Delhi District Court
State vs . Ravi Karan on 30 August, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI B.R. KEDIA, SPECIAL JUDGE07
(CENTRAL), (PC ACT CASES OF ACB, GNCTD), DELHI
C.C.NO. : 51/12
Unique Case ID : 02401R0371522012
STATE VS. RAVI KARAN
S/o Sh. Mahavir Singh,
R/o P162, Gali No.7, Bihari Colony,
Shahdara, Delhi.
FIR NO. : 36/2008
U/S : 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988
P.S. : Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi
Date of Institution 09.08.2012
Judgment reserved on 14.08.2013
Judgment delivered on 30.08.2013
JUDGMENT
1. The precise case of the prosecution is that on dated 17.11.2008 the complainant Naresh Sood S/o Sh. Shyami came to C.C. No. 51/12 Page No. 1 of 33 Anti Corruption Branch and got lodged his Complaint Ex.PW14/A before the Inspector Bhim Singh/PW24 regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe on various occasions by the accused Ravi Karan who was posted as ASI in PS Khazuri Khas in consideration for releasing the complainant on police bail, for releasing the vehicle of the complainant and for not arresting the complainant in execution of the nonbailable warrant in connection with a case bearing FIR No. 349/06, PS Khazuri Khas U/S 279/337 IPC as registered as against the complainant.
2. The gist of the said complaint is that one accident case bearing FIR No.349/06, U/S 279/337 IPC was registered on dated 11.08.2006 against the complainant and complainant was on bail in the said case. The complainant on being called by the accused Ravi Karan posted as ASI PS Khazuri Khas, who was IO in the above said case, met accused in the Police Station on 07.11.2008, on which the accused demanded bribe of Rs.500/ from him on the plea that he would not arrest the complainant on NBW as issued against him and would send Report on the Notice to the Surety that Surety was not available in the House. The complainant took 2/4 days time from the accused and on 10.11.2008 went to the Anti Corruption Branch and C.C. No. 51/12 Page No. 2 of 33 informed regarding this aspect and was advised by them to get record the conversation of demand of bribe of the accused. Thereafter, on 11.11.2008, the complainant along with his son Rinku met accused in the Police Station and on demand of the accused, delivered him bribe of Rs.500/ and get recorded his conversation in this respect. The complainant further added that on 11.8.2006 the accused had demanded bribe of Rs.8000/ for releasing the complainant on police bail in the said accident case and ultimately, obtained bribe of Rs. 5000/ from the complainant for releasing him on police bail and said amount was got withdrawn by the complainant from his ATM through his friend Devinder. On 14.10.2006 the accused had again demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.1000/ from the complainant for releasing his vehicle. Again on 11.11.2008, the accused had obtained bribe of Rs.500/ from the complainant on the plea of not arresting him on Non Bailable Warrant. Thus, accused had already obtained total bribe amount of Rs.6500/ from the complainant in the said accident case. As the complainant was against of giving of bribe money, he went to Anti Corruption Branch and got his complaint lodged before the Inspector Bhim Singh.
