any demand and acceptance of the bribe from the complainant. Accused claimed to be falsely implicated in this case having no concern with the alleged offence. The accused further added that he has been rendering public service for last several years and there was no such complaint as against him and everybody who are working with him are happy with his behaviour and conduct. He further added that present case has been registered because of political vendata against C.C. No. 35/11 Page No. 4 of 16 him.
6. I have heard Final Arguments as addressed by Sh. Yogesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused and Sh.Vinod Kumar Sharma, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and perused the relevant record.
7. It is submitted by Sh.Yogesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused that this accused Jaspal Singh is innocent and has neither demanded nor accepted any bribe from the complainant Ravinder Balwani and the prosecution has failed to prove the said fact and hence, the accused deserve to be acquitted. It also added by Ld. Counsel that the falsity of the complaint regarding the demand of Rs. 20,000/ as bribe as against the accused by the complainant is also found established from the very fact that the complainant Ravinder Balwani has not made any such complaint till his transfer as A.E. from Punjabi Bagh Zone nor he has made any such allegation against the accused in his Complaint dated 4.11.2001 as sent by complainant to Chief Minister, copy of which is Ex.PW9/DA nor in the complaint dated 11.11.2001 as sent to Chairman, DVB by the complainant. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that even otherwise the allegation of C.C. No. 35/11 Page No. 5 of 16 demand of bribe of Rs.20,000/ as against the accused by the complainant Ravinder Balwani could not be proved in view of the fact that the complainant Ravinder Balwani due to his death could not be examined as PW and PW3 Budh Raj who was posted as J.E. in whose presence the said demand is alleged to have made by the accused has clearly denied about the same in his deposition and despite cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, he has not supported the stand of the prosecution in this respect. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that even in his earlier statement Ex.PW3/DA before Lokayukta, said PW3 Budh Raj has not made any such allegation as against the accused. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that the complainant Ravinder Balwani, the then A.E., was transferred on 25.10.2001 from the Area of the accused as he was not performing his duty properly and was not being available to solve local problems and said facts are also found corroborated from the Letter/Reply, copy of which is Ex.PW5/DA as sent by PW5 Jagdish Sagar to the Office of Lokayukta. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that the allegation regarding the demand of the bribe as against the accused by the complainant was not established even in the proceedings before the Lokayukta on the similar complaint by the complainant Ravinder Balwani and same is found corroborated from Para 29 of the Report of the Lokayukta, copy of C.C. No. 35/11 Page No. 6 of 16 which is Ex.PW9/A. Thus, Ld. Counsel urged for acquittal of this accused Jaspal Singh.
8. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution by examining 11 PWs have established its case as against this accused and therefore, the accused deserves to be convicted for the charged offence. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the complainant Ravinder Balwani could not be examined as PW before this court as he had expired earlier. It is also added by Ld. Addl. PP that the prosecution has been successful in establishing its case as against the accused for the charged offence and therefore, the accused deserves to be convicted.
9. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that the basic allegation as against the accused is that the accused Jaspal Singh while being working as MLA in August 2001, had demanded bribe of Rs.20,000/ as monthly from the complainant Ravinder Balwani, the then Assistant Engineer, DVB and threatened him to get him transferred within a month in case of non payment of said bribe.
10. From the perusal of the record, it is revealed that none of C.C. No. 35/11 Page No. 7 of 16 the PWs as examined by the prosecution has deposed anything as regards demand of any such bribe by the accused Jaspal Singh from the complainant Ravinder Balwani or from any one else. The complainant Ravinder Balwani being reported to have already expired, could not be examined as PW during trial to substantiate his allegation as against the accused.
