Delhi District Court
State vs Puran Chand on 30 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)02, ROUSE AVENUE
DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided by : Mr Jay Thareja, DHJS
CNR No. DLCT110000892022
CC No. : 08/2022
FIR No.: 23/2014
U/S. 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Police Station: ACB, GNCTD.
IN THE MATTER OF :
State v Sh. Puran Chand
S/o Sh. Hari Ram
R/o Q. No. 1, Near Minto Bridge,
Minto Road, New Delhi110002.
Date of Institution : 15.02.2022
Date of Final Arguments : 24.04.2024
Date of Judgment : 30.04.2024
JUDGMENT
1. The present criminal case has originated from a chargesheet filed by the State, alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)
(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth 'PC Act, 1988') by the accused, Sh. Puran Chand.
State v Sh. Puran Chand FIR No.23/2014 PS AntiCorruption Branch Page 1 of 33 Brief Synopsis of the ChargeSheet
2. In the chargesheet, it has been alleged by the State that on 03.03.2014 Aaj Tak TV Channel of TV Today Network Ltd. had broadcasted a sting operation, wherein the accused, Sh. Puran Chand, working as PeoncumAsstt. Meter Reader ('PCAMR') under Executive Engineer (Central)1, Delhi Jal Board was seen to be taking Rs.2000/ (including illegal gratification/bribe of Rs.1000/) from Sh. Akshay Singh, Special Correspondent of TV Today Network Ltd. ('TTNL'); that in view of the said broadcast, Sh. Amit Kumar Jain, Assistant Commissioner (D), Delhi Jal Board, Govt. of NCT of Delhi had sent a complaint on the very next day i.e. 04.03.2014 to the SHO, PS ACB, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, seeking registration of FIR against the accused, Sh. Puran Chand and that on the strength of the said complaint of Sh. Amit Kumar Jain, the FIR of this case was immediately registered at PS ACB, on 04.03.2014.
3. Further, in the chargesheet, it has been alleged by the State that during the investigation of this case, the investigating agency/ACB had/has interalia
(a) obtained from Sh. Puneet Jain, Vice President of TTNL, a CD containing the raw footage/video of the sting operation conducted qua the accused, Sh. Puran Chand by Sh. Akshay Singh, Special Correspondent of TTNL with the assistance of Sh. Umesh Kumar, Intern of TTNL; (b) obtained from Sh. Puneet Jain, Vice President of TTNL, a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 qua the said CD; (c) recorded the statement under Section 161 of CrPC, 1973 of Sh. Akshay Singh, Special Correspondent of TTNL, interalia affirming that on 22.02.2014 at the State v Sh. Puran Chand FIR No.23/2014 PS AntiCorruption Branch Page 2 of 33 office of Delhi Jal Board at Turkman Gate, New Delhi, he had conducted a sting operation upon the accused, Sh. Puran Chand, wherein the accused had obtained illegal gratification/bribe of Rs.1000/ from him, for the purpose of booking a water tanker at the prescribed fee of Rs.1000/; (d) recorded the statement under Section 161 of CrPC, 1973 of Sh. Umesh Kumar, Intern of TTNL, interalia corroborating the version of Sh. Akshay Singh, Special Correspondent of TTNL; (e) obtained the voice samples of the accused, Sh. Puran Chand and Sh. Akshay Singh, Special Correspondent of TTNL, through the assistance of the officials at Physics Division of FSL, Rohini, Delhi, (f) prepared the transcript of the conversation that had taken place between the accused, Sh. Puran Chand and Sh. Akshay Singh, Special Correspondent of TTNL, on 22.02.2014, with the assistance of Sh. Akshay Singh, who was using the fictitious name, Sh. Ajay Singh, on 22.02.2014; (g) obtained the FSL report dated 29.04.2016 from FSL, Rohini, Delhi, interalia reporting that the raw footage/video in the CD given by Sh. Puneet Jain, Vice President of TTNL, is free from any alteration and that the voices of the accused, Sh. Puran Chand and Sh. Akshay Singh, Special Correspondent of TTNL can be heard in the said raw footage/video; (h) obtained the FSL report dated 10.08.2020 from the Directorate of Forensic Science, Govt. of Gujarat, interalia reporting that the Apple Iphone 4s used by Sh. Akshay Singh, Special Correspondent of TTNL, on 22.02.2014, does not have the original raw footage/video, "delhi jal board sting raw.mov", a copy of which exists in the CD given by Sh. Puneet Jain, Vice President of TTNL; (i) obtained the FSL report dated 29.12.2021 from FSL Rohini, Delhi, interalia reporting that the manual receipt dated 22.02.2014 qua the booking done at the request of Sh. Akshay Singh, Special Correspondent of TTNL, has the handwriting and signatures of the accused, Sh. Puran Chand; (j) recorded the statements under State v Sh. Puran Chand FIR No.23/2014 PS AntiCorruption Branch Page 3 of 33 Section 161 of CrPC, 1973 of the colleagues/seniors of the accused, Sh. Puran Chand at the Delhi Jal Board, interalia (i) identifying him in the raw footage/video, "delhi jal board sting raw.mov", found in the CD given by Sh. Puneet Jain, Vice President of TTNL, (ii) explaining the procedure of booking of water tankers at Delhi Jal Board and (iii) explaining the role played by the accused, Sh. Puran Chand in the booking done at the request of Sh. Akshay Singh, Special Correspondent of TTNL;
(k) obtained the death certificate of Sh. Akshay Singh, Special Correspondent of TTNL, who had unfortunately died during the investigation of this case, on 04.07.2015; (l) recorded the statements under Section 161 of CrPC, 1973 of ancillary witnesses viz. panch witnesses, who had assisted during the investigation of this case and the junior police officers, who had assisted during the investigation of this case and (m) obtained sanction under Section 19 of PC Act, 1988 qua the accused, Sh. Puran Chand, from Sh. J. P. Aggarwal, IAS, Member (Admn.), Delhi Jal Board.
4. Lastly, in the chargesheet, it has been alleged by the State that from the total investigation done in this case by the investigating agency/ACB, the logical conclusion that follows is that the accused, Sh. Puran Chand is liable to be prosecuted, convicted and sentenced qua the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the PC Act, 1988.
Compliance of Section 207 of CrPC, 1973 and Framing of Charge
9. A perusal of the Court file reveals that the aforesaid charge sheet was filed in this Court by the State, on 15.02.2022; that on the basis of the aforesaid State v Sh. Puran Chand FIR No.23/2014 PS AntiCorruption Branch Page 4 of 33 chargesheet, the Ld. Predecessor Judge had taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and directed issuance of summons against the accused, Sh. Puran Chand; that upon service of summons of this Court, the accused, Sh. Puran Chand had appeared in this Court, on 21.03.2022; that after supply of documents to the accused, Sh. Puran Chand in compliance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth "CrPC, 1973"), the Ld. Predecessor Judge had framed the charge against the accused, Sh. Puran Chand, on 22.07.2022, whereby the accused, Sh. Puran Chand was charged with the commission of the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and that when the said charge was read over and explained to the accused, Sh. Puran Chand, he had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Evidence led by the State
10. During trial of this case, the State has examined 13 witnesses viz. PW1 Retired SI Krishan Kumar, PW2 ASI Jag Pravesh, PW3 Sh. Umesh Kumar, PW4 Sh. Amit Kumar Jain, PW5 Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma, PW6 Sh. Jai Prakash Gupta, PW7 ASI Arvind Kumar, PW8 Sh. Mohit Gahlot, PW9 Dr. Puneet Jain, PW10 ASI Jagdish Kumar, PW11 ASI Satish Kumar, PW12 Ms. Preeti Chaudhary and PW13 Dr. C. P. Singh.
11. During examination in chief, PW1 Retired SI Krishan Kumar has inter alia deposed that on 07.03.2014 (sic),1 he was posted as an ASI at PS ACB; that on that day his duty hours were from 02:00 pm to 08:00 pm; that on that day he had 1 This date should have been 04.03.2014.
State v Sh. Puran Chand FIR No.23/2014 PS AntiCorruption Branch Page 5 of 33 joined his duty at about 01:40 pm as the previous duty officer had fallen ill; that at the time of joining his duty he had lodged the DD No. 22, Ex.P5/PW1(OSR); that on that day at about 01:45 pm, on the basis of rukka prepared by Inspector Vinay Malik of PS ACB, he had registered the FIR of this case viz. FIR No. 23/2014, PS ACB, Ex.P1/PW1(OSR), in his own handwriting; that at that time, he had made endorsement, Ex.P2/PW1 on the rukka prepared by Inspector Vinay Malik and signed it at point A; that at the time of commencement of registration of FIR of this case, he had lodged DD No. 23, Ex.P3/PW1(OSR) and that after conclusion of registration of FIR of this case, he had lodged DD No. 26, Ex.P4/PW1(OSR).
12. During crossexamination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, PW1 Retired SI Krishan Kumar has interalia deposed that in row number 3 & 4 of the FIR Ex.P1(OSR), he had not mentioned the time, date and place of occurrence of the offence; that the first IO, Inspector Rakesh Kumar Saini had reached the duty officer's room, 1015 minutes after the registration of FIR of this case and then, he had handed over to the first IO, Inspector Rakesh Kumar Saini, the FIR of this case as well as the original rukka; that it is wrong to say that on the date of registration of FIR of this case, a total of three FIRs were registered on the basis of complaints of Aaj Tak News Channel and therefore, every policeman at PS ACB was busy and under pressure from Aaj Tak News Channel; that it is wrong to say that the FIR of this case is antedated or antetimed and that it is wrong to say that the FIR of this case was registered under pressure from the news channel.
13. During examination in chief, PW2 ASI Jag Pravesh, the then MHC(M) PS Civil Lines has interalia deposed that the case properties of this case had been State v Sh. Puran Chand FIR No.23/2014 PS AntiCorruption Branch Page 6 of 33 received in the malkhana of PS Civil Lines vide entry dated 23.10.2020, Ex.P6/PW2(OSR), entry dated 28.10.2020, Ex.P7/PW2(OSR) and entry dated 23.12.2021, Ex.P8/PW2(OSR) made in the register no. 19 by him and by ASI Baljit and that till the time, the case properties of this case had remained with him in the malkhana of PS Civil Lines, they had remained safe.
14. During crossexamination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, PW2 ASI Jag Pravesh has interalia deposed that he had made the entries, Ex.P7(OSR) and Ex.P8(OSR) on the left side of the register no. 19 because there was no space left on the right side; that it is wrong to say that all the three entries, Ex.P6(OSR), Ex.P7(OSR) and Ex.P8(OSR) are false, antetimed or antedated and no case properties of this case were received in the malkhana of PS Civil Lines, as deposed by him; and that he does not remember if the IO had recorded his statement under Section 161 of CrPC, 1973.
15. During examination in chief, the star witness of the State viz. PW3 Sh. Umesh Kumar has not supported the case of the State on material aspects viz. (a) identity of the accused, Sh. Puran Chand as the employee of the Delhi Jal Board, who had demanded and then accepted illegal gratification/bribe of Rs.1000/ from Late Sh. Akshay Singh and (b) the actual witnessing of the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification/bribe of Rs.1000/ by the accused, Sh. Puran Chand from Late Sh. Akshay Singh. During examination in chief, PW3 Sh. Umesh Kumar has inter alia deposed that in February 2014 he was working as an Intern at TTNL, Sector 16A, Film City, Noida; that as an Intern, he was attached with Late Sh. Akshay Singh, who was then working as Special Senior Correspondent at TTNL; that Late State v Sh. Puran Chand FIR No.23/2014 PS AntiCorruption Branch Page 7 of 33 Sh. Akshay Singh used to cover news in different areas by visiting places and as an Intern, he used to accompany Late Sh. Akshay Singh; that in February 2014, he had accompanied Late Sh. Akshay Singh to the office of Delhi Jal Board at Turkman Gate; that there, Late Sh. Akshay Singh had told him that he had entered into some conversation with an employee of Delhi Jal Board, for booking of a water tanker, in some fictitious name; that he had not witnessed the actual conversation that had happened between Late Sh. Akshay Singh and the employee of Delhi Jal Board; that he does not remember if he had seen any person present in the Court (on the day of his examination),2 during his visit to the office of Delhi Jal Board at Turkman Gate in February 2014 with Late Sh. Akshay Singh; that after one or two months of the said incident, he and Late Sh. Akshay Singh had gone to some office of police around Rohini; that there certain inquiries were made from him and Late Sh. Akshay Singh by police officials; that his written statement was not recorded by any police official; that he does not remember the name of the police official, who had made inquiry from him and that he has nothing else to say.
16. Since, the star witness of the State viz. PW3 Sh. Umesh Kumar had not supported the case of the State, he was permitted to be crossexamined by the Ld. Chief Prosecutor for the State. During crossexamination by the Ld. Chief Prosecutor for the State also, the star witness of the State viz. PW3 Sh. Umesh Kumar has not supported the case of the State on the abovenoted material aspects. During the said crossexamination, he has interalia deposed that he does not remember if he had given the statement under Section 161 of CrPC, 1973, Ex.P9/PW3 during the investigation of this case; that he does not remember the time around which, he had gone with Late Sh. Akshay Singh to the office of Delhi Jal 2 This included the accused, Sh. Puran Chand.
State v Sh. Puran Chand FIR No.23/2014 PS AntiCorruption Branch Page 8 of 33 Board at Turkman Gate, on 22.02.2014; that it is correct that on that day, Late Sh. Akshay Singh had conducted a sting operation qua a Delhi Jal Board employee with the help of a hidden camera; that he does not remember whether on 03.07.2014, he had gone to PS ACB with Late Sh. Akshay Singh; that when he had gone to PS ACB, he was shown a copy of the sting operation video, from a CD played on the laptop; that it is correct that after watching copy of the sting operation video, he had told the IO that the said video was recorded by Late Sh. Akshay Singh, nothing was added or deleted from the said video and the said video had the complete recording done by Late Sh. Akshay Singh; that he does not remember if on 03.07.2014, he was shown letter dated 01.04.2014 of Sh. Punit Jain, Head of Legal & Compliances and Vice PresidentInternal Audit of TTNL or that in his presence, Late Sh. Akshay Singh had admitted the contents of the said letter; 3 that it is correct that after seeing the copy of the sting operation video, from a CD played on the laptop, he had identified the Delhi Jal Board employee in the video and his name was Sh. Puran Chand; that it is correct that in the said video, he had identified the voice of Late Sh. Akshay Singh and the voice of the accused, Sh. Puran Chand; that he does not remember if on 22.02.2014, he had heard or seen the actual conversation between Late Sh. Akshay Singh and the accused, Sh. Puran Chand; that he does not recollect if the accused, Sh. Puran Chand is the person with whom Late Sh. Akshay Singh had interacted with at the office of Delhi Jal Board, Turkman Gate, on 22.02.2014; that it is wrong to say that in his presence, the accused, Sh. Puran Chand had taken a sum of Rs. 2000/ from Late Sh. Akshay Singh, out of which Rs.1000/ was legitimate fees for booking of tanker and the remaining Rs.1000/ was a bribe; that Late Sh. Akshay Singh had told him about all this but he had not seen 3 At this stage, the Ld. Chief Prosecutor for the State had confronted PW3 Sh. Umesh Kumar with the portion A to A of his statement under Section 161 of CrPC, 1973, Ex.P9/PW3.