3. The further case of the prosecution is that on dated C.C. No. 51/12 Page No. 3 of 33 17.11.2008 on the basis of said Complaint Ex.PW14/A, PW24 Inspector Bhim Singh got registered the FIR bearing No.36/08, U/S 7 & 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 at PS AC Branch, copy of which is Ex.PW7/A. The complainant produced one Audio CD and another copy of said CD containing the conversation with the accused and said CDs were seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW14/B and Ex.PW14/C. During the course of the Investigation, the relevant documents relating to the case bearing FIR No.349/06, PS Khazuri Khas were seized by the IO vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW14/D. IO got prepared the transcription Ex.PW1/A1 to A13. The accused was interrogated and arrested vide Arrest Memo Ex.PW14/E and Personal Search Memo Ex.PW14/F. An Observation Memo Ex.PW21/A was prepared on the identification of the voice of the accused by playing the CD on the computer. During course of Investigation, on being asked to give voice sample, the accused refused for the same vide Ex.PW23/C. The Biodata of the accused Ex.PX was obtained. The CD was sent to FSL and subsequently, FSL Report Ex.PW23/E and Ex.PW23/F were obtained. IO also obtained the Sanction Order Ex.PW12/A for launching prosecution as against the accused. IO on recording the statement of the witnesses and after completion of the Investigation, prepared the chargesheet and filed in the court. C.C. No. 51/12 Page No. 4 of 33
4. After compliance with the provision Under Section 207 of Cr. P. C. and after hearing both sides on the point of charge, charge for offence punishable U/S 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed against accused on 19.01.2013 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Thereafter, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined 24 prosecution witnesses namely Shankar Prasad Arya, Asstt. to Addl. CP, Anti Corruption Branch, a formal witness as PW1, Brij Lal, Panch witness, as PW2, HC Ravinder Kumar, a formal witness as PW3, HC Harpal Singh, a formal witness as PW4, Ct.Dinesh Kumar, a formal witness as PW5, HC Chetrapal Singh, a formal witness as PW6, SI Manoj Kumar, a formal witness as PW7, Ali Abaas Khan, Panch witness as PW8, Ct.Ravinder Kumar, a formal witness as PW9, HC Bijla, a formal witness as PW10, Sachin Kumar, a formal witness as PW11, Surinder Singh, a formal witness as PW12, Devinder Kumar, a formal witness as PW13, Naresh Sood, complainant as PW14, Krishna, a formal witness as PW15, Pradeep Khera, a formal witness as PW16, Shiv Ji Ram, a formal witness as PW17, Rinku, son of the complainant as PW18, Kamal, a formal witness as PW19, HC Jitender Singh, a C.C. No. 51/12 Page No. 5 of 33 formal witness as PW20, Inspector Pankaj Sharma, a formal witness as PW21, Ct.Lokender Kumar, a formal witness as PW22, Inspector Dilip Kaushik, a formal witness as PW23 and the then Inspector Bhim Singh, IO as PW24.
6. After closure of the PE, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which the accused denied about any demand and acceptance of the bribe from the complainant. Accused claimed to be falsely implicated in this case by the complainant.
7. I have heard Final Arguments as addressed by Sh. Madhu Mukul Tripathi, Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused and Sh.Maqsood Ahmed, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and perused the relevant record.
8. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that this accused Ravi Karan is innocent and has neither demanded nor accepted any bribe from the complainant Naresh Sood and prosecution has failed to prove about the said facts and hence this accused deserves to be acquitted. It is also added by Ld. Defence Counsel that the accused was merely working as ASI in PS Khazuri Khas and was the IO in the case bearing FIR No.349/06 as registered C.C. No. 51/12 Page No. 6 of 33 at PS Khazuri Khas but he was not competent for the release of the Motorcycle of the complainant and therefore, there was no occasion on the part of this accused to demand and receive any bribe from the complainant in this respect. It is also added by Ld. Defence counsel that the complainant was having enmity as against the accused as the accused had got registered the FIR No.349/06, U/S 279/337 IPC at PS Khazuri Khas against the complainant Naresh Sood and further conducted investigation and the complainant had to ultimately pay Rs. 38,000/ towards compensation to the injured in the said case and therefore, the deposition of the complainant cannot be taken as trustworthy and reliable. It is also added by Ld. Defence Counsel that as the Sanctioning Authority has granted Sanction mechanically and as IO has recorded statement of several PWs and obtained several documents after receipt of the Sanction Order Ex.PW12/A dated 1.12.2009 and therefore, said Sanction Order is legally Invalid. It is also added by Ld. Defence Counsel that the proceedings were not conducted at the spot but were conducted at the Office of Anti Corruption Branch. It is also added by Ld. Defence Counsel that the accused has rightly refused for giving his voice sample to the IO with the apprehension that the same might be misused by the IO. Ld. Defence Counsel pointed out several lapse on the part of the IO by C.C. No. 51/12 Page No. 7 of 33 adding that the IO had seized the mobile phone of the complainant in which the alleged conversation was recorded in January 2011 i.e. after about 27 months from the date of the recording of the alleged conversation. It is also added by Ld. Defence Counsel that the CDs containing the alleged conversation were seized by the IO after about 7 days from the date of the recording of the alleged conversation. It is also added by Ld. Defence Counsel that the CD has been fabricated and manipulated and said fact is also found supported from the fact that PW11 Sachin has not issued any receipt for preparation of said CD and there is no voice of any other vehicle in the said CD, though stated by PW14 to have recorded from the Pushta. It is also added by Ld. Defence Counsel that the said CD cannot be taken as evidence as against the accused. It is also added by Ld. Defence Counsel that as the summon Ex.DX as issued against the complainant was delivered to the complainant on 8.11.2008 so there was no demand of any bribe by the accused from the complainant. Thus, Ld. Counsel urged for the acquittal of this accused and referred and relied upon the following judgments: 2013 AIOL 356; 2001 (10) SCC 103; 2007 Legal Eagle (Criminal) 1017; 2010 (4) SCC 329 and 2005 (122) DLT 533.
9. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the C.C. No. 51/12 Page No. 8 of 33 State that the prosecution by examining 24 PWs have clearly established its case as against this accused and therefore, the accused deserves to be convicted for the charged offence. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution has clearly established its case regarding demand and acceptance of the bribe as against this accused from the complainant through the deposition of PW14/Naresh Sood, complainant, PW13/Devinder Kumar, friend of the complainant, PW18/Rinku, son of the complainant and PW24 Inspector Bhim Singh/IO and there is no reason to disbelieve them. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP that there is no reason as to why PW14/Naresh Sood, complainant, PW13/Devinder Kumar, friend of the complainant, PW18/Rinku, son of the complainant and PW24 Inspector Bhim Singh/IO would falsely implicate the accused specifically when there is no previous enmity as against this accused by them. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP that PW12 has rightly passed the Sanction Order Ex.PW12/A as against the accused Ravi Karan on perusal of the relevant materials and mere fact that statement of certain formal PWs were recorded by the IO and certain formal documents were obtained by the IO after obtaining the Sanction Order, cannot be a ground for throwing out the said Sanction Order. It is also added by Ld. Addl. PP that as the accused has refused C.C. No. 51/12 Page No. 9 of 33 to give consent for his voice sample and therefore, adverse inference can be drawn against him in this respect. It is also added by Ld. Addl. PP that as per FSL Report Ex.PW23/E, there is no indication of any form of alteration in the audio recording in the CD Marked Ex.1. It is also added by Ld. Addl. PP that prosecution has been successful in establishing its case as against the accused for the charged offence and hence, he deserves to be convicted, accordingly.
10. The first and foremost question having significant bearing on the fate of this case is whether prosecution has proved that valid Sanction has been accorded by the Competent Authority as against the accused Ravi Karan as per Section 19 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. During course of argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that as the Sanctioning Authority has granted Sanction mechanically and as IO has recorded statement of several PWs and had collected certain documents after receipt of the Sanction Order and therefore, said Sanction Order Ex.PW12/A is legally Invalid. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP on behalf of the State that PW12 has rightly passed the Sanction Order Ex.PW12/A as against the accused Ravi Karan on perusal of the relevant materials and mere fact that statement of certain formal PWs C.C. No. 51/12 Page No. 10 of 33 were recorded and certain documents were collected by the IO after obtaining the Sanction Order, cannot be a ground for throwing out the said Sanction Order. It is also added by Ld. Addl. PP that even the deposition of PW12/Sanctioning Authority has gone unrebutted being not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity granted to him in this respect.
11. That in order to prove the Sanction concerning this accused Ravi Karan, the prosecution has examined PW12 Sh.Surinder Singh Yadav, the then Deputy Commissioner of Police, North East District, Delhi who has categorically deposed that on 02.12.2009 while he was posted as Deputy Commissioner of Police, North East District, Delhi, the case file containing the complaint, FIR, Memos, statement of PWs and other relevant documents related to the Investigation were placed before him and on going through the same and applying his mind and examining the facts and circumstances of the case and being the authority competent to remove the accused Ravi Karan from service, who was posted as ASI in PS Khazuri Khas, he accorded the Sanction for prosecution as against said Ravi Karan and said Sanction Order is Ex.PW12/A which bears his signatures at point A. It is pertinent to note it here that the deposition of C.C. No. 51/12 Page No. 11 of 33 PW12/Sanctioning Authority has gone unrebutted being not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity granted to him in this respect. No doubt, from the perusal of the record, it is reflected that after obtaining the said Sanction Order Ex.PW12/A, the IO has recorded statement of certain formal PWs i.e. PW2 Brij Lal, PW5 Ct. Dinesh Kumar and PW4 HC Harpal Singh, the same cannot be treated as fatal in determining the validity of the said Sanction.
