Delhi District Court
Briefly Stating vs Ashok Kumar on 23 December, 2022
CC No. : 187/2019
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARVIND KUMAR:
SPECIAL JUDGE, (PC ACT) CBI-10:
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS: NEW DELHI
In the matter of :
CNR No. : DLCT11-000971-2019
CC : 187/2019
RC No. : DAI-2017-A-0010
Branch : CBI/ACB/Delhi.
U/Sec. : 120B IPC r/w Sec. 7 r/w 13(1) (d) of the
P. C. Act 1988 with substantive offences thereof.
CBI ....... Complainant
Versus
1. DHANI RAM MEHTO
S/o Sh. Kashi Mehto,
R/o : H-16/46, Marg, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi.
Permanent R/o : Village Maura,
Post Office Maura, Distt. Siwan,
Bihar. .......Accused No. 1
2. SATVIR SINGH
S/o Sh. Siya Ram,
R/o : H. No. 87, Village Rakhota,
Tehsil-Palwal, Distt. Palwal,
Haryana - 121102.
Permanent R/o : D-394,
Adarsh Colony, Gali No. 3,
Palwal, Haryana - 121102.
.......Accused No. 2
CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 1
CC No. : 187/2019
Date of Institution : 17.11.2017
Date on which reserved for judgment : 19.12.2022
Date of Judgment : 23.12.2022
Present : Ms. Jyoti Solanki, Ld. PP for CBI.
Accused No. 1, Dhani Ram Mehto with Ld.
Counsel Shri Manoranjan.
Accused No. 2, Satvir Singh with Ld. Counsel
Ms. Vandana Kumar.
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stating, the case of the prosecution is that complainant, Shri Vakeel Ahmed made a complaint dated 16.03.2017 alleging therein that he required 'No Dues certificate' against the property No. 47-A, Ram Bagh Road, Azad Market, Delhi-06 from the DDA and in lieu of issuing the said NOC, D. R. Mehto, AD, Damage Department, Room No. 14A, DDA Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi and Satbir, who is working under D. R. Mehto were demanding bribe of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant. Verification of aforesaid complaint was conducted on 16.03.2017 by Shri Ramesh Kumar, Inspector in the presence of independent witness, Sh. Chander Kant, Manager, Vijaya Bank, Shivaji Marg, Moti Nagar, New Delhi-110015 and the verification confirmed the demand of Rs.4,000/- on the part of said D. R. Mehto. A case CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 2 CC No. : 187/2019 u/s 7 of PC Act, 1988 on 16.03.2017 was registered against D.R Mehto, in CBI, ACB, New Delhi on basis of verification.
2. The conversation recorded during the verification proceedings was heard through DVR at the CBI office in the presence of the above said independent witness and the complainant. A rough transcription of the relevant portion was prepared. The recorded conversation corroborated the version of the complainant and also confirmed the demand of bribe of Rs.4,000/- on the part of D. R. Mehto. The verification memo was prepared by Verifying Officer at CBI office in the presence of complainant and independent witness. The proceedings of the memo started at about 13:30 hrs. and concluded at about 16:15 Hrs.
3. During verification proceedings, 8 GB memory card used for recording the conversation was taken out from DVR, seized and marked as "Q-1 in CO-22/17". The DVR and the CBI brass seal used during verification proceedings was handed over to the said independent witness.
4. On 16.03.2017 at about 1645 hours, the complainant Sh. Vakeel Ahmed, Independent witnesses namely Sh. Chander Kant, Manager, Vijaya Bank, CBI officers namely Sh. Harnam Singh, Inspr./TLO, Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Inspector, Sh. Sanjay Upadhyay, Inspector, Sh. Anand Sarup, Inspector, CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 3 CC No. : 187/2019 Sh. Rajeev Singh Salaria, Inspector and Sh. R.D. Meena, Sub-Insp. assembled at CBI office in respect of investigation/further proceedings of the instant case. The aforesaid independent witnesses, the complainant and the CBI officers were formally introduced to each other. The purpose of assembly for laying a trap on the accused person was explained to all the members present. The handwritten complaint dated 16.03.2017 written in Hindi by the complainant Sh. Vakeel Ahmed and duly signed by him, was read over and explained to all present including the above witnesses including the verification conducted on 16.03.2017 by Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Inspector in the presence of Independent Witness Sh. Chander Kant, Manager, Vijaya Bank, Shivaji Marg, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. The Verification Memo and contents of FIR registered in this case against D.R. Mehto, A.D, DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi were also read over and explained to all present. On being enquired by independent witness Sh. Atul Dabas, the complainant owned his complaint and signature on it and informed that the same was signed and submitted by him voluntarily. The other independent witness and members of the trap party satisfied themselves about the genuineness of the complaint. Thereafter, the complainant has produced a sum of Rs.4,000/- (Rs.500/- denomination) which he has brought to give to the said D. R. Mehto and Satbir as bribe. The distinctive numbers of the G.C. notes so produced were also noted down and CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 4 CC No. : 187/2019 mentioned in Handing Over Memorandum. The aforesaid amount of Rs.4,000/- was then treated by Sh. Rajeev Singh Salaria, Inspector with phenolphthalein powder. A demonstration was also given by him to all present to explain the purpose and significance of use of phenolphthalein powder and its chemical reaction with solution of sodium carbonate and water. It was also explained orally to all that if any part of any object/person would come in contact with phenolphthalein powder, and if that part of the object/person would be washed in a solution of sodium carbonate and water, the colour of that solution would turn into pink. Thereafter, Sh. Chander Kant, Manager, Vijaya Bank, the independent witness was asked to touch the tainted amount of Rs.4,000/- with his right hand fingers and afterwards wash them in the freshly prepared colourless solution of Sodium Carbonate and water in a glass tumbler. On doing so, the colourless solution turned pink in colour and this pink colour solution was thrown away after again explaining the significance of reaction.
5. The personal search of complainant Sh. Vakeel Ahmed was conducted by independent witness Sh. Atul Dabas, Income Tax Inspector and nothing was left in his possession except his mobile phone. The tainted bribe amount of Rs.4,000/- was then put in the front left side shirt pocket of the complainant by Sh. Chander Kant, the independent CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 5 CC No. : 187/2019 witness. The complainant was directed not to touch the said tainted bribe amount and to hand over the same to the accused persons on their specific demand not otherwise or on their specific directions to some other person. Thereafter, Sh. Chander Kant, Manager, Vijaya Bank, the independent witness produced the CBI seal used during verification. A new blank memory card was placed in DVR which was used during verification. Thereafter, introductory voices of both the above mentioned independent witnesses were recorded in it after ensuring it's blankness. All the CBI team members, the complainant, and the two independent witnesses washed their hands with soap and water. Independent witnesses were directed to remain as close to the complainant, as possible to try to overhear and see the conversation and the likely transaction of bribe money.
6. The complainant and the independent witnesses were directed to give signal by giving a miss call to mobile phone of TLO from their mobile phone. They have also been directed to give signal by rubbing their face by both hands, after the transaction of bribe amount. The DVR and the CBI brass seal used during verification were produced by the independent witness, which were taken into the police possession. All the members except the complainant mutually searched each other to ensure that they may not carry anything incriminating. All the trap team members again washed their CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 6 CC No. : 187/2019 hands with soap and water. Thereafter, all the trap team members including both independent witnesses and the complainant left for the spot. The procedure and manner of proceedings at CBI office were mentioned in Handing Over Memorandum, which concluded at about 17:25 hrs. on 16.03.2017.
7. That after completion of the handing over/Pre-Trap proceeding at CBI office, the trap team under the lead of TLO left the CBI office in two Govt. vehicles and reached near the DDA office, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi at about 18:00 hrs. After reaching the spot, vehicles were parked at safer distance. The complainant, Sh. Vakeel Ahmed was again briefed to handover the bribe amount only on the specific demand of the accused D. R. Mehto and not otherwise or to any other person on his specific direction. The complainant was directed to give a signal by rubbing his face with both the hands after transaction of the bribe amount or to give a missed call on the mobile phone of Sh. Harnam Singh, Inspector/TLO in case CBI trap team is not found in the visibility. Thereafter, the DVR in switched 'on' mode was placed in recording mode while moving to the office of the accused in the inner left side pocket of jacket of the complainant. Sh. Chander Kant, independent witness was directed to remain close with the complainant to see the transaction of the bribe and to over hear the conversation CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 7 CC No. : 187/2019 between the complainant and the accused. The CBI team alongwith the other independent witness took position in and around of A-Block, Vikas Sadan, near the office of the accused in disguise manner.
8. Thereafter, within 10-15 minutes, TLO received a missed call from mobile number of the complainant which was the signal of transaction of the bribe money to the accused person. Upon this Inspector TLO alerted the other CBI team members and rushed toward the office room of the accused D. R. Mehto, Asstt. Director / Damage Section i.e Room No. A-14, Ground Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi. On reaching there the complainant indicated towards accused D. R. Mehto and the DVR was taken back from the complainant and switched off. TLO challenged the accused D. R. Mehto for demanding and accepting the bribe of amount of Rs. 4,000/- from the complainant. At this the accused D.R. Mehto got perplexed and kept mum. The bribe amount was with him in his right hand. On the direction of the TLO the bribe amount was recovered from the right hand of the accused D. R. Mehto by Sh. Chander Kant, independent witness. Inspector Rajeev Singh Salaria caught hold the accused D. R. Mehto by his left hand wrist and Inspector Ramesh Kumar caught hold the accused D. R. Mehto by his right hand wrist. In the mean time the complainant also told that accused D. R. Mehto had given a note of Rs.500/- to one CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 8 CC No. : 187/2019 of his staff later on identified as Suraj Mehto, L.D.C. Accordingly, Inspector Sanjay Upadhyay caught hold accused Suraj Mehto by his left hand wrist and Sub Inspector R. D. Meena caught hold accused Suraj Mehto by his right hand wrist. The complainant told that accused Suraj Mehto kept the said part of bribe amount in his right side jean pocket. Accordingly, Sh. Atul Dabas, independent witness was directed to recover the bribe amount from the accused Suraj Mehto. In compliance to the direction of the TLO, Sh. Atul Dabas recovered the said part bribe amount from the right side jean pocket worn by Shri Suraj Mehto. The distinctive number of the GC notes recovered from both the accused persons were tallied with the numbers mentioned in the handing over memo by both the independent witnesses which were tallied in toto. Both the independent witnesses signed the handing over memo at the place where the numbers of the GC notes were mentioned in token of its correctness.
9. Thereafter, the complainant was asked to narrate the developments as well as handing over the bribe amount to the accused. The complainant informed that accused D. R. Mehto was present in his office and after a formal talk he had arranged the concerned file of the complainant from the staff and demanded the bribe amount by gesture. The complainant handed over the bribe amount to the accused D. R. Mehto which he counted from both his hands and thereafter he gave a CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 9 CC No. : 187/2019 note of Rs.500/- to accused Suraj Mehto from the amount of bribe which he was holding in his right hand. After transaction of the bribe, he gave a missed call on the mobile of TLO / Sh. Harnam Singh. Thereafter, Sh. Chander Kant independent witness was directed to narrate the sequence of events as he was also present in the corridor of the said office from where he was able to see the activities in the said office as the said room is having transparent glass walls. He corroborated the facts as narrated by the complainant.
10. Thereafter, on the directions of TLO separate washes- Left Hand Wash and Right Hand Wash of accused D.R. Mehto in the freshly prepared colourless solution of Sodium Carbonate and water were taken in presence of Trap team and independent witnesses respectively. On doing so the said colourless solutions turned into pink, which were transferred separately into clean glass bottles. These bottles were capped, neck wrapped with white cloth, tied with green colour tag, sealed with CBI brass seal and marked as "LHW in RC- 10(A)2017(D.R Mahto)" and "RHW in RC-10(A)2017(D.R Mahto)" respectively. Paper labels were also pasted on the bottles and both the witnesses and the TLO signed on the paper labels as well as the cloth wrappers. Thereafter, again on the directions of TLO separate washes-Left Hand Wash and Right Hand Wash of accused Suraj Mehto were taken separately in the freshly prepared colourless solution of CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 10 CC No. : 187/2019 Sodium Carbonate and water respectively. On doing so the said colorless solutions turned into pink,which were transferred into a clean glass bottles, these bottles were capped, neck wrapped with white cloth, tied with green colour tag, sealed with CBI brass seal and marked as "LHW in RC-
10(A)2017(SURAJ MAHTO)" and "RHW in RC- 10(A)2017(SURAJ MAHTO)" respectively. Paper labels
were also pasted on the bottles and both the witnesses and the TLO signed on the paper labels as well as the cloth wrappers. Then, maintaining all decency accused Suraj Mehto was provided a trouser and he was directed to change his jeans which he did. Then wash of inner lining of right side jeans pocket worn by Sh. Suraj Mehto where the bribe amount was kept by the Suraj Mehto was taken by dipping the inner lining of the pocket in a freshly prepared colourless solution of sodium carbonate and water in a clean glass tumbler in the presence of both the independent witnesses. On doing so, the colour of the solution turned pink and the said wash was transferred in a clean glass bottle. A paper label was pasted on it and it was marked as "Right side front pocket pant wash of Suraj Mehto in RC-10(A)-2017" and signed by TLO and both the independent witnesses. The said bottle was capped, wrapped with cloth and its neck was tied with tag and it was sealed using CBI Brass seal. The cloth wrapper was also signed by TLO and both the independent witnesses.
CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 11
CC No. : 187/2019
11. That the bribe amount of Rs.3500/- recovered from accused D. R. Mehto was kept in a brown color envelope and marked as "Trap Money of Rs.3500/- (500x7=3500) in RC- 10(A)/2017."(Accused D. R. MEHTO)" The said envelope was sealed by using CBI brass seal. Thereafter, the bribe amount of Rs.500/- recovered from accused Suraj Mehto was kept in a brown color envelope and marked as "TRAP MONEY OF Rs. 500/- (one note) in RC-10(A)/2017.(SURAJ MEHTO)". The said envelope was sealed by using CBI brass seal and signed by TLO, the complainant and both the independent witnesses.
12. Thereafter, on the direction of TLO, a rough site plan not to scale was prepared by Shri Sanjay Updhyay, Inspector, at the instance of witnesses. Thereafter, search of the office of accused D. R. Mehto was conducted in the presence of independent witnesses and the relevant file No. D/SB(N)41(5)98 pertaining to the property No.47-A, Ram Bagh Road, Sadar Bazar (N) of Sh. Mohd. Atik & Mohd. Laiq, containing pages 1/N to 22/n and 1/C to 96/C was seized and taken into police possession. The each and every page of the said file was signed by both the independent witnesses. Thereafter, accused D. R. Mehto and Suraj Mehto were arrested at 2030 hrs and 2110 Hrs on 16.03.2017 respectively vide separate Arrest-cum-Personal Search Memos. The articles found with the accused persons during their personal CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 12 CC No. : 187/2019 search were mentioned in said memos and seized.