State v Sh. Puran Chand FIR No.23/2014 PS AntiCorruption Branch Page 9 of 33 or heard it; that it is wrong to say that in his presence, the accused, Sh. Puran Chand had demanded Rs.2000/ from Late Sh. Akshay Singh i.e. Rs.1000/ towards actual booking charges of a water tanker and Rs.1000/ as bribe 4 and that it is wrong to say that he had been won over by the accused, Sh. Puran Chand and therefore, he had testified in his favour. Upon being shown the raw footage/video in the CD, Ex.MO1/PW3 (obtained by the investigating agency/ACB from Sh. Puneet Jain, Vice President of TTNL), PW3 Sh. Umesh Kumar has interalia deposed that the video contains the voice of Late Sh. Akshay Singh and the official of the Delhi Jal Board, visible in the said video and that the video has his picture for one micro second but he was standing away when the said video was being shot by Late Sh. Akshay Singh through a spy camera. Upon being shown the CD, Ex.MO1/PW3 (obtained by the investigating agency/ACB from Sh. Puneet Jain, Vice President of TTNL), PW3 Sh. Umesh Kumar has interalia deposed that he cannot say if the said CD was the CD which was shown to him at PS ACB, on 03.07.2014 and that it is wrong to say that due to lapse of time, he is unable to correctly recollect all the facts in this case.
17. During crossexamination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, PW3 Sh. Umesh Kumar has interalia deposed that while working as an Intern at TTNL, he was getting stipend of Rs.7200/ per month; that Late Sh. Akshay Singh had planned the sting operation and he had accompanied him only as an Intern; that Late Sh. Akshay Singh had conducted the sting operation with the help of an I phone which had a spy camera fitted on its body; that the Iphone had been issued by TTNL; that on 22.02.2014, he and Late Sh. Akshay Singh had stayed at the office of Delhi Jal Board, Turkman Gate for about 3040 minutes; that he does not 4 At this stage, the Ld. Chief Prosecutor for the State had confronted PW3 Sh. Umesh Kumar with the portion B to B of his statement under Section 161 of CrPC, 1973, Ex.P9/PW3.
State v Sh. Puran Chand FIR No.23/2014 PS AntiCorruption Branch Page 10 of 33 remember from where and how he had reached the said office; that he does not remember how many sting operations had been done by Late Sh. Akshay Singh, while he was working with Late Sh. Akshay Singh; that he had never independently conducted a sting operation; that the CD that was shown to him at PS ACB, on 03.07.2014 was neither prepared by him nor prepared in his presence; that he does not know who had prepared the said CD; that in his presence, Late Sh. Akshay Singh had not deposited the Iphone used in the sting operation in the office of TTNL; that in his presence, the video of the sting operation was not transferred/copied from the Iphone to any other storage media; that there was no exclusive computer assigned to Late Sh. Akshay Singh in his office at TTNL; that Late Sh. Akshay Singh used to use a computer, which was being used by other officials of TTNL; that it is wrong to say that the video shown to him at PC ACB, on 03.07.2014 and the video shown to him in Court is manipulated/fabricated; that the said video does not have his voice; that it is wrong to say that he had not accompanied Late Sh. Akshay Singh to PS ACB or any other place, on 03.07.2014; that it is wrong to say that he has identified Late Sh. Akshay Singh in the video at the instance of the IO of this case; that he had not received any written notice from the Delhi Jal Board, requiring him to appear in the any departmental inquiry; that he does not know anyone in the Delhi Jal Board; that while he was working as an Intern at TTNL, he had been given a card to access the office; that he had not chosen to work with Late Sh. Akshay Singh; that it is wrong to say that he was not an Intern with TTNL; that it is wrong to say that he and Late Sh. Akshay Singh used to conduct false sting operations for extorting money and that it is wrong to say that he has deposed falsely in this Court.
18. During examination in chief, PW4 Sh. Amit Kumar Jain has interalia State v Sh. Puran Chand FIR No.23/2014 PS AntiCorruption Branch Page 11 of 33 deposed that in 2014, he was posted as Assistant Commissioner (Division) in the Administration Department of the Delhi Jal Board (DJB), located at Headquarters, Karol Bagh; that he had sent the complaint dated 04.03.2014, Ex.P12/PW4 to the SHO PS ACB against the accused, Sh. Puran Chand; that he does not recognize the accused, Sh. Puran Chand; that he had sent the complaint dated 04.03.2014, Ex.P12/PW4 without seeing the sting operation broadcasted by Aaj Tak TV Channel of TTNL, on 03.03.2014 and without seeing the personal file of the accused, Sh. Puran Chand.
19. During crossexamination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, PW4 Sh. Amit Kumar Jain has interalia deposed that he does not have any personal knowledge regarding the incident dated 22.02.2014 between the accused, Sh. Puran Chand and Late Sh. Akshay Singh, Special Correspondent of TTNL; that he had sent the complaint, Ex.P12/PW4 as per the instructions of his immediate boss viz. the Director, Administration & Personal of DJB, who inturn had received instructions from Member, Administration of DJB and that he was not made a witness in the departmental inquiry against the accused, Sh. Puran Chand.
20. During examination in chief, PW5 Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma has inter alia deposed that in 2014, he was posted in Vigilance Department of Delhi Jal Board; that his office was located at Varunalaya, Phase2, Jhandewalan; that at that time, the accused, Sh. Puran Chand (present in Court) was posted as PCAMR in the Office of Executive Engineer, Central, Booster Pumping Station, Ramlila Ground, Delhi; that at that time, the accused, Sh. Puran Chand was assigned the work of booking of water tanker; that during investigation of this case, he had gone to PS ACB, on 21.06.2021 and seen a video; that in the said video, he had identified the State v Sh. Puran Chand FIR No.23/2014 PS AntiCorruption Branch Page 12 of 33 accused, Sh. Puran Chand; that on 21.06.2021, he had given the letters, Ex.P13/PW5 and Ex.P14/PW5 as well as email, Mark X1 to the IO and that he does not know any person by the name of Sh. Rishikant Tiwari. Upon being shown the raw footage/video in the CD, Ex.MO1/PW3 (obtained by the investigating agency/ACB from Sh. Puneet Jain, Vice President of TTNL), PW5 Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma has interalia deposed that the accused, Sh. Puran Chand is visible in the said video.
21. During crossexamination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, PW5 Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma has interalia deposed that he has been working in DJB since 1991; that apart from the subject incident dated 22.02.2014, there is no other vigilance issue against the accused, Sh. Puran Chand; that he was a witness in the departmental inquiry against the accused, Sh. Puran Chand as he had processed the file of the accused, Sh. Puran Chand in the vigilance department of DJB; that he had not seen any written order, assigning duty of booking of water tanker to the accused, Sh. Puran Chand; that he had gone to PS ACB only once; that despite service of many notices, Late Sh. Akshay Singh had never come to his office; that Late Sh. Akshay Singh had only sent the email, Mark X1; that the letter, Ex.P15/PW5 was received by him but he had not processed it; that the CD which was received in the Vigilance Department of Delhi Jal Board was received from ACB and not TTNL; that it is wrong to say that on 21.06.2021, no video was shown to him at PS ACB; that he had spoken to Late Sh. Akshay Singh only once before Late Sh. Akshay Singh had sent the email, Mark X1 and that it is wrong to say that he had deposed falsely in this Court.
22. During examination in chief, PW6 Sh. Jai Prakash Gupta has interalia State v Sh. Puran Chand FIR No.23/2014 PS AntiCorruption Branch Page 13 of 33 deposed that in the year 2014, he was working as Assistant Engineer in Delhi Jal Board and was posted at the Office of Executive Engineer (Central)I near Under Ground Reservoir & Booster Pumping Station, Ramlila Ground, JLN Marg, New Delhi; that at that time, his duties included the work relating to supply of water tanker, wherever required; that at that time, the accused, Sh. Puran Chand (present in Court) was working as PCAMR in his office; that he does not know who had executed the form dated 22.02.2014, Mark X2 (later Ex.P17/PW6) and the receipt dated 24.02.2014, Mark X3 and that he has nothing else to say.
23. Since, PW6 Sh. Jai Prakash had not supported the case of the State in entirety, he was permitted to be crossexamined by the Ld. Chief Prosecutor for the State. During cross examination by the Ld. Chief Prosecutor for the State, PW6 Sh. Jai Prakash has interalia deposed that his statement under Section 161 of CrPC, 1973, Ex.P16/PW6 was recorded by the IO; that it is correct that the accused, Sh. Puran Chand was authorized only to issue water tanker booking form, which used to be generally hand written, but he was not authorized to collect any fee for water tanker booking; that the accused, Sh. Puran Chand was not authorized to issue any receipt; that he cannot say if the form dated 22.02.2014, Mark X2 (later Ex.P17/PW6) was issued from in his office; that at the relevant time, no cashier used to sit in his office; that at the relevant time, in case, anyone wanted to book a water tanker, the said person was required to go to Jhandewalan office of DJB for depositing the fee.
24. During crossexamination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, PW6 Sh. Jai Prakash Gupta has interalia deposed that he had remained posted in the above mentioned office of DJB during 2011 to October 2015; that during his tenure, State v Sh. Puran Chand FIR No.23/2014 PS AntiCorruption Branch Page 14 of 33 he had not received any complaint against the accused, Sh. Puran Chand; that it is correct that the fee for booking of water tanker could have been deposited by any person, desirable of booking a water tanker at any other office of DJB, where cash section existed or bills used to be accepted, besides Jhandewalan; that the form dated 22.02.2014, Mark X2 (later Ex.P17/PW6) is a form relating to water meter reading; that the said form was being used at that time, for booking of water tankers also; that it is wrong to say that at that time, Form No. G8 was used for booking of water tanker; that the Form no. G8 was not available in his office; that he did not used to approve any booking of water tanker, in his office; that as far as he knows, Form no. G8 used to be used for tendering process and not for water tanker booking; that apart from submitting forms like Ex.P17/PW6, there was no other procedure of filing application for water tanker booking in his office; that his statement under Section 161 of CrPC, 1973, Ex.P16/PW6 was recorded at PS ACB; that it is correct that for booking of water tanker, the customer was responsible for collecting, filing and depositing the form; that the Form, Ex.P17/PW6 was not filled by the accused, Sh. Puran Chand, in his presence; that on 22.02.2014, no one had come and complained to him about the accused, Sh. Puran Chand taking money from him/her; that it is correct that the job of water tanker supply was under the water pumping station at I.P. Depot and the accused, Sh. Puran Chand was not connected with water tanker supply; that it is wrong to say that the Form, Ex.P17/PW6 and the receipt, Mark X3 were both property of the customer and should have been with the customer only and that it is wrong to say that he had deposed falsely in this Court at the instance of the IO.
25. During examination in chief, PW7 ASI Arvind Kumar has interalia deposed that in July 2018 he was posted as a HC at PS ACB; that on 02.07.2018, State v Sh. Puran Chand FIR No.23/2014 PS AntiCorruption Branch Page 15 of 33 on the directions of Inspector Mukhtiar Singh, he had gone to Lucknow and collected from Sh. Ashok Kumar Chaubey, Joint Secretary, Vidhan Sabha Secretariat, U.P.
(a) a sealed brown envelope, stated to be containing an Iphone and (b) letter dated 03.07.2018, Ex.P18/PW7; that upon getting the said two items, he had signed the photocopy, Ex.P18A/PW7 of the letter dated 03.07.2018, Ex.P18/PW7; that subsequently, he had handed over the said two items to Inspector Mukhtiar Singh and that Inspector Mukhtiar Singh had seized the said two items vide seizure memo, Ex.P19/PW7. Nothing material has been elicited by the Ld. Advocate for the accused during the cross examination of PW7 ASI Arvind Kumar.
26. During examination in chief and a limited cross examination by the Ld. Substitute Public Prosecutor for the State, PW8 Sh. Mohit Gahlot has interalia deposed that on 07.12.2021, he was on panch witness duty at PS ACB and that on that day, in his presence, the IO, Inspector Praveen Maheshwari had taken the specimen handwriting/signatures of the accused, Sh. Puran Chand on 20 pages bearing his signatures at point A, Ex.P20A to P20T/PW8. During cross examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, PW8 Sh. Mohit Gahlot has interalia deposed that on 07.12.2021, the IO had read out the contents of the FIR of this case to him; that on 07.12.2021, the IO had not shown to him, the identity card of the accused or a Court order, authorizing the IO to take the specimen signatures and handwriting of the accused; that he has done panch witness duty at PS ACB, 67 times and that he has no knowledge about FSL form or GEQD form.
27. During examination in chief, PW9 Dr. Puneet Jain has interalia deposed that since 1995, he was working with the India Today group; that in the year 2014, he was working as Head (Legal & Compliances & CS) & VicePresident -
State v Sh. Puran Chand FIR No.23/2014 PS AntiCorruption Branch Page 16 of 33 Internal Audit at the India Today group; that at that time, Late Sh. Akshay Singh and Sh. Umesh Kumar were working in the Editorial Department (Special Investigation Team) of TTNL; that as the Legal Head, he had approved the sting operation, which was done by Late Sh. Akshay Singh at the office of DJB; that as per his knowledge, for the subject sting operation, the Editorial Department of TTNL would have given a spy camera to Late Sh. Akshay Singh; that he cannot specify the exact equipment/camera which was actually given by the Editorial Department of TTNL to Late Sh. Akshay Singh, for the subject sting operation; that as per his knowledge, once the sting operation is concluded, the reporter brings back the spy camera to the company/TTNL and the camera is taken to the Archive Department (Library); that as per his knowledge, at the Archive Department, the data is copied on to a computer; that as per his knowledge, if subsequently, a request/notice under Section 91 of CrPC is received to give a copy of the data (video), the same is downloaded into another media e.g. CD, in the presence of the Editorial Head and the Legal Head (i.e. him); that in this case, he had sent the letter/reply dated 01.04.2014, Ex.P21/PW9 to Inspector Rakesh Saini of PS ACB alongwith the CD containing the raw footage/video of the subject sting operation; that in this case, he had sent the letter/reply dated 30.03.2015, Ex.P22/PW9 to Inspector Rakesh Saini of PS ACB alongwith certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Ex.P23/PW9 qua the CD sent alongwith the letter/reply dated 01.04.2014, Ex.P21/PW9; that in this case, he had sent the letter/reply dated 10.12.2015, Ex.PW24/PW9 to Inspector Rakesh Saini of PS ACB, informing that the original equipment used by Late Sh. Akshay Singh to conduct the subject sting operation had been submitted to the U. P. Vidhan Sabha; that in this case, he had sent the letter/reply dated 04.10.2017, Ex.P25/PW9 to Inspector Manoj Kumar of PS ACB alongwith death certificate, Mark X4 of Late Sh. Akshay Singh; that in this case, he State v Sh. Puran Chand FIR No.23/2014 PS AntiCorruption Branch Page 17 of 33 had sent the letter/reply dated 26.03.2018, Ex.P26/PW9 to Inspector Mukhtiar Singh of PS ACB, informing that the original equipment used by Late Sh. Akshay Singh to conduct the subject sting operation was in the custody Sh. Nigam, Chairman, U. P. Vidhan Sabha Inquiry Committee and that he does not know what was the exact tenure of Late Sh. Akshay Singh at TTNL as Late Sh. Akshay Singh had not worked under him. Upon being shown the CD, Ex.MO1/PW3, PW9 Dr. Puneet Jain has identified it to be the CD, which he had given alongwith the letter/reply dated 01.04.2014, Ex.P21/PW9 to Inspector Rakesh Saini of PS ACB.
31. During crossexamination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, PW9 Dr. Puneet Jain has interalia deposed that at TTNL he had an Executive Secretary, who used to look after his computer work; that he does not remember if he had sent the CD, Ex.MO1/PW3 in a sealed envelop to Inspector Rakesh Saini of PS ACB; that he had received the letter dated 14.03.2018, Ex.PW39/PW9 of Inspector Rakesh Saini of PS ACB; that he had received the letter dated 28.03.2014, Ex.P40/PW9 of Sh. V. Renganathan, Additional CP, ACB, Government of NCT of Delhi; that he had received the notices dated 20.03.2015, 19.05.2015 and 08.12.2015, Ex.P41/PW9 to Ex.P43/PW9, issued under Section 91 of CrPC, 1973 by Inspector Rakesh Saini; that the stamp at point X on the letter dated 15.06.2021, Mark X14/PW9 is of TTNL; that the procedure explained by him during his examination in chief is not mentioned in the replies sent by him to the Inspectors of PS ACB because it wasn't asked for by the Inspectors of PS ACB; that he had never joined the investigation of this case; that he had never met any IO of PS ACB; that his last working day at TTNL was 31.03.2020; that he had no concern with the issuance of the spy camera to Late Sh. Akshay Singh; that the CD, Ex.MO1/PW3, was given to him by the Archive Department of TTNL; that upon receipt, his State v Sh. Puran Chand FIR No.23/2014 PS AntiCorruption Branch Page 18 of 33 Executive Secretary had sealed the said CD; that he does not know what software was used by the Archive Department of TTNL to transfer the video file on the CD, Ex.MO1/PW3; that he does not have any technical knowledge of the spy camera, I phone, which were used in the subject sting operation; that Late Sh. Akshay Singh and Sh. Umesh Kumar had personally not given him any information before doing the subject sting operation; that he had not interacted with Late Sh. Akshay Singh and Sh. Umesh Kumar after the subject sting operation and before its broadcast; that the date viz. 30.03.2015 of the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Ex.P23/PW9 is inferable from the letter/reply dated 30.03.2015, Ex.P23/PW9; that he did not have control over all the computers on the network of TTNL; that the IT Department of TTNL had the said control; that in the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Ex.P23/PW9 he had specified that the computer was operating properly because from the IT Department of TTNL, he had knowledge that all the processes are in place and nothing is wrong with the computer; that TTNL had voluntarily not informed any government agency regarding the sting operation; that it is wrong to say that the subject sting operation was done by TTNL only in order to get TRP and not in order to expose corruption; that it is wrong to say that the purpose behind doing the subject sting operation and other sting operations done by TTNL in February and March, 2014 was to give benefit to the Aam Aadmi Party and derive capital from it and that it is wrong to say that he has deposed falsely in this Court.
32. During examination in chief, PW10 ASI Jagdish Kumar has interalia deposed that on 07.04.2014, he was posted as a Constable at PS ACB; that on that day, as per the instructions of the IO, he had collected a duly sealed CD from the concerned MHC(M) and deposited it, alongwith a forwarding letter of the IO, at FSL, State v Sh. Puran Chand FIR No.23/2014 PS AntiCorruption Branch Page 19 of 33 Rohini, Delhi vide road certificate dated 07.04.2013, Ex.P27/PW10; that upon coming back from FSL, Rohini, Delhi, he had handed over the acknowledgement receipt, Ex.P28/PW10 alongwith copy of road certificate to HC Satish Kumar, MHC(M), PS Civil Lines and that while the CD was in his possession, it was not tampered with. During crossexamination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, PW10 ASI Jagdish Kumar has interalia deposed that while taking the CD, he had signed the register of malkhana of PS Civil Lines on the page, Ex.P29/PW10.
34. During examination in chief, PW11 ASI Satish Kumar has interalia deposed that on 02.04.2014, he was posted as MHC(M) at PS Civil Lines; that on that day, Inspector Rakesh Kumar had deposited the duly sealed case property of this case (CD) in the malkhana of PS Civil Lines vide entry no. 48/911 in register no.19, Ex.P30/PW11(OSR); that on 04.04.2014, on the instructions of the IO, he had handed over the duly sealed pullanda of the CD alongwith sample seal, forwarding letter, road certificate no. 68/21/14, Ex.P35/PW11(OSR) to Ct. Bijender of PS ACB; that on 04.04.2014 itself, Ct. Bijender had returned the said duly sealed pullanda alongwith the Objection Form Physics Division dated 04.04.2014, Ex.P37/PW11(OSR) and in this regard he had made the entry in register no.19, Ex.P33/PW11(OSR); that on 07.04.2014, he had handed over the duly sealed pullanda of the CD alongwith sample seal, forwarding letter, road certificate no. 69/21/14, Ex.P27/PW10 to Ct. Jagdish of PS ACB for deposition at FSL, Rohini, Delhi and made the entry in register no.19, Ex.P29/PW10(OSR); that on 03.07.2014, Inspector Rakesh Kumar had deposited two duly sealed audio cassettes alongwith sample seal and copy of seizure memo in the malkhana of PS Civil Lines vide entry no.78/941 in register no.19, Ex.P31/PW11(OSR); that on 04.07.2014, Inspector State v Sh. Puran Chand FIR No.23/2014 PS AntiCorruption Branch Page 20 of 33 Rakesh Kumar had deposited two duly sealed audio cassettes alongwith sample seal and copy of seizure memo in the malkhana of PS Civil Lines vide entry no.80/943 in register no.19, Ex.P32/PW11(OSR); that on 16.07.2014, he had handed over two duly sealed pullandas containing cassettes, C1 and SVPCI, forwarding letter, road certificate no. 130/21/14 dated 16.07.2014, Ex.P36/PW11(OSR) to Ct. Veerpal No. 56/ACB for deposition at FSL, Rohini, Delhi and made the entry in register no.19, Ex.P34/PW11(OSR); that the case acceptance form dated 07.04.2014 brought by Ct. Jagdish Kumar from FSL, Rohini, Delhi on 07.04.2014 is Ex.P28/PW10(OSR); that the acknowledgment of acceptance dated 16.07.2014 brought by Ct. Veerpal from FSL, Rohini, Delhi is Ex.P38/PW11(OSR) and that till the case properties of this case had remained with him, they were not tampered with.
35. During crossexamination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, PW11 ASI Satish Kumar has interalia deposed that all the entries in register no.19, mentioned by him are in his handwriting; that it is wrong to suggest that the said entries are not genuine because they have not been certified by the SHO/IO/Inspector ACB as per Punjab Police Rules and because the register no. 19 as well as the other record (road certificates/register no.21), brought by him are not numbered and certified as per Punjab Police Rules and that it is wrong to suggest that in collusion with the IO of this case, he had made false entries, which are ante dated and antetimed.
36. During examination in chief, PW12 Ms. Preeti Chaudhary has interalia deposed that she has a Masters degree in Forensic Sciences from Kurukshetra State v Sh. Puran Chand FIR No.23/2014 PS AntiCorruption Branch Page 21 of 33 University, Haryana; that while obtaining the said degree in 2014, she had written her dissertation in 'questioned documents' and done training at CFSL, CBI, CGO Complex, Delhi; that she has been working in FSL, Rohini, Delhi since June, 2016; that by the time, she had worked on the exhibits of this case, she had dealt with more than 100 cases; that she has deposed as an expert witness in 2530 cases; that in the year 2021, she was working as Junior Forensic Analyst/Examiner (Documents), FSL, Rohini, Delhi, GNCTD; that as per record, the documents/exhibits of this case were received at FSL, Rohini, Delhi, on 06.12.2021 and the further material which was required, was supplied, on 08.12.2021; that the head of her division had allotted this case to her; that while working on this case, she had examined the encircled portion Q1 and Q2 on the document, Ex.P17/PW6 as well as the specimen writing and signatures of Sh. Puran Chand on documents, identified as S1 to S42, part of Ex.P20A/PW8 to Ex.P20T/PW8; that during examination, she had put her stampings and markings on the document, Ex.P17/PW6 as well as the documents, identified as S1 to S42 at point X on each page; that after completing her examination, she had prepared the report dated 29.12.2021, Ex.P44/PW12, interalia concluding that the questioned writings and signatures, Q1 and Q2 on the document, Ex.P17/PW6 are of the same person who had written the specimen writings and signatures on documents, identified as S1 to S42 and that after preparation of her report, Ex.P44/PW12, the relevant office at FSL, Delhi had sent back the exhibits of this case and her report to the IO vide forwarding letter dated 30.12.2021, Ex.P45/PW12.
37. During crossexamination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, PW12 Ms. Preeti Chaudhary has interalia deposed that examination of documents is one of the subjects, which is taught, while teaching forensic science; that she do not State v Sh. Puran Chand FIR No.23/2014 PS AntiCorruption Branch Page 22 of 33 remember if her assistant or she had typed the report, Ex.P44/PW12; that she does not have any research paper published in any journal or elsewhere regarding expert examination of documents; that it is correct that over a period of seven years variations occur in the signatures and handwriting of a person; that it is correct that stress, age and health affect the signatures and handwriting of a person; that in this case, she had only used a magnifying lens to do her examination; that she had not taken any photographs during examination; that the IO of this case had never met her; that it is wrong to suggest that she had not done a proper examination; that it is wrong to say that her report is a copypaste job; that it is wrong to suggest that variations and changes in the alphabets and numericals were not properly examined by her as she had not taken any photographs; that it is wrong to suggest that she is not an expert handwriting examiner; that it is wrong to suggest that she had prepared her report in haste at the instance of the IO and that it is wrong to suggest that she has deposed falsely in this Court.
38. During examination in chief, PW13 Dr. C. P. Singh has interalia deposed that he has done M.Sc in Forensic Science from Madras University; that he has done Ph.D in the area of speaker identification from Dr. Hari Singh Gaur University, Sagar, M.P.; that he has undergone training in speaker identification and audiovideo analysis for authenticity test, in India and abroad; that he had worked for eight years in CFSL, Chandigarh as Junior Scientific Officer (Physics); that he is Assistant Director (Physics), FSL, Delhi since 2007; that he has dealt with more than thousand cases in his capacity as an expert; that he has testified as an expert witness in more than thousand cases; that he has around thirtyfive publications in journals and that he has coauthored two chapters in a book published by Springer but he does not remember the name of the book.
State v Sh. Puran Chand FIR No.23/2014 PS AntiCorruption Branch Page 23 of 33
39. Further, during examination in chief, PW13 Dr. C. P. Singh has inter alia deposed that in 2016, he was working as Assistant Director (Physics), FSL, Rohini, Delhi; that as per record, three sealed envelops of this case were received at FSL, Rohini, on 07.04.2014 and 16.07.2014; that upon tallying the seals on the said three envelops with the specimen seals, he had found them to be similar; that upon opening the first envelop/parcel, he had found it to contain the CD, Ex.MO1/PW3; that the said CD had one video file 'Delhi Jal Board sting raw'; that in the said file, the speaker saying the words, "... dekh lo aap jaisa theek samjhe.." was marked as ExhibitQ1 and the speaker saying the words, "...hazaar rupee jamma aacha.." was marked as ExhibitQ2, by him; that upon opening the second envelop/parcel, he had found it to contain the audio cassette, Ex.MO2/PW13, containing the specimen speech sample of the speaker "Sh. Puran Chand"; that he had marked the said speaker as ExhibitS1; that upon opening the third envelop/parcel, he had found it to contain the audio cassette, Ex.MO3/PW13, containing the specimen speech sample of the speaker "Sh. Akshay Singh"; that he had marked the said speaker as Exhibit S2; that the CD, Ex.MO1/PW13, the audio cassette, Ex.MO2/PW13 and the audio cassette, Ex.MO3/PW13 bear his handwriting and signatures in green ink at point X; that after examining the said case properties, he had drawn the conclusions reflected at point 3 of his report dated 29.04.2016, Ex.P46/PW13 viz. (i) that the voice exhibit of speakers marked "ExhibitQ1" and "ExhibitS1" are voice of the same person (i.e. Sh. Puran Chand) and (ii) that the voice exhibit of speakers marked "ExhibitQ2" and "ExhibitS2" are possible voice of the same person (i.e. Sh. Akshay Singh) and that after preparing his report, he had sealed the case properties with his seal of 'Dr. C.P. SinghFSLDelhi'.
State v Sh. Puran Chand FIR No.23/2014 PS AntiCorruption Branch Page 24 of 33
39. During crossexamination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, PW13 Dr. C. P. Singh has interalia deposed that a skilled person can copy the voice of another person but such copying can be detected by an expert; that the voice samples of the accused, Sh. Puran Chand and the witness, Sh. Akshay Singh were not taken in his presence; that it is wrong to say that his report, Ex.P46/PW3 does not have any value because while doing his analysis, he had not used the actual/original voices of the accused, Sh. Puran Chand and the witness, Sh. Akshay Singh; that his signatures at point X on the CD, Ex.MO1/PW3 do not have a date because as a matter of practice, the date is not put on the exhibits of a case; that he had not personally sealed the envelope, Ex.MO4/PW13 found with the CD, Ex.MO1/PW3; that his staff had sealed the said envelope and he had merely put his signatures at point X on the said envelope; that it is wrong to say that the CD, Ex.MO1/PW3 was not properly sealed by him; that he had marked this case to himself as per the rotation policy followed by him; that when there are too many cases pending in FSL, Rohini, the HOD of the Physics Division is entitled to himself take up the cases; that it is wrong to say that since, the Director, FSL was possibly not involved in the handing of this case at FSL, Rohini, his report, Ex.P46/PW13 is vitiated; that it is wrong to say that since he had prepared the report, Ex.P46/PW13 without any peer review, his report stands vitiated; that the 'Computerized Speech Lab' is a software cum hardware, manufactured by a company located in USA; that it is wrong to say that the 'Computerized Speech Lab' tool used by him is not good for examining the voice samples of Indians as it was manufactured by keeping in view the citizens of USA and that it is wrong to say that the 'Computerized Speech Lab' tool used by him does not understand the acoustic, phonetic and other linguistic features of Indians.