12. In the case reported as State of Maharashtra and ors V/s Ishvar Piraji Kelpatri & ors 1996 Cri.L.J.1127, where Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down that if the Authority according Sanction makes statement that while signing the order of Sanction, it had personally scrutinized the file and had arrived at required satisfaction, it is not necessary to look for, that there was application of mind or not or that material on record was examined by the concerned officer or not before according sanction, especially when order prima facie shows that, he had done so.
13. Furthermore, in the case reported as 2004 (13) SCC 487, Shankar Bhai Lalji Bhai Vs. State of Gujrat, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: C.C. No. 51/12 Page No. 12 of 33 "So far as the question of Sanction is concerned, in the absence of anything to show that any defect or irregularity therein caused failure of justice, that plea is without substance."
14. In the case reported in 2011 I AD (CRI.) (S.C.) 1, Kootha Perumal Vs. State (through) Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption, it was held in Para 14 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "Keeping in view the aforesaid statement of law, it would not be possible to conclude that the sanction order in the present case was not valid. Ex.P2 with the present appeal is the copy of the sanction order. A perusal of the same would show that the sanctioning authority has adverted to all the necessary facts which have been actually proved by the prosecution in the trial. Upon examination of the material facts, the sanctioning authority has certified that it is the authority competent to remove the appellant from the office. It is specifically stated that the statements of the C.C. No. 51/12 Page No. 13 of 33 witnesses have been duly examined. Sanction order also states that the other materials such as copy of the FIR as well as other official documents such as the different mahazars were carefully examined. Upon examination of the statements of the witnesses as also the material on record, the sanctioning authority has duly recorded its satisfaction that the appellant should be prosecuted for the offences, as noticed above. We, therefore, find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel that the sanctioning order to prosecute the appellant was not legal".
15. By taking cue from the aforesaid judgment and applying the same to the facts of the present case, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused to the effect that PW12/Sanctioning Authority has passed the Sanction Order mechanically and as IO had recorded statement of some PWs after obtaining the Sanction Order, therefore, said Sanction Order Ex.PW12/A is legally Invalid. I am of considered view that the Sanction concerning the accused Ravi Karan has been validly granted C.C. No. 51/12 Page No. 14 of 33 by PW12 Sh.Surinder Singh Yadav, the then Deputy Commissioner of Police, North East District, Delhi who was competent to do so.
16. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that this accused Ravi Karan is innocent and has neither demanded nor accepted any bribe from the complainant Naresh Sood and prosecution has failed to prove about the said facts and hence this accused deserves to be acquitted. It is also added by Ld. Defence Counsel that the accused was merely working as ASI in PS Khazuri Khas and was the IO in the case bearing FIR No.349/06 as registered at PS Khazuri Khas but he was not competent for the release of the Motorcycle of the complainant and therefore, there was no occasion on the part of this accused to demand and receive any bribe from the complainant in this respect. It is also added by Ld. Defence counsel that the complainant was having enmity as against the accused as the accused had got registered the FIR No.349/06, U/S 279/337 IPC at PS Khazuri Khas against the complainant Naresh Sood and further conducted investigation and the complainant had to ultimately pay Rs.38,000/ towards compensation to the injured in the said case and therefore, the deposition of the complainant cannot be taken as trustworthy and reliable. To the contrary, it is submitted by C.C. No. 51/12 Page No. 15 of 33 Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution has clearly established its case regarding demand and acceptance of the bribe as against this accused from the complainant through the deposition of PW14/Naresh Sood, complainant, PW13/Devinder Kumar, friend of the complainant, PW18/Rinku, son of the complainant and PW24 Inspector Bhim Singh/IO and there is no reason to disbelieve them. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP that there is no reason as to why PW14/Naresh Sood, complainant, PW13/Devinder Kumar, friend of the complainant, PW18/Rinku, son of the complainant and PW24 Inspector Bhim Singh/IO would falsely implicate the accused specifically when there is no previous enmity as against this accused by them.