13. That the recorded conversation at the time of Transaction of bribe amount in DVR was heard which corroborated the demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused D. R. Mehto from the complainant. Some sentences were also noted down on separate sheet of paper for the purpose of taking voice sample of the accused. Thereafter, the memory card of the DVR was taken out and marked as "Q-2" in RC-10(A)2017/CBI/ACB/DLI" and signed by both the independent witnesses and TLO. Thereafter, the same was put into a brown coloured envelope, sealed and marked as "Q- 2" in RC-10(A)2017/ CBI/ ACB/DLI". The pant of accused Suraj Mehto was kept in brown coloured envelope and sealed with CBI Brass seal. The said envelope was marked as "Jeans of accused Suraj Mehto" in RC-10(A)/2017. The sealed bottles marked as "LHW in RC-10(A)2017 (D. R. Mahto)", "RHW in RC-10(A) 2017 (D.R Mahto)", "LHW in RC-
10(A)2017(SURAJ MAHTO)", RHW in RC-
10(A)2017(SURAJ MAHTO)", "Right side front pocket pant wash of Suraj Mahto in RC-10(A)-2017", "Trap Money of Rs.3500/- (500x7=3500) in RC-10(A)/2017." (Accused D.R. MEHTO)", "TRAP MONEY OF Rs.500/- (one note) in RC- 10(A)/2017 (SURAJ MEHTO)", "Jeans of accused Suraj Mehto in RC-10(A)/2017" and memory card marked as "Q- 2", were taken into police possession vide Recovery Memo.
CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 13
CC No. : 187/2019
The facsimile impression of CBI brass seal were taken on white sheets in ink/lac and the same were signed by both the independent witnesses and the TLO. The facsimile impression of the said CBI brass seal were also embossed in ink on each page of the recovery memo. The said CBI brass seal and DVR used during the trap proceedings was handed over to the independent witness Sh. Atul Dabas with the direction to keep the same in safe custody and to produce before the competent lawful authority as and when required.
14. On 29/05/2017 'Transcription cum Voice Identification Memo' was prepared at the ACB/CBI office in presence of independent witness Sh. Atul Dabas, Income Tax Inspector and complainant, Sh. Vakeel Ahmed. Further, vide this memo transcripts of investigation CDs titled Copy Q-1/4, Copy Q- 2/4 and Copy S-1/4 were prepared.
15. On 23/05/2017, 'Transcript of Recording cum Seizure Memo -Mobile Vivo' was prepared. This mobile phone was operated in presence of independent witness Sh. Avtar Singh Sagar, Sr. Sales Assistant(Vig), ITDC, Scope Complex, Core 8, 6th Floor, 7 Lodhi Road, New Delhi. Upon listening the conversations in phone memory of said mobile phone, transcript of conversations between Sh. Satbir Singh and Sh. Mohd. Laiq were prepared and the same are attached with the memo as 'ANNEXURE-A'. Thereafter, the said mobile CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 14 CC No. : 187/2019 phone was kept in a brown Envelope, sealed and marked as "Mobile Phone Vivo, Model : Vivo Y31L IN RC- 10(A)/2017", Dated:23/05/17.
16. Thereafter, on 23/05/2017, Satvir Singh s/o Sh. Siya Ram, Designation: Typist cum Clerk, Damage Branch, DDA, Delhi was made part of investigation and 'Sample Voice Memo in RC-10(A)-2017, ACB, CBI, NEW DELHI, dated 23.05.2017' got duly prepared in presence of independent witness Sh. Avtar Singh Sagar, Sr. Sales Assistant(Vig), ITDC, Scope Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi and complainant Sh. Vakeel Ahmed. Satvir Singh gave his specimen voice voluntarily, which got recorded in memory card through DVR.
17. Thereafter, based upon the above said transcripts and transcripts prepared on 23/05/17 of Satbir Singh s/o Sh. Siya Ram, Typist cum Clerk, Damage Branch, DDA, Delhi, a Forwarding Letter addressed to Director CFSL/CBI/DLI was sent alongwith five Exhibits (CFSL sealed yellow envelope containing Q1, CFSL sealed yellow envelope containing Q2 & CFSL sealed yellow envelope containing S1, One Brown envelope containing "Mobile Phone VIVO, Model:VIVO Y31L in RC-10(A)/2017", Dated 23/05/17 and One Brown colour Envelope marked as "S-1 in RC-10(A)/ 17, Dt:
23/05/17"). Expert opinion was sought that whether 'the specimen voice of accused persons (D. R. Mehto & Satbir CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 15 CC No. : 187/2019 Singh) tally with the questioned voices'.
18. An opinion was received from Chemical Examiner from CFSL/CBI/Delhi that Exhibits 'LHW of D. R Mahto', 'RHW of D. R. Mahto', 'LHW of Suraj Mahto', 'RHW of Suraj Mahto' and 'Right side front pocket pant wash of Suraj Mahto' gave positive tests for the presence of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate.
19. The CDR record as obtained from Nodal Officers of Vakeel Ahmad (Airtel) and Satbir Singh (Idea) also prove that complainant was in touch telephonically with accused Satbir Singh and through him to accused D. R. Mehto.
20. That D. R. Mehto was the Assistant Director (Damage properties sell) in DDA at Vikas Sadan, I.N.A. and his office is situated at Room No. A-14, Ground Floor. The said accused dealt with damage properties related to 23 Nazual Estate where some unauthorized occupants are existing since long and DDA charges damages and interest against the unauthorized occupation on DDA land. He was supervising the matter relating to the damages on the property bearing No. 47 A, Ram Bagh Road, Sadar Bazar (N) of Mohd. Laiq and Mohd. Atik both son of Mohd. Sidiqui R/o 87, Gali No. 9, Wazirabad, Delhi-84, in file No. D/SB (N), 41 (5) 98, on the relevant time i.e. on 16.03.2017 as well as before that and the CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 16 CC No. : 187/2019 aforesaid property at 47 A, Ram Bagh Road, Sadar Bazar (N) was unauthorizedly occupied and as per record occupant cleared the damages charges and interest upto 03.11.2009. The aforesaid file revealed that Mohd. Laiq was required to furnish no dues certificate against the damages assessed against the unauthorized occupancy of the aforesaid property No. 47 A, Ram Bagh Road, Sadar Bazar (N) so that the further processing of the request for allotment of alternative plot i.e. site 61 measuring 10X10 feet in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar on Teh Bazari basis in lieu of aforesaid property, 47 A, Ram Bagh Road, Sadar Bazar (N) unauthorizedly possessed by Mohd. Laiq, can be made. For the no dues certificate, as mentioned in complaint, demands of bribe from the side of this accused D. R. Mehto and Satbir was made from complainant. For this purpose Mohd. Laiq had paid Rs. 26,000/- on 15.04.2010 as damages and approached the DDA vide his letter dated 19.10.2016 for issuance of no dues certificate.
21. That Satbir Singh Clerk cum typist was dealing assistant and submitted file for calculation of exact amount to be paid on A/c of damage and accordingly Accounts Officer (Damage) calculated Rs.13,590/- as outstanding on account of interest and thereafter file was returned back to the concerned officer. The file further revealed that in pursuance of the aforesaid calculation of Rs.13,590/- vide letter dated CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 17 CC No. : 187/2019 06.03.2017, a demand was raised. On the same day applicant/Mohd. Laiq made the payment and requested vide letter dated 06.03.2017, that full and final payment of Rs.13,600/- has been paid by cash to DDA and requested for issuance of no dues certificate. Photocopy of the receipt of the paid amount, bears signature of co-accused Satbir Singh. There is another receipt, bearing No.295731 issued on 06.03.2017 for Rs.1,32,500/- showing that total damage has been paid by Mohd. Laiq. This receipt is also having the signature of accused Satbir Singh and endorsed by accused D. R. Mehto. There is also one note of Estate Officer-II of dated 06.03.2017 which speak that Mohd. Laiq appeared before him and informed that all the damages has been paid and requested for DCC (Demolition Clearance Certificate). The file further revealed that this matter was again dealt by Dealing Assistant accused Satbir Singh vide his note dated 10.03.2017 for approval and issuance of DCC which was approved and signed by Estate Officer-II on 15.03.2017.
22. That after approval and signature of Estate Officer-II on 15.03.2017, the DCC with Dispatch No. D/SB(N)41(5)98/ 2225, 15.03.2017 to Sh. Mohd. Atik and Mohd. Laiq r/o A87, Gali No. 9, Wazirabad has been issued. Further details narrate that there is a Authority Letter duly signed by Mohd. Laiq in favour of Sh. Vakeel Ahmad (complainant) with his signatures to deal with the matter with regard to submission of CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 18 CC No. : 187/2019 document/File and obtaining the documents/File from DDA. The role of accused in demand of Rs.5000/- has been alleged by complainant on 16.03.2017 in his complaint which was confirmed through verification that he demanded Rs.4000/- in lieu of the said Damage Clearance Certificate/NOC from damage payee attorney i.e. complainant. The malafide intention on the part of this accused as well as accused Satbir Singh can also be inferred from the fact that despite the aforesaid no dues certificate was ordered to be dispatched or officially dispatch vide aforesaid dispatch number, it was deliberately not forwarded, sent or dispatched by accused D. R. Mehto and accused Satbir Singh for want of bribe amount.
23. The conversation, recorded by Mohd. Laiq, between Mohd. Laiq and Satbir in his mobile phone on 06.03.2017 revealed that accused Satbir was demanding bribe money of Rs.5000 in lieu of issuance of DCC/NOC, but these accused persons kept it with them although it was dispatched on 15.03.2017 till late evening of 16.03.2017 i.e. after office hours and handed over by accused D. R. Mehto to damage payee attorney i.e. complainant Sh. Vakeel Ahmad after receipt of bribe amount of Rs.4000/- and authority letter in the name of complainant by Mohd. Laiq. Thus, from the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that aforesaid amount of Rs.4000/- was demanded and accepted by this accused D. R. CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 19 CC No. : 187/2019 Mehto for himself and for Satbir Singh from complainant, attorney of Mohd. Laiq (damage payee) other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for issuing and handing over Damage Clearance Certificate/NOC, to Mohd. Laiq through complainant while exercising his duty as AD (Damage Property sell), DDA.
24. Sh. Sada Shiv, Dy. Director, Lands/Additional charge C.O.D (Co-Ordinator of Damage Properties Cell), A Block, Vikas Sadan, DDA, New Delhi-23 in response to notice/query, 'Whether +911124693200 is related to your concerned department/Cell of DDA' provided that :-
Tel No. 24693200 is linked to EPBAX System, being operated under the control of Electrical Division II (Tel. Operator Ms. Bala Pahuja is managing EPBAX system) from the premises of Elect. Divn. II Vikas Sadan itself. Any person after dialing zero (0) from any of EPBAX instrument, can make a call and Tel. No. 24693200 will be displayed at the receiving end.
Damage Section the intercom number is provided bearing No. 1377 which is a common phone and used by the officials of the branch. No specific number/telephone connection has been provided to Satvir Singh, Clerk-cum-Typist.
25. Thereafter, Sh. Swapan Kumar Nath, clerk/mate cum CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 20 CC No. : 187/2019 Diary/ Dispatcher at DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi stated that he is Dispatcher at Damage Section and the Clearance Certificate was stopped by accused D. R. Mehto to be dispatched on 16.03.17 to Sh. Mohd Atik, Mohd. Laiq directing that Sh. Vakeel Ahmad had been called upon by him along with Authorization Certificate to collect the same on behalf of Damage Payees. Also, he was directed to place the said file outside on his table and go home as complainant Sh. Vakeel Ahmad was directed by D. R. Mehto to come at about 7 pm on same day (i.e. on day of trap proceedings).
26. Chargesheet is filed by CBI for the offences under section 120 B IPC r/w section 7 & 13(1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 and for the substantive offences under section 7 & 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) PC Act, 1988 against the accused No.1, D. R. Mehto and accused No. 2, Satvir.
27. The competent authority has granted sanction for prosecution against accused D. R. Mehto and no sanction for prosecution is required for accused Satvir Singh, the then Typist-cum-clerk (Ex-serviceman) at Damages Branch, DDA as his contract is terminated by competent authority vide Order No. F.1(01)2014/DGR/PB-III/Pt./1414, dated:
30.08.2017.
28. That the Voice Expert opinion on the voice of accused CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 21 CC No. : 187/2019 D. R. Mehto and Satvir Singh has been filed by the CBI.
29. On 09.04.2018, formal charges for the offences under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also Section 120B IPC r/w section 7 & Section 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, were framed against both the accused No.1, D. R. Mehto and accused No.2, Satvir Singh, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
30. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined as many as following 18 witnesses :-
PW-1, Shri Surender Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. He exhibited the CDR, CAF, pertaining to mobile no.9910418057 registered in the name of Mohd. Laiq and mobile No. 9810193849 registered in the name of Vakeel Ahmed.
PW-2, Ms. Deepti Bhargava, Senior Scientific Officer, Grade-II (SSO-II) (Chemistry) CFSL, New Delhi. She exhibited the chemical examination report dated 23.05.2017.
CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 22
CC No. : 187/2019
PW-3, Shri Pawan Singh is Nodal Officer in Idea Cellular Ltd. He exhibited customer application forms in respect of mobile number 9212013811 in the name of Mohd. Laiq, mobile no. 9718216984 in the name of Satvir Singh, call detail record of the above mobiles and certificate U/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
PW-4, Shri Sada Shiv, Deputy Director, New Lease-1, DDA, New Delhi. He has also worked as Coordinator, Damage Property Cell, DDA. He has deposed about application for issuance of No Dues Certificate dated 19.01.2017 bearing endorsement of accused Dhani Ram Mehto, Assistant Director. He has identified the signature of accused Dhani Ram Mehto on the said application dated 19.01.2017 and signature of accused Satvir on note dated 06.02.2017.
PW-5, Shri Swapan Kumar Nath, Office clerk/mate in DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. He has deposed that he has worked under the accused in DDA and accused Satvir was also posted as clerk in his section. He identified the signature of accused Dhani Ram Mehto, diary seal impression on CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 23 CC No. : 187/2019 different documents.
PW-6, Shri Udai Pratap, Vice Chairman, DDA, Delhi. He deposed regarding sanction granted by him for prosecution of accused Dhani Ram Mehto.
PW-7, Shri Mitesh Kumar, Constable, ACB, CBI, New Delhi. He has collected exhibits of the case property and CFSL opinion/report from CFSL, New Delhi and handed over the report to IO and case property to malkhana, ACB, CBI, New Delhi.
PW-8, Shri Vakeel Ahmed is the complainant.