State v Sh. Puran Chand FIR No.23/2014 PS AntiCorruption Branch Page 25 of 33
40. At this stage of the cross examination of PW13 Dr. C. P. Singh, the Ld. Advocate for the accused had asked him about his conclusion qua the voice of Sh. Akshay Singh in the video found in the CD, Ex.MO1/PW3. In response, PW13 Dr. C. P. Singh had deposed as under:
"A. When the questioned voice sample and the sample voice sample match in terms of 10 clue words and 3 formants, the report given is that the questioned voice is the possible voice of the same person/sample speaker. When the questioned voice sample and the sample voice sample match in terms of 15 clue words and 2 formants, the report given is that the questioned voice is the probable voice of the same person/sample speaker. When the questioned voice sample and the sample voice sample match in terms of 20 clue words and 2 formants, the report given is that it is highly probable that the questioned voice is the voice of the same person/sample speaker. When the questioned voice sample and the sample voice sample match in terms of 20 clue words and 3 formants, the report given is that the questioned voice is the voice of the same person/sample speaker. In this case, the questioned voice and the sample voice of Sh. Akshay Singh had matched in terms of 10 clue words and 3 formants. Therefore, I had opined/concluded that ExhibitQ2 is the possible voice of Sh. Akshay Singh.
Since, the questioned voice sample of Sh. Akshay Singh was limited and since, possible voice identification is also a voice identification, I had not sought for any other material from the State v Sh. Puran Chand FIR No.23/2014 PS AntiCorruption Branch Page 26 of 33 investigating agency."
41. Further, during crossexamination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, PW13 Dr. C. P. Singh has interalia deposed that the expert opinion on identification can never be 100%; that he had not taken any hash value of the CD, Ex.MO1/PW3; that he had not taken the metadata of the CD, Ex.MO1/PW3; that he had not taken the metadata of the video in the CD, Ex.MO1/PW3; that he had not noted down the resolution and video aspect ratio of the video in the CD, Ex.MO1/PW3; that it is wrong to say that all these pieces of information were necessary for his analysis; that it is correct that the sample recording in the audio cassettes, Ex.MO2/PW13 and Ex.MO3/PW13 were in analog form and the video file in the CD, Ex.MO1/PW3 was in digital form; that during analysis, he had chosen the clue words and then, used 'Computerized Speech Lab' tool; that he had nothing to do with the collection of voice samples of the accused, Sh. Puran Chand and the witness, Sh. Akshay Singh; that it is wrong to say that his analysis of the video in the CD, Ex.MO1/PW3 is wrong because in his report, he has not reported that the said video is unaltered or not tailored; that it is wrong to say that under the influence of Face Overshadowing Effect, he has opined that the voice of the accused, Sh. Puran Chand, is in the audio file of the video contained in the CD, Ex.MO1/PW3; that he cannot give the exact details of all his 35 publications; that it is wrong to say that he does not have any publications; that he does not know what is impact factor of a journal and therefore, he cannot say if the journals in which he had published his papers had any impact factor; that he cannot tell how many authors were there in the book published by Springer; that he does not remember the name of the editor of the said book; that he does not know if any of his articles/papers are available online; that he cannot tell the ISBN or ISSN number of the book having his two chapters; that he cannot tell his State v Sh. Puran Chand FIR No.23/2014 PS AntiCorruption Branch Page 27 of 33 HIndex number; that he cannot tell the average citation number of the book containing his chapters; that a majority of his publications are in respect of speaker identification; that while drawing his conclusions, he had matched acoustic, phonetic and linguistic features of the subject voices; that it is wrong to say that since in his report, Ex.P46/PW3, he has not specified mathematical value, index, spectrograph, real life background noise, external and internal controlled environmental etc., his report, Ex.P46/PW3, stands vitiated; that all these factors are immaterial from the vantage of his analysis and that it is wrong to say that he has removed the distortions in the questioned voices and the sample voices, by using a software.
42. After the examination of the aforesaid witnesses of the State, the evidence of the State has been closed and the recording of the statement of the accused under Section 313 of CrPC, 1973 has been dispensed with because from the evidence led by the State so far, it has become clear that this case is a deadwood litigation in which, the State has absolutely no chance of succeeding in proving the guilt of the accused qua the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, in accordance with law.5 5 In K. R. Impex v Punj Lloyd, (2019) SCC OnLine Del 6667, albeit in the context of civil litigations, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed that Courts have a duty to ensure that no litigation which is deadwood remains pending on the roster of the Court at the cost of other deserving litigations and it is the duty of the Court to eliminate deadwood litigation at every stage. In my view, this general observation applies with equal force to criminal cases, especially a case like this, where (a) the prime witness of the State viz. Sh. Akshay Singh has expired during the investigation of this case, (b) the other prime witness of the State viz. PW3 Sh. Umesh Kumar has not supported the case of the State on the most material aspect viz. actual witnessing of demand and acceptance of the bribe/illegal gratification amount of Rs.1,000/ by the accused, Sh. Puran Chand, (c) the original raw footage/video showing the crime allegedly committed by the accused, Sh. Puran Chand has not been found by the State and (d) the CD containing the copy of the raw footage/original video showing the crime allegedly committed by the accused, Sh. Puran Chand has been found to be inadmissible in evidence, on account of the fact that the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 qua the said CD has been given by a person (viz. PW9 Dr. Puneet Jain), who had actually not prepared the said CD and who did not have any control over the computer used to prepare the said CD.
State v Sh. Puran Chand FIR No.23/2014 PS AntiCorruption Branch Page 28 of 33
43. In taking the aforesaid view regarding the status/fate of this case, I have kept in mind (a) that in this case, the core issue is whether on 22.02.2014, the accused, Sh. Puran Chand had implicitly/explicitly demanded and then accepted/obtained the bribe/illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/ from Late Sh. Akshay Singh, over and above the water tanker booking fees of Rs.1,000/; 6 (b) that in respect of this core issue, the State had/has only three important pieces of evidence viz. (i) the oral testimony of Late Sh. Akshay Singh, (ii) the oral testimony of PW3 Sh. Umesh Kumar and (iii) the CD, Ex.MO1/PW3, containing the copy of the raw footage/video of the sting operation conducted qua the accused, Sh. Puran Chand by Late Sh. Akshay Singh; (c) that on account of the untimely death of Late Sh. Akshay Singh during the investigation of this case, on 04.07.2015, the State has not been able to examine Late Sh. Akshay Singh as a witness in this case; (d) that during his testimony before this Court, PW3 Sh. Umesh Kumar has not supported the case of the State and clearly deposed before this Court that he had not witnessed the accused, Sh. Puran Chand, demanding and then accepting/obtaining the bribe/illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/ from Late Sh. Akshay Singh and (e) that the CD, Ex.MO1/PW3, containing the copy of the raw footage/video of the sting operation conducted qua the accused, Sh. Puran Chand by Late Sh. Akshay Singh is inadmissible in evidence because the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 qua the said CD has been given by a person (viz. PW9 Dr. Puneet Jain), who had actually not prepared the said CD and who did not have any control over the computer used to prepare the said CD.
6 While framing the aforesaid core issue, I have kept in mind the law regarding Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta v State, (2023) 4 SCC 731.