17. In order to prove that the accused had demanded and accepted the bribe amount from the complainant, the prosecution is found to have examined PW14/Naresh Sood, complainant, PW18/Rinku, son of the complainant, PW13/Devinder Kumar, friend of the complainant, and PW24/Inspector Bhim Singh,IO.
18. PW14/ Naresh Sood, complainant has clearly deposed before the court that one accident case bearing FIR No.349/06 was C.C. No. 51/12 Page No. 16 of 33 registered against him on 11.08.2006 at PS Khazuri Khas and he was released on police bail by the accused Ravi Karan and his son Rinku stood Surety for his release. The complainant has further deposed regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused in this respect as under: "On that day, the accused had demanded bribe of Rs. 8000/ from me for my release on police bail on which I called Devinder, my friend in the PS Khazuri Khas and handed him over ATM Card of my son Rinku and he had withdrawn Rs.8000/ from nearby ATM Centre and delivered Rs.8000/ to me out of which I paid Rs.5000/ as bribe to the accused on that day. Thereafter, accused released me on police bail."
As regards further demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.1000/ by the accused for release of his Motorcycle, the complainant has deposed in this respect as under: "My motorcycle was seized in the said case and I obtained order for release of said motorcycle from the court in October, 2006 and accused again demanded Rs.1000/ for release of my said motorcycle and thereafter, I paid Rs. C.C. No. 51/12 Page No. 17 of 33 1000/ to him and my motorcycle was released by the accused."
19. PW14/complainant has further deposed that on 05.11.2008, one Police Constable from PS Khazuri Khas came to his House and asked him to meet ASI Ravi Karan regarding his accident case. Thereafter on 07.11.2008, he met accused who informed him that he was to be arrested by him as NBW has been issued against him and finally demanded bribe of Rs.1000/ from him, for which he requested for 34 days time. He further deposed that on 10.11.2008, he went to Office of Anti Corruption Branch and narrated about the incident to the police on which he was advised to get recorded the conversation with the accused and produced the same. Thereafter, on 11.11.2008 he along with his son Rinku went to PS Khazuri Khas and met accused and delivered 5 GC notes of Rs.100/ each as bribe on his demand and his son Rinku got recorded the conversation with the accused through his mobile phone. He further deposed that on 17.11.2008, he along with his son Rinku went to Office of Anti Corruption Branch and got lodged his Complaint Ex.PW14/A which bears his signatures at point A. He further deposed that he also delivered two CDs, which was got prepared by him from the C.C. No. 51/12 Page No. 18 of 33 recording of conversation through his Mobile Phone, one CD was sealed and another was kept open containing the conversation between him and the accused and said CDs were seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW14/B and Ex.PW14/C which bears his signatures at point A, said CDs as Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 bearing his signatures at point A, were duly identified by him. He further deposed that he had also handed over the copy of the summons and copy of FIR No.349/06 which were seized by the IO vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW14/D bearing his signatures at point A. He further deposed that on 17.11.2008, FIR was registered against the accused and accused was arrested vide his Arrest Memo Ex.PW14/E and Personal Search Memo Ex.PW14/F which bears his signatures at point A. He also deposed about seizure of his Mobile Phone along with Battery, Memory Card and SIM from him vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW2/A which bears his signatures at point B. He also deposed that he has delivered his Passbook relating to Account No.SB4243 Bank of Baroda which was seized by the IO vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW14/G which bears his signatures at point A and had identified his Passbook as Ex.P1. He has also duly identified Mobile Phone as Ex.P4 and Memory Card as Ex.P5. Said PW14/complainant in his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel has denied various suggestions as put to him as he has deposed in this C.C. No. 51/12 Page No. 19 of 33 respect as under: "It is wrong to suggest that I could not make the video clips because I wanted to fabricate the voice of the so called recording of the voice of the accused. It is also wrong to suggest that the accused had not demanded money at any point of time from me. It is also wrong to suggest that I had not made complaint to the AC Branch prior to 17.11.2008. It is also wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely with a motive to falsely implicate the accused."