11. From the perusal of the case record, it is also reflected that PW3 Budh Raj who was working as J.E. alongwith the complainant Ravinder Balwani, A.E. and in whose presence the accused is stated to have demanded the bribe as monthly from the complainant, is found to have turned hostile and despite his searching cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, no material to help the stand of the prosecution could be extracted from him. Said PW3 in his examination in chief deposed that one day he alongwith Ravinder Balwani had gone to the residence of the accused to discuss about some complaints of the Area of the accused and the accused provided 1015 Poll Numbers and informed that the electric supply of those Poll Numbers were not proper. Said PW3 further deposed that thereafter he alongwith the Ravinder Balwani came back and nothing had happened in his presence. Said PW3 Budh Raj, the then J.E. was C.C. No. 35/11 Page No. 8 of 16 cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, in which said PW3 interalia has deposed as under: "I did not state to the police officials that in the month of July 2001 I alongwith Ravinder Balwani visited the house of accused and at that time accused told to Ravinder Balwani that previously posted AE Raj Kumar in Zone no.1203 used to pay him Rs.20,000/ p.m. and he further asked Ravinder Balwani to pay him Rs.20,000/ p.m.(confronted with portion A to A of statement Mark PW3/A where it is so recorded). I did not state to the police official that accused threatened Ravinder Balwani to get him transferred out from Zone no.1203 if Ravinder Balwani does not fulfill his demand as his predecessor used to do (confronted with portion B to B of statement Mark PW3/A where it is so recorded). I did not state to the police official that accused uttered that "Balwani Ke Bache agar is zone no.1203 mein rehna ha to mere mang puri karni padagi varna mein tujh is zone is badlwa dunga" (confronted with portion C to C of statement C.C. No. 35/11 Page No. 9 of 16 Mark PW3/A where it is so recorded)".
Said PW3 Budh Raj had denied the specific suggestion of Ld. Addl.PP for the State that the accused had demanded Rs.20,000/ from Ravinder Balwani in his presence or that he has been deposing falsely being won over by the accused. As said PW3 has deposed in this respect as under: "It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely as I have been won over by the accused present in the court. It is incorrect to suggest that I am suppressing the true facts from the court. It is incorrect to suggest that accused had demanded Rs.20,000/ from Ravinder Balwani in my presence."
Said PW3 Budh Raj in his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel also added that he was called in the Office of Lokayukta for recording of his statement and he has made Statement Ex.PW3/DA there which bears his signatures at point A. From the perusal of said Statement Ex.PW3/DA, it is clearly reflected that said Budh Raj has not made any such allegation regarding demand of bribe as against accused Jaspal Singh.
C.C. No. 35/11 Page No. 10 of 16
12. From the perusal of the case record, it is reflected that Sh. Jagdish Sagar, the then Chairman of Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB), who has been examined as PW5, has deposed that sometime in 2001 Ravinder Balwani, was Assistant Engineer (Distribution) in the Area of Jaspal Singh, MLA and said Jaspal Singh complained him that Ravinder Balwani was not performing his duties adequately specially not being available to solve local problems in the evening and since said fact was confirmed to him by Chief Engineer Sh.H.R.Aggarwal, he agreed to transfer said Ravinder Balwani. In the cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, said PW5 has added that he had sent a Letter/Reply Ex.PW5/DA which bears his signatures at point A, to the Office of Lokayukta and in middle part of Para 2 of said Letter, he has shown the reason for transfer of Ravinder Balwani and same is reproduced as under: "Subsequently I began to receive complaints about Shri Balwani's conduct orally, possibly from more than one source, but definitely from the MLA, Sh.Jaspal Singh who spoke to me several times. Therefore, I checked from the Chief Engineer, who reported to me (on the telephone) that Shri Balwani was not behaving very well and not working satisfactorily, and his superior officers were not C.C. No. 35/11 Page No. 11 of 16 happy with his work. I, therefore, ordered his transfer in good faith, in the interest of work. I do order transfers on oral complaints, if senior officers confirm them and I am satisfied that it is desirable to do so, and have done so on other occasions also."
Said PW5 Jagdish Sagar, the then Chairman, DVB in Para 3 of his said Letter/Reply Ex.PW5/DA, has indicated that the Complaint by Ravinder Balwani only after being transferred from the Area indicate to be a motivated one and there was no reason as to why he had not made any such Complaint during period of his posting in said Zone of District Punjabi Bagh of DVB.