State v Sh. Puran Chand FIR No.23/2014 PS AntiCorruption Branch Page 29 of 33
44. In respect of the last observation made in the aforesaid paragraph, it is noteworthy that during his crossexamination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, PW9 Dr. Puneet Jain has admitted that the CD, Ex.MO1/PW3 was given to him by the Archive Department of TTNL; that upon receipt, his Executive Secretary had sealed the said CD; that he does not know what software was used by the Archive Department of TTNL to transfer the raw footage/video on the CD, Ex.MO1/PW3; that he did not have control over all the computers on the network of TTNL and that instead of his own knowledge, on the basis of knowledge derived from the IT Department of TTNL, he had specified in the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Ex.P23/PW9 that the computer used to prepare the CD, Ex.MO1/PW3 was operating properly. Also, it is noteworthy that the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anvar P. V. v P. K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473, Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors., (2020) 7 SCC 1 and Ravinder Singh v State of Punjab, (2022) 7 SCC 581 7 make it absolutely clear that electronic evidence like the CD, Ex.MO1/PW3 can be produced/proved during trial, only in accordance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In my view, in this case, the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 qua the CD, Ex.MO1/PW3, should have been given by the employee of TTNL (working in the Archive Department), who had actually prepared the CD, Ex.MO1/PW3 and in such certificate, the said employee should have interalia specified that the CD, Ex.MO1/PW3 contains a copy of the original raw footage/video of the sting operation conducted qua the accused, Sh. Puran Chand by Sh. Akshay Singh and not copy of 7 Two of these judgments have been recently followed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in State v Netrapal Singh, (2024) SCC OnLine Del 147. The facts of the said case have a flavor similar to the flavor of this case. In the said case, the sting operation video was prepared/shot by one, Sh. Chetan Prakash Sharma. The video was found to be free from any intentional alteration/tampering by the expert of CFSL, Chandigarh. Yet it was held to be inadmissible in evidence because the Chetan Prakash Sharma had not given the required certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
State v Sh. Puran Chand FIR No.23/2014 PS AntiCorruption Branch Page 30 of 33 another copy.8
45. Further, in taking the aforesaid view regarding the status/fate of this case, I have kept in mind (a) that in view of the law explained in, In re M. S. Mohiddin, AIR 1952 Madras 561, which still holds the field, the sting operation conducted qua the accused, Sh. Puran Chand by Late Sh. Akshay Singh/TTNL, was/is per se illegitimate and therefore, its sanctity had to be proved by the State through the testimony of Late Sh. Akshay Singh; 9 (b) that even if the law explained in M. S. Mohiddin (supra) is not factored in, the sting operation conducted qua the accused, Sh. Puran Chand by Late Sh. Akshay Singh, appears to have been done by Late Sh. Akshay Singh/TTNL, without following the guidelines laid by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Court On Its Own Motion v State, (2007) SCC OnLine Del 1662;10 and (c) that in the absence of the testimony of Late Sh. Akshay Singh, it will 8 At this stage, I must specify that the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Ex.P23/PW9 gives a clear impression that the CD, Ex.MO1/PW3 contains a copy of the subject raw footage/video made from a copy of the subject raw footage/video stored in the computer of the Archive Department of TTNL and not a copy made from the original raw footage/video in the spy camera/I phone used by Sh. Akshay Singh to record the sting operation qua the accused, Sh. Puran Chand, on 22.02.2014.
9 The said judgment has been quoted by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Court on its own motion v State & Ors., (2008) SCC OnLine Del 965. In the said judgment, it has been observed, "But I have held in several cases already that there are two kinds of traps, 'a legitimate trap', where an offence has already been born and is in course, and 'an illegitimate trap', where the offence has not yet been born and a temptation is offered to see whether an offence would be committed, succumbing to it, or not. Thus, where the bribe has already been demanded from a man, and the man goes out offering to bring the money but goes to the police and the magistrate and brings them to witness the payment, it will be 'a legitimate trap', wholly laudable and admirable, and adopted in every civilized country without the least criticism by any honest man. But where a man has not demanded a bribe, and he is only suspected to be in the habit of taking bribes and he is tempted with a bribe, just to see whether he would accept it or not and to trap him, if he accepts it will be 'an illegitimate trap' and, unless authorized by an Act of Parliament, it will be an offence on the part of the persons taking part in the trap who will all be 'accomplices' whose evidence will have to be corroborated by untainted evidence to a smaller or larger extent as the case may be before a conviction can be had under a rule of Court which has ripened almost into a rule of law."
10 The said guidelines, some of which have been subsequently codified by News Broadcasting Standards Authority in 2012, interalia mandate that a TV channel proposing to telecast a sting operation shall obtain a certificate from the person who recorded or produced the same, certifying that State v Sh. Puran Chand FIR No.23/2014 PS AntiCorruption Branch Page 31 of 33 not be possible for this Court to rule out the possibility that on 22.02.2014, the accused, Sh. Puran Chand was illegally entrapped by Late Sh. Akshay Singh. In respect of this last observation, reference is craved to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajat Prasad v CBI, (2014) 6 SCC 495, wherein a three judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has raised serious doubt regarding a sting operation being a legal method of law enforcement in India and then discussed, the 'defence of entrapment', as recognized by the legal systems in USA, Canada and UK. From the said discussion, it follows that while deciding a criminal case like this one, the Court has to interalia consider, (a) whether the person conducting the sting operation had a genuine suspicion that the accused is engaged in criminal activity or the sting operation was a direct attempt to lure the accused into committing the subject crime,11 (b) how many attempts were made in order to lure the accused into committing the subject crime, (c) whether the inducement, if any, given to the accused, involved deceit, fraud, trickery or reward, (d) whether the person conducting the sting operation had exploited the human characteristics of the accused such as emotions of compassion, sympathy and friendship and (e) whether there was any threat, implied or express, made by the person conducting the sting operation qua the accused. In my view, in the absence of answers to the said questions/considerations, which could only have been given by Late Sh. Akshay the operation is genuine to his knowledge; that there must be concurrent record in writing of the various stages of the sting operation and that while doing a sting operation, the TV channel should ensure compliance of the provisions of Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995. During the investigation of this case, the State has not made any endeavor to see/examine if the said compliances were done by Late Sh. Akshay Singh/TTNL. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tomaso Bruno v State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 178 mandates that an adverse inference should be drawn against the State when it leaves a crucial aspect of a case unexamined. Therefore, I have concluded that the said compliances were not done by Late Sh. Akshay Singh/TTNL. 11 In this regard, it is noteworthy that in paragraph 86 of the judgment in Court on its own motion v State & Ors., (2008) SCC OnLine Del 965, the Hon'ble High Court has also observed that, "A sting operation cannot be initiated to induce or tempt an otherwise innocent person to commit a crime or entrap him to commit a crime."
State v Sh. Puran Chand FIR No.23/2014 PS AntiCorruption Branch Page 32 of 33 Singh, it is absolutely impossible for this Court to draw any fair conclusion regarding the guilt of the accused, Sh. Puran Chand qua the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the PC Act, 1988.
46. Thus, in view of the conclusion drawn in paragraph 42 of this judgment and justified in paragraphs 43 to 45 of this judgment, the accused, Sh. Puran Chand is acquitted qua the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the PC Act, 1988.
47. After compliance of Section 437A of CrPC, 1973 by Sh. Puran Chand, this file shall be consigned to the record room.
Digitally signed JAY by JAY THAREJA
THAREJA Date: 2024.04.30
15:58:14 +0530
Announced in open Court (Jay Thareja)
today on 30th April, 2024 Special Judge (PC Act)(ACB)02,
Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi
State v Sh. Puran Chand
FIR No.23/2014
PS AntiCorruption Branch
Page 33 of 33