20. The aforesaid substantive deposition of the PW14/complainant is found corroborated from the deposition of PW18/Rinku, son of the complainant. As regards the payment of bribe of Rs.5000/ to the accused for releasing the complainant on bail on dated 11.8.2006, said PW18 Rinku has deposed in this respect as under: "On 11.8.2006, I had gone to PS: Khajuri Khas as my father Mr. Naresh Sood had called me there. I had taken the ATM card of my father with me as he had asked for C.C. No. 51/12 Page No. 20 of 33 the same and one Mr. Devinder was also present in the PS. My father asked me to accompany with Mr. Devinder to withdraw Rs.8000/ from the nearby ATM Centre and I accordingly reached nearby ATM from where Mr. Devinder had withdrawn Rs.8000/ and the same were handed over to my father, out of which Rs. 5000/ were given to accused as bribe in my presence. Thereafter, my father was released on bail by the accused and I stood surety for the same and we came back from the PS on that day."
21. Said PW18/Rinku as regards demand and acceptance of bribe Rs.500/ by the accused from his father on dated 11.11.2008 has deposed in this respect as under: "On 11.11.2008, I along with my father had gone to PS:
Khajuri Khas at about 4/4.30 pm and on the asking of the accused that Non bailable warrants has been issued against my father and he was to be arrested for the same and in case bribe of Rs.500/ is paid to him then, he will sent the Report and his father will not be arrested and C.C. No. 51/12 Page No. 21 of 33 therefore my father delivered 5 GC notes of Rs.100/ each to the accused. My father had got prepared 2 CDs at Cybercafe from the recording from the my mobile phone of my father and the same was handedover to the IO which was taken into possession by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/B and Ex.PW14/C which bears my signatures at point B. The CDs were also signed by me."
22. Said PW18/Rinku in his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel has denied the various suggestions as put to him as he has deposed in this respect as under: "It is wrong to suggest that no conversation was recorded in the said mobile phone and that is why no photograph was taken from the said mobile phone of the incident. It is wrong to suggest that I with collusion of my father manipulated and fabricated the CD as well as memory card by mimicry artist. I have not lodged any complaint against anyone. It is wrong to suggest that my father used to extract money by lodging false complaints against government officials. I do not know if my father C.C. No. 51/12 Page No. 22 of 33 has lodged any complaint against any police official earlier. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely against the accused in order to falsely implicate him at the instance of my father."
23. The factum regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused from the complainant Naresh Sood for his release on police bail on dated 11.08.2006, is also found corroborated from the deposition of PW13/Devinder Kumar, friend of the complainant as he has deposed in this respect as under: "On 11.8.2006, I was on my duty and at about 8 am I received a telephonic call from one of my friend Naresh Sood who told me that he had met with an accident from his motorcycle and he had been taken to PS: Khajuri Khas by the police and he had been detained there. I reached there at PS: Khajuri Khas at about 8.30 am and found Naresh Sood present there. Accused ASI Ravi Karan was also present there and when we requested to release my friend Naresh Sood on bail, the accused demanded C.C. No. 51/12 Page No. 23 of 33 Rs.8000/. I requested the accused that I was Govt. Servant and my friend may be released on my documents but they did not agree. Mr. Naresh Sood called his son Rinku in the PS and I was given the ATM card of Rinku for withdrawing Rs.8000/ and I went at Bhajan Pura road, and withdrew Rs.
8000/ from ATM Bank of Baroda and the said amount was handed over to Mr. Naresh Sood. Mr. Naresh Sood gave Rs.5000/ to accused in my presence and thereafter Mr. Naresh Sood was released on bail by the accused."
24. Said PW13/Devinder Kumar in the cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel has denied the various suggestions as put to him as he has deposed in this respect as under: "ATM password was stated to me at that time only. Naresh Sood stated me for withdrawal of Rs.8000/ from ATM as being demanded by ASI Ravi Karan.
At about 8/8.30 am, Naresh Sood called his son Rinku C.C. No. 51/12 Page No. 24 of 33 by phone. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely at the instance of Naresh Sood having my close relations with him. It is wrong to suggest that I had not visited the PS Khajuri Khas on that day that is why I had not sought any permission from my senior officer for going to PS:Khajuri Khas. It is wrong to suggest that no telephonic conversation had taken place between me and Naresh Sood at 8 am that is why I stated that Naresh Sood had telephoned to me as well as his son Rinku at 8 am."
25. From the perusal of the deposition of PW14/complainant, it is reflected that he has got recorded the conversation between him and the accused on dated 11.11.2008 through his Mobile Phone with the assistance of his Son Rinku and thereafter, got prepared two similar sets of CDs from the said conversation and identified said CDs as Ex.P2 and P3 which were seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW14/B and Ex.PW14/C. The CD Ex.P2 was converted into a parcel and was sealed with the seal of 'BS' which was sent to FSL and after examining the same, Dr.C.P.Singh has prepared the FSL Report C.C. No. 51/12 Page No. 25 of 33 Ex.PW23/E, clearly stating therein: "There is no indication of any form of alteration in Audio Recording." Another CD Ex.P3 was kept open by the IO for the purpose of Investigation. Furthermore, from the perusal of the deposition of PW14/complainant, it is reflected that his Mobile Phone containing the conversation along with Memory Card and SIM were seized by the IO and was converted into a sealed parcel and were taken into possession vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW2/A and during course of Investigation, the same was sent to FSL. As per FSL Report Ex.PW23/F, "The memory card marked Exhibit2B containing recorded conversation in the audio file, namely, "1111155400.amr" which is found similar to the audio file in CD marked Exhibit1." Furthermore, from the perusal of the deposition of PW1/Shankar Prasad Arya, it is reflected that on the request of the IO, he had had prepared the Transcription of the CD which is Ex.PW1/A1 to A13 which bears his signatures at point A reflecting said conversation between the accused and the complainant on dated 11.11.2008 and perusal of the same clearly reveal about the demand and acceptance of part bribe amount by the accused. Furthermore, from the perusal of the deposition of PW23/Inspector Dilip Kaushik, it is reflected that the accused has refused to give his sample voice for the purpose of comparison to the IO vide Refusal in C.C. No. 51/12 Page No. 26 of 33 writing by the accused which is Ex.PW23/C and therefore, adverse inference can be drawn against the accused in this respect. In view of the aforesaid material as available on the record including the contents of the FSL Report Ex.PW23/E and Ex.PW23/F, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused that the said CD has been fabricated and cannot be considered as a piece of evidence against the accused.
26. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused was merely working as ASI in PS Khazuri Khas and was the IO in the case bearing FIR No.349/06 as registered at PS Khazuri Khas but he was not competent for release of the Motorcycle and therefore, there was no occasion on the part of this accused to demand and receive any bribe from the complainant in this respect. I do not find any force in the said submissions of Ld. Counsel for the accused. As PW14/complainant has clearly deposed in this respect as under: "My motorcycle was seized in the said case and I obtained order for release of said motorcycle from the court in October, 2006 and accused again demanded Rs. 1000/ for release of my said motorcycle and thereafter, I C.C. No. 51/12 Page No. 27 of 33 paid Rs.1000/ to him and my motorcycle was released by the accused."
27. Besides this, law is well settled that it does not matter whether the public servant was competent to do the work or not and reference can be placed in the case reported as Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel Vs. State of Gujrat, 1976(3) SCC 46 as referred in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. C. Uma Maheshwar Rao and Anr. 2004, V AD (SC) 176, wherein it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the question whether a person has an authority to do the act for which bribe is accepted, is of no consequence. In the case reported as Gopal Singh Vs. CBI, ILR (2005) II Delhi 35, It was observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Para 22 as under: "It has to be added that in cases under PC Act, the prosecution is under no obligation to prove that a public servant demanding bribe was in a position to help the person from whom the bribe was being demanded. The prosecution succeed the moment it is shown that a public servant had accepted some money from someone which was not legal remuneration. The presumption U/S C.C. No. 51/12 Page No. 28 of 33 20 of the Act comes into play shifting the burden upon the public servant to explain as to why he had received the money. A public servant may misguide, mislead or befool his victim to pay him illegal gratification knowing fully well that he is not in a position to help him and as such it can be no defence for him to say that since he was not in a position to help the complainant/victim the money received by him does not amount to illegal gratification."
28. During the course of the argument, Ld. Counsel has pointed out that there are certain lapse on the part of the IO as IO has seized Mobile Phone of the complainant in which the alleged conversation was recorded, in January 2011 i.e. after about 27 months from the date of recording of alleged conversation. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that CDs containing alleged conversation were seized by the IO after about 7 days from the date of recording of the alleged conversation. It is also added by him that the said lapse on the part of the IO are fatal for the case of the prosecution. No doubt, Ld. Counsel for the accused has pointed out certain lapse on the part of the IO in the process of investigation but I am of considered view that mere C.C. No. 51/12 Page No. 29 of 33 lapse on the part of the IO cannot be a escape ground for the accused specifically when adequate incriminating material for the charged offence is available on record. I am of the considered view that criminal justice should not be made casualty of wrongs committed by the IO and my said view is found nourished from the judgment as rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case reported as "2000 (I) A.D. (Delhi) 67 Manoj @ Manu Vs. State of Delhi." In the case reported as "State of Rajasthan Vs. Kishore (1996 SCC (Crl) 646)"
it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that mere fact that the investigating officer committed irregularity or illegality during the course of investigation would not and does not cast doubt on the prosecution case nor trustworthy and reliable evidence can be cast aside to record acquittal on that account. Furthermore, in another case reported as "Ram Bihari Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (1998(4) SCC 517)" it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "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 C.C. No. 51/12 Page No. 30 of 33 "Amar Singh Vs. Balwinder Singh and Ors. (2003 (2) SCC 518)."
29. During the course of the arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that the complainant was having enmity as against the accused as the accused has got registered the FIR No.349/06, U/S 279/337 IPC at PS Khazuri Khas against the complainant and further conducted Investigation and the complainant has to ultimately pay Rs. 38,000/ towards compensation to the injured in the said case and therefore, the deposition of the complainant cannot be taken as trustworthy and reliable. I do not find any force in said submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused as the complainant PW14 himself has stated that on dated 11.8.2006 the accident case bearing FIR No. 349/06 was registered against him at PS Khazuri Khas and the accused was the Investigating Officer in the said case. The complainant/PW14 has clearly deposed that on 11.8.2006 the accused had initially demanded bribe of Rs.8000/ from him for releasing him on police bail for which the complainant had got withdrawn Rs.8000/ from the ATM Counter through his friend Devinder and out of said Rs.8000/ the complainant paid Rs.5000/ as bribe to the accused on which the accused released the complainant on police bail and Rinku, Son of the complainant stood Surety for him and said facts are also C.C. No. 51/12 Page No. 31 of 33 found corroborated even from the deposition of PW13/Devinder Kumar and PW18/Rinku. Furthermore, the deposition of PW14/complainant regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.500/ by the accused from the complainant on dated 11.11.2008 at PS Khazuri Khas on the plea of not arresting the accused against NBW, is also found corroborated from the deposition of PW18/Rinku coupled with the recording of the CD, Transcription of which is Ex.PW1/A1 to A13. In view of the aforesaid material as available on the record, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused to the effect that the deposition of the complainant cannot be taken as trustworthy and reliable. In view of the aforesaid material available on the record, I also do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Defence Counsel that as Summon Ex.DX as issued against the complainant was delivered to the complainant on 8.11.2008, there was no demand of any bribe by the accused from the complainant.
30. In view of the aforesaid clinching incriminating material as brought on record by the prosecution through the deposition of PW14/Naresh Sood, complainant, PW13/Devinder Kumar and PW18/Rinku, Son of the complainant, whereby clearly establishing C.C. No. 51/12 Page No. 32 of 33 the demand and acceptance of the bribe as against the accused, I am of the considered view, the Judgments as referred and relied upon by Ld. Defence Counsel being not applicable to the fact and circumstances of the present case, can be of no help for the accused.
31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that the prosecution has successfully established its case for offence punishable U/S 7 and U/S 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as against the accused Ravi Karan and therefore, this accused stands convicted for the said offence accordingly.
Let this accused be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open court on this 30th day of August, 2013 (B.R. Kedia) Special Judge07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC, Delhi C.C. No. 51/12 Page No. 33 of 33