PW-9, Shri Avtar Singh Sagar, the then Senior Sales Assistant in the office of ITDC. He joined the proceedings of taking of voice sample of complainant Vakeel Ahmed and sample voice of accused Satvir.
PW-10, Sh. Mohd. Laiq. Brother-in-law of Complainant Vakeel Ahmed. PW-10 has deposed that his property was demolished by DDA and an allotment letter was given to him in place of demolished property and he deposited his dues of Rs.13,600/- in DDA office to get No Dues Certificate and on asking of some amount for 'chai CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 24 CC No. : 187/2019 pani', he gave Rs.100/- to accused Satvir. He further deposed that accused Satbir called him and demanded Rs.5000/- from him for getting the work done. He further deposed that Shri Vakeel Ahmed made the complaint to CBI with his consent as he had authorised Vakeel Ahmed to look after the matter.
PW-11, Shri A. D. Tiwari, Principal Scientific Officer (photo), CFSL, New Delhi. He deposed about preparation of four copies of exhibits/CDs by CFSL.
PW-12, Shri Raj Kumar, Stenographer, ACB, CBI, New Delhi. PW12 has produced the crime register of ACB, regarding entries of the FIR for the period 2016 to 2017 and exhibited the relevant pages as Ex. PW 12/A. PW-13, Shri Ramesh Kumar, the then Inspector, CBI, ACB. PW13 is the verifying officer and has also participated in the trap proceedings.
PW-14, Shri Chander Kant, Manager, Vijaya Bank, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. PW14 is the independent witness. He joined the verification CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 25 CC No. : 187/2019 proceedings as well as trap proceedings.
PW-15, Shri Amitosh Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer, Grade-II (physics) cum Assistant Chemical Examiner, Government of India, CFSL, Delhi. PW15 exhibited the CFSL report, Ex.PW15/C regarding examination of memory cards, Q1, Q2, S-1, S-2 and Mobile Phone (Q3).
PW-16, Shri Atul Dabas, Income Tax Inspector. He joined investigation as an independent witness in the trap proceedings.
PW-17, Shri Harnam Singh, Inspector, CBI ACB, New Delhi. PW17 is the Trap Laying Officer and conducted the trap proceedings and has also joined the subsequent proceedings at CBI office.
PW-18, Shri Saminder Singh, Inspector, CBI, ACB, New Delhi. He is the IO of the case.
31. Accused persons were examined under section 313 Cr.PC. Accused No.1, Dhani Ram Mehto stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused Dhani Ram Mehto denied to have demanded and accepted the bribe. Accused Dhani Ram Mehto stated that false complaint has CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 26 CC No. : 187/2019 been filed against him and the case of the prosecution is frivolous and is based on manipulations.
32. It is stated by D. R. Mehto that accused Satvir was working as a clerk but his assignment was also related to typing and the Estate Officer was the controlling Officer of Satvir and he was reporting to Estate Officer and only if no other typist was available on any particular day then his services as a typist was taken in Damage Section. Accused D.R. Mehto also stated that there was a lady official, namely, Smt. Dhano, who had enquired from Vakeel Ahmed. D. R. Mehto got the file searched through Suraj Mehto and PW8 Vakeel Ahmed also accompanied him and the file was taken out by Suraj Mehto. The NOC was taken out from the file by accused D. R. Mehto and handed over to Vakeel Ahmed however, without asking of D. R. Mehto, Vakeel Ahmed insisted to give the authority letter and on his insistence, the authority letter was taken by Mr. Mehto although he could not have received the authority letter without permission of the Estate Officer, therefore he alongwith authority letter went to the office of Estate Officer, whose Office was just in front of his office, however, he went to the chamber of Estate Officer and the Estate officer was coming out of from his Chamber and on informing by D. R. Mehto the reason of his coming, the Estate Officer said that office hours were already over and directed D. R. Mehto to place the same on the file and to take CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 27 CC No. : 187/2019 his signatures tomorrow and Vakeel Ahmed taking advantage of absence of D. R. Mehto placed money inside the file lying on the table of D. R. Mehto and immediately left the office. After D. R. Mehto came back from the office of Estate Officer's Chamber and seeing the money lying in the file on the table, D. R. Mehto enquired from his office staff and the visitors who were sitting in front of his table as to who has done this mischief and then Vakeel Ahmed informed the CBI officials regarding keeping the money in the file and D. R. Mehto was caught. It is also stated that it seems Suraj Mehto was given Rs. 500/- by Vakeel Ahmed when he had gone along with Suraj Mehto to search the file. It is stated that the tainted money of Rs. 3500/- was recovered when D. R. Mehto was enquiring from his office staff about the person who had played the mischief. It is also stated that D. R. Mehto informed about the true happenings but the TLO was not inclined to hear him. It is also stated that presence of CCTV has been intentionally withheld to cover its lapses. It is also stated that signature of accused D. R. Mehto was taken on Arrest-cum-Personal Search Memo forcibly and he was forced to speak some sample words.
33. Accused No. 2, Satvir has denied to have demanded Rs. 5,000/- for himself for issuance of no dues certificate from the complainant. It is stated that it is a tampered complaint to take out personal grudge against accused No.2. It is stated that CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 28 CC No. : 187/2019 Satvir has used foul language to Mohd. Liaq therefore, Mohd Liaq being infurious and annoyed with Satvir, implicated Satvir in false and fabricated case in order to take revenge from Satvir. The evidence filed on record is contradictory to testimony of the witnesses.
34. Accused Satvir stated that his work was confined to calculate the damage and interest and the same were approved by Account Officer and he was on contract basis for six months and his services were renewed by Deputy Director.
35. The accused No.1, Dhani Ram Mehto examined 8 witnesses in his defence.
DW-1, Shri Rajeev Gupta, Executive Engineer (Electrical), Vikas Sadan, DDA, New Delhi. DW1 has exhibited his reply dated 13.09.2019, Ex.DW1/B to RTI application stating therein about installation of CCTV cameras in DDA premises.
DW-2 Ms. Dhanwanti, Peon, Vikas Sadan, DDA. DW-2 deposed that she was present at the main gate of Vikas Sadan and stated that Mr. D. R. Mehto had went out of his cabin for two minutes alongwith a letter and when he came back, 5-6 persons came inside in his chamber.
CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 29
CC No. : 187/2019
DW-3 Shri Mukesh Chand Meena, the then LDC, Vigilance Department, Vikas Sadan, DDA. DW-3 deposed that on 16.03.2013 he was present in D. R. Mehto's office when D. R. Mehto went to Office of Estate Officer for some permission. DW3 also stated that a person had kept some thing in the file.
DW-4 Shri Vijender Singh, the Estate Officer, Damage Branch, DDA. He deposed that on 16.03.2017, Mr. Mehto visited him with a letter and asked him to allow it and DW4 asked Mr. Mehto to issue No Dues Certificate and he would put his signature on the letter on next day.
DW-5 Shri P. K. Pandey, Chief Security Officer, DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. DW5 has stated about CCTV camaras installed in the DDA premises.
DW-6 Shri Vikas Kumar, LDC/Incharge,
Complaint Section, CBI, ACB, New Delhi. He
produced the relevant page of crime register containing entries of complaint no. 07/2017 & 22/2017.
DW-7 Shri Bhupender Yadav, Assistant Director, CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 30 CC No. : 187/2019 Vigilance, DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. He produced the statement given by complainant, Shri Vakeel Ahmed in the Departmental Enquiry against one Shri Suraj Mehto.
DW-8 Shri Rajeev Dhawan, Regional Service Technical Support Incharge, Sony India Pvt. Ltd. He stated about the operations of DVR.
36. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the accused persons as well as Ld. PP for CBI.
Contentions of counsel for CBI
37. Ld. PP for CBI contended that accused D. R. Mehto and accused Satvir have conspired and in furtherance of the conspiracy, both the accused persons demanded bribe from complainant Vakeel Ahmed. Accused Satvir has also demanded bribe from Mohd. Laiq, brother-in-law of complainant for issuing No Dues Certificate in respect of Property No. 47, Ram Bagh Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. Ld. PP, CBI further submitted that on 16.03.2017 verification was conducted by CBI regarding demand of bribe amount and when the demand of bribe was confirmed on the part of accused persons, a trap was laid on the same day in the evening and the accused D. R. Mehto and one person, namely CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 31 CC No. : 187/2019 Suraj Mehto were caught red handed, having taken bribe of Rs.4000/- from the complainant, Vakeel Ahmed. It is submitted that bribe of Rs.3500/- was recovered from accused D. R. Mehto and Rs.500/- were recovered from Mr. Suraj Mehto and hand-washes of accused D. R. Mehto and Suraj Mehto & pant wash of Suraj Mehto were taken and thereafter, the voice sample of accused D. R. Mehto was also taken. Ld. Counsel for CBI submits that PW8 Vakeel Ahmed and PW10 Mohd Laiq have clearly testified regarding the demand of bribe made by accused persons. It is further submitted that the verification report dated 16.03.2017 depicts the proceedings which has taken place at the time of these proceedings and the memory card (Q1), Ex.PW8/P, containing conversation between accused and complainant corroborates the aforesaid fact. It is also submitted that the mobile make VIVO of Mohd. Laiq, Ex.PW10/L has the conversation recorded between Mohd. Laiq and Satvir and same also corroborates the above said case of the prosecution.
38. Ld. PP, CBI also submitted that the tainted money accepted by the accused D. R. Mehto from the complainant Vakeel Ahmed was recovered from him as well as from Suraj Mehto and the hand-washes of accused D. R. Mehto and said person Suraj Mehto gave positive result and the report of chemical examiner shows the presence of phenolphthalein in the aforesaid samples. Ld. PP, CBI submitted that recording CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 32 CC No. : 187/2019 in the memory card(Q2), Ex.PW8/R corroborates the aforesaid facts of taking bribe by accused D. R. Mehto and the CFSL report, Ex. PW15/C further shows that there has not been any manipulation or tampering in the recording in the memory cards, (Q1), Ex. PW8/P and (Q2), Ex. PW8/R. Ld. PP, CBI submits that voice of the accused persons have been identified by the relevant witnesses.
39. Ld. PP for CBI submitted that accused has failed to give any justified explanation as to how his voice came in recorded conversation, which is in memory cards, which is a primary evidence.
40. It is further submitted that the CBI official were not having any personal grudge against the accused persons and there is no reason for them to implicate the accused persons in false case. Ld. PP, CBI submitted that testimony of PW8, Complainant Vakeel Ahmed is further corroborated by the testimonies of PW-14, Chander Kant and PW-16 Shri Atul Dabas, who are the independent witnesses and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of these witnesses. Ld. PP for CBI also submitted that even otherwise testimony of PW8 is reliable and no corroboration is required and his testimony alone is sufficient for convicting the accused persons.
CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 33
CC No. : 187/2019
41. It is also submitted that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that there was demand of bribe on the part of accused persons and the tainted money was accepted by the accused D. R. Mehto and recovery of the tainted money from accused D. R. Mehto is also established beyond reasonable doubts. It is further submitted that conspiracy between the accused persons have also been proved by the prosecution beyond any doubt. It is submitted that scientific evidence has further lent corroboration to the prosecution case. Ld. counsel for CBI further submitted that the testimonies of PW8, Shri Vakeel Ahmed, PW10, Mohd. Laiq and other PWs, who were part of verification proceedings and trap proceedings, clearly show that both the accused persons were in connivance and conspired to commit the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act. It is clear from the testimonies of the witnesses that both the accused persons demanded money from the complainant and his brother-in-law, Mohd. Laiq for giving No Dues Certificate in respect of property No. 47, Ram Bagh Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. Ld. Counsel for CBI submitted that it is clearly proved on record that property No. 47, Ram Bagh Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi has stood in the name of Mohd. Laiq and Mohd Atiq and dues against the said property were deposited by Mohd. Laiq and an application for issuance of No Dues Certificate was filed and NOC was ready to be dispatched but was deliberately withheld by the accused persons to hand it over to CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 34 CC No. : 187/2019 the complainant or to his brother-in-law after receipt of bribe amount. Ld. PP, CBI further submits that it has also been proved on record that both the accused persons were working in same department and were known to each other and seized with the matter pertaining to the complainant.
42. Ld. Counsel for CBI relied upon the judgments (1) M. Narsinga Rao v. State of AP; SC 2001 Crl.LJ. 515; (2) Madhukar Bhaskar Rao Joshi v. State of Mahrashtra, 2000 AIR SCW 4018; (3) Kehar Singh v. State of Delhi (1988, 3 SSC AIR 1988 SC 1883); (4) Krishna Mochi & Ors v. State of Bihar on 15.04.2002; (5) State of UP v. M. K. Anthony, AIR 1985 SC 48 Supreme Court; (6) Tahir v. State (Delhi Administration); AIR 1986 SC 3079; (7) State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (1999 Cr. LC SC 3124); (8) Chaman Lal and others v. State of Punjab & Others dated 31.03.2009; (9) Koli Laxman Bhai v. State of Gujrat, DOJ 16.11.1999; (10) Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan, DOJ 06.12.2000; (11) C. M. Sharma v. State of Andhra Pradesh; (2013) 2 SCC (Crl) 89; (12) Ashok and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., Cr. Appeal 6451-15, Bombay High Court; (13) Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP & Ors., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 68 of 2008, Supreme Court of India.
Contentions of counsel for accused No. 1.
CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 35
CC No. : 187/2019
43. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused no. 1 contended that accused No. 1 has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that on 16.03.2017 the complainant Vakeel Ahmed came to receive No Dues Certificate and the authority letter brought by complainant was to be signed by Estate Officer. Accused D. R. Mehto went to the office of Estate Officer, which was situated at a distance of two minutes from his office and when he returned he found that tainted money was kept by the complainant in the file and CBI caught him. It is submitted that accused has not demanded any bribe from the complainant or from his brother in law and has not received any bribe amount from the complainant, Vakeel Ahmed. Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 has also submitted that his case further find support from the testimony of DW2, Ms. Dhanwanti and DW3 Shri Mukesh Chand Meena. Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 submits that DW3 Shri Mukesh Chand Meena has clearly stated that Vakeel Ahmed has kept something in the file when accused D. R. Mehto went to the office of Estate Officer.
44. Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 further submits that CBI official did not collect the CCTV footage although CCTV cameras were there covering the entire activities of the office of D. R. Mehto. It is submitted that CBI official wanted to implicate the accused D. R. Mehto in this false case.
CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 36
CC No. : 187/2019
45. Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 further submits that in fact, two complaints were given by the complainant to CBI, one on 16.02.2017 and other complaint was given on 16.03.2017. It is submitted that in fact, the complaint which CBI has placed on record and which is Ex. PW8/A clearly shows that there is overwriting on the date and in fact, the said complaint was filed on 16.02.2017 and after much deliberation the CBI official implicated the accused into the false case.
46. One of the contention of the counsel for the accused no. 1 is that there is tampering in the records of CBI which also shows that the CBI official has manipulated the entire case in order to implicate the accused D. R. Mehto. It is submitted that the crime register mentions the name of three persons, namely, D.R. Mehto, Suraj Mehto and Satvir and as per prosecution, the CO number is given to the complaint at a very initial stage before any proceeding is conducted by CBI and the name of Suraj Mehto is not mentioned in the complaint of the complainant. Thus, the question arises as to how the name of Suraj Mehto has appeared in the crime register. Ld. Counsel for the accused No. 1 submitted that name of Suraj Mehto has surfaced only during trap proceedings and it only shows that there has been serious manipulations on the part of the CBI official. It is also submitted by the counsel for accused No. 1 that manipulations is also apparent from the fact that on the verification report, CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 37 CC No. : 187/2019 CO Number is written as 07/17 while in transcription annexed with verification report, CO number is written as 22/17.
47. Ld. Counsel for the accused No. 1 has also submitted that the conversation recorded in the DVR cannot be relied upon as there is serious doubts regarding safe custody of DVR and also about blankness of the DVR before recording the conversation.
48. Ld. Counsel for the accused No. 1 also submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand on the part of accused No.1, D. R. Mehto. It is submitted that the verification conducted by CBI does not show that the accused has demanded money from the complainant. It is submitted that the entire conversation cannot be relied upon as the electronic evidence has not been kept in safe custody and further, the prosecution has failed to prove that DVR was blank and there were chances of tampering in the recording. It is further submitted that even if the said conversation is looked into there is nothing in conversation to show that accused has demanded money. Accused has been talking about Rs.3000/- to some other person who was sitting there. He further submits that the prosecution has not shown the complete conversation in transcription as the accused, as at one point, has stated that "mujhe kuchh nahi chahiye" which shows that accused has not demanded money.
CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 38
CC No. : 187/2019
49. It is also submitted that it was a public day and even at the time of alleged verification some persons were sitting inside the chamber and office of the accused is made of glass wall and everything is visible from outside and in these circumstances, it cannot be believed that accused had demanded money from the complainant.
50. Ld. Counsel for accused also submitted that no independent witness from DDA or from the persons, who were sitting in the office of accused, D. R. Mehto, were joined in the alleged trap proceedings and it casts serious doubts on the investigation conducted by CBI.
51. It is also contended by Ld. Counsel for accused that CFSL is not registered as required under section 79A of IT Act, hence the report given by it cannot be relied upon.
52. Ld. Counsel for accused also submitted that CBI official had not videographed the trap proceedings while as per CBI manual, it is mandatory for CBI to videograph the trap proceedings. It is also submitted that one of the allegations is that the accused has demanded money by gesture when complainant met the accused during trap proceedings. It is submitted that there are number of judgments to the effect that demand of money by gesture is no demand. It is submitted CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 39 CC No. : 187/2019 that this contention is without prejudice to his submission that accused has not demanded money even by gesture.
53. Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 also contended that there are serious contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses and under such circumstances, the testimonies of PW8 and independent witnesses, PW14 Shri Chander Kant and PW16, Shri Atul Dabas cannot be relied upon. It is submitted that PW8, Shri Vakeel Ahmed stated that he kept the money on table while as per CBI case, tainted money was handed over to accused. Further, PW14, Shri Chander Kant states that tainted money was not recovered by him while PW16, Shri Atul Dabas and PW13 Shri Ramesh Kumar stated that PW14 Shri Chander Kant has recovered the bribe amount.
54. Ld. Counsel for the accused No. 1, D. R. Mehto relied upon the judgments, (1) Kishan Chand v. State of Delhi, AIR 2016 Supreme Court 298; (2) Satyanarayana Murthy v. Dist. Insp. of Police & Anr., 2015 AIR SCW 5263; (3) Banarsi Dass v. State of Haryana, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1589:
2010 AIR SCW 2282; (4) State of Maharashtra v. Dnyasheshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede, 2009 AIR SCW 5411:
2009(5) AIR Bom R 781; (5) C. M. Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala, AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2022: 2009 AIR SCW 1693; (6) M. K. Harshan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1995 SC 2178; (7) Dashrath Singh Chauhan v. Central CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 40 CC No. : 187/2019 Bureau of Investigation, AIR Online 2018 SC 280; (8) Munshi Prashad and Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 2001 SC 3031; (9) State of Haryana v. Ram Singh, 2002 CRI. L.J. 987; (10) Tomoso Bruno & Anr. v. State of UP, 2015 AIR SCW 890: (2015) 2, AllCriR 1747; (11) Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1346; (12) Musauddin Ahmed v. State of Assam, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 3813; (13) Bhagirath v.
State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 975; (14) Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 AIR 1622, 1985 SCR (1) 88; (15) Nanhar & Ors v. State of Haryana, 2010 AIR SCW 37730: (2010) 2 Cri LR (Raj) 1449; (16) Anvar P. V. v. P. K. Basheer & Ors., AIR 2015 Supreme Court 180; (17) Nilesh Dinkar Paradhkar v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 4 SCC 143; (18) Ram Singh & Ors. v. Col. Ram Singh, 1986 AIR 3 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 399; (19) Ashish Kumar Dubey v. State thr. CBI, 2014 (142) DRJ 396; (20) Anil Kumar Tito @ Anil Kumar Sharma v. State NCT of Delhi, 2015 (4) ADR 385; (21) Jagdeo Singh @ Jagga v. The State, MANU/DE/0376/2015; (22) Kundan Singh v. The State, MANU/DE/3674/2015; (23) R. M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, 1973 AIR SC 157; (24) K. K. Velusamy v. N. Palaanisamy, 2011 AIR SCW 2296: 2011 (3) AIR Bom R 498; (25) Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1976 SC 294; (26) Ramesh Thakur v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., MANU/DE/ 1473/2013; (27) The State of M. P. v. Papoo @ Saleem & Ors. MANU/MP/0690/2010; (28) Prem Singh Yadav v. Central CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 41 CC No. : 187/2019 Bureau of Investigation, MANU/DE/0976/2011; (29) A. Kanagarajan v. State Throgh Inspector of Police (V&AC), MANU/TN/2955/2014; (30) Vijay Singh v. State of M. P. (2005 CRI.L.J. 299: 2005 (2) CurCriR 203; (31) Mukut Bihari & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 2012 CRI. L.J. 3370; (32) Vineet Narain & Others v. Union of India & Another, AIR 1998 SC 889: 1998 AIR SCW 645; (33) Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1979 SC 1408; (34) State v. Sunil Kumar @ Sagar @ Rahul & Ors., MANU/DE/0259/2015; (35) Anoop Joshi v. State (Delhi), MANU/DE/0765/1992; (36) Devender @ Kallu v. State, CRL. A. 270/2004 & Crl. M.A. 441/2011, Delhi High Court; (37) Rajesh Kumar v. State, MANU/DE/3038/2011; (38) Ukha Kolhe v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 1531; (39) Krishna Janardhan Bhatt v. Dattatraya G. Hegde, AIR 2008 SC 1325; (40) Harchand Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana, 1974 AIR 344 1974 SCR (1) 583; (41) double (42) C.B.1 Vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, {2014 (14) Scc 295}; (43) P. L. Tatwal v. State of M.P {(2014) Air 2369} SC 2369; (44) State of T. N. Vs M.M. Rajendran {(1998) 9 SCC 268}; (45) Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, 1997 (7) Scc 622; (46) CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, 2014 CRI. L.J. 930; (47) double at (2); (48) double Prem Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/DE/0976/201; (49) Capitol Art House (P) Ltd. v. Neha Dutta [CS (OS) 3379/2015], MANU/DE/2091/2022; (50) U.T. of Dadra & Haveli & Anr. v.
CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 42
CC No. : 187/2019
Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan, (2006) 7 SCC 529, (51) M/s Mukund Iron Staff v. Vasant Ramchandra Patil, MANU/MH/0271/2015; (52) Mohd. Iqbal, Ahmad v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1979 SC 677; (53) Madan Pal v. State of Haryana; (54) Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd v. M/S T.M.N. Engineering, MANU/TN/2639/ 2017; (55) double Mohanlal Shamji Soni Versus Union Of India, AIR (1991) Sc 1346 (56) State of H. P v. Inder Mohan, 2006 Cri. L. J. 1720 :
2006 (4) ABR (NOC) 589 (HP); (57) Balkar Singh Versus State of Punjab, 1993 AIR SCW 815 : 1993 Cri.L. J. 1646, (58) Mustkeem Alias Sirajudeen Versus State of Rajasthan, 2011 Cri.L. J. 4920; (59) State of Maharashtra v. Srirang Dagaduji Bale, AIROnline 2021 Bom 3086 : 2021 (3) ABR (Cri) 352; (60) Pravin Kumar Paras Kumar Gokhroo Versus State of Gujarat and Others, Criminal Appeal No. 226 of 2009; (61) Sudhir Chaudhary Etc. v. State (NCT Of Delhi), AIR 2016 Supreme Court 3772 : (2017) MadLW(Cri) 72; (62) Anil Kumar Tito @Anil Kumar Sharma Vs State Nct Of Delhi, 2015 (4) ADR 385; (63) State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Punati Ramulu and Others, AIR 1993 SC 2466; (64) Manoj Bajpai Vs State of Delhi, MANU/DE/1663/2015; (65) Deo Pujan Thakur and Ors. Vs State, 2005 CRI. L. J. 1263; (66) Smt. Deepa Bajwa Vs State and Ors., 2004 SC Online Del. 961; (67) Lalu Versus State of M.P., MANU/MP/0058/2003; (68) Baldeo Singh v. State of Punjab, (AIR 1991 SC 31); (69) Ram Sewak Versus State, MANU/UP/2021/1999; (70) Mir Nagvi Askari CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 43 CC No. : 187/2019 Versus CBI, MANU/SC/1412/2009; (71) Md. Ibrahim & Ors.
v. State of Bihar & Anr., MANU/SC/1604/2009; (72) M/s. Hillwood Imports & Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kozhikode, ITA Nos. 448 to 453/Coch/2018(page 22 & 23); (73) State of Kerala v. XXX and Ors., MANU/KE/2073/2022 (page 4).
Contentions of counsel for accused No. 2.
55. Ld. counsel for accused No. 2, Satvir Singh contended that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has nothing to do with the offence. It is submitted that the complainant has deliberately and malafidely implicated the accused, Satvir as there has been a quarrel between Mohd. Laiq, brother in law of complainant, Vakeel Ahmed and accused Satvir Singh.
56. It is further submitted that prosecution has failed to prove that any call was made by accused Satvir on 06.03.2017 as alleged call has been made from DDA Office from Telephone number connected with EPBAX. It is also submitted that as per prosecution, demand for bribe was made through telephonic call on 06.03.2017, however said fact has not been mentioned in the complainant dated 16.03.2017 filed by complainant Vakeel Ahmed. Further, complainant Vakeel Ahmed did not state any such fact in his statement recorded CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 44 CC No. : 187/2019 on 17.05.2017 and further, PW10 also could not state even the date when the alleged demand was made rather PW10 stated that said incident had taken place 2-3 years back, when PW10 was examined on 07.06.2019.
57. It is also submitted that complainant Vakeel Ahmed randomly gone to IO on 23.05.2017 to hand over the mobile phone and handed over the mobile phone, its cover and bill/invoice while PW10 Mohd. Laiq stated that he had handed over the mobile phone, its cover and bill/invoice to IO and there is contradiction in this regard. It is also contended that mobile phone was handed over to IO on 23.05.2017 after about 2 ½ months of the incident and after the trap was over on 16.03.2017.
58. Ld. Counsel for accused no. 2 relied upon the following judgments (1) State of Maharastra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede; (2009) SCC 2000 (2) Surkit Biswas Vs. State of Assam ; (2013) 12 SCC 406 (3) Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra ; Supreme Court 1984 (4) Nilesh Dinkar Pradhkar Vs. State of Maharashtra; (2011) 4 SCC 143 (5) State of Uttar Oradesh Vs. Wasif Haider; (SC) Crl. Appeal No. 17201706/2014 (6) Kailash Gour & Ors. Vs. State of Assam; (SC) 2012 (2) SCC 34.
CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 45
CC No. : 187/2019
59. I have gone through the material on record.
Sanction to Prosecute.
60. The first point for consideration is whether proper sanction is accorded for prosecuting accused D. R. Mehto.
61. Here the testimonies of PW6 Sh. Udai Pratap Singh, the then Vice Chairman, DDA and PW18 Shaminder Singh, Inspector, CBI (IO) are relevant.
62. PW6 Sh. Udai Pratap Singh has stated that he has received a file for granting sanction for prosecution of accused D.R. Mehto from Vigilance Division of DDA. This file contained FIR against accused D.R. Mehto, statement of witnesses, chargesheet, transcription regarding conversation amongst concerned persons and other documents. PW6 stated that he had gone through the case record and directed Vigilance Department to prepare draft for sanctioning prosecution of D.R. Mehto. Thereafter Vigilance Department put up the draft for approval of sanction for prosecution of accused D.R.Mehto and he carefully read it. PW6 stated that he was fully convinced that Mr. Mehto should face trial for his misdoings, therefore, he approved the sanction order and he appended his signatures approving sanction order for CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 46 CC No. : 187/2019 prosecution of D. R. Mehto. PW6 has exhibited the sanction order dated 24.08.2017 as Ex. PW6/A.
63. PW18, Sh. Saminder Singh, Inspector, CBI stated that the letter dated 24.08.2017, Ex.PW18/E was written by Sh. Kamal Singh, Deputy Vigilance Officer to SP, CBI , ACB, New Delhi. Through this letter, CBI had received prosecution sanction order, Ex.PW6/A from DDA in respect of accused D.R.Mehto based on CBI report dated 04.07.2017. This letter was received by him from DDA.
64. Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 deals with the sanction necessary for prosecution. Section 19(1) reads as under :-
"19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution. - (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 allged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction [save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013]-
(a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 47 CC No. : 187/2019 Government, of that Government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office.
65. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in C. S. Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka, 2005 CRI. L.J. 2145, while dealing with the issue regarding validity of sanction, observed as under :
".......It is no doubt true that the sanction is necessary for every prosecution of public servant, this safeguard is against the frivolous prosecution against public servant from harassment. But, the sanction should not be taken as a shield to protect corrupt and dishonest public servant."
"The sanction itself shows that there is something to be accounted by the accused. When the sanction itself is very expressive, then in that case, the argument that particular material was not properly placed before the sanctioning authority for according sanction and sanctioning authority has not applied its mind becomes unsustainable. When sanction order itself is eloquent enough, then in that case only formal evidence has to be produced by the sanctioning authority or by any other evidence that the sanction was accorded by a competent person with due application of mind."
66. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Maharashtra v. Mahesh G Jain, reported in 2013 Cri. L.J. 3092, observed as under :
.... The learned trial Judge, as it seems, apart from other CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 48 CC No. : 187/2019 reasons has found that the sanctioning authority has not referred to the elementary facts and there is no objective material to justify a subjective satisfaction. The reasonings, in our considered opinion, are absolutely hyper-technical and, in fact, can always be used by an accused as a magic trick to pave the escape route. The reasons ascribed by the learned trial Judge appear as if he is sitting in appeal over the order of sanction. True, it is, grant of sanction is a sacrosanct and sacred act and is intended to provide a safeguard to the public servant against vexatious litigation but simultaneously when there is an order of sanction by the competent authority indicating application of mind, the same should not be lightly dealt with. The flimsy technicalities cannot be allowed to become tools in the hands of an accused. In the obtaining factual matrix, we must say without any iota of hesitation that the approach of the learned trial Judge as well as that of the learned single Judge is wholly incorrect and does not deserve acceptance.
67. It is clear from aforesaid judgments that material should be placed before the competent authority and there should be application of mind by competent authority while granting sanction for prosecution of the concerned person. It would be enough for the prosecution to prove that sanctioning authority had all the relevant papers before it and it was satisfied that it was necessary in the ends of justice to accord prosecution sanction. While granting sanction, it is not for CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 49 CC No. : 187/2019 sanctioning authority to judge the truth of all the allegations made against the accused by insisting or calling for the records of the accused. It is also well settled that when the application of the mind by the sanctioning authority to the facts consisting the offences is discernible exfacie from the sanction order itself, there is no need for the sanctioning authority to depose before the Court with regard to the satisfaction arrived at by him in the case.
68. The sanction order, Ex. PW6/A is signed by PW6 Sh. Udai Pratap Singh, the then Vice Chairman, DDA and he has duly proved the said sanction order.
69. Perusal of the sanction order, Ex.PW6/A shows that it clearly speaks about the fact of commission of offence by the accused and it is recorded in the said sanction order that PW6 has carefully examined the material placed before him including the FIR, statements of witnesses, CFSL report, transcription of recorded conversation and other documents and materials collected during investigation with regard to the allegations and circumstances of the case. The sanction order is expressive and eloquent and, therefore, it cannot be said that the competent authority has not applied its mind. Further, it is also clear from testimonies of aforesaid witnesses that entire material has been placed before competent authority. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Mahesh G Jain, CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 50 CC No. : 187/2019 has clearly observed that flimsy technicalities should not be allowed to be raised.
70. Ld. Counsel for accused contended that competent authority did not apply its mind and signed a draft order prepared by Vigilance Department and thus, the sanction order passed by the competent authority is not valid. It is also submitted that transcriptions of the conversation recorded during verification and trap proceedings, do not contain complete conversation and the CD containing said conversation was not provided to competent authority and thus, entire material has not been placed before competent authority. To support his arguments, Ld. Counsel for accused referred the judgment passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ashok Aggarwal v. CBI.
71. The judgment of Ashok Aggarwal v. CBI, is not applicable under the facts and circumstances of the present case as in that case relevant documents were not placed before the Sanctioning Authority and further the draft order and sanction order were found verbatim same. Here, PW6, Shri Udai Pratap, the then Vice Chairman, DDA stated that he applied his mind on the material on record. Further the sanction order explicitly states that PW6 Shri Udai Pratap has considered the material placed before him and applied his mind and has carefully read the draft for approval of sanction CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 51 CC No. : 187/2019 and was fully convinced that Mr. Mehto should face trial for his misdoings, therefore, approved the Sanction Order and appended his signatures approving Sanction Order for prosecution of D. R. Mehto. The transcriptions, Ex.PW18/B and Ex.PW8/S although do not contain the complete conversation as recorded in memory cards, Ex.PW8/P and Ex. PW8/R, however, the missing part of conversation is not significant and material. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'C. S. Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka' has clearly observed that sanction cannot be used as a shield to protect the corrupt and dishonest public servant and when the sanction itself is very expressive, then in that case, the argument that particular material was not properly placed before the Sanctioning Authority for according sanction and Sanctioning Authority has not applied its mind becomes unsustainable. The contention of Ld. Counsel for accused that entire material was not placed before Competent Authority, therefore, the sanction to prosecute accused D. R. Mehto is bad, is without any merit.
72. The next point for determination is whether prosecution has succeeded in proving that accused no. 1, D.R. Mehto and accused No. 2, Satvir have committed offence under Section 7 of the P. C. Act.
73. Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 52 CC No. : 187/2019 reads as under :-
"7. Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. - Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or government company referred to in clause (c) of Section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than [three years] but which may extend to [seven years] and shall also be liable to fine."
74. Section 13(1)(d) and (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reads as under :-
"13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant. - (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, -
(a) .....
(b) .....
(c) .....
(d) if, he, -
CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 53
CC No. : 187/2019
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage ; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or
(e) .....
(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than [four years] but which may extent to [ten years] and shall also be liable to fine."
75. It is well settled that for proving case beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution has to prove the following three aspects, namely :-
a) Demand of bribe by public servants.
b) Acceptance of bribe by a person.
c) Recovery of bribe amount from the person.
76. Now, I consider the first point as to whether there has been demand of money on the part of accused D.R. Mehto and accused Satvir from the complainant for motive or reward.
CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 54
CC No. : 187/2019
Demand of Bribe by Public Servants :-
77. The testimonies of PW-3, Shri Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd., PW-4, Shri Sada Shiv, Deputy Director, DDA, PW-5, Shri Swapan Kumar Nath, Office clerk/mate in DDA, PW-8, Shri Vakeel Ahmed, complainant, PW-9, Shri Avtar Singh Sagar, Senior Sales Assistant in the office of ITDC, PW-10, Sh. Mohd. Laiq, PW-13, Shri Ramesh Kumar, Inspector, CBI, ACB, PW-14, Shri Chander Kant, Manager, Vijaya Bank, Moti Nagar, New Delhi, PW-15, Shri Amitosh Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer, Grade-II (physics)-cum-Assistant Chemical Examiner, Government of India, CFSL, Delhi and PW18, Sh. Saminder Singh, IO are relevant for deciding the present issue.
78. The complainant, PW8 Shri Vakeel Ahmed has proved the complaint dated 16.03.2017, Ex.PW8/A. PW8 Shri Vakeel Ahmed deposed that he visited the CBI office on 16.03.2017 and made a complaint on same day as he was facing some problem in DDA office regarding some paper work. PW8 stated that he had given this complaint against accused Satvir and D. R. Mehto, Assistant Director, Damage, DDA, Delhi. PW8 has clearly stated that Satvir has demanded Rs.5000/- for issuance of No Dues Certificate. Complainant, PW8 stated that initially Satvir demanded Rs.5000/- thereafter, he agreed to settle the matter for CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 55 CC No. : 187/2019 Rs.4000/- and he had received a phone call regarding demand of money prior to said verification. PW8 further stated that in fact, the said call came on mobile phone of Mohd. Laiq.
79. PW8 has also stated that during verification he went to the office directly to meet Satvir however, Satvir made gesture by pointing fingers, to meet Mr D. R. Mehto and D. R. Mehto told that paper is ready and thereafter, conversation regarding the money took place and Mr. Mehto told him to come in the evening and the matter was settled for Rs.4000/-. Further, PW8 clearly stated that on the same day in the evening, at the time of trap PW 8 went to the office of accused and asked him regarding NOC and thereafter, D. R. Mehto got the file searched through Suraj Mehto and file was taken out by Suraj Mehto and NOC was taken out by D. R. Mehto and handed over to PW8 and thereafter, accused D. R. Mehto demanded money by gesture and PW8 placed the money on the table, then D. R. Mehto took the money from the table and gave Rs.500/- to Suraj Mehto out of Rs.4000/-. PW8 also stated that Rs.3500/- were recovered from accused D. R. Mehto and Rs.500/- were recovered from pant of Suraj Mehto and thereafter, hand washes of D. R. Mehto and Suraj Mehto and pant pocket wash of Suraj Mehto was taken and the colourless solution turned pink. PW8 has further identified the voices in the memory cards recorded during verification and trap proceedings.
CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 56
CC No. : 187/2019
80. PW8, Shri Vakeel Ahmed proved the verification report dated 16.03.2017, Ex.PW8/B. He identified his signatures on transcript of conversation, Ex.PW8/C which took place during verification and Handing Over Memo, PW8/E. The Handing Over Memo contains all the proceedings which took place in CBI office after the verification of demand. PW8, Shri Vakeel Ahmed has also proved the recovery memo dated 16.03.2017,PW8/F which contained all the proceedings which took place during trap and recovery of tainted amount. PW8 also stated to have signed on Site Plan, Ex.PW8/G. The recovered amount is identified by complainant as Ex. PW8/I and Ex. PW8/K. PW8 also identified the jeans pant of Suraj Mehto, Ex.PW8/L. PW8 also exhibited the memory card used during verification proceedings as Ex.PW8/P, Transcription- cum-Voice Identification memo as Ex. PW8/Q, Memory Card used during trap proceedings as Ex. PW8/R, its Transcription cum Voice Identification Memo as Ex. PW8/S.
81. PW4 Shri Sada Shiv, Deputy Director, DDA proved the Clearance Certificate dated 15.03.2017, Ex.PW4/E and application for issuance of No Dues Certificate dated 19.01.2017, Ex. PW4/A to show that the matter regarding No Dues Certificate was pending with DDA. PW5 Shri Swapan Kumar Nath, Office clerk/mate in DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi has proved the notice under sub Section 3 of Section 7 CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 57 CC No. : 187/2019 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, Ex.PW5/A and the clearance certificate dated 15.03.2017 as Ex. PW5/D. He has also proved the receipt/ challan dated 06.03.2017 as Ex. PW5/C. The aforesaid two witnesses clearly proved that matter regarding deposit of damages in respect of Property No.47-A, Ram Bagh Road, Azad Market, Delhi-06 in the name of Mohd. Laiq and Mohd. Ateek and issuance of No Dues Certificate (Clearance Certificate) was being dealt by accused D. R. Mehto and accused Satvir was also involved in the said matter.
82. The testimony of PW8, Shri Vakeel Ahmed is corroborated further by testimony of PW10, Mohd. Laiq regarding pendency of aforesaid property matter with DDA and testimonies of PW13 Shri Ramesh Kumar, verification officer and PW14 Shri Chander Kant, the independent witness, who have participated in the verification proceedings.
83. Further, the conversation recorded in the memory card (Q1), Ex.PW8/P shows that accused D. R. Mehto has demanded the bribe from complainant, Vakeel Ahmed. The said conversation was recorded during verification proceedings conducted on 16.03.2017. The conversation shows that accused D.R.Mehto said that "Sadhe teen dena tha chaar de sakte hai direct raseed de deta hun bai hand deta hun unko nahi bulaya naa" and complainant stated CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 58 CC No. : 187/2019 "Achchha jee chaar le lena isee ka ishu tha ... aaj bhi vahin aa gaya.". Further, accused D. R. Mehto persuaded the complainant to bring the money on the same day. The accused says "Dekho aisa karo vo subh kaam aata hai - to subh kaam kar lo - kal ho sakta hai mai na rahun phir ye chitthi bai hand denge nahin tum authority letter lekar aao yaa mat aao - shaam ko tum aa jao yahin baithe yahin saat baje tak."
84. The aforesaid conversation clearly shows that the accused demanded money and insisted the complainant to come on same day. It is also clear that authority letter was not required and accused could have given the No Dues Certificate to complainant then and there but asked him to come again on same day. It only shows that he wanted to take money and wanted the complainant to bring money. Further, the conversation also shows that the accused is saying that in his absence, the No Dues Certificate would not be given by hand.
85. Further, the testimony of PW5 Shri Swapan Kumar Nath shows that No Dues Certificate was ready by 15.03.2017 but was not dispatched or sent at the instance of accused D.R. Mehto. PW5 Shri Swapan Kumar Nath clearly stated that accused D. R. Mehto has asked him as to whether PW 5 had sent the clearance certificate or not and said that someone CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 59 CC No. : 187/2019 would come with authority letter and he should hand over clearance certificate to him. It is not the case that accused had sent the complainant to PW5, Shri Swapan Kumar Nath to collect No Dues Certificate but he kept No Dues Certificate with him.
86. The aforesaid facts clearly shows that accused D. R. Mehto was willing to take money by handing over the No Dues Certificate and has demanded said money.
87. The conversation recorded during verification proceedings in memory card (Q1), Ex. PW8/P and recorded during trap in memory card (Q2), Ex. PW8/R and voice sample of accused D. R. Mehto, Ex.PW8/X were subjected to CFSL examination and PW15 Amitosh Kumar, Sr. Scientific Officer, CFSL gave forensic voice examination report dated 05.02.2019, Ex. PW15/C which shows that there has not been any tampering in the aforesaid recording and voice in recorded conversation is the probable voice of D. R. Mehto. It also needs to be mentioned that voice of accused D. R. Mehto has been identified by PW8, complainant Shri Vakeel Ahmed.
88. From the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses, it has clearly emerged that there was certain dues against the property No. 47-A, Ram Bagh Road, Azad Market, Delhi-06 CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 60 CC No. : 187/2019 in the name of Mohd. Laiq and Mohd. Ateeq and dues were paid by PW10 Mohd. Laiq vide a receipt/ challan, Ex. PW18/DX-1 and No Dues Certificate (Clearance Certificate), Ex.PW4/E was issued and the accused D. R. Mehto demanded money from Vakeel Ahmed for handing over the said NOC. The testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses are consistent and no material contradiction could be elicited during their cross- examination. The totality of the aforesaid circumstances taken together clearly establishes the demand of bribe on the part of the accused D. R. Mehto and leaves no doubt for any presumptions or assumptions.
89. Contention of Ld. Counsel for the accused No.1 is that during verification proceedings and the trap proceedings, no independent witness has joined and they have planted some government witnesses. It is noted that during verification proceedings, PW14, Shri Chander Kant, Manager, Vijaya Bank has joined as independent witness. It is not the case of the accused that the independent witness, Shri Chander Kant, who is a Bank employee was having any enmity or grudge against the accused D. R. Mehto. There is no reason assigned by the accused as to why the said witness has deposed against him, particularly, when he was not familiar with the accused prior to 16.03.2017. Further, during trap proceedings two independent witnesses, PW14 Chander Kant and PW15 Shri Atul Dabas, Income Tax Officer have joined CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 61 CC No. : 187/2019 the proceedings. Besides aforesaid independent witnesses, PW8, the complainant, PW13, Shri Ramesh Kumar, the Verification Officer and PW18 Shri Saminder Singh have deposed against accused D. R. Mehto and their testimonies are reliable and trustworthy.
90. In "C. M. Sharma v. State of Andhra Pradesh"
(supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "on appreciation of evidence, witnesses can be broadly categorized in three categories viz., unreliable, partly reliable and wholly reliable.
In case of a partly reliable witness, the court seeks corroboration in material particulars from other evidence. However in a case in which a witness is wholly reliable, no corroboration is necessary."
91. In "Tahir v. State (Delhi Administration)" (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case."
92. In "Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Administration)"
(supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "The testimony of the police personnel should be treated in the same manner as CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 62 CC No. : 187/2019 testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds."
93. Ld. Counsel accused No. 1 contended that there has not been demand on the part of accused No.1 and recorded conversation does not show that accused has demanded money. The recorded conversation in memory card, Ex. PW8/P (Q1) clearly shows that accused No. 1 has demanded Rs.4000/- and although authority letter was not required, asked the complainant to come again and insisted him to come on same day. The demand of bribe by accused No. 1 is clear and explicit.
94. Ld. Counsel for accused No.1 contended that the CBI officials had not ensured the blankness of the DVR to avoid any scope for manipulation in the recorded conversation. It is also submitted that essential safe guard required to avoid tampering of electronic record has not been taken by the CBI official.
95. It is noted that the CBI officials had taken out a new DVR, Ex. PW13/B for recording the verification proceedings CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 63 CC No. : 187/2019 and PW13, Ramesh Kumar, Verification Officer has clearly stated that a new DVR and new Memory Card, Ex.PW/P were arranged and after opening the DVR, memory card was inserted in the DVR and it was switched on and after ensuring the blankness of memory card and DVR, the introductory voice of independent witness, PW14, Shri Chander Kant, Manager, Vijaya Bank, Moti Nagar, New Delhi was recorded and thereafter, the verification proceedings were conducted and the memory card was taken out from the DVR after preparing the transcription of the recorded conversation and it was duly sealed. The verification memo has been proved by PW13 Shri Ramesh Kumar. The CBI official had taken all the care and caution while conducting the verification proceedings with the help of electronic devices to maintain sanctity of electronic evidence.
96. Thus, the prosecution has proved beyond doubt that there was demand of bribe on the part of the accused, D. R. Mehto. The judgments cited by Ld. Counsel for accused, D. R. Mehto are of no help to the case of accused.
97. So far as demand of bribe by accused No. 2, Satvir is concerned, PW10 Mohd. Laiq, brother-in-law of complainant, PW8 Shri Vakeel Ahmed, stated that he had deposited Rs.13,600/- in DDA office, which was dues against his property and they also asked about some amount for chai pani.
CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 64
CC No. : 187/2019
PW10 stated that he gave Rs.100/- to Satvir and when he came out of office after depositing the amount, he received the telephone call on his mobile from Satvir and he asked him Rs.5000/- and stated that he would get the work done by the next day. PW10 has identified the voice of accused Satvir in the conversation recorded on 06.03.2017. PW10 Mohd. Laiq proved the Authority Letter, Ex. PW10/C executed by him in favour of Vakeel Ahmed. PW10 Mohd. Laiq has also proved the communication which had taken place between him and DDA in relation to Property No. 47-A, Ram Bagh Road, Azad Market, Delhi-06. PW10 has also exhibited his mobile phone of VIVO Make, as Ex. PW10/L.
98. The conversation recorded in the mobile phone of PW10, Mohd. Laiq (Q3) shows that accused Satvir has demanded the bribe amount from PW10 Mohd. Laiq. In the said conversation, accused Satvir stated that "maine baat kiya tha : DCC chahiye tha apko isme paanch hazaar rupay lag jayenge aapke aur by hand mil jayenge, ek hafte ke andar"
and when Mohd. Laiq stated "by hand" the accused Satvir stated that "Haan aur agar regular chahiye apko to kam se kam ek mahina lag jaega" . He has further stated at some other place during conversation "sir aisa hai mere ko ek rupiya bhi nahi bachega : aap sau sau bhi dekar aaya hun diye the vo abhi".
CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 65
CC No. : 187/2019
99. Further, PW8, Shri Vakeel Ahmed stated that accused Satvir has demanded bribe of Rs.5000/- and also stated that he gave Rs.1500/- to Satvir and some other amount was paid before 16.03.2017. PW3 Shri Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd., has exhibited the call detail record in respect of mobile number 9212013811, Ex. PW3/C in the name of Mohd. Laiq and he has also given the certificate under section 65B Indian Evidence Act, Ex.PW3/B.
100. Further, PW9, Shri Avtar Singh Sagar, Sr. Sales Assistant, Office of ITDC proved the transcription of recording cum seizure memo Mobile Vivo dated 23.05.2017 as Ex. PW9/A and sample voice memo as Ex. PW9/B. The said call was made by accused Satvir Singh from the land line phone No.911124693200 (linked to EPBAX system) installed in DDA office. PW4 Shri Sada Shiv, Deputy Director, DDA has testified to this effect and exhibited letter dated 16.06.2017 as Ex. PW4/F vide which it was informed that extension number 1377 of aforesaid land line number was in Damage Section. Further, PW15 Shri Amitosh Kumar, CFSL Expert has given his report Ex.PW15/C that there was no tampering in the conversation recorded in the mobile phone, Ex. PW10/L.
101. It is noted that the mobile phone, Ex. PW10/L contains recording of call made by Satvir on 06.03.2017. Complainant, CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 66 CC No. : 187/2019 PW8 Shri Vakil Ahmed stated that he was aware of this call regarding demand of money by Satvir but he did not mention about this call in the complaint, Ex. PW8/A made by him on 16.03.2017 and when verification and trap proceedings were done. Further, his statement was recorded under section 161 Cr.PC, Ex.PW8/DX-1 on 17.05.2017 but he did not state about this call in the said statement. The complainant, PW8 had informed to CBI about this call only on 23.05.2017 when he handed over the mobile, Ex.PW10/L to IO. The complainant, PW8 Shri Vakeel Ahmed was well aware about this call made to his brother-in-law, Mohd. Laiq on 06.03.2017 and its recording and has clearly stated in chief- examination that he received a call and then said that it was on the mobile phone of Mohd. Laiq and they had recorded the conversation.
102. There is no explanation regarding this delay of more than two months in handing over this Mobile Phone, Ex.PW10/L to IO and informing the IO regarding the recording of call made by accused Satvir on 06.03.2017. During this time, mobile containing recording of voice call remained with PW10, Mohd. Laiq and it is not the case that it was not used during these two and half months. Complainant, PW8 Shri Vakeel Ahmed or PW10 Mohd. Laiq did not give any justification regarding this delay in informing about this call and handing over of mobile phone. It also needs to be CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 67 CC No. : 187/2019 mentioned here that this call was made on the mobile phone of Mohd. Laiq on 06.03.2017 allegedly by accused Satvir from the office phone 911124693200 which is linked to EPBAX system and operated under the control of Electrical Division II from the premises of Electrical Division II and any person can make a call after dialing 0 (zero) from any EPBAX instrument and tel. No.24693200 will appear at receiving end. The extension number of damages section was 1377. The phone was accessible to other officials in the damage section.
103. Further, Mohd. Laiq, PW10 to whom this mobile phone belonged, could not state even the date, month or year or the time when said call was received by him and has stated that call was received 2-3 years back, when he was examined in court on 07.06.2019 . Then, PW10 has stated that he had handed over the mobile box and purchase invoice of mobile phone to IO and has also handed over the Mobile Phone to IO. While the production-cum-seizure memo, Ex. PW10/A dated 26.05.2017 shows that PW10 has not handed over the Mobile, Ex.PW10/L to IO and only tax invoice and packing of mobile phone was handed over to IO.
104. PW8, Shri Vakeel Ahmed has stated during cross- examination that he had handed over the mobile phone, empty box and tax invoice to IO. It is seen that Production-cum- Seizure Memo dated 23.05.2017 shows that PW8, Shri Vakeel CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 68 CC No. : 187/2019 Ahmed has produced only mobile phone and not the empty box and tax invoice.
105. There is one more inconsistency which has not been explained by prosecution. On 23.05.2017, the complainant went to IO to hand over the mobile phone, Ex. PW10/L of Mohd. Laiq and IO played the mobile phone after calling independent witness Avtar Singh and transcript was prepared of conversation recorded in the said phone and was attached with the Production-cum-Seizure Memo dated 23.05.2017, Ex. PW9/A.
106. The aforesaid proceedings were concluded at 20.10 hrs. On the same day, IO has prepared Sample Voice Memo of accused Satvir at 7:30 pm. Firstly, it is difficult to understand if the IO was preparing transcript of conversation recorded in mobile phone till 8:10 pm then how he conducted proceedings of taking Sample Voice of accused Satvir at 7:30 p.m. The IO, Saminder Singh came to know about said recorded call in mobile phone of Mohd. Laiq at 5:00pm on 23.05.2017 when it was produced before him by PW8, Shri Vakeel Ahmed and then he called independent witness, operated mobile and prepared transcription, which concluded at 8:10 pm and only thereafter, the IO could have called the accused Satvir to give specimen voice. It has also been not explained how the accused was present there when said CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 69 CC No. : 187/2019 transcription was being made. There is nothing on record to show why accused has been called there and for what purpose. It only shows that IO was aware of this recording beforehand. It creates doubt on proceedings regarding taking of voice sample of accused, Satvir.
107. In the judgment of Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar v. State of Maharashtra, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that evidence of voice identification is at best suspect, if not wholly unreliable and accurate voice identification is much more difficult then visual identification. It is prone to such extensive and sophisticated tampering, doctoring and editing with the reality can be accordingly replaced by fiction, therefore, the Court have to be extremely cautious basing conversation purely on the voice identification.
108. Further, the oral evidence of PW8 Shri Vakeel Ahmed and PW10 Mohd. Laiq is also not consistent regarding the demand on the part of accused Satvir. PW8, Vakeel Ahmed stated that Satvir has demanded Rs.5000/- but did not state date, month, year or time when such demand was made by accused Satvir and during cross-examination stated that Satvir demanded Rs.1500/- for searching file and he paid Rs.1500/- and thereafter, paid some amount to Satvir before 16.03.2017. Again, the PW8 is not specific about date, month or year when he paid these Rs.1500/- and about some amount CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 70 CC No. : 187/2019 allegedly paid thereafter. No such fact has been stated by PW8 in his chief examination. There is clear improvement in the testimony of PW8. The testimony of PW8 on this aspect is inconsistent. PW10, Mohd. Laiq stated that he paid Rs.100 to Satvir and recorded call of Satvir demanding of Rs.5000/- and said demand was made 2-3 years back. Further, PW10 also improved the case of prosecution that he gave Rs.100/- to Satvir. There is unexplained delay in handing over mobile phone and informing IO about recorded call, inconsistencies in statement of PW8 and PW10 on this aspect and doubt is created regarding the proceedings conducted by IO while taking sample voice of accused D. R. Mehto.
109. In view of above, grave suspicion is created regarding the recorded conversation in mobile phone. Law is well settled that benefit of doubt is to go to accused.
110. Thus, the prosecution failed to establish demand of bribe by accused Satvir beyond doubt.
Acceptance and Recovery of Tainted Money :-
111. Now, turning to the next question whether there is acceptance of money on the part of the accused and whether there has been recovery of tainted money from the accused.
112. Here, the testimonies of PW-2, Ms. Deepti Bhargava, CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 71 CC No. : 187/2019 Senior Scientific Officer, (Chemistry) CFSL, New Delhi, PW-4, Shri Sada Shiv, Deputy Director, DDA, PW-5, Shri Swapan Kumar Nath, Office clerk/mate in DDA, PW-8, Shri Vakeel Ahmed, complainant, PW-10, Sh. Mohd. Laiq, PW-
11, Shri A. D. Tiwari, Principal Scientific Officer (photo), CFSL, New Delhi, PW-12, Shri Raj Kumar, Stenographer, ACB, CBI, New Delhi, PW-14, Shri Chander Kant, Manager, Vijaya Bank, Moti Nagar, New Delhi, PW-15, Shri Amitosh Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer, Grade-II (physics) cum Assistant Chemical Examiner, Government of India, CFSL, Delhi, PW-17, Shri Harnam Singh, Inspector, CBI ACB and PW-18, IO Inspector, Shri Saminder Singh are relevant for deciding this issue.
113. PW8, Shri Vakeel Ahmed has stated that on 16.03.2017, he had given a complaint Ex.PW8/A to CBI and after verification, the CBI officials conducted the pretrap proceedings in CBI office. The complainant produced Rs.4000/- and their distinctive numbers were noted down in the Handing Over Memo, Ex.PW8/E and these notes were applied with the phenolphthalein powder and demonstration of reaction of phenolphthalein with sodium carbonate solution was given and other proceedings related to pre-trap were conducted. PW8 proved the Handing Over Memo as Ex.PW8/E. Thereafter, complainant alongwith independent witnesses and CBI officials reached in DDA building and the CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 72 CC No. : 187/2019 complainant met D. R. Mehto and asked him regarding the NOC and D. R. Mehto got the file searched through Suraj Mehto and thereafter D. R. Mehto took out NOC from the file and handed over to PW8 after taking the receiving and thereafter, demanded money by gesture and the complainant placed the money on the table which was picked up by accused D. R. Mehto and gave Rs.500/- to Suraj Mehto out of these notes of Rs.4000/-. The complainant gave a missed call to CBI official and accused D. R. Mehto was caught by the CBI officials and tainted money of Rs.3500/- was recovered from accused D. R. Mehto. A note of rupees 500 was also recovered from the pocket of Suraj Mehto and hand washes of Suraj Mehto and accused D.R. Mehto were taken out in solution, which turned pink and thereafter, recovery memo, Ex. PW8/F was prepared by CBI official and the number of recovered notes were tallied with the number of currency notes mentioned in the Handing Over Memo, which was signed by the complainant as well as independent witnesses. The recorded conversation in Memory Card (Q2), Ex. PW8/R also shows that accused has voluntarily accepted the money from complainant. In the recorded conversation, the complainant said - 'Yeh lo pure chaar hazaar hain', then accused D. R. Mehto replied - 'Hamm'; thereafter an Office lady said - 'Isko aise de dein yaa lifaafe mein dein'; the accused said - 'lifaafe mein dein'. Then complainant said - 'aise de do, aise hi de do....photostate wali hain ji, inko CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 73 CC No. : 187/2019 pichche hata do fir' thereafter accused said- 'clear hai..thik hai.' and the complainant said - 'thank you very much.' The said conversation clearly shows that accused has not only demanded money but accepted the bribe willingly.
114. The testimony of PW8 is corroborated with the testimonies of PW-14 Shri Chander Kant, Manager, Vijaya Bank, Moti Nagar, New Delhi and PW-16, Shri Atul Dabas, Income Tax Inspector.