13. From the perusal of the record, it is also reflected that Sh.A.C.Nagpal, who was posted as Executive Engineer in District Punjabi Bagh, Delhi Vidyut Board, is found to have been examined as PW7 and he has deposed that he was called in the Office of Lokayukta on 3.1.2002 and his statement was recorded, copy of which is Ex.PW7/DA which bears his signatures at point A. From the perusal of the said Statement Ex.PW7/DA, it is clearly reflected that said A.C. Nagpal, the then Executive Engineer, DVB, has also not made any allegation regarding demand of bribe as against accused C.C. No. 35/11 Page No. 12 of 16 Jaspal Singh.
14. From the perusal of deposition of PW1 P.D.Raniwal coupled with Posting/Transfer Order Ex.PW1/A, it is reflected that complainant Ravinder Balwani was transferred as Assistant Engineer, Zone No.1203, District Punjabi Bagh on dated 16.5.2001. From the perusal of deposition of PW7 A.C.Nagpal, it is reflected that said Ravinder Balwani has finally taken the charge as A.E. in said Zone No.1203 from Raj Kumar, A.E. on 23.5.2001. It is further revealed from the record that said Ravinder Balwani was transferred from said Zone No.1203, District Punjabi Bagh on 25.10.2001. During course of his posting in said Zone, Ravinder Balwani has not made any such complaint regarding demand of bribe as against the accused. It is further revealed from the record that even in the Complaint dated 4.11.2001 as addressed to Smt.Sheila Dixit, Chief Minister, Delhi, copy of which is Ex.PW9/DA, the complainant Ravinder Balwani has not made any such allegation regarding demand of bribe as against the accused. It is further revealed from the record that even in Complaint dated 19.11.2001 as sent by complainant Ravinder Balwani being addressed to Chairman, DVB, there is no such allegation of demand of bribe as against the accused. No doubt, the complainant Ravinder C.C. No. 35/11 Page No. 13 of 16 Balwani is found to have made allegation regarding demand of bribe as against accused in his subsequent Complaint dated 5.7.2002 Ex.PW9/B but the same could not be found to have been substantiated through the deposition of any PWs in this respect in view of the fact that said Ravinder Balwani could not be examined as PW due to his death and another material PW i.e. PW3 Budh Raj, J.E. has not supported the stand of the prosecution in this respect.
15. From the perusal of the case record, it is further reflected that the allegation of complainant Ravinder Balwani regarding the demand of bribe of Rs.20,000/ towards monthly as against accused Jaspal Singh could not be established even in the Enquiry Proceedings before the Lokayukta and said fact is found reflected from the contents of Para 29 of the Report dated 14.06.2002 of Lokayukta, copy of which is Ex.PW9/A and contents of said Para No.29 is noted as under: "One more allegation of Balwani needs to be noticed. Balwani alleged that Sh. Jaspal Singh demanded from him a monthly payment of Rs.20,000 as was paid by his boss Executive Engineer and the Jr. Engineer to Sh. Jaspal Singh, which he refused. This allegation is denied C.C. No. 35/11 Page No. 14 of 16 by Sh. Jaspal Singh. On the material produced on the record it is not possible for the Lokayukta to give any definite finding on this allegation. Therefore, the allegation of demand of Rs.20,000/ per month by Sh. Jaspal Singh is found not established."
The said facts are admitted even by the PW9 R.S.Dahiya, IO in his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel as he has deposed in this respect as under: "I had gone through the Report of Lokayukta. It is correct that in Para No.29, it is mentioned that on the material produced on the record, it is not possible for the lokayukta to give any definite finding on this allegation therefore, the allegation of demand of Rs.20,000/ per month by Sh. Jaspal Singh is found not established. It is correct that the document Ex.PW9/DA attested by Punit Kulshrestha, Asstt. Director of Office Lokayukta was seized by me. It is also correct that Ex.PW3/DA and Ex.PW5/DA, Ex.PW7/DA was seized by me from the Office of Lokayukta."
C.C. No. 35/11 Page No. 15 of 16
16. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that as the prosecution has failed to establish its case as against the accused Jaspal Singh, so this accused Jaspal Singh deserves to be acquitted of the charged offence and stands acquitted accordingly. Resultantly, his bail bond stands cancelled and his surety stands discharged. Announced in the open court on this 27th day of November, 2012 (B.R. Kedia) Special Judge07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC,Delhi C.C. No. 35/11 Page No. 16 of 16