Delhi District Court
Reliance On Surajmal vs . State (Air 1979 Sc Page 1408) And on 26 May, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. M.R. Sethi:
SPECIAL JUDGE-IV, (PC ACT) CBI: DELHI.
CC No. 02/2009(Old)
CC NO. 18/2010 (New)
ID No. 02401R0000422001
CBI
Versus
Prem Chand Manroy,
S/O Shri D.R. Manroy,
R/o.RZ-84, Manas Kunj,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi
posted as Junior Engineer
(Electrical), DVB, B-I,
Janakpuri, New Delhi
..Accused
Case arising out of:
FIR No. RC.36(A)/2001-DLI/SPE/CBI,
ACB, New Delhi
Case is more than 10 years old
Accused is a senior citizen.
Date of FIR : 09.05.2001
Date of Institution : 04.12.2001
Date of Final Arguments : 16.05.2012
Date of Judgment : 26.05.2012
CC No. 18/2010 Page1 of 34
JUDGMENT:
1 FIR in this case came to be registered on basis of a written complaint made by one Shri Om Prakash Chugh claiming therein that one P.C. Manroy posted as J.E. DVB had demanded bribe of Rs.6,000/- from him for removal of electric meter installed at Factory Premises of the complainant. It had been claimed that the Factory was situated in residential area and was closed down six months back and order for removal of the meter had been passed by the Competent Authority on 02.05.2001 but the accused P.C. Manroy was threatening not to remove the meter till he was paid sum of Rs.6000/- and as such the complainant would have to pay meter rent for an additional period of six months. It was further mentioned in the complaint that after negotiation, the matter was settled for Rs.4000/- to be paid to P.C. Manroy. As the complainant was not interested in paying the bribe amount, he lodged a complaint with CBI, ACB, New Delhi.
2 After registration of FIR, proceedings for laying trap for apprehending the accused were initiated by Inspector S.K. Lal who after verifying contents of the complaint formed a trap team consisting of himself, CBI officials, independent witnesses Jitender Kumar, Prabhu, Dinesh Grewal and the complainant.
3 During pre-trap proceedings conducted in Office of CBI, a demonstration was given to members of the trap team regarding use of Phenolphthalein treated currency notes, solution of Sodium Carbonate, etc. The Phenolphthalein treated currency notes were handed over to the complainant with direction to hand over the same to the accused on his specific demand or as per his direction. Public CC No. 18/2010 Page2 of 34 witness Shri Jitender Kumar was deputed to act as a shadow witness to give the pre-appointed signal after completion of bribe transaction. It was further case of the prosecution that a Mike cum Transmitter Recorder alongwith a blank audio cassette was arranged for recording conversation which might take place between complainant and the accused. A Digital Voice Recorder was also provided to the complainant for the same. It was further case of the prosecution that the trap team proceeded to Office of the accused for completing the transaction but the transaction could not take place there as the accused allegedly asked the complainant to reach the premises from where the meter was to be removed and that the accused would send his worker there. It was claimed that accordingly the trap team proceeded to factory premises of the complainant where co-accused Rampat (since deceased) reached. It was claimed that the complainant refused to hand over bribe amount to Rampat there and accordingly, the complainant, shadow witness Shri Jitender, Dinesh and Rampat returned back to DVB Office. Other members of the trap team reportedly took position outside the Office. As per claim of prosecution, accused P.C. Manroy directed the complainant by way of gesture to hand over the bribe amount to co-accused Rampat from whose possession the said amount was recovered when the trap team raided the Office premises on receipt of pre-appointed signal. It was further claimed that the bribe amount was recovered from Kurta pocket of accused Rampat and his hand washes taken in solution of Sodium Carbonate turned pink. The pocket wash of Kurta of Rampat also reportedly turned pink. After the required proceedings were conducted in Office of accused Manroy, the voices recorded were converted into cassettes, transcripts prepared and accused arrested. The washes were subsequently sent to CFSL which reportedly confirmed presence of Phenolphthalein powder in the two hand washes. The recorded CC No. 18/2010 Page3 of 34 voices and the transcript were alleged to have supported case of the prosecution regarding the accused having demanded and accepted bribe.
4 After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against both the accused persons. Vide order dated 6.12.2003 my Ld. Predecessor was pleased to order framing of charge against both the accused persons for having committed offences punishable U/s 120B IPC read with Section 7 & 13 (1)(d) PC Act and also for the substantive offences under PC Act. Charge were accordingly framed on 8.1.2004. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5 During course of proceedings, accused Rampat reportedly expired on 9.11.2009 and after verification of his death, proceedings against him stood abated w.e.f 20.1.2010 as per order passed by my Ld. Predecessor whereby his name was deleted from list of accused persons.
6 During course of trial, in order to prove its allegations against the accused persons, prosecution examined the competent authority PW-1 N.P. Singh who proved the sanction orders Ex. PW-1/A in respect of P.C. Manroy and Ex. PW-1/B in respect of accused Rampat.
7 During course of cross examination witness admitted that a draft for prosecution sanction had been put up before him by Director, Vigilance and he had gone through the draft and after satisfying himself had granted the sanction. He admitted that he had not mentioned in his order nor did he remember details of documents seen by him. He also did not remember if the statements of CC No. 18/2010 Page4 of 34 witnesses were recorded in English or Hindi. He denied the suggestion that he had granted the sanction without application of mind or that the sanction granted by him was verbatum reproduction of the draft sanction. He further admitted that the sanction order was not prepared on his dictation. He claimed that he might have carried out some corrections in the draft if necessary.
8 PW-2 Shri K.S. Chabra proved FSL report Ex. PW-2/A. He claimed that out of the three bottles received, the LHW & RHW gave positive test for sodium carbonate and Phenolphthalein while the third bottle Mark LSUPKW gave positive test for sodium carbonate but negative test for Phenolphthalein.
9 During course of cross examination he claimed that the work sheet Ex. PW-2/DA was in handwriting of his Assistant Vijay Prem. While admitting that CFSL was administratively under CBI, he denied the suggestion that his report was biased.
10 The shadow witness Jitender Kumar was examined as PW-3. During course of his examination in chief he claimed that on 9.5.2001 he alongwith Prabhu had gone to CBI Office and had reported to the ACP. He claimed that complainant was also present there and the complaint was shown to them. He specifically claimed that they did not talk to the complainant. He claimed that currency notes of Rs.3000/- consisting of Rs.100/- each were shown to them and their numbers were noted down on a sheet which was also signed by them. He further claimed that the currency notes were treated with some powder and were touched by one CBI official who dipped his fingers in some solution which turned pink. It was claimed that the said solution was thrown away and the currency notes handed over to the complainant with direction to the witness to CC No. 18/2010 Page5 of 34 remain with the complainant. He claimed that he was directed to give signal by coming out after money was received by the accused. A pen type transmitter was claimed to have been given to the complainant for recording conversation. He claimed that their voices were recorded in the recording machine and the entire pre-trap proceedings were recorded in handing over memo Ex. PW-3/A. Witness identified his signature on the same. He further claimed that they all left CBI office at 2.30 or 3.00 PM and reached Janak Puri Nangli Jali near DESU office where he and the complainant went inside and met one J.E. He claimed that on being asked, complainant introduced him as his friend. Witness further claimed that there was some talk about disconnection of electricity and JE stated that his mechanic would come. He claimed that the said mechanic reached at 6.00 PM and thereafter he and the complainant reached the house where connection was to be disconnected. CBI officials were also claimed to have been directed to reach there. He further stated that complainant told the mechanic to disconnect the connection and take the money whereupon the mechanic claimed that he would disconnect the connection after JE reaches. It was claimed that JE came there and directed the complainant to come to his office whereupon witness and the complainant went to office of JE where the complainant once again asked the JE to take money. Witness claimed that one more person was also there but he left the room. It was claimed that the complainant took out currency notes of Rs.3000/- and handed over the same to JE but JE indicated the complainant to give money to the Mistry who accepted the same and after counting, put the money in his shirt pocket. Witness claimed that he came out and gave the signal.
11 After seeking permission from the court, the witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his cross CC No. 18/2010 Page6 of 34 examination witness admitted that his statement was recorded by Inspector S.K. Lal. He further admitted having read over the complaint and that the complainant Om Parkash had produced Rs. 3000/- in the CBI office. He claimed that he did not remember if Prabhu had touched currency notes and dipped his fingers in the solution during demonstration proceedings. He denied the suggestion that Dinesh Kumar was also directed to remain with them and see the transaction. He admitted that the complainant was directed to give signal on mobile phone of CBI after completion of transaction of bribe and that he was directed to give signal by scratching his head with both hands. He claimed that he could not say if a digital recorder was given to complainant besides the pen type recorder. Witness admitted that CBI team had left the office at 3.45 PM and reached DESU office Janak Puri at 4.30 PM. He admitted that the complainant was directed to switch on the recorder before conversing with the accused and that ear phone alongwith recording machine had been given to Prabhu. He claimed that he could not say if SI Prem Nath had been directed to remain with Prabhu for helping him. Witness admitted that Rampat came to Nangli Gali at about 5.30 PM and talked with the complainant. He denied the suggestion that Rampat demanded Rs.4000/- from the complainant. He further denied the suggestion that Rampat told the complainant that he had been sent by P.C. Manroy to collect money on his behalf. He admitted that they all went back to office room of P.C. Manroy who was found busy with some persons and after some time complainant talked about his work whereupon P.C. Manroy told him that his work would be done and demanded Rs.4000/- from complainant. He claimed that the complainant stated that he was having only Rs.3000/- with him and balance of Rs.1000/- would be given later on. He claimed that P.C. Manroy directed the complainant to give money to Rampat who took the money with right hand and CC No. 18/2010 Page7 of 34 after counting it with both his hands, put the money in pocket of kurta. He admitted that after receipt of signals, Inspector S.K. Lal alongwith CBI team rushed inside and challenged Rampat for having demanded and accepted Rs.3000/- which he admitted. He further admitted that the three washes were preserved in separate bottles which were sealed and labled. One Inspector was claimed to have taken out Rs.3000/- bribe amount from kurta pocket of Rampat. Witness claimed that he did not remember if Prabhu had taken out the currency notes from the kurta pocket. He admitted that the digital recorder was played and they heard the conversation and another cassette was also played and conversation heard. He admitted that copy from the Digital Recorder was prepared by S.I. Prem Nath. Both the accused were claimed to have been arrested and their personal search conducted vide Memos Ex. PW-3/B & C. Witness also identified his signature on Recovery Memo Ex. PW-3/D and the Site Plan Ex. PW-3/E. Search of Office of accused P.C. Manroy was claimed to have been conducted vide Memo Ex. PW-3/F and his Scooter claimed to have been searched vide Memo Ex. PW-3/G. Letter dated 02.05.2001 (Ex. PW-3/H) was claimed to have been recovered from the Scooter. He further claimed that on 28.08.2001 transcript Ex. PW-3/I was prepared. He also identified his signature on the transcript and the Voice Identification Memo dated 28.08.2001 i.e. Ex. PW-3/J. General Diary Register of DVB was claimed to have been seized vide Memo Ex. PW-3/F. Witness also identified the currency notes Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-30, Right hand wash bottle Ex.P-31, Left hand wash bottle Ex.P-32 and Kurta Wash Ex.P-32 (should be 33). Kurta was identified as Ex.P-34. Cloth wrappers used on the glass bottles were identified as Ex.P-35 to Ex.P-37 and witness identified his initials on the same.
CC No. 18/2010 Page8 of 34
12 During course of cross-examination witness claimed
having received instructions from his Office at 2.10 P.M. and having reached CBI Office at 2.45 /3.00 P.M. He claimed that he had not asked any question from the complainant in respect of allegations made in the complaint. He could not tell name of the CBI Officer who gave the demonstration. He denied the suggestion that it was so as no demonstration was given by any Officer. He claimed that they had started from CBI Office between 3.00 to 4.00 P.M. in two Vehicles and had reached Office of the accused at about 4.00 / 4.15 P.M. He specifically claimed that he had not taken search of Prabhu Dayal and that even Prabhu Dayal had not searched him. He claimed that even search of complainant was not taken in CBI Office. He denied the suggestion that proceedings recorded in the Memo Ex.PW-3/A were incorrect or that he had signed it without going through the same. He admitted that the Pen Type Tape Recorder as also the other Recorder had not been shown to him in Court. He claimed that the complainant had offered money to the accused who refused to accept the same stating that his Mistris had not come and that they would talk after the Mistris come. He claimed that thereafter they waited in Office of accused for about an hour and then the Mistry came and he alongwith complainant and the Mistri had gone to the factory. He further stated that in the factory, the complainant tried to give money to the Mistri who refused to accept the same. He claimed that he did not remember whether or not P.C. Manroy had reached the factory at that time. Witness claimed that they had remained in the factory for about 10 minutes and then had returned back to Office of Manroy at about 6.00 P.M. He claimed that the complainant had not tried to pay money to Mistri in the factory premises nor did Rampat demand money from complainant in the factory premises. He claimed that he could neither admit nor deny CC No. 18/2010 Page9 of 34 that accused P.C. Manroy had visited the factory premises in his presence on the day of occurrence. He admitted that the accused P.C. Manroy had not demanded any money in the factory premises in his presence as he had not visited the same. Witness claimed that he had not stated in his statement to the I.O. that the complainant told the Mistri to disconnect the connection and take money whereupon Mistry stated that he would disconnect the connection only after J.E. reached and that J.E. came there and directed the complainant to come to his Office. Witness was confronted with portion A to A of his statement Ex. PW-3/X in that regard. He could not say whether this version had also not been recorded in the tape recorded conversation. He claimed that he had given the signal about 15 to 20 minutes after their reaching the Office, after complainant had given money to accused J.E. He claimed that both the accused were present in the room at that time. He denied the suggestion that A.E. Shri M.L. Anand was also present in the Office of accused or that he had left the Office on being threatened by CBI. While referring to the Site Plan Ex. PW-3/E, witness claimed that no person standing at point DX on the Site Plan could see the position of accused J.E. sitting in his Office nor hear the conversation going inside the Office. He denied the suggestion that he was standing at the said point DX. He claimed that he could not say as to how many cassettes were prepared in respect of the trap proceedings. He claimed that accused P.C. Manroy had directed the complainant to give money to accused Rampat by saying 'Usko Dedo'. He denied the suggestion that accused Rampat had not received money i.e. the bribe amount on anybody's direction or instance. He denied the suggestion that no money was recovered from him. He claimed that no transcription was prepared in his presence and no transcription of tape recording done during the raid was ever shown to him and therefore he had not signed any such document regarding CC No. 18/2010 Page10 of 34 transcription of tape recording done at the spot. He claimed that fresh clothes had been summoned from house of accused Rampat for his wearing. He denied the suggestion that no Kurta of accused Rampat was taken into possession.
13 After seeking permission from the Court, the witness was re-examined by ld. PP for CBI in respect of the discrepancy qua transcript appearing in his statements recorded on 17.03.2008 and 09.05.2005 whereupon witness claimed that his statement recorded on 09.05.2005 (cross-examination by ld. PP for CBI) was correct. Witness also identified his signatures on the cassette and the cover. He also identified the accused persons. During further cross- examination by accused persons, he denied the suggestion of having deposed falsely under pressure of CBI.
14 PW-4 Shri Om Prakash Chugh was the complainant. During course of his examination-in-chief, he reiterated facts as had been alleged by prosecution in the Charge Sheet. He also supported his complaint. He further claimed that after receipt of order regarding removal of the meter, he had gone to the Zonal Office but finding no one there, he came back to his factory premises and handed over the said order to his landlord Shri Dinesh Kumar. He further claimed that Dinesh Kumar had then gone to the Zonal Office and on return informed him that one Manroy was demanding money for doing the work and asked the witness to contact Manroy. He further claimed that he went to Manroy who demanded money and then settlement was reached at Rs.4000/-. He proved his complaint Ex.PW-4/A and deposed about the demonstration during pre-trap proceedings and the proceedings conducted thereafter. He claimed that it was PW Prabhu who had touched the currency notes during the demonstration. He further claimed that they had left the CBI Office CC No. 18/2010 Page11 of 34 at about 3.30 or 3.34 P.M. and had reached DESU Office, Janakpuri at about 4.30 or 4.45 P.M. He further stated that on direction of Manroy he again went back to factory premises where Lineman Rampat came and stated that Manroy had sent him to bring Rs. 4000/-. Witness claimed that he refused to give money to Rampat claiming that he would give it to Manroy. He claimed that on returning back to DESU Office Manroy demanded bribe by giving gesture and also made a gesture to hand over the money to Rampat. Witness claimed that he gave Rs.3000/- to Rampat and claimed that Rs.1000/- would be given later on. He further claimed that when Rampat was putting the money in his pocket, he asked Rampat to count the money who after counting the same put the money in the upper left pocket of Kurta. Thereafter, witness deposed about post trap proceedings that took place and about recovery of money from Rampat. He also stated about preparation of various documents which had already been proved by PW-3 and identified his signature on the same. He also identified the case property and also verified correctness of the transcript prepared. He also identified the cassettes.
15 During course of cross-examination, witness claimed that the electricity meter in the factory was in the name of his land lady Ganga Devi. He could not say if the meter in question could not have been removed without clearance from the Meter Testing Department (MTD). He further claimed having reached CBI Office at about 11.30 /11.45 A.M and that Dinesh Kumar was also with him. He claimed that he did not know as to what was there in pockets of Dinesh Kumar and that their personal search was not conducted in CBI office. He also did not recollect if search of public witnesses was conducted before they left CBI office. He denied the suggestion that no demonstration was given in the CBI office or that he had not CC No. 18/2010 Page12 of 34 signed any document in CBI office before leaving for the trap. He further claimed that they had left CBI office at 3.30 PM and had reached office of accused at 4.30 PM. He claimed that Dinesh and one CBI officer were sitting with him in his car. He further claimed having remained with the accused in his office for about 10 minutes and that thereafter accused Manroy simply asked him to reach the factory. He denied the suggestion that when they returned back to office of Manroy, AE Shri M.L. Anand was found sitting in the office or that he left after being threatened by CBI officers. He claimed that Jitender was standing on his left side inside the room while Dinesh was just outside the room of accused Manroy. He claimed that the documents regarding the proceedings were prepared at the spot. He denied the suggestion that he was misusing the meter or that in order to save penalty he falsely implicated accused P.C. Manroy. He denied the suggestion that he wanted to get the meter removed without clearance from the MTD for which accused Manroy was not prepared. He further denied the suggestion that Rampat had not come to the factory premises for collecting any money or that he infact had never received any money. He further claimed having signed the transcript Ex. PW-3/I after satisfying himself. He claimed that AE Shri Anand had reached office of the accused at the time of post trap proceedings.
16 PW-5 Jagdish Mistry during course of his examination in chief stated the procedure about removal of a three phase meter. He claimed having visited the site in question on 4.5.01 and as he was not authorized to remove the meter, he claimed having submitted a report to accused P.C. Manroy in that regard.
17 During course of cross examination witness claimed that the electric supply to the meter had already been disconnected from CC No. 18/2010 Page13 of 34 the pole by the party. He further admitted that Rampat was a Mazdoor under Bathu Lineman.
18 PW-6 Shri M.L. Anand deposed about the procedure for removal of a single phase meter and a three phase meter. He claimed that order dated 2.5.01 (Ex. PW-3/H) had been received by Zonal Office and marked by him to P.C. Manroy on 3.5.01 for execution of the disconnection order. He further claimed that on 9.5.01 he had gone to room of P.C. Manroy at about 6.00 PM for passing on some instructions and while he was doing so, two persons were standing in the room and one of them asked for his identity and advised him to go to his room. He claimed that the said man was from CBI. He also identified his signatures on the scooter search memo Ex .PW-3/G and office search memo Ex. PW-3/F. 19 During course of cross examination witness admitted that as per Ex. PW-3/H the meter was being misused by the consumer and the electricity supply was lying disconnected. He claimed that he could not say if any penalty was imposed or charged in this case.
20 PW-7 Dinesh Kumar during course of his examination in chief claimed that the complainant Om Parkash was his tenant. During course of his examination in chief, witness supported allegations of prosecution against the accused persons. He however claimed that after receipt of disconnection order he had accompanied Om Parkash to DVB Office and had subsequently handed over the order to accused P.C. Manroy who assured that meter would be removed after disconnecting the line. He claimed that on the second day some labourer from DVB came to his premises but as it was a power connection, they did not remove the meter claiming that it would be inspected by P.C. Manroy before it CC No. 18/2010 Page14 of 34 was disconnected. He claimed that on the same evening P.C. Manroy came to his premises at about 2/3.00 PM in his absence and checked the meter and went back after instructing his wife to send him (witness) to his office. Witness claimed that when he went to office of accused on the next day, accused demanded Rs.6000/- as "kharcha paani" and after coming back he talked about the same with his tenant Om Parkash where-after both of them went to office of Manroy who ultimately agreed to accept Rs.4,000/-. Thereafter, witness deposed about demonstration done during pre trap proceedings and about going to office of accused and about the trap incident. He claimed that they all had gone to Office of accused at Janakpuri where the complainant and Prabhu Dayal had gone inside the Office while he remained outside and then money was given by Om Prakash to the accused. He claimed that he came to know about it when he alongwith CBI Officers entered the Office. (Examination- in-chief of the witness was deferred at that stage and on the next date the witness claimed that from the CBI Office they had reached DESU Office where he alongwith Om Prakash and Jitender Kumar went and met PC Manroy who told Om Prakash to go to his house where Manroy would reach to inspect the Meter. Witness claimed that they all went to his house where the Meter was installed and after sometime P.C. Manroy alongwith Rampat reached and checked the Meter. He claimed that P.C. Manroy asked Om Prakash to take (give) bribe to accused Rampat as he himself was going but Om Prakash stated that payment would only be made in the Office. He claimed that thereafter they all reached DESU Office. He then deposed about what had happened after the bribe was given). Witness also identified his signatures on the documents prepared at the spot and also identified the Case Property.
CC No. 18/2010 Page15 of 34
21 During course of cross-examination witness claimed that
the factory was closed in the year 2000. He denied the suggestion that supply to the Meter was already disconnected by DVB. Witness further claimed that P.C. Manroy had demanded bribe about 1 week prior to the raid and that Om Prakash was with him at that time. He denied the suggestion that no bribe had been demanded by the accused at that stage. Witness further claimed that having reached CBI Office alognwith Om Prakash at 10.00 A.M. on the day raid was conducted. He denied the suggestion that no demonstration was conducted in CBI Office in his presence. He further claimed that they all had left the CBI Office in two Govt. Vehicles at about 12.00 Noon. He claimed that he himself was in his private Maruti Car alongwith the complainant Om Prakash & two independent witnesses. He claimed that they had reached Office of accused at about 1.30 P.M. He denied the suggestion that neither the CBI team had left the Office at 12.00 Noon nor had they reached Office of the accused at 1.30 P.M. He claimed that they returned back to his residence at about 2.00 P.M. and both the accused persons came there at 2.15 P.M. He claimed that they both remained there for about 10 to 15 minutes before leaving for their Office. He claimed that the trap team had reached Office of the accused after about 25 minutes. He claimed that as he was standing outside, he could not see the accused persons and did not know about the transaction that took place between the complainant and the accused persons. He further claimed that the accused had been apprehended at about 3.30 P.M. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons had been falsely implicated as he alongwith the complainant wanted the Meter to be removed without clearance of MTD. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
CC No. 18/2010 Page16 of 34
22 PW-7 was again recalled for cross-examination after
seeking permission from the Court and during course of his such cross-examination, witness claimed that the he knew accused Rampat since his childhood. He denied the suggestion that the Meter was installed for purpose of tube-well and was being used for running a factory. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
23 PW-8 Shri S.K. Lal was the Trap Laying Officer who claimed that on 09.05.2001 complaint of Om Prakash was marked to him for verification and for laying a trap. Witness proved the FIR Ex.PW-8/A and also deposed about the pre-trap demonstration and preparation of Handing Over Memo. He claimed that at about 3.45 P.M. he left CBI Office and proceeded to Office of the accused. He also stated about the trap team going to the factory of the complainant and thereafter returning back to office of accused. He also stated about apprehension of both the accused persons but specifically claimed that he could not identify any of the accused. He claimed that he could not identify the accused as incident had taken place eight years back.
24 After seeking permission from the court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI wherein he admitted that accused P.C. Manroy, who had been specifically pointed out by Ld. PP, was the person for whom trap was laid.
25 Witness thereafter stated about the hand washes and Kurta pocket wash being taken, about preparing copy of the conversation, preparation of site plan and about all other facts which had been alleged by the prosecution. He also identified the case property.
CC No. 18/2010 Page17 of 34
26 During course of cross examination witness claimed that
as per his knowledge the complainant had come to the CBI office prior to 11.40 AM. Witness claimed that he had not made any inquiry if any charges/rent was due in respect of the disconnected electricity connection. He claimed that he was not aware about visit of Jagdish Mistry to factory of the complainant on 4.5.2001. He claimed that it took about one hour in conducting pre-trap proceedings and that the trap team had assembled at about 2.00 PM. He denied the suggestion that no pre-trap proceeding was conducted in the CBI office. He claimed that they had left the CBI office at about 3.45 PM in two vehicles but he could not say if the vehicles were Jeeps or Cars. He claimed having reached the spot after 4.00 PM and stated that accused Manroy was arrested at about 6.10 PM. He further claimed that P.C. Manroy had not visited factory of the complainant in his presence on 9.5.2001. He denied the suggestion that the recovery memo was prepared in CBI office. He claimed that the site plan Ex. PW-3/E reflected positions of trap team members which they were occupying at the time of receipt of information regarding acceptance of bribe money. He claimed that Rampat was present inside the door of office of accused Manroy when bribe money was recovered from him. He denied the suggestion that accused P.C. Manroy did not demand any bribe or had been falsely implicated.
27 PW-9 was the other independent witness Prabhu who during course of his examination in chief reiterated story of prosecution as regards conduct of pre-trap demonstration. He claimed that after leaving the CBI office they had reached electricity office, Janak Puri at about 4.00/4.30 PM. He specifically claimed that from there they had gone to house of Dinesh where the complainant Om Parkash, Jitender and Dinesh went in while they all CC No. 18/2010 Page18 of 34 remained outside. He claimed that while they were standing outside house of Dinesh, he did not see any fourth person coming there. He further stated about Jitender having given the appointed signal after the bribe transaction took place after return to office of DVB. He further claimed having taken out currency notes from upper pocket of kurta of accused (Rampat). He also identified the case property and stated about the recordings being transferred to cassettes. He also deposed about other proceedings which took place in office of DVB. He specifically claimed that accused Manroy present in court and one more person had been arrested as Manroy had told the complainant to deliver money to the other man and that he would take it from him later on. He claimed that this was recorded in the cassette and he had himself heard it. He also stated about the transcript having been prepared.
28 After seeking permission from the court witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI wherein he admitted that he had gone to Office of CBI on 11.05.2001 when his statement was recorded. He claimed having told CBI Officer that after Jitender, O.P. Chugh and Dinesh came out of Office of DVB for the first time, they had told the CBI Inspector that accused Manroy had told them to go to premises where Meter was installed and that he would be sending his man there. He claimed that it was due to memory loss that he had earlier claimed that he did not see anyone going inside or coming out of the house.
29 During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accused, witness claimed that he had never acted as a witness in any other CBI case. He claimed having reached CBI Office at 2.30 / 3.00 PM. He could not say from where the powder, tumbler, etc. had been procured. He further claimed that he did not conduct personal CC No. 18/2010 Page19 of 34 search of Jitender nor was he personally searched. He further stated that they all had left CBI Office in two Vans. He could not say if the same were Private or official Vehicles and claimed having reached Office of the accused at 4.35 P.M. He reiterated that he did not see any persons other than the team members going inside house of Dinesh or coming out during the period they stood there. He claimed that while standing outside office of the accused he could not see the accused nor could he hear the conversation. He claimed that when he entered room of the accused, only the accused and Rampat were present there and were sitting across each other. He claimed that he had heard the cassette in which it was recorded that P.C. Manroy told complainant to hand over money to Rampat from whom he shall collect it later on. He claimed that he would not be able to tell name of the person who had called Rampat from his house on the date of raid. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
30 PW-10 Inspector Ranjit Singh was the Investigating Officer of the case who during course of his examination in chief reiterated allegations of prosecution against the accused. He claimed that during course of investigation both the accused refused to give their specimen voice. He further claimed having recorded statements of witnesses and having obtained sanction order.
31 During course of cross examination witness claimed that the meter in question was a poly phase meter. He was not aware if electricity supply had already been disconnected by Department prior to the raid. He denied the suggestion that accused could not have removed the meter without clearance of MTD. He claimed that he was not aware if the meter in question had been removed after the raid. He specifically claimed that no specific opinion was taken from CFSL regarding tampering of the cassette or doctoring thereof.
CC No. 18/2010 Page20 of 34 He denied the suggestion that it was so as the cassette was manipulated and doctored object. He claimed that the site plan Ex.PW-3/E depicted the situation when the bribe was demanded, accepted and recovered. He denied the suggestion that the raiding party members had failed to apprehend the accused or that the present charge sheet had been filed without application of mind with a view to justify registration of FIR.
32 After examination of PW-10, Ld. PP for CBI closed prosecution evidence whereafter statement of accused P.C. Manroy was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. During course of his statement accused denied the allegations against him. He claimed that the sanction against him was invalid. He claimed that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case through implication of Rampat since the trap party failed to directly implicate him in this case as he did not demand any money from the complainant. He claimed that the complainant wanted removal of his electricity meter without clearance of MTD which was not possible. Accused chose to lead defence evidence and infact examined Shri Prem Parkash Gupta in his defence.
33 DW-1 Shri P.P. Gupta claimed that he had joined DVB as Inspector in 1973 and retired as AE in 2003. He stated about the procedure of removal of a poly-phase meter.
34 During cross examination by Ld. PP for CBI witness claimed that he had never worked in the Meter Testing Division but had read its Rules. He claimed that he was not aware of the year when the incident in question took place. He claimed that he did not have any knowledge about the present case and had not even come to know in 2001 that P.C. Manroy had been caught by CBI.
CC No. 18/2010 Page21 of 34
35 No other witness was examined in defence.
36 During course of his submissions, it was submitted by
Ld. PP for CBI that the incident in question stood proved during deposition of PW-3,4,7,8 & 9. It was submitted that accused P.C. Manroy and Rampat (since deceased) had entered into a conspiracy whereunder sum of Rs.6000/- was demanded from the complainant for removal of electricity meter installed in his factory and that the said amount of Rs.6000/- after negotiation was fixed as Rs.4000/-. It was submitted that as the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he filed a complaint in CBI whereupon a trap was laid. While referring to evidence on record, it was submitted that during course of the raid proceedings, accused P.C. Manroy had gestured the complainant to hand over the bribe amount of Rs.3000/- which was brought by the complainant, to co-accused Rampat, who put the same in pocket of his kurta. It was submitted by Ld. PP that Rampat had accepted the money on directions of accused P.C. Manroy. It was pointed out that now that Rampat had expired, prosecution had duly proved its case against the accused P.C. Manroy.
37 Ld. Counsel for the accused on the other hand while referring to testimonies of members of the trap team i.e. PW-3,4,7,8 & 9 submitted that there were material contradictions in testimonies of these witnesses. It was pointed out that the contradictions in the testimonies started from the point when the alleged complaint was made to CBI by the complainant and continued till alleged apprehension of the accused and even thereafter. It was submitted that there was nothing on record to support claim of prosecution regarding the alleged conversation or the cassette prepared in that regard. While referring to documents on record, it was submitted CC No. 18/2010 Page22 of 34 that no report was sought from CFSL regarding genuineness of the cassette. It was submitted that no voice identification was done in this case. It was submitted that there was utter confusion in this case as to whether the demand of bribe had been made to the witness Om Parkash or Dinesh as both had individually claimed the demand having been made from him. While referring to the Sanction Order, it was submitted by ld. Counsel that testimony of PW-1 made it apparent that there was non-application of mind of the Competent Authority in passing the Sanction Order. Ld. Counsel further submitted that there was no clarity in the prosecution evidence regarding number of cassettes prepared in this case as the Handing Over Memo mentioned only about one cassette being taken to the spot while PW-3 mentions about two cassettes and PW-4 had identified three cassettes i.e. Ex.PW-4/B, C & D being produced in Court. It was further submitted that admittedly no specific demand of bribe had been made by accused P.C. Manroy as none was reflected in the audio cassette or the transcript.
38 Ld. Counsel during course of his submissions placed reliance on Surajmal Vs. State (AIR 1979 SC page 1408) and submitted that in case of bribery, mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence is not reliable. It was further submitted that when witnesses make inconsistent statements, their testimonies become unreliable and unworthy of credence. Regarding acceptability of the audio cassette evidence, ld. Counsel placed reliance on Ram Singh & others Vs. Colonel Ram Singh (AIR 1986 Supreme Court page 3). As per ld. Counsel, the conditions for admissibility of a tape recorded statement as laid down in the said judgment were not fulfilled in the present case.
CC No. 18/2010 Page23 of 34
39 Ld. PP on the other hand referred to MO Shamshudeen
Vs. State (1995 Crimes page 282) in support of his contention that in cases where circumstantial evidence exists to prove guilt of the accused, independent corroboration of testimonies of witnesses was not necessary.
40 This Court has given thoughtful consideration to arguments advanced, evidence adduced, documents produced and judicial pronouncements relied upon by both sides.
41 In cases of illegal gratification, prosecution is necessarily required to establish three ingredients. Firstly, it must be shown that the official concerned was in a position to perform certain official acts from which the aggrieved party would have received some benefit. Secondly, that the official concerned had agreed to perform those acts and accept money as reward thereof. Thirdly, that the money had been paid to the official as bribe and was subsequently recovered.
42 It was observed in Sunil Chand Chauhan Vs. CBI [2005 (2) RCR page 152] that evidence has to be tested for its inherent consistency or inherent inconsistency in reference to the account as stated by one witness on being cross checked with the account as stated by the other witness. It was further observed that degree of proof cannot be stated in mathematical units but the guiding principle that the evidence must point only towards the guilt and should exclude innocence must never be lost sight of. In Sunil Kumar Sharma Vs. CBI [2007 (3) Crimes 161] it was observed that unless demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant charged under the Act are proved by prosecution beyond doubt, no presumption can be drawn in respect of guilt of the accused.
CC No. 18/2010 Page24 of 34
43 Coming back to facts of the present case, perusal of
record reveals some glaring contradictions which go to root of case of the prosecution thereby shaking it from the very foundations. It is settled principle of law that there is a long distance between "may be true" and "must be true" and the entire distance has to be covered by prosecution on its own on basis of legally admissible cogent and coherent evidence. Perusal of record reveals that the inconsistencies in case of the prosecution commenced from the time complaint is made to the CBI by the complainant and continue till the last. In the complaint dated 9.5.2001 (D-1) which had been proved as Ex.PW-4/A, the complainant had mentioned that order dated 2.5.2001 regarding removal of the meter had been handed over in office of DVB whereupon Yesterday (i.e. On 8.5.2001) P.C. Manroy had demanded Rs.6000/- from them. He had further claimed that after negotiation the amount was settled at Rs.4,000/-. Significantly, in the complaint dated 9.5.2001 lodged by the complainant with the CBI, not a word was mentioned about the alleged landlord Shri Dinesh Kumar. During course of testimony in court, the complainant when examined as PW-4 claimed that after returning from Zonal Office, he handed over order of removal of the meter to his landlord Dinesh Kumar who went to the Zonal Office and on return told the witness that one Manroy was demanding some money for the work. Witness claimed that he went to Manroy who demanded money from him. As per this witness he had gone to CBI office the next day. As such, as per testimony of PW-4, the demand had been made firstly to Dinesh Kumar and repeated to the witness on 8.5.2001. The aforesaid Dinesh Kumar when examined as PW-7 has a new story to tell. He had claimed during course of his examination in chief that he submitted the disconnection order to P.C. Manroy and on the next day some labour from DVB come to his premises who did not CC No. 18/2010 Page25 of 34 remove the meter and that Manroy visited his house on the same day at about 2.00/3.00 PM in his absence. Witness claimed that as Manroy had instructed his wife, witness went to office of Manroy on the next day when accused asked for "kharcha Paani" of Rs.6000/-. Witness claimed that he came back and on the next day he talked abut it with his tenant Om Parkash and then both of them went to the accused and met him in his office where ultimately accused agreed to accept Rs.4000/-.
44 During course of his cross examination witness clarifiedthat the demand of bribe had been made by Manroy one week prior to the raid. Now his this statement runs contrary to statement of complainant PW-4 and the complaint Ex. PW-4/A wherein it had been claimed that the demand was first made on 8.5.2001 while the raid was conducted on 9.5.01.
45 As per case of the prosecution, after the complaint was lodged with CBI, two independent witnesses were called in office of CBI who satisfied themselves about genuineness of the complaint by asking questions to the complainant. This fact finds mention in the handing over memo D-3 which is Ex.PW-3/A. Shri Jitender Kumar (PW-3) was one of those independent witnesses and he during course of his testimony specifically claimed that he had not asked any question from the complainant in respect of allegations made in the complaint. He specifically claimed having gone through and having signed the handing over memo Ex.PW-3/A but did not ask any question from the complainant.
46 During pre-trap proceedings, as per claim of the prosecution, all members of the trap team had mutually searched each other. This fact finds mention in the handing over memo CC No. 18/2010 Page26 of 34 Ex.PW-3/A. Testimonies of the two independent witnesses i.e. PW-3 Jitender Kumar and PW-9 Prabhu run contrary to the same. Both of them had claimed that they had not searched each other nor all the members of the trap team had been searched.
47 Thereafter, material contradictions appear on record regarding the time when the trap team left CBI office and when it reached office of the accused. Handing over memo Ex.PW-3/A mentions that the pre-trap proceedings were concluded by 3.30 PM and the trap team was preparing for leaving of the spot i.e. DVB office. As per recovery memo Ex.PW-3/D (D-4), the trap team had left CBI office at 3.45 PM. It is from this stage that the contradictions start appearing.
48 As per IO PW-8 Inspector S.K. Lal, the complaint was handed over to him at about 11.40 AM. It was thereafter that he summoned the two independent witnesses in CBI office and pre-trap proceedings were conducted. Now in this regard PW-4 claimed that he had reached CBI office at about 11.30/11.45 AM. PW-9 Prabhu the independent witness claimed having reached CBI office at 2.30/3.00 PM. Surprisingly, the other independent witness PW-7 Dinesh Kumar claimed that he alongwith Om Parkash had reached CBI office at 10.00 AM and the trap team had left for DVB office at 12.00 Noon and had reached there at 1.30 PM. He claimed that it was at 2.00 PM that they had returned back to their house from DVB office and that both the accused persons i.e. P.C. Manroy and Rampat (since deceased) reached his house at 2.15 PM. As per this witness, the accused persons were apprehended at about 3.30 PM. The entire prosecution story is dislodged by this witness as regards the timings are concerned. PW-3 the other independent witness claimed that he had reached CBI office at about 2.45/3.00 CC No. 18/2010 Page27 of 34 PM and they started from CBI office between 3.00 - 4.00 PM. As regards the time of departure from CBI office, PW-7 had claimed during course of his examination in chief recorded on 23.4.09 that the raiding party had left CBI office at about 12.00 Noon and had reached office of the accused at 1.30 PM. During course of his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused he specifically denied the suggestion that the CBI team had not left the office at 12.00 Noon or they had not reached office of the accused at 1.30 PM. Significantly the witness was neither cross examined nor re- examined by the prosecution in this regard. As per TLO (PW-8) accused was arrested at 6.10 PM.
49 As per case of the prosecution after introductory voices of the two independent witnesses were recorded on a blank cassette in office of CBI, a DVR alongwith a recording instrument had been handed over to the complainant for the purpose of recording conversation which might take place between the complainant and the accused. Prosecution wants this court to believe that the conversation was recorded in the DVR and then transferred to a cassette. No explanation has come forward as to why the said DVR which was the primary piece of evidence was not seized and was not made available for scrutiny of the court. It appears that the CBI on its own chose to do away with the primary piece of evidence and has sought to produce the secondary evidence i.e. copy of the original conversation before this court.
50 As the cassettes in this case had bee heard by my Ld. Predecessor during course of recording of evidence, this court did not have an occasion to go through the cassette. Accordingly, while hearing final arguments, the cassette was heard by this court. All the cassettes prepared were also heard by the court while dictating the CC No. 18/2010 Page28 of 34 judgment. As per case of prosecution, there were two cassettes i.e. Q-1 & Q-2 on which the conversation recorded had been transferred and copies thereof had also been prepared. The cassettes Q-1 & Q-2 had been heard by this court and compared with the transcript Ex. P3/I. It was apparent the conversation recorded in the two cassettes were not the same and besides differing interse the same also differed from the transcript. No explanation in this regard could be put forth by the CBI.
51 While on this, it would be apparent to point out that as per case of the prosecution the cassettes had never been sent to CFSL to check authenticity of the same. Investigating Officer during course of his cross examination had specifically claimed that the cassette in question had not been sent to CFSL for analysis. Even PW-10 Inspector Ajit Singh during course of his cross examination specifically admitted that no specific opinion was taken from CFSL regarding tampering of the cassette or doctoring thereof. He denied the suggestion that no specific opinion was deliberately taken since the cassettes were doctored and manipulated. It would be interesting and rather shocking to point out in this regard that during course of testimony of PW-4 recorded on 12.8.05, cassette had been taken out from a sealed packet duly sealed with seal of CFSL. When the cassettes in question were perused by this court during course of arguments, it had transpired that CFSL No. 2001/P-380 finds mention in the cassette covers. It is a mystery as to how the seal of CFSL came into existence on the packet cover when produced in court and how the CFSL No. find mention on the cassettes. The aforesaid, facts probablise defence being raised by the accused to the effect that the cassettes were tampered with and doctored and that report to that effect made by CFSL authorities had been deliberately with-held by the prosecuting agency. While on CC No. 18/2010 Page29 of 34 this, it would be pertinent to mention an observation made by this court that although the raid was conducted on 9.5.01 and the recorded conversation allegedly recorded on the same day, the transcript was prepared on 28.8.01. There is no explanation whatsoever as regards the inordinate delay in getting the transcript prepared. Moreover, as per case of the prosecution witnesses, the DVR had been switched off after the entire trap proceedings were conducted. Strangely, the proceedings allegedly conducted after apprehension of the accused do not reflect in the transcript nor are the same in existence on the cassettes Q-1 & Q-2.
52 Not only this, while on the cassettes and the transcript, PW-4 during course of examination in chief had claimed that before leaving CBI office he was given a digital recorder and his voice was recorded in the said cassette which was checked and played. He does not state a word about introductory voices of Jitender and Prabhu having been recorded in the cassette. Surprisingly, the cassettes Ex. Q-1 & Q-2 do not contain any introductory voice of the complainant (PW-4). The complainant (PW-4) further claimed during course of his testimony that when he went to office of accused Manroy on 9.5.01, he had put on the cassette recorder before entering the office and further claimed that Manroy directed him to go to factory premises and that he (Manroy) will come there. This fact neither finds mention in the transcript nor in the cassette. PW-4 had further claimed that when Rampat came to the factory premises. He claimed that he had been sent to Manroy to bring Rs.4,000/-. Once again this fact neither finds mention in the transcript nor in the cassette.
53 While on this, it would be significant to mention that PW-3 during course of his testimony had specifically claimed that CC No. 18/2010 Page30 of 34 while directing money to be given to Rampat, Manroy had said "Usko De Do". This does not find mention in transcript nor in any cassette. It may be mentioned herein that during course of cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, the witness had claimed that the transcript was not prepared in his presence and was not signed by him. Moreover, PW-3 claimed that on being asked by Manroy, complainant introduced him as being his friend. This fact finds no mention in transcript nor in the cassette.
54 Position of the trap team as depicted in the site plan Ex. PW-3/E (D-5) has also been stated to be different by different witnesses. While PW-8 claimed that it depicted position at time of receipt of information regarding acceptance of bribe money by the accused, PW-10 claimed that it depicted the spot where bribe was demanded, accepted and recovered. As per PW-9, the site plan showed position of the team at the time of arrest of accused. PW-3 claimed that it illustrated the position after exchange of money and arrest.
55 There have been innumerable instances wherein the witness has stated something incriminating in his examination in chief and the cross examination is deferred. During course of cross examination on a subsequent date the witness disowns the story told by him during course of his examination in chief. Case in hand is an exception in this regard. In this case PW-7 during course of his examination in chief recorded on 20.10.08 claimed that after leaving CBI office, he alongwith Om Parkash, two DDA witnesses and some CBI officers reached office of the accused where he remained outside while complainant and Prabhu Dayal went inside the office, money was given by Om Parkash to the accused and he came to know about it when he alongwith CBI officers entered office of the CC No. 18/2010 Page31 of 34 accused. It was at this stage that examination in chief of the witness was deferred on request of Special PP for CBI. Witness came to be examined next on 24.2.09 when he put forth a new story claiming that from CBI office they had reached DESU office where he alongwith Om Parkash and Jitender went inside and met P.C. Manroy. Thereafter, he started towing line of the prosecution story. However, once again he deviated from the prosecution story and claimed that P.C. Manroy alongwith Rampat reached his office where after checking the meter P.C. Manroy asked Om Parkash to take (give) bribe to accused Rampat as he himself was going. He claimed that Om Parkash told Manroy that the payment will be made only in office. This part of testimony of this witness was never case of the prosecution nor finds any mention in transcript or the recorded conversation. Still, he was not cross examined in this regard by the prosecution.
56 It would not be out of place to mention herein that during course of his examination in chief this witness (PW-7) kept referring to Rampat as being a person whom he had seen for the first time on 9.5.01. Cat came out of the hat during course of his cross examination recorded on 23.11.09 where he claimed that the accused Rampat belonged to his neighbouring village and he knew Rampat since child-hood and used to call him Chacha.
57 It appears that the prosecution itself is not sure as to what story has to be put forth on its behalf in the present case. While at one place it has been claimed that Manroy and Rampat reached the factory premises, it has been claimed on the other hand that it was Rampat alone who had reached the factory premises. While at one place it was being claimed that Rampat asked for money claiming that he had been sent by Manroy to call the same, CC No. 18/2010 Page32 of 34 (the said story is not supported by the cassettes or the transcripts or the public witnesses examined), this story is disowned by other witnesses examined by prosecution.
58 There is yet another big lacunae in the prosecution story. It had been claimed that Rampat (since deceased) after taking the bribe amount kept the same in the pocket of his kurta. As per recovery memo (Ex. PW-3/D), inner side of pocket of kurta was dipped in the colourless solution of sodium carbonate and the solution turned pink. Now this solution was claimed to have been converted into a glass bottle which alogwith other contents had been sent to CFSL for examination. As pe CFSL report (Ex PW-2/A) the solution containing pocket wash was a colour less liquid which on chemical examination gave negative test for phenolphthalein. The scientific CFSL report which was duly proved on record by PW-2 Shri K.S Chabra puts in doubt case of the prosecuting regarding the accused Rampat having kept the bribe amount in his kurta pocket and regarding the sodium carbonate solution having turned pink when the pocket was dipped in solution of sodium carbonate. The CFSL report infact puts in doubt the allegations put forth by the prosecution in this regard.
59 In Chandeer Bhan Vs. State (1998 Cr.LJ 4647), as per allegations accused had put the tainted currency notes in the left side front pocket of his shirt. When the shirt was reportedly dipped in solution of sodium carbonate, the solution allegedly turned pink. However, when the shirt was produced before court, it did not have pink colour on the left side front pocket. It was held that the said fact creates suspicion in mind of the court with regard to veracity of the case of the prosecution. Applying the same analogy in this case, CFSL report which specifically claims that no phenolphthalein was CC No. 18/2010 Page33 of 34 found in pocket of kurta where the accused Rampal had allegedly kept the tainted bribe money shakes case of the prosecution from its foundations.
60 Keeping in view the aforesaid and primarily in view of material contradictions in testimonies of prosecution witnesses, which contradictions go to root of case of prosecution, and other facts and circumstances enumerated herein above in the present judgment, this court is of considered opinion that case of prosecution does not travel beyond reasonable doubt. Dark clouds of doubt have encircled case of the prosecution which has failed to steer clear of the same. Consequently, this court is of considered opinion that the accused deserves to be acquitted in this case.
61 Accused is accordingly ordered to be acquitted.
Announced in the open court (M.R. SETHI)
on 26.5.2012 SPECIAL JUDGE-IV, CBI (PC ACT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CC No. 18/2010 Page34 of 34