115. Further, PW2, Ms. Deepti Bhargava, Sr. Scientific Officer has examined the Right Hand Wash and Left Hand Wash of accused D. R. Mehto and right side front pocket pant wash of Suraj Mehto and has given her report dated 23.05.2017, Ex. PW2/B. The report, Ex. PW2/B leaves no doubt that bottle marked RHW of accused D. R. Mehto, Ex. PW2/D and LHW of accused D.R. Mehto, Ex. PW2/C which contained hand washes of the accused and bottle containing right side front pocket pant wash of Suraj Mehto, Ex.PW2/G gave positive result for presence of phenolphthalein.
116. PW15 Shri Amitosh Kumar, Sr. Scientific Officer, has given report dated 05.02.2019, Ex.PW15/C which clearly shows that memory cards, Ex. PW8/P (Q1) containing conversation during verification proceedings, Ex.PW8/R(Q2) containing conversation during trap proceeding have no CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 74 CC No. : 187/2019 tampering and voice contained in memory cards, Ex.PW8/P & Ex.PW8/R is the probable voice of accused D. R. Mehto. It lends support to the authenticity regarding conversation recorded in the memory cards. Further, the voice of accused D. R. Mehto has been identified by the complainant, PW8.
117. The aforesaid facts clearly establish that accused D.R.Mehto had taken Rs.4000/- from complainant for handing over the No Dues Certificate and a sum of Rs.3,500/- was recovered from D. R. Mehto and Rs.500/- was recovered from Suraj Mehto.
118. Prosecution has established beyond doubt the acceptance of tainted money by accused D. R. Mehto and recovery of tainted money from the accused D. R. Mehto.
119. Ld. Counsel for accused D. R. Mehto contended that PW8, Vakeel Ahmed has kept the tainted amount inside the files lying on the table of D. R. Mehto when accused D. R. Mehto went to office of Estate Officer for seeking his permission on Authority Letter and when D. R. Mehto came from the office of Estate Officer, he saw the money lying inside the file, he picked up the money and enquired from the staff regarding the money lying inside the file and CBI officials who were watching from outside, came inside the office and caught him.
CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 75
CC No. : 187/2019
120. Here, it needs to be mentioned that during cross- examination, PW8 Shri Vakeel Ahmed stated that perhaps the accused D. R. Mehto had gone to Estate Officer to take signature on the Authority Letter but he did not remember exactly. It is worthwhile recording here that in chief examination, PW8 has clearly stated that he went to D.R. Mehto and D. R. Mehto handed over to him the NOC when the file was taken out by Suraj Mehto and he demanded money by gesture and same was paid by the complainant and out of the bribe amount of Rs.4000/-, Rs.500/- were given by accused D. R. Mehto to his peon, Suraj Mehto, who took out the file. Said amount of Rs.3500/- were recovered from accused D. R. Mehto and Rs.500/- were recovered from Suraj Mehto. The pant wash and hand wash of Suraj Mehto also gave positive result for presence of phenolphthalein. PW8 did not state in his chief-examination that accused D. R. Mehto went to Estate Officer when he was sitting in office of D. R. Mehto. The other witnesses, namely, PW14 Shri Chander Kant and PW16 Shri Atul Dabas and PW13 Shri Ramesh Kumar, the verifying officer, PW17 Shri Harnam Singh, TLO clearly denied the suggestion of Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1 that accused had went out of his chamber during trap proceedings.
121. Even otherwise in the recorded conversation in CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 76 CC No. : 187/2019 Memory Card, Ex.PW8/R, there is no gap in the conversation after the complainant started to have conversation with accused after reaching his office and No Dues Certificate was handed over to complainant. The conversation recorded in Memory card, Ex. PW8/R has no mention of authority letter or of office of Estate Officer and it clearly rule out the possibility of accused going to Estate Officer and getting signatures on authority letter. The plea taken by accused D. R. Mehto that he went out to Estate Officer and in the mean time complainant had kept the money in the file, does not inspire confidence and is without merit.
122. Further, there is also contradiction regarding suggestions put by counsel for accused no. 1 to different witnesses inasmuch as counsel for accused no.1 gave suggestions to PW14, Shri Chander Kant, PW16 Shri Atul Dabas, PW13 Shri Ramesh Kumar and PW17 Shri Harnam Singhl, TLO that the complainant had kept the bribe amount inside the file in the absence of accused No. 1 and when the accused came back the CBI officials asked the accused D. R. Mehto to hand over the money lying below the files and accused at the directions of CBI officials lifted the amount and gave it to CBI officials. These witnesses denied this suggestion. Further, during cross-examination of PW8, Vakeel Ahmed, he was given suggestion by counsel for accused, D. R. Mehto that when Mr. Mehto came to his office CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 77 CC No. : 187/2019 from office of Estate Officer and saw the money inside the file, he took up the money and enquired from staff regarding the money lying inside the file and PW8 and CBI official who were watching from outside, came inside and caught him.
123. So far the testimony of DW-3 Shri Mukesh Chand Meena is concerned, same is not reliable. DW3 Shri Mukesh Chand Meena has stated that on 16.03.2017 at 4.45 to 6.00 pm he was inside the Damage Office at ground floor and one person came to Mehto and said that he had brought Authority Letter and Mr. Mehto said that permission was required from Vijender Singh and he went to Vijender Singh and took permission from Vijender Singh. DW3 stated that D.R.Mehto asked Suraj Mehto to take out a file and Suraj Mehto picked out a file and the said person, who had come, was looking something in the file and thereafter, the said person kept something in the file and went away and after one minute, CBI officials came inside and asked him and the other persons to go.
124. DW-3 Mukesh Chand Meena does not say that complainant had kept something in the file in the absence of accused D. R. Mehto. Rather, he has stated that D. R. Mehto asked to Suraj Mehto to take out the file and Suraj Mehto took out the file and said person had kept something in the file. While the defence taken by accused D. R. Mehto is that CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 78 CC No. : 187/2019 when he went to Estate Officer's office, complainant kept money in the file in his absence. Further, it is very unlikely that a stranger would come to the office of the Assistant Director, where the other employees of DDA are sitting and would keep something in the file and the DDA employee present there would not question the said conduct of the stranger.
125. Further, DW 3 Shri Mukesh Chand Meena, who was in office of D. R. Mehto (as stated by defence witness and contended by counsel for accused D. R. Mehto) must have objected, when complainant kept the money in file. The story put forth by accused is without any substance.
126. Further, there is nothing on record that DW3 has disclosed these facts to the CBI officials present there or to their higher officials or higher DDA officers. DW3 has deposed these facts after lapse of 5 years which itself caste serious doubt on his testimony.
127. The other witness, DW2 Smt. Dhanwanti stated that she was present on 16th, however, she did not remember the month or the year and one person came and asked her as to whether accused D. R. Mehto was there and after taking permission from Mr. Mehto, she said to the said person 'mil ligiye'. She further stated that one Mr. Suraj was there and CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 79 CC No. : 187/2019 accused D. R. Mehto asked Suraj to take out a file and both proceeded towards files and thereafter Mr. Mehto went outside for two minutes alongwith a letter and he came back and when she was about to leave the office, 5-6 persons entered inside. DW2 also stated that Mr. Mukesh was sitting alongwith two other persons inside the office of D.R. Mehto. DW2, in the cross-examination, stated that she did not make any complaint in this regard and she did not inform about this incident to anyone in her office and she did not try to find out the identity of those 5-6 persons.
128. It is very unusual that DW2 could not tell even the month and year of the incident but remembered the date and has stated about the incident of that date so specifically. DW2 did not state about the complete incident regarding trap of accused and has only stated that 5-6 persons came and she left which is not normal as after the CBI officials entered the office of D. R. Mehto, they immediately caught him and proceedings related to trap were conducted. If the DW2 was present there when 5-6 persons entered in the office of D. R. Mehto she must have seen the accused being caught by CBI officials, particularly when office of D. R. Mehto is made of glass wall and activities inside his office are visible from outside. Further it is difficult to understand that she would remember the details of said incident, particularly, that accused D. R. Mehto went out for two minutes on that day, CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 80 CC No. : 187/2019 after lapse of 5 years. In view of the aforesaid reason, I am not inclined to place reliance on her testimony. DW2 did not inform about this incident to any higher official.
129. DW4, Shri Vijender Singh stated that on 16.03.2017 accused D. R. Mehto visited him to get his signature on a letter and he instructed accused D. R. Mehto to hand over the NOC and he would sign the letter on the next day.
130. Here, it needs to be recorded that accused has stated in conversation and also contended by counsel for accused that authority letter was not needed, then what was the need for accused D. R. Mehto to visit office of Estate Officer at about 6:00 pm to take his signature. Further, if Authority Letter was to be signed before issuing No Dues Certificate and it was precondition then it should have been signed first before giving No Dues Certificate and then question comes why accused gave No Dues Certificate before signature on authority letter. Further, DW4 could not state as to how many people he met on 16.03.2017 but he remembered that on 16.03.2017 accused has met him at about 6:00pm in the evening after lapse of 5 years. The aforesaid facts shows that testimony of DW4 is not trustworthy and cannot be relied upon.
131. Even otherwise in the recorded conversation, it is clear CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 81 CC No. : 187/2019 that there is no gap in the conversation when the complainant started conversing with accused D.R. Mehto and when he was offered money and NOC was handed over to complainant. There is no mention of any authority letter or Estate Officer in the said conversation. It clearly rule out the possibility of accused D. R. Mehto going to meet Estate Officer during trap proceedings. Further, the following portion of recorded conversation clearly negates the story of accused D. R. Mehto that complainant has kept money inside the file. In the said conversation - "The complainant said - 'Yeh lo pure chaar hazaar hain', then accused D. R. Mehto said - 'Hamm'; thereafter an Office lady said - 'Isko aise de dein yaa lifaafe mein dein'; the accused said - 'lifaafe mein dein'. Then complainant said - 'aise de do, aise hi de do....photostate wali hain ji, inko pichche hata do fir' thereafter accused said- 'clear hai..thik hai.' and the complainant said - 'thank you very much'." The plea taken by accused D. R. Mehto that he went out to Estate Officer and in the mean time complainant had kept the money in the file is totally without merit.
132. So far as the contention of Ld. Counsel for accused regarding CCTV is concerned that CBI officials should have taken the CCTV footage to prove their case. PW14 Shri Chander Kant, Manager, Vijaya Bank stated that he has not noticed if CCTV Cameras were installed in DDA office and he cannot say if there was any CCTV camera near the office CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 82 CC No. : 187/2019 room of D. R. Mehto. PW16 Shri Atul Dabas, Income Tax Inspector also stated that he did not notice any CCTV Cameras installed near the office of accused D. R. Mehto covering the entire office of accused D. R. Mehto. PW17 Shri Harnam Singh, Inspector, CBI also stated that he did not notice any CCTV cameras installed at point 'X' in the site plan, Ex. PW8/G. He also stated that he did not try to find out whether any CCTV camera is installed inside or outside the office of accused D. R. Mehto. Thus, it has come in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses that they did not notice CCTV cameras installed near the office of the accused D. R. Mehto. Thus, there is no question of seizing of CCTV Cameras by CBI official.
133. Further, the CBI officials had already taken the help of two independent witnesses and used DVR for recording the conversation, used the phenolphthalein powder on currency notes to capture the evidence and had noted the number of currency notes in the Handing Over Memo and has taken every care to collect the evidence to prove their case.
134. DW5 Shri R. K. Pandey, Chief Security Officer, DDA stated that two CCTV cameras were installed there and CCTV camera installed at intersection of two galleries covers the office of D. R. Mehto. He proved reply dated 20.09.2019, part of Ex.DW1/C, whereby he has given the information CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 83 CC No. : 187/2019 regarding installation of CCTV cameras. It has not come on record that these cameras were covering the activities inside the office of D. R. Mehto.
135. Further, the accused could have taken steps to get the CCTV footage preserved and could have produced it before the court which would help him to prove his case. The accused has taken this plea of CCTV footage after lapse of five years. The fact regarding CCTV being there outside the office of D. R. Mehto was well within his knowledge. No request has been made by accused for preservation of CCTV footage either to the court or to the higher officials of DDA to prove his innocence. The plea taken by accused that CBI case is false and for this reason CCTV footage was not taken, is without any basis.
136. Ld. Counsel for accused also contended that there is contradiction in testimony of PW14 Shri Chander Kant and PW8, Shri Vakeel Ahmed and PW15 Atul Dabas on the point of recovery of money and giving of tainted money. PW8 Shri Vakeel Ahmed stated that he had kept the money on table, while PW14 Shri Chander Kant stated that tainted money was given by complainant, Vakeel Ahmed to D. R. Mehto. No doubt there is difference in version of complainant and other witnesses as to whether money was kept on the table or was given in the hands of accused. However, PW8 has clearly CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 84 CC No. : 187/2019 stated that he had kept the tainted money on the table and accused picked up and gave Rs.500/- to Suraj Mehto and CBI officials entered inside his office and recovered Rs.3500/- from hands of accused and Rs.500/- from the pocket of Suraj Mehto. It is also contended by the counsel for accused D. R. Mehto that PW14 Shri Chander Kant stated that tainted money was not recovered by him from D. R. Mehto while PW16 Shri Atul Dabas and PW13 Ramesh Kumar stated that PW14 Shri Chander Kant had recovered the bribe amount from D. R. Mehto. Some inconsistencies is bound to occur in the testimonies of witnesses and these are very minor and does not go to the root of matter. Even otherwise, accused has himself admitted the recovery of amount from his hands then the aforesaid differences in statements of witnesses hardly has any bearing on prosecution case or affect prosecution case.
137. Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1 also contended that the Five Hundred Rupee note recovered from Suraj Mehto was given by complainant when he accompanied Suraj Mehto, who went to search the file and said note was not given by accused D. R. Mehto.
138. Although, during cross-examination, at one place the complainant had stated that he had given five hundred rupee note to Suraj Mehto when he went to search the file, however, CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 85 CC No. : 187/2019 during re-examination as well as in chief examination, he has categorically stated that tainted five hundred rupee note was given to Suraj Mehto by D. R. Mehto after the complainant handed over the money to D. R. Mehto and this version of complainant is supported by the other independent witnesses.
139. It is noted that these are minor contradictions in the statement of witnesses but none of these are major contradiction affecting the sanctity of the prosecution case.
140. Ld. Counsel has cited the judgment Suraj Mal v. State (supra). In the judgment Suraj Mal v. State (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that whether witnesses make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of such circumstances, no conviction can be passed on the evidence of such witnesses.
141. The judgment cited by Ld. Counsel for accused is not applicable here in present matter as the testimonies of witnesses are consistent and reliable.
142. Here, it would be relevant to refer the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding minor inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses. In the judgment Shyamal Ghosh CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 86 CC No. : 187/2019 v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2012 SC 3539. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed :
"47. .........Minor contradictions inconsistencies or embellishments of trivial nature which do not affect the ore of the prosecution case should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence in its entirety. It is only when such omissions amount to a contradiction creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvements, on contradictions before the court in order to render the evidence unacceptable, that the courts may not be in a position to safely rely upon such evidence. Serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the prosecution have to be understood in clear contradistinction to mer marginal variations in the statement of the witnesses. The prior may have effect in law upon the evidentiary value of the prosecution case; however, the latter would not adversely affect the case of the prosecution. Another settled rule of appreciation of evidence as already indicated is that the court should not draw any conclusion be picking up an isolated portion from the testimony of a witness without adverting to the statement as a whole. Sometimes it may be feasible that admission of a fat or circumstance by the witness is only to CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 87 CC No. : 187/2019 clarify his statement or what has been placed on record. Where it is a genuine attempt on the party of a witness to bring correct facts by clarification on record, such statement must be seen in a different light to a situation where the contradiction is of such a nature that it impairs his evidence in its entirety.
......... Furthermore, whether such omission,
variations or discrepancy is a material
contradiction or not is again a question of fact which is to be determined with reference to the facts of a given case. The concept of contradiction in evidence under criminal jurisprudence, thus, cannot be stated in any absolute terms and has to be construed liberally so as to leave desirable discretion with the court to determine whether it is a contradiction or material contradiction which renders the entire evidence of the witness untrustworthy and affect the case of the prosecution materially.
143. Here, it is relevant to refer the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'State of UP v. M. K. Anthony' (supra), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:
"Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hypertechnical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 88 CC No. : 187/2019 from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. If the court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals.".
144. It is also submitted by counsel for accused no. 1 that even the CFSL report is not conclusive regarding voice of the accused, hence, cannot be relied upon. It is also submitted that the CFSL Laboratory which has given opinion regarding conversation recorded in memory cards, is not notified U/S 79A of Information & Technology Act, 2000.
145. In K. Ramajayam @ Appu. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai, 2016 Crl J 1542, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 89 CC No. : 187/2019 that the method evolved by Scientific Officers of Tamil Nadu Forensic Department to analyse and give their opinions on the electronic data, are correct and cannot be faulted. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that opinion of an expert, which is relevant U/S 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 when accepted by the Court graduates into the opinion of the Court. The Central government had not issued Notification U/s 79A of Information Technology Act, 2000 in the said case.
146. It is also submitted by Counsel for accused that during cross-examination complainant, PW8 Vakeel Ahmed gave vague answers. It is noted that the testimony of PW8 is specific about the demand of bribe money by accused D. R. Mehto and its acceptance and recovery from D. R. Mehto. PW8 has clearly stated about the proceedings conducted by the CBI officials and his testimony is trustworthy and reliable.
147. One of the contentions of the counsel for accused No. 1 is regarding overwriting in the Crime Register and discrepancy regarding name of Suraj Mehto appearing in the Crime Register although the role of Suraj Mehto has surfaced during the trap proceedings while entry in the Crime Register must have been made at the time of giving complaint by the complainant. The contention of Ld. Counsel for CBI is that CO number is given to the complaint and due to exigency CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 90 CC No. : 187/2019 names of the accused persons could not be written in Crime Register and the said entry was made in the register after the trap was concluded. No doubt, there is discrepancy and incorrect procedure has been followed by the CBI official however, the said irregularity does not affect the case of prosecution and does not go to the root of the matter.
148. Further, the contention of counsel for accused that complainant had given complaint also on 16.02.2017 and CO number was 7/17 and CBI has done manipulation and caught the accused after manipulating the proceedings. It is noted that on Verification Memo the CO number is written as 7/17 while on transcription attached with verification memo and on other documents CO no is written as 22/17. The prosecution witness PW13, Ramesh Kumar, Verification Officer stated that it was a typographical mistake and denied the suggestion that complainant gave complaint on 16.02.2017 and number was given as 7/17.
149. Here, it is noted that the CO number on top of first page of Verification Memo is written as 7/17 however in the last para of page no. 3 of Verification Memo, the CO number is written as 22/17. The transcription attached with verification memo bears correct CO number as 22/17. The relevant page of crime register, Ex.DW6/A clearly shows that the CO number 7/17 was given to some other complaint CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 91 CC No. : 187/2019 bearing name of informant as Sandeep Kumar while CO number 22/17 is given to present complaint and name of informant is Vakeel Ahmed. Thus, it is clear that CO number 7/17 was written on Verification Memo due to mistake or is a typographical error. Further on 16.02.2017 there was no reason for complainant to give complaint when even the damages were not deposited by Mohd. Laiq (damages were deposited on 06.03.2017) and there was no question of issuing No Dues Certificate. No doubt there is some overwriting in the crime register but it does not affect the prosecution case and in no manner support the defence taken by the accused that manipulation was done by CBI.
150. Ld. Counsel for accused No. 1 also contended that there is discrepancy in the site plan as the positions of different team members of CBI has not been shown correctly. It is also submitted that Shri Sanjay Upadhyay, who has prepared the site plan, has not been examined. It is apparent that the team members of the trap team were not static and must have been moving around otherwise same would have created suspicion and if there is any slight discrepancy in the site plan which is stated to be rough site plan, does not affect the case of the prosecution and these are the minor discrepancies. Even otherwise, it was a rough site plan and not the site plan prepared with measurement and as per scale. The prosecution has examined Shri Harnam Singh, the Trap Laying Officer CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 92 CC No. : 187/2019 and he has stated about the rough site plan, Ex. PW8/G and about his position in above said rough site plan. PW8 Shri Shri Vakeel Ahmed has proved the site plan as well as his signatures on the site plan.
151. Ld. Counsel for accused no.1 also contended that videography of the trap proceedings was not done in accordance with CBI manual and further, the specimen voice was not recorded following the procedure prescribed in CBI Manual. It has been held in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP & Ors., Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 68 of 2008 by Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that Crime Manual is a set of administrative orders issued for internal guidance of CBI officials. It cannot supersede the Code. Even otherwise, the said manual does not make mandatory for CBI officials to conduct the videography of the said proceedings. Here, the contention of the counsel for CBI has force, that if video recording had been done through mobile phone by the CBI team, it would have alerted the accused and the entire trap would have failed. Further minor deviance from the procedure given in the CBI manual does not, in any manner, affects the case of the prosecution.
152. Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1 also contended that the CBI should have mixed the sample voice with the voices of other persons while taking sample voice of the accused. It is noted that PW13 Ramesh Kumar has stated that he had CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 93 CC No. : 187/2019 arranged new memory card and inserted the same in the DVR and thereafter introductory voices of both independent witnesses were recorded and thereafter accused D. R. Mehto was asked to give his specimen voice and he agreed for the same and the sample voice of D. R. Mehto was recorded in the memory card. It is clear from the testimony of PW13 Ramesh Kumar that he had recorded the specimen voice of accused after recording the introductory voices of the independent witnesses. The accused has given his specimen voice voluntarily. The non recording of voices of some other persons and mixing it with sample voice, shall not affect the prosecution case in view of aforesaid facts and circumstances.
153. Ld. Counsel for accused also contended that the transcriptions, Ex.PW18/B and Ex. PW8/S, are not as per the recorded conversation in the memory cards, Ex.PW8/P and Ex.PW8/R respectively. Here it is noted that some sentences of conversation recorded in memory cards are missing in the transcription, Ex.PW18/B and Ex.PW8/S. The aforesaid discrepancy does not affect the case of the prosecution as from the recorded conversation the demand of bribe money by the accused D. R. Mehto and acceptance of the money by D. R. Mehto is clearly reflecting and the missing sentences are not significant and material. Even otherwise the memory cards, Ex.PW8/P & Ex.PW8/R have already been proved by prosecution.
CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 94
CC No. : 187/2019
154. Now, the question would be regarding effect of aforesaid minor lapses on the prosecution case. These are minor lapses not going to root of the matter. Even otherwise, Law is well settled that benefit of the lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer in investigation cannot be granted to the accused particularly when the other facts and circumstances are clearly pointing out towards the guilt of the accused and there is sufficient material to establish guilt of the accused. Here it is relevant to refer the following judgments.
155. In case Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar, 1998(4) SCC 517, it was held that :-
"if primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigation, to the omission or lapses by perfunctory investigation or omissions, the faith and confidence of the people would be shaken not only in the law- enforcing agency, but, also in the administration of justice. The view was again reiterated in Amar Singh Vs. Blwinder Singh. As stated in Amar Singh case it would have been certainly better if the firearms were sent to the Forensic Test Laboratory for comparison. But the report of the ballistic expert would be in the nature of an expert opinion without any conclusiveness attached to it. When the direct testimony of the eyewitnesses corroborated by the medical evidence fully establishes the prosecution version, failure or omission or negligence on the part CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 95 CC No. : 187/2019 of the IO cannot affect the credibility of the prosecution version."
156. As their Lordship of Supreme Court in case Dhanaj Singh @ Shera and others v. State of Punjab (2004), Supreme Court Cases 654, is pleased to hold :
"Even if the investigation is defective, in view of the legal principles set out above, that pales into significance when ocular testimony is found credible and cogent. Further effect of non-examination of weapons of assault or the pellets, etc. in the background of defective investigation has been considered in Amar Singh case (2003) 2 SCC 518. In the case at hand, no crack in the evidence of the vital witnesses can be noticed."
157. And their lordship also relied upon it's own judgment passed in case Kernel Singh v. State of MP, 1995(5) SCC 518, wherein it was held :-
"In the case of a defective investigation the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective."
CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 96
CC No. : 187/2019
158. In case Paras Yadad v. State of Bihar (1999) 2SCC 126, it was held that :-
"if the lapse or omission is committed by the investigating agency or because of negligence, the prosecution evidence is required to be examined dehors such omissions to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not, the contaminated conduct of officials should not stand in the way of evaluating the evidence by the courts; otherwise the designed mischief would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party."
159. It has already been discussed in detail that demand of bribe amount on the part of the accused has been clearly established by the prosecution. The prosecution has established beyond doubt that accused D. R. Mehto has accepted the bribe money and recovery of bribe money has also been effected from him. The defence taken by the accused cannot be believed and is far from truth. The judgments cited by Ld. Counsel for accused, D. R. Mehto are of no help to the case of accused.
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT OFFENCE.
160. Now, I turn to the next point of determination as to whether accused no. 2 and accused no. 1 conspired to commit the offence as mentioned in section 7 of the P C Act, 1988.
CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 97
CC No. : 187/2019
161. Here, it is relevant to refer Sections 120A and 120B IPC, which read as under :-
'120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy.--When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,--
(1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. Explanation.--It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.' '120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.--(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.]'
162. To constitute a conspiracy, meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is the first and primary condition and it is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 98 CC No. : 187/2019 conspiracy. Neither is it necessary that every one of the conspirators takes active part in the commission of each and every conspiratorial acts. The agreement amongst the conspirators can be inferred by necessary implication. In most of the cases, the conspiracies are proved by the circumstantial evidence, as the conspiracy is seldom an open affair. The existence of conspiracy and its objects are usually deduced from the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the accused involved in the conspiracy. Criminal conspiracy is an independent offence in the Penal code. The unlawful agreement is sine qua non for constituting offence under the Penal Code and not an accomplishment. Conspiracy consists of the scheme or adjustment between two or more persons which may be express or implied or partly express or partly implied. Even Section 10 of the Evidence Act introduces the doctrine of agency and if the conditions laid down therein are satisfied, the act done by one is admissible against the co- conspirators.
163. Here, the testimonies of PW4, Shri Sada Shiv, Deputy Director, DDA, PW-5, Shri Swapan Kumar Nath, Office clerk/mate in DDA, PW-8, Shri Vakeel Ahmed, complainant, PW-10, Sh. Mohd. Laiq, PW-13, Shri Ramesh Kumar, PW-14, Shri Chander Kant, Manager, Vijaya Bank, Moti Nagar, New Delhi, PW-15, Shri Amitosh Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer, Grade-II (physics) cum Assistant Chemical Examiner, CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 99 CC No. : 187/2019 Government of India, CFSL, Delhi and PW18 Shri Saminder Singh, IO, are relevant for deciding the aforesaid point of determination.
164. The testimonies of these witnesses have already been discussed while deciding earlier points of determination. It has emerged from the testimonies of different witnesses and the documents on record that the matter regarding payment of dues against the property No.47, Ram Bagh Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, in the name of Mohd. Laiq Ahmed and Mohd. Ateeq was pending in DDA and the PW10 Mohd. Laiq had also filed an application for issuance of No Dues Certificate in respect of aforesaid property and said matter was dealt with by accused Satvir, Clerk and No Dues Certificate was with accused D. R. Mehto, Assistant Director, DDA. PW4 has exhibited the application dated 19.01.2017 filed by Mohd. Laiq for issuing No Dues Certificate, as Ex. PW4/A and different notes dated 06.02.2017 and 28.02.2017 as Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/C. PW4 has identified signature of Satvir Singh on said notes. Further, PW4 has also identified signature of accused D. R. Mehto on application dated 19.01.2017 filed by Mohd. Laiq, which D. R. Mehto put as a token of receipt of said application. PW5 Shri Swapan Kumar Nath has also identified signature of D. R. Mehto.
165. Having held that prosecution failed to prove the CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 100 CC No. : 187/2019 demand of bribe on the part of accused Satvir, there is no other evidence against accused Satvir except that Satvir was dealing with matter regarding deposit of damages in respect of property No. 47-A, Ram Bagh Road, Azad Market, Delhi in the name of Mohd. Laiq & Mohd. Ateeq and that he has gestured to meet D. R. Mehto when complainant went to Satvir at the time of verification proceedings. The No Dues Certificate was to be given by accused D. R. Mehto and he had kept it with him and did not get it dispatched or sent. Nothing has surfaced against accused Satvir during verification proceedings and trap proceedings. These facts are not sufficient to held that accused Satvir has conspired with accused D. R. Mehto in demanding and acceptance of bribe amount. Needless to say that accused Satvir was not present when trap was laid. Thus, both the accused persons are liable to be acquitted for the offence under section 120B IPC.
CONCLUSION
166. Thus, considering the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that :
(i) the prosecution has succeeded to bring home the guilt of accused No. 1, D. R. Mehto beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 101 CC No. : 187/2019 1988, which is punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, thus, I hereby hold the accused No.1, D. R. Mehto guilty thereunder.
(ii) The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused No. 2, Satvir Singh for the offences under section 7 and Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused no. 2, Satvir Singh is, accordingly, acquitted for the offences under section 7 and Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(iii) The prosecution has also failed to prove guilt of accused no.1, D. R. Mehto & accused no.2, Satvir Singh for the offence under section 120B IPC and hence, both the accused persons, namely accused no.1, D. R. Mehto & accused no. 2, Satvir Singh are acquitted for the offence under section 120B IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (ARVIND KUMAR) ON 23rd DECEMBER, 2022. Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)10 Rouse Avenue Courts Complex New Delhi.(pk) CBI v. Dhani Ram Mehto & Anr. Page no. 102