Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Kshitij Dilip Nikam on 29 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHAILENDER MALIK, SPECIAL JUDGE (PC
ACT), CBI-21: ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam
CBI 84/2024
RC-06(A)/2024/CBI/ACB/Delhi
CNR No.DLCT110004942024
Central Bureau of Investigation
Versus
Kshitij Dilip Nikam
s/o Sh.Dilip Nikam
r/o Flat No.303,
Sai Aradhya CHS,
Plot No.75-A, Sector-5,
Ulwe, Panvel,
Navi Mumbai-410206.
Also permanent r/o Room no.8,
Tripathi Bhawan,
Cooperative Housing Society,
Mahul Village,
Chembur, Mumbai-400074. ....Accused
Date of Institution : 31.05.2024
Date of judgment reserved : 20.11.2025
Date of judgment pronounced : 29.11.2025
JUDGEMENT
1. Accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam s/o Sh.Dilip Nikam is facing prosecution for offence u/s 7 of PC Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and is facing charge for the said offence.
FACTS ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 1 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:51:26 +0530
2. Precise facts of the present case are that complainant Prakash Surekha gave a complaint dt. 14.02.2024 against accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam Sr. Section Engineer (SSE), Sanpada, Central Railway, Mumbai, alleging that complainant is sole proprietor of M/s Krishna Udhyog. Complainant firm received an order from Central Railway, Sanpada Store Depot, against his bid for tender for supply of 3000 kg of light weight body filler. It is stated that under that order, complainant's firm stated to have supplied the material on 26.10.2023. The cost of material was Rs.6,72,246/-. It is alleged that after supplying the material, complainant started getting calls from accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam (SSE), demanding 3 % of Commission through Paytm, in lieu of passing the bills of complainant and release of CRN (Credit Receipt Note). Upon receipt of such complaint in the CBI, allegations made therein were verified. Verification proceedings were conducted by Inspector Sunil Kumar, ACB, CBI, in the presence of independent witness Praveen Kumar, Jr. Assistant, Delhi Jal Board.
3. During verification, complainant was introduced with independent witnesses, who was also shown the handwritten complaint of complainant. DVR of SONY make and one company sealed micro SD card was arranged. SD card was taken out from its packing, thereafter, it was inserted in the DVR. Blankness of SD card was ensured. Introductory voice of independent witness was recorded in said memory card through DVR. Complainant was asked to make a call to accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam, on his mobile phone. Accordingly, complainant made a call from his mobile number 9212232397 to mobile No. 9967894783 of ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 2 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:51:33 +0530 accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam, by keeping his mobile in loudspeaker mode so that conversation of complainant with accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam, could be heard in the presence of independent witness. In that telephonic call conversation was recorded in the memory card through DVR. In that conversation, accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam, stated to have told complainant that it is not right platform to call. On the same day, complainant stated to have received Whatsapp call on his mobile number from mobile No. 9967894783 of accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam. Said call was also heard as mobile phone of the complainant was kept on loudspeaker mode and conversation was recorded in memory card through DVR.
4. It is mentioned in the charge-sheet that in that conversation complainant asked accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam to clear his bills, to which accused told him that first he has to generate CRN for bills and then he will talk further. On the same day, complainant again received a Whatsapp call on his mobile, from accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam. Conversation of that call was also recorded in the memory card through DVR in the presence of independent witness. It is stated that in that conversation accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam told complainant that material supplied by complainant had already been used, however, had not been accounted so far. Complainant in that conversation asked accused about further directions thereupon accused told complainant that he has to pay as told earlier by him. When complainant asked about 3 % accused answered in affirmative. Complainant then asked about the mode of payment of bribe. Accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam thereupon, gave mobile no. 9820264090 of one Kiran Bharat and directed complainant to transfer the bribe amount to ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 3 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.11.29 14:51:40 +0530 Paytm on said mobile number. It is stated that in that conversation, complainant was further directed to say OK after depositing the bribe amount on the mobile phone as provided.
5. On the same day, at about 05.15 pm, complainant again received call on his mobile phone from accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam, which was also recorded in the same manner in the memory card through DVR. In that conversation accused told complainant that he has done the pending work of the complainant by generating CRN. Further told complainant to say OK, after completing the transaction of depositing the bribe amount. Thereafter, the said memory card was taken out from the DVR. Investigation copy of recorded conversation of that memory card was prepared, on official computer with the help of write blocker. The said memory card thereafter was kept in its original plastic cover. Plastic cover was kept in the paper cover signed by Inspector Sunil Kumar, independent witness and complainant and was marked as "Q-1 in CO-16/24". Thereafter, the paper cover containing memory card was kept in brown colour envelope and sealed with the seal of CBI. That envelope was also marked as "Q-1 in CO-16/24". Verification memo was prepared. On the basis of verification of the complaint, present FIR / RC No.0003 2024 A 0006 was registered u/s 7 of PC ACT, 1988 (as amended in 2018).
6. After the registration of the FIR, a team was constituted consisting of Sanjay Malhotra and Sunil Kumar, both Inspectors of CBI ACB, complainant Prakash Surekha, independent witness Praveen Kumar, Junior Assistant, Delhi Jal Board as well as Dinesh Prasad, Superintendent, ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 4 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.11.29 14:51:46 +0530 CGST. All of them assembled in the office of SP, CBI, ACB on 15.02.2024. Independent witnesses and complainant were formally introduced to each other. Complaint dated 13.02.2024, verification report dated 14.02.2024 and FIR was read over. Sealed envelope containing memory card "Q1 in CO-16/24" in which conversation recorded through DVR was recorded, was taken from Insp. Sunil Kumar by Sanjay Malhotra, Inspector. Contents of verification memo were explained to independent witnesses and they were satisfied about the genuineness of the allegations and verification. DVR with new micro SD card of 16 GB was arranged and blankness of DVR and micro SD card was ensured by recording introductory voices of both independent witnesses.
7. It was decided by the trap team to transfer Rs.10,000/- from Paytm wallet of complainant to Paytm account of no.9820264090 of Sh.Kiran Bharat. During transaction it revealed that complaint could transfer amount of Rs.9850/- from his Paytm account, which complainant transferred from his Paytm wallet to Paytm wallet no.9212232397 to Paytm account of no.9820264090. Complainant thereafter sent WhatsApp message as OK by mentioning "Ok Sir" sent from his mobile number to mobile number of accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam bearing no.9967894783 as a signal of confirmation.
8. It was decided to make a call on mobile no.9820264090 of Kiran Bharat for confirmation about the above mentioned transaction, accordingly call was made by complainant on that mobile number while keeping the mobile on loud speaker mode, in the presence of independent ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 5 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:51:52 +0530 witnesses. Said conversation was over heard of members of team and recorded in the memory card through DVR. In that conversation said Kiran Bharat confirmed having received the payment on behalf of Kshitij Dilip Nikam. Thereafter complainant received a WhatsApp call from accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam, which complainant could not pick. After some time a back WhatsApp call was made by complainant to accused on his mobile no.9967894783. That conversation between complainant and accused was recorded through DVR and heard by the team. In that conversation complainant asked accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam whether he has received confirmation of payment from Kiran Bharat, to which accused replied in affirmative. It is further mentioned that after some time complainant received a telephonic call from Kiran Bharat from his mobile no.9820264090 which was also heard by the members of the team and recorded through DVR. In that conversation Kiran Bharat said that he had received the payment from complainant but he did not know Kshitij Dilip Nikam.
9. The memory card was taken out from the DVR and an investigation copy of that memory card was prepared on office computer with the help of Write Blocker. That memory card was again kept in plastic cover which was signed by Insp. Sanjay Malhotra and both independent witnesses and was marked as "Q1 in RC 06(A)/24-DLI" and was kept in a brown envelope, sealed with CBI seal in the presence of witnesses who signed the same. Screen shot of WhatsApp chat of complainant and accused was also taken which was signed by complainant ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 6 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:51:57 +0530 and both the independent witnesses. DVR was also signed by the independent witnesses, complainant and IO and was kept in a separate brown colour envelope and sealed.
10. It is mentioned in the charge sheet that accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam, SSE was on leave on 14.02.2024. On that day he called one Pankaj Kale, SSE working under him and instructed to accountal/accept pending non stop material and prepare CRN (Credit Receipt Note) in his account of IREPS. In compliance to such instructions Pankaj Kale logged into his account of IREPS, on computer by using digital signature/token and password. Pankaj Kale, SSE found only one CRN pertaining to M/s Krishna Udyog was pending his account and he accepted the same. Accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam had also instructed on WhatsApp group "Rehab and Paint Engineers", having subordinate staff namely Omkar Muthe, SSE, Rajiv Kumar, JE and Pankaj Kale, SSE, "all approve non stop material by me, accountal issued to staff and contractor and CRN to be generated on top priority. Without fail."
11. It further came in the investigation that Kiran Bharat Duduskar is next door neighbour of accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam and Ms.Snehal, wife of accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam, was working as freelancer and she used to receive Paytm payments from various other sources and in that manner accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam used to receive money and his wife money through the account of Kiran Bharat whenever their account get technical issues. On 15.02.2024 Kiran Bhrat received Paytm payment of Rs.9850/- in his account from complainant on the ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 7 Digitally signed SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.11.29 14:52:03 +0530 direction of accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam. During investigation statement u/s 164 Cr.PC of Kiran Bharat was recorded wherein he confirmed having received the money of Rs.9850/- on the request of the accused.
12. During investigation, Kiran Bharat was not made accused, as stated in para 17.22 of charge-sheet that on considering the conduct, statement of Kiran Bharat recorded u/s 164, as he revealed that he accepted receiving of money of Rs.9,850/- in his Paytm account, on the asking of accused Kshitij Nikam, but, there was no material indicating criminal intention on the part of Kiran Bharat or him being part of any conspiracy. It is stated in the charge-sheet that on the other hand accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam accepted that all other credit receipt notes (CRN), generated by Store Department, were already accepted by him within time limit of 1 to 22 days, during period from 1.10.2023 to 14.02.2024, except the CRN pertaining to M/s Krishna Udyog, Delhi. CRN of M/s Krishna Udyog was accepted on 14.02.2024, after about 88 days from its registration from Store department. It is alleged that accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam deliberately kept pending and did not clear the CRN of complainant till his demand of bribe / commission was accepted on 14.02.2024. Thereupon, he immediately directed his subordinate staff to clear all the pending CRN including of complainant. Hence, the charge-sheet was filed for offence u/s 7 of PC Act, 1988 after obtaining order for prosecution against the accused, in terms of Section 19 of PC Act, 1988.
______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 8 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:52:11 +0530 CHARGE
13. Copy of charge-sheet was supplied to accused along with all the documents relied upon. After hearing the submissions from the prosecution and the accused, this Court vide order dated 27.11.2024 ordered for framing of charge u/s 7 of PC Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), against accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam. In terms of order dt. 27.11.2024, charges were framed on 04.12.2024, explained to the accused in simple Hindi, after understanding the contents of the charges, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Witnesses PWs Name of Witness Nature of Witness PW1 Sh. Prakash Surekha PW1 is complainant who testified regarding giving of complaint Ex.PW1/C to CBI regarding alleged demand of bribe from accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam, by way of commission @ 3%. PW1 testified regarding telephonic conversation between him and accused during verification proceedings, which were played in the open court. Witness further testified regarding verification memo Ex.PW1/D as well as recorded conversation in Q-1 and Q-2.
PW2 Sh. Saurabh Sharma This witness is from Paytm Payments Bank Limited, who proved the Paytm wallets statement having no.9212232397 of complainant Prakash Surekha as well as the wallet statement of Kiran Bharat Duduskar ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 9 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:52:17 +0530 having no.9820264090, Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/E respectively, beside other documents.
PW3 Sh. Shashank Tyagi This witness is Nodal Officer of Vodafone and proved CAF, CDR of mobile no.
9820264090 in the name of Kiran Bharat Duduskar which are Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/C. PW4 Sh. Rajiv Vashisht This witness is Nodal Officer of Bharti Airtel Ltd. and proved CAF, CDR of mobile no. 9212232397 in the name of Prakash Surekha which are Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/D. PW5 Sh. Prakash Saxena This witness is Nodal Officer of Reliance Jio and proved CAF, CDR of mobile no.
9967894783 in the name of accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam which are Ex.PW5/C and Ex.PW5/D. PW6 Sh. Kiran Bhaskar This witness testified that accused Kshitij Duduskar Dilip Nikam told him that Rs.10,000/-
would be deposited in his Paytm account and also testified regarding receiving of sum of Rs.9,850/- from the Paytm wallet of complainant Prakash Surekha. Witness identified the Paytm wallet account statement of his mobile no. 9820264090 Ex.PW2/E and also stated that he subsequently joined the investigation and gave the statement u/s 164 Cr.PC Ex.PW6/D. PW7 Sh. Kumar Vikram This witness stood independent witness, when Shankar More identified the voice of PW6 Kiran Bharat Duduskar and transcription cum voice identification memo Ex.PW7/A was prepared.
______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 10 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:52:22 +0530 PW8 Sh. Pravinkumar This witness worked as Divisional Material Kore Manager in Central Railway Sanpada and stated to have provided relevant documents of this case vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/A which are Ex.PW8/B and Ex.PW8/C. Witness further testified regarding procedure regarding tender and material supply as well as regarding issuance of R- Note.
PW9 Sh. Rajesh Kumar This witness has worked as Asstt. Works Meena Manager in Central Railway and testified that he provided service record of accused vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/A. Witness also testified that he joined the investigation of the CBI when he heard recorded conversation between accused and one person of a firm and identified the voice of the accused and also identified transcription of recorded conversation Ex.PW1/E. PW10 Sh. Sujit Kumar This witness is Deputy Chief Vigilance Singh Officer who accorded sanction for prosecution of accused u/s 19 of P.C. Act dated 30.04.2024, Ex.PW10/A. PW11 Sh. Praveen Kumar This witness is independent witness who joined the verification proceedings as well as subsequent proceedings and testified regarding recording of conversation between complainant and accused during verification on 14.02.2024 as well as on next day further proceedings on 15.02.2024 and further joined the investigation on 20.02.2024. Witness identified all those documents, recorded conversations as proved in the evidence of PW1. This ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 11 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:52:28 +0530 witness also proved observation memo Ex.PW11/A, also proved regarding taking of voice sample of accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam, complainant Prakash Surekha in his presence as well as in the presence of another independent witness Dinesh Prasad.
PW12 Sh. Pankaj Kale This witness was also from Central Railway, Sanpada Workshop and identified the relevant record already exhibited as Ex.PW8/B and Ex.PW8/C and testified that material in this case was received on 26.10.2023 and R-Note was accepted by the accused on 14.02.2024, when accused was on leave and instructed him to process the same.
PW13 Sh. Sunil Kumar, He is the official of the CBI who conducted Inspector the verification dated 14.02.2024 on the complaint of the complainant and testified regarding recording of conversation between complainant and the accused.
PW14 Sh. Sanjay Malhotra He is also from CBI who participated in the proceedings on 15.02.2024, after the registration of the FIR.
PW15 Sh. Ravinder Kumar He is Sr. Scientific Assistant from CFSL and proved CFSL report Ex.PW15/C. PW16 Sh. Dharam Bir He is the Investigating Officer of CBI who conducted the further investigation in the matter after the proceedings of 14th and 15th February 2024 and proved CFSL report dated 08.10.2025 Ex.PW16/C. Statement of accused ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 12 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:52:34 +0530
14. Upon conclusion of prosecution evidence, all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused in question-answer format, to which accused denied the evidence and stated that invoice was raised on 26.10.2023, however the material i.e. light weight body filler was received in his section only on 27.11.2023. It is denied that complainant received the payment after four months regarding supply of 3000 kg light weight body filler. Accused further denied having made calls to staff of PW1.
Accused states that complainant made a false complaint against him. Accused while not denying, that call was made to PW1, however accused states that he was informed by complainant for the first time about pending of CRN/R-Note and therefore he told him that he would look into it. Accused denied having raised any demand or condition for clearance of R- Note.
15. Accused further states that he never gave number of Kiran Bharat to complainant and states that PW1 despite his categorical denied to accept anything from him, again and again insisted on making some payment and accused was completely unaware about his intention to falsely implicating him out of vengeance. Accused states that complainant allured him in providing the number of Kiran Bharat Duduskar. Accused states that he never instructed him for anything. Complainant/PW1 was aware that he was trapping the accused, therefore he insisted on making the payment to him and on his own he came up with amount of Rs.10,000/- despite his denial to accept anything from him.
16. While denying entire incriminating evidence against the accused, accused states that all the PWs have not deposed against him. ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 13 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:52:41 +0530 Complainant deposed against him out of vengeance. Accused states that he never demanded 3% commission from the complainant and complainant filed the complaint before the CBI making false allegations. Accused states that after filing the complaint, complainant made call to him for his work and during the call accused told him that he will check since he thought that the work of R-Note acknowledgment, should have been done as his colleagues to whom he assigned the duty of R-Note acknowledgment, did not tell him about any pending R-Note. Accused states that on receiving the call from the complainant and realizing oversight at departmental level, he immediately instructed his colleague to do the work without any delay and informed the complainant about the same. Accused states that complainant in order to lure him starting insisting him for payment again and again, despite his categorical denial. It is stated that work was done on 14.02.2024 itself and even thereafter he never asked or instructed complainant for any payment to be made.
17. Accused states that complainant transferred money on 15.02.2024, and on 15.02.2024 neither he called him nor messaged him, despite that he made the payment only with the intention to trap him in the present case out of vengeance. Regarding transcript of recorded conversation, accused states that neither complainant nor independent witness, CBI officers deposed about the contents of recording of the same verbatim after matching it with by word by word. It is stated that it was pre-planned trap case, only to implicate the accused as accused never demanded any bribe.
18. No evidence was led in defence.
______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 14 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.11.29 14:52:47 +0530 Arguments
19. I have heard Sh.Amjad Ali, ld. PP for the CBI and Sh.Pavan Narang, ld. Sr. Advocate for accused.
Submissions
20. It is argued by Sh.Amjad Ali, ld. PP for the CBI that charge in this case has been well proved as the acceptance of bribe by the accused/ public servant is by Paytm transaction. It is submitted that allegation made by the complainant were duly verified, before registration of the FIR and verification proceedings were conducted in the presence of independent witness. It is submitted by ld. PP that during verification factum of demand of bribe by the accused is well proved as it is accused who directed complainant to deposit the bribe amount, online on a Paytm account of one Kiran Bharat Duduskar (PW6). It is submitted that there was no occasion for the complainant to have the mobile number/ Paytm account details of PW6 Kiran Bharat Duduskar as same was provided by the accused. It is submitted that subsequent to the registration of the FIR, amount was deposited in that account and that fact was affirmed by PW6 and the accused. Thus ld. PP for the CBI submitted that demand and acceptance of bribe amount is well proved and that fact is very much corroborated by the recorded conversation.
21. I have heard Sh.Pavan Narang, ld. Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused as well as has gone through the written submissions filed. It is submitted that CBI has failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that presumption u/s 20 of P.C. Act does not get triggered as such presumption is not absolute and ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 15 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.11.29 14:52:53 +0530 is rebuttable. Moreover the basic facts such as neither demand nor acceptance, obtainment of illegal gratification has been proved by legally admissible evidence. As such presumption cannot be invoked.
22. It is submitted that it is admitted fact and matter of record as reflected from D-10 (page no.255) that material i.e. 3000 kg light weight body filler supplied by complainant/PW1, received by Paint & Rehab section only on 27.11.2023. There is no phone calls made between complainant and accused from 27.11.2023 to 14.02.2024. Complainant never made any complaint either before senior officers of Railway or immediate senior of accused during the period from 26.10.2023 to 14.02.2024 nor any complaint has been filed in vigilance department. Complainant for the first time filed the complaint only on 14.02.2024 before CBI only. Moreover prior to filing of complaint, complainant has not produced any evidence such as recorded telephonic conversation, to show that there was any demand of illegal gratification/commission as alleged in the complaint. It is submitted that employee of PW1, from whom the initial demands of bribe was made, has never been identified nor the statement of any such employee was recorded.
23. It is submitted on behalf of the accused that CRN was generated on 14.02.2024 itself, whereas as per prosecution case bribe was transferred on 15.02.2024 by Paytm account of Kiran Bharat/PW6, who was initially made accused, later was made as approver. It is stated that complainant though claimed that he had earlier supplied material to Railway, Sanpada, prior to supply in question. However there is no evidence in this regard. It is submitted that there are many lacunae/gaps in ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 16 Digitally signed SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.11.29 14:52:58 +0530 the prosecution version, hence same cannot be accepted and accused is certainly entitled for benefit of doubt. It is submitted that admittedly on 27.11.2023 material was received at Paint & Rehab Section of the accused, till 14.02.2024 (till filing of complaint), there has not been any demand made by the accused. It is stated that accused could have generate the CRN only after receiving the material. As such there was no occassion for the accused to make any alleged demand, unless the entire material is received in Paint & Rehab Section. It is submitted that there is nothing on the record to show that accused has made any demand of bribe. It is submitted that prosecution has not been able to show any circumstance to establish that alleged payment of bribe was to be made on 15.02.2024, when work has already been done by the accused on 14.02.2024 itself. Particularly when there has not been any call from the accused for any demand of alleged illegal gratification on 15.02.2024. Once the work had already been done on 14.02.2024, there was no occasion for complainant to transfer the alleged illegal gratification on 15.02.2024.
24. It is submitted that delay in generating the CRN was neither deliberate nor intentional rather it was due to departmental procedural lapses. No evidence on the record to show that there was any demand made by the accused or that accused deliberately delayed in acknowledging the CRN, when the material was accepted only on 27.11.2023. It is submitted that accused alone could not be blamed for such departmental procedural lapse as the UDM portal was assigned to subordinates as well for generating the CRN. PW12 has admitted in his ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 17 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:53:04 +0530 cross-examination that work of UDM portal was assigned to him by the accused.
25. It is submitted that prosecution has failed to explain as to under what circumstances Insp. Vijay Desai and Insp. Sandeep Tiwari were sent to Mumbai, when the work had already been done on 14.02.2024 and till then there was no payment of alleged illegal gratification from accused.
Those Inspectors of CBI have also not been examined, who according to prosecution case conducted search at Mumbai. It is submitted that there has been no evidence to prove that there were any guidelines or office order issued from Indian Railway to generate CRN within 3 to 4 days. It is submitted that evidence of PW1/independent witnesses regarding verification proceedings is doubtful. Evidence of PW6 Kiran Bharat Duduskar also cannot be relied upon as it is settled law that approver is unreliable person and evidence of approver is unworthy of any reliance unless corroborated on material aspects. Reliance has been placed on judgment of Apex Court in Ravidner Singh vs. State of Haryana (1975) 3 SCC 742, Mangoo Singh vs. Dharmender and others (2015) 17 SCC 488, Satya Narayan Murti vs. District Inspector of Police, State of AP (2015) 10 SCC 152.
26. It is submitted that even if there are certain irregularities in the functioning of the public servant, which may give rise to strong suspicion, may not be sufficient to be taken as a proof for his criminal liability for offence under P.C. Act. Prosecution must stand on its feet, to prove the case from four corners. Reliance has been placed on judgment of Apex ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 18 Digitally signed SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.11.29 14:53:11 +0530 Court in Abdul Mohd. Pagarkar vs. State (1980) 3 SCC 110, Nanhar and ors. vs. State of Haryana (2010) 11 SCC 423.
27. It is further argued by ld. Sr. Advocate that the sanction for prosecution u/s 19 of P.C. Act against the accused is inherently bad in law because PW10 is not the sanctioning authority. It is submitted that sanction order has been issued by Sh.Sujeet Kumar Singh, Dy. CME/ SNPD Workshop, who is not competent to accord sanction as Dy. CME is junior administrative grade officer and accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam is non- gazetted staff. It is submitted that as per the Scheduled II provided under Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1968, Junior Administrative Grade Officer has power to impose penalty on all classes of non-gazetted staff (Rule 6) and suspension of railway servants. It is submitted that on reading of Schedule II and Rule 6 it would be clear that PW10 in the present case has power to impose penalties including suspension but had no power either to imposed compulsory retirement or remove the accused from the services. Even as per clause 312.6 of Indian Railways Vigilance Manual, competent authority to accord the sanction for prosecution is one who is competent to remove the railway servant from his service at the time of initiation of proceedings. As such PW10 was not competent to accord sanction.
28. It is submitted that alternatively the sanction as accorded is invalid as same has been accorded without any application of mind and has been reproduced only at the instance of CBI. It is submitted by ld. Sr. Advocate that since the very edifice of the prosecution case is on alleged recorded conversation during verification and subsequent proceedings, ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 19 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:53:18 +0530 whereas PW10 has admitted in his cross-examination that he has not heard the telephonic conversation. It is submitted that since the sanctioning authority has not applied its mind independently and has not even bothered to hear the recorded conversation, as such the sanction Ex.PW10/A is bad and the entire trial has been vitiated. It is further argued by ld. Sr. Counsel for the accused that perusal of the transcript of alleged recorded conversation, and hearing the recorded conversation would indicate that accused was only allured with the object to implicate him in present false case. It is submitted that accused never demanded and accepted any bribe amount and there is no evidence to this effect.
Analysis of evidence and conclusion
29. In the light of facts, evidence and submissions made at bar, this court finds it appropriate to note down following points of determination in this case :
(i) Whether there is no evidence of demand of bribe and that accused was allured by the complainant without there being any demand from him?
(ii) Whether the sanction for prosecution Ex.PW10/A is bad in law, for want of independent assessment/non application of mind?
(iii) Whether the prosecution evidence prove the charge u/s 7 of P.C. Act or not?
30. Before I discuss the evidence in detail, it is appropriate here to recapitulate the legal position. Accused in this case has been charged for ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 20 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:53:25 +0530 offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act 1988 (as amended in 2018). It is well-settled that to establish the offence under Sections 7 of the Act, particularly those relating to the trap cases, the prosecution has to establish the existence of demand as well as acceptance by the public servant. In B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55, it was held as under:-
"Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe..."
31. So precisely stated in order to attract the rigors of Sections 7 of Act, (erstwhile section13(2) read 13(1)(d) of PC Act), the prosecution is under a legal obligation to prove the twin requirements of "demand and acceptance of bribe money by the accused", the proving of one alone but not the other is not sufficient. Moreover mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, may not be sufficient to bring home the charge against the accused. (See: M.K. Harshan v. State of Kerala, (1996) 11 SCC 720, A. Subair v. State of Kerala ((2009) 6 SCC 587; P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another ((2015) 10 SCC 152; Mukhtiar Singh (since deceased) through his L.R. v. State of Punjab AIR 2017 SC 3382).
______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 21 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.11.29 14:53:31 +0530
32. Above stated provisions however are to be read with Section 20 of the Act of 1988 which lays down presumption to be drawn against accused that he accepted or obtained undue advantage as motive or reward for performing or to cause to perform a public duty improperly or dishonestly, upon proof that such public servant accepted or obtained or attempted to obtain for himself for any other purpose, any undue advantage from any person. However such presumption is rebuttable, upon proof of foundational facts requiring drawing of presumption, it is for accused to explain that how the bribe money has been received either by him directly or indirectly and if he fails to offer any satisfactory explanation, it will be presumed that he has accepted the bribe.
33. While invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However, before the accused is called upon to explain as to how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. Generally complainant is considered to be an interested and partisan witness, concerned with the success of the trap and therefore his evidence must be assessed with scrutiny and court may look for independent corroboration before accepting his evidence. (C.M. Girish Babu v. C.B.I. Cochin, High Court of Kerala (2009) 3 SCC 779).
34. Keeping in view the above legal propositions in the mind, let us examine the evidence, relevant material to decide the points of determination.
______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 22 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:53:45 +0530
(i) Whether there is no evidence of demand of bribe and that accused was allured by the complainant without there being any demand from him?
35. Let us examine the evidence as come on the record. One of the important witness in the present case is complainant PW1 Prakash Surekha. PW1 in his deposition stated that he is running a firm by name M/s Krishna Udyog, which supplied various consumable articles to government departments. PW1 says that he had earlier been taking orders from the railways for supply of material and as per normal practice, after delivery of material, pre inspected third party there would be clearance/ CRN issued within the span of seven days. PW1 says that he got a order of supply of 3000 kg of light weight body filler of Rs.6,72,246/-. While referring to file D-10 (ii) Ex.PW1/A witness identifies copy relating to material receipt, inspection and acceptance as well as issuing of R Note. PW1 further testifies that payment respect of such order was received from railway belatedly after about four months.
36. PW1 testifies that after the delivery of material, his staff received call from accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam and he also received a call from him. PW1 says that during WhatsApp call of the accused he was told that since accused has the authority of passing the material and to release R Note/CRN, therefore accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam demanded 3% of commission of value of the material supplied by PW1. PW1 says that he did not give any reply and kept on avoiding for agreeing for such bribe amount as demanded by the accused. However since R Note was not cleared, therefore on 13.02.2024 he asked his staff to check if the R Note ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 23 Digitally signed SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.11.29 14:53:51 +0530 has been cleared or not, by that day it was shown pending. PW1 says that on 14.02.2024 he made a complaint Ex.PW1/C against accused in CBI.
37. PW1 further testifies that upon receiving of complaint, CBI verified the allegations and for verification he met with CBI official Sunil Kumar Inspector and independent witness Praveen Kumar from Delhi Jal Board was also joined. PW1 says that he was asked by verification officer of CBI to talk with the accused while keeping his mobile phone on speaker mode, so that his conversation with accused on phone can be recorded. For that purpose a fresh memory card was taken, which was kept in the DVR. PW1 says that he made a normal call from his mobile no. 9212232397, on mobile no.9967894783 of accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam. PW1 says that in that phone conversation, he told accused that it has been long time that his R Note has not been cleared, accused stated to have told PW1 that it is not proper platform to talk. Witness says that this conversation was recorded with the help of DVR. PW1 says that after sometime he received a WhatsApp call from accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam on his mobile number, and he kept his phone on speaker mode, so that that conversation can also be recorded. PW1 says that in that conversation accused told him that he would look into the matter. PW1 says that after half an hour he again received a WhatsApp call from accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam, which he could not pick as that time he was not with CBI official and independent witness had also gone for lunch. After about 20 minutes of receiving missed call, PW1 stated to have made the WhatsApp call in the presence of verification officer and independent witness.
______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 24 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.11.29 14:53:59 +0530
38. PW1 went on to testify that in that phone conversation accused told him that he had seen the record and stated that material has already been received and railways is using the same. When PW1 asked him to clear the R Note on the same conditions as he told earlier, to which accused replied in affirmative. PW1 says that when he enquired from accused as to the mode of payment, accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam gave mobile number of someone known to him namely Kiran Bharat and mobile number was 9820264090 and instructed PW1 to transfer bribe amount through Paytm on said mobile number and further instructed PW1 that after making payment, to send him a message of "OK". PW1 says that he requested accused to reduce the amount and gave him figure of Rs.10,000/-, to which accused replied in affirmative.
39. PW1 says that all the conversations on above referred calls were recorded through DVR in the memory card. PW1 testifies that thereafter the recorded conversation was heard, paper work was prepared. The SD card was sealed and verification memo Ex.PW1/D was prepared. During the deposition of PW1 recorded on 30.01.2025, recorded conversation Q-1 were played in the open court. In that SD card Ex.P-2 there were five mp3 files containing recorded conversation including one mp3 file of voice of independent witness Praveen Kumar. These files were played in the court and the transcript of recorded conversation are Ex.PW1/E to Ex.PW1/E-3 (D-8). During playing of those audio files, PW1 identifies his voice as well as voice of accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam. In the similar manner PW1 further identifies the other conversation recorded in another SD card Ex.P-5. Those audio files of recorded ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 25 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:54:05 +0530 conversation contained in Ex.P-5 were also played in the court which are Ex.PW1/E-4 to Ex.PW1/E-6.
40. PW1 says that after the registration of the FIR, on 15.02.2024 he again attended the CBI office and met with Insp. Sunil Dahiya and independent witnesses Dinesh Prasad and Praveen Kumar. One Inspector Sanjay Malhotra of CBI was also added. PW1 thereafter testifies that he made the payment of bribe on the Paytm account of number as provided by the accused. PW1 says that he could make the payment of Rs.9,850/- through Paytm to the account of Kiran Bhrat Duduskar as entire amount of Rs.10,000/- was not being transferred. PW1 says that to confirm the receipt of Paytm amount he made a call to mobile number of Kiran Bharat Duduskar. Witness says that said call was also recorded. PW1 says that in that conversation Kiran Bharat Duduskar confirmed receipt of payment on behalf of accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam. PW1 says that thereafter as directed by the accused he sent the message to accused "Ok, Ok Sir" on his WhatsApp message. PW1 says that he made a missed call to accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam. Thereafter a WhatsApp call was made on the mobile phone of accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam, which was received by the accused and the conversation was recorded. In that conversation accused confirmed receipt of bribe amount from Kiran Bharat Duduskar.
41. PW1 in his deposition also identifies the screen shot of WhatsApp chat with accused which is Ex.PW1/F, as well as screen shot of Paytm wallet showing successful payment of Rs.9,850/- to the Paytm account of Kiran Bharat Duduskar which is Ex.PW1/G. PW1 further testifies regarding giving of voice sample during investigation. Witness ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 26 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:54:10 +0530 further says that he attended the proceedings wherein voice identification of accused was carried out in the presence of independent witness and transcription cum voice identification memo Ex.PW1/N was prepared.
42. This court would discuss the relevant portion of cross- examination of PW1 little later in this judgment. However it is appropriate at this stage to precisely discuss the evidence of independent witness, who was part of verification proceedings dated 14.02.2024 i.e. Praveen Kumar (PW11). PW11 in his deposition stated that he is working in Delhi Jal Board, he joined verification proceedings as well as subsequent proceedings of this case on 14.02.2024, 15.02.2024 and further joined the investigation on 20.02.2024, when he visited CBI office. PW11 states that on 14.02.2024 he met with Insp. Sunil Kumar and complainant Prakash Surekha (PW1). Witness says that he was shown complaint given by PW1 regarding accused allegedly demanding bribe/3% commission in lieu of passing of material, issuing of CRN regarding supply of light weight body filler under a tender to Central Railway Sanpada Store.
43. PW11 says that for verifying the allegations in that complaint, CBI official arranged one DVR and SD card, SD card was opened in his presence and was ensured that it is fresh and blank. Thereafter that SD card was inserted in the DVR. PW11 says that in his presence complainant Prakash Surekha made a call on the mobile phone of accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam, while the complainant kept his mobile phone on speaker mode, so that conversation could be recorded. PW11 says that in that conversation accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam told complainant that it is not right platform to call. That conversation was recorded. PW11 says that after sometime ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 27 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:54:17 +0530 complainant received a WhatsApp call from accused. In the same manner that conversation was also recorded with the help of DVR. Witness says that in that conversation accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam told the complainant that payment should have been cleared by now and further told him that he would talk further, after generation of CRN.
44. Witness says that after some times complainant Prakash Surekha again received a WhatsApp call from accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam, which was also recorded in the same manner. In that conversation complainant asked for further directions, to which accused told complainant to pay commission and complainant and accused settled for payment of Rs.10,000/- by way of Paytm. PW11 says that for that purpose accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam provided a mobile number of one Kiran Bharat and directed to transfer the amount by Paytm on that number of Kiran Bharat. PW11 again said that accused further instructed complainant that upon transferring the money he should say "OK" by message. It is stated that entire conversation of complainant and accused was recorded in the SD card through DVR. PW11 identified the verification memo bearing his signatures at point B on each page. Recorded conversation of 14.02.2024 were played in the presence of PW11, wherein witness identifies the conversation, transcript of the same as well as voice of complainant in that conversation.
45. Before proceeding further to discuss the evidence of PW1 and PW11 on what transpired on the next day, subsequent to the registration of the FIR. Here it may be stated that prosecution also examined PW13 Insp. Sunil Kumar who carried out the verification proceedings on 14.02.2024. ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 28 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:54:23 +0530 Evidence of PW13 Insp. Sunil Kumar is more or less on similar facts as deposed by PW1 and PW11, therefore need not to be reproduced for the sake of brevity.
46. Let us examine the points raised in the arguments on behalf of the accused, so far as with regard to verification proceedings. It is argued that from listening the recorded conversation either of 14.02.2024 or even of 15.02.2024, it would be evident that accused never made any demand of bribe rather complainant lured the accused for payment of alleged commission to which accused never demanded rather the work of complainant had completed on 14.02.2024 itself.
47. Having considered such submissions and the written submissions filed by defence, at the outset it be noted that from reading of evidence of PW1, PW11 and PW13 one thing which is not disputed is recorded conversation between complainant and accused on 14.02.2024. It is not the plea on behalf of the accused that such recorded conversation is concocted or fabricated. Accused has not denied receiving of calls from complainant in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC. Rather relying on such conversation the plea taken on behalf of the defence is that in fact complainant lured the accused for payment of money, whereas accused never demanded for the same.
48. Having heard the recorded conversation of 14.02.2024 and having gone through the transcript of the same which is Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/E-1, Ex.PW1/E-2 and Ex.PW1/E-3, it would be evident from listening the phone call no.240214_1450, that there is specific point raised by complainant stating as "...आप बताइये आप ने मेरे को कु छ बताया था, ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 29 Digitally signed SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.11.29 14:54:29 +0530 पेटीएम नंबर वगैरह दिया था कु छ...". In response to which accused can be heard replying "नहीं अभी बाद में बात करते हैं . This is not the platform ok". If we continue listening succeeding recorded conversation. No doubt in recorded conversation no. 240214_1453 it would be evident that complainant kept on raising the issue of generating the CRN and accused expressed his unawareness regarding non issuance of CRN despite claiming to have already cleared the file. In that conversation accused repeatedly stated that he would first clear the CRN by stating " आपका CRN जेनरे ट करूं गा, तब बात करूं गा". "नहीं पहले में CRN जेनरे ट करूं गा आपका फिर हम बात करें गे ....". "CRN तक wait कर सकते हो न , मैं CRN को पहले क्लियर करता हूँ ". Again in recorded conversation of phone call between complainant and accused no. 240214_1513, accused stated to have informed complainant that the material supplied by him has already been used and expressed his regret for the delay. However in the same conversation, accused can be heard to be stating to complainant " हूँ हूँ आपके लिए वही आदेश रहेगा जो पहले आपका था बाकि कु छ नहीं" . In response to which complainant can be heard to be enquiring that he should speak the amount, but accused did not respond only by stating "हूँ हूँ ". Complainant thereupon heard stating to the accused " इतना ही रिक्वेस्ट करूँ गा थोड़ा गुंजाईश करके बोलना साहब आप" to which accused heard responding "नहीं आप अपना बता दो ज्यादा दिक्कत न हो. आप जो बोलें गे ".
49. In that conversation it would be evident that complainant enquired regarding the mode of payment, to which accused can be heard to be stating to complainant "नहीं नहीं नहीं. I am saying I don't want anything. If you are insisting. Then take a pencil in your hand and I will give you ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 30 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:54:35 +0530 the number. Do it and just call me. Before doing just call me and second thing. आपका CRN generate होने के बाद ही कर दीजिये, because मैं ये नहीं चाहता हूँ की मुझे आपको और तकलीफ नहीं देनी, आपने इतने दिन से बताया नहीं तो मुझे एक दुःख हो रहा है ".
50. In the same conversation accused thereupon provided a number 9820264090 and also provided the name of Kiran Bharat to be the holder of that mobile number. Accused thereupon further instructed that after confirmation, asked the complainant to send the message of "OK". Accused instructed the complainant to make the payment by way of Paytm. In that conversation accused can be heard of enquiring from the complainant whether his conversation with him is being recorded, to which complainant replied in negative. Complainant thereafter enquired about the amount and when complainant suggested for deposit of Rs.10,000/- by stating "सर मैं दस कर देता हूँ " to which accused heard stating "हूँ चलेगा"
and again stated "हूँ करवा दो ".
51. Again in another recorded conversation no. 240214_1715, accused can be heard informing to the complainant that he has already cleared the CRN on that day. In that conversation accused was telling complainant "हाँ Paytm ही कर देना" to which complainant can be heard stating "ठीक है सर Paytm ही करता हूँ ".
52. Now having heard the recorded conversation as noted above as well as going through the transcript of the same, no doubt it would be evident from hearing the recorded conversation that accused in a most cautious manner stated to complainant that he was not aware regarding non generation of CRN as on that day accused was on leave from his duty. ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 31 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:54:44 +0530 Moreover in other recorded conversations it can be heard accused insisting for generating of CRN first and telling the complainant that he is not interested for anything else, but it appears by judicial assessment of this court that accused rather was cleverly talking with complainant in such a manner to give an impression as if he is not much interested for taking any undue favour/ gratification from the complainant whereas at the same time, when complainant made first regular call to accused, accused can be heard stating to him that it is not a platform to discuss. Thereafter, accused making a WhatsApp call to complainant and talking to him and in that recorded conversation, accused can be heard stating that " हूँ हूँ आपके लिए वही आदेश रहेगा जो पहले आपका था बाकि कु छ नहीं".
53. If we go through the cross-examination of PW1 recorded on 20.03.2025, upon putting a specific question to PW1 to the effect that from reading of transcript of call no.2 dated 14.02.2024, nowhere accused stated that he would clear the CRN only upon receiving of illegal gratification?, PW1 responded that it is correct. PW1 however voluntarily stated that accused may not have specifically stated so but the purpose of his delaying the clearance of CRN was only the same. PW1 in the same cross- examination in response to court question as to whether there has been specific demand of illegal gratification, in the recorded telephonic conversation, stated that there has been certain occasions for demand for the same in those calls. PW1 in his cross-examination admitted that as per the transcript of recorded conversation no. 240214_1453, accused expressed surprise regarding non clearance of CRN and told PW1 that he has already given instruction to one Mr.Pandey in this regard. ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 32 Digitally signed SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.11.29 14:54:50 +0530
54. When a specific question was put to PW1 in cross- examination that it was he (PW1), who was indirectly kept on hinting for some action on his part whereas accused said that he will first clear the CRN and then inform accordingly, PW1 admitted it but voluntarily stated that accused however never denied for the same and only stated that he would talk on this aspect later. PW1 denied the suggestion in his cross- examination recorded on 02.04.2025 to the effect that it is he who was alluring the accused for taking some amount as bribe as commission, whereas accused never demanded for the same.
55. Thus from meaningful reading of entire testimony of PW1, it can be stated that evidence of PW1 get corroboration from recorded conversation as well as evidence of PW11 and PW13. Taking the submissions as made on behalf of the accused on the face of it, it be noted that recorded conversation when not disputed, would be heard in totality and not in parts or in isolation. If we examine the context in which accused and complainant can be heard conversing with each other, no doubt accused in a smart manner trying to give an impression as if he is not demanding any undue favour from the complainant for clearance of CRN however at the same time accused can be heard informing the complainant that to him his order would be same as made earlier. There is no denial for such portion of conversation in recorded conversation, then question arises as to in which context accused was stating regarding it. Rather this portion of conversation establish that accused was not only interested in clearance of CRN rather delayed the same and therefore stated that first he would clear and would discuss other issues later. There ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 33 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:54:58 +0530 is no explanation as to what were the "other issues" which accused wanted to discuss later.
56. Beside the above said facts, in another recorded conversation of WhatsApp call made by the accused to the complainant, accused has provided mobile number of Kiran Bharat i.e. 9820264090. This aspect of the recorded conversation rather establish the prosecution case and genuineness of the recorded conversation because there was no occasion or reason for the complainant to have the above mentioned mobile number in the name of Kiran Bharat. It establish that such mobile number was provided by none else than the accused. It is after providing such mobile number of Kiran Bharat, accused instructed him to deposit the amount by way of Paytm on that account.
57. If there was never any demand made by the accused or in other words accused had never expected or demanded anything from the complainant for clearance of CRN, question arises as to why accused provided above mentioned number of Kiran Bharat to complainant. Why accused instructed the complainant to deposit the money by way of Paytm on that number of Kiran Bharat? There is no explanation at all on this aspect either in the cross-examination of PW1, PW11 or PW13 or even in the statement of the accused recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC. Important aspect to note in this context is that such transfer of money has been made by way of UPI transaction rather than by way of cash, which in itself establish the inculpability of the accused.
58. Before we proceed ahead to examine the other submissions made on behalf of the accused, it would be appropriate to discuss the ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 34 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:55:07 +0530 evidence of Kiran Bharat at this stage. Kiran Bharat has been examined as PW6 who stated that he joined the investigation of CBI in January 2024. PW6 says that he know accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam as he resides in the flat just adjoining to his flat. PW6 further admits that Paytm wallet no. 9820264090 is in his name and he has been operating the same since 2014. PW6 says that in February 2024 he received a call from accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam and accused told him that Rs.10,000/- would be deposited in his Paytm account and asked him if he has any problem. PW6 states that he told him that he has no issues. PW6 says that on the same day in the afternoon he received a sum of Rs.9,850/- and said amount was sent to his Paytm wallet by a person by name Prakash Surekha (complainant). PW6 says that after that transaction he received a call from person by name Prakash Surekha enquiring whether he know accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam and whether the amount has been credited to his Paytm wallet. PW6 says that he responded in affirmative and confirmed receiving the amount by Paytm.
59. PW6 goes on to testify that on such transaction and receiving of call from Prakash Surekha, he developed some doubt in his mind and therefore he made a call to accused to enquire from him about the transaction and asked from the accused that if he would not face any problem regarding such sudden deposit of money. PW6 goes on to testify that thereupon accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam told him to tell complainant Prakash Surekha that he do not know accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam. PW6 says that therefore he made a call to Prakash Surekha and on asking of ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 35 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.11.29 14:55:13 +0530 him, he said that though he received the money by Paytm but he do not know accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam.
60. PW6 identified the statement of account of his Paytm wallet no. 9820264090 which is Ex.PW2/E (D-12) and also admitted having received sum of Rs.9,850/- in that Paytm account. PW6 specifically admitted that he had been earlier also receiving money in his Paytm account on behalf of accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam. PW6 also referred to observation memo dated 20.02.2024 Ex.PW1/L and stated that he had given statement u/s 164 Cr.PC before Magistrate, that statement is Ex.PW6/D. PW6 also identified his voice as well as voice of complainant Prakash Surekha in recorded conversation of audio file no. 240215_1312, the transcript of which is Ex.PW1/E-4, audio file no. 240215_1411, the transcript of which is Ex.PW1/E-6. PW6 further stated that he had also given voice sample voluntarily during the investigation of CBI.
61. Now if we go through the cross-examination of PW6 recorded on 17.05.2025, which is a very precise cross-examination. In that cross- examination though witness PW6 has been suggested that accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam never asked PW6 to make a call to Prakash Surekha (complainant) to tell him that he do not know accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam, to which PW6 denied that suggestion. However there is no suggestion to PW6 in his cross-examination that Paytm wallet no. 9820264090 is not of PW6 or that that witness has never received a sum of Rs.9,850/- in his Paytm wallet from complainant Prakash Surekha. There is no denial by way of suggestion in cross-examination to the particular portion of deposition of PW6 when witness stated that in February 2024, accused ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 36 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:55:19 +0530 Kshitij Dilip Nikam told him that Rs.10,000/- would be deposited in his Paytm account and enquired if he has any problem in this regard, to which PW6 deposed that he has no issues. There is no cross-examination at all of PW6 on this aspect of deposition of PW6. It means that such portion of the evidence of PW6 has been admitted even by the accused.
62. Moreover if we further go through the evidence of PW6 in totality, PW6 testified that after receiving money, he developed some doubt and therefore he made a call to the accused to enquire whether he would not face any problem on account of receiving such money. On this aspect also there is no cross-examination of PW6. Recorded conversation of complainant and PW6 as played in the evidence of PW6 has also not been disputed in the cross-examination of the witness. Thus in view of such admitted portion of the evidence of PW6 as noted above, one thing which is very much sure that the Paytm account no. 9820264090 of PW6 Kiran Bharat Duduskar, which was exclusively within the knowledge of the accused, was provided by him to the complainant with the instruction to make the payment in that account. It is further undisputed from the evidence of PW1 and PW6 that prior to depositing of the amount by the complainant, accused informed PW6 that Rs.10,000/- is going to be deposited. Nothing came in the cross-examination of PW6 to disbelieve the fact that when he developed some doubt regarding sudden receiving of payment regarding which accused was well aware in advance, PW6 developed some doubts and therefore accused told him to make a call to the complainant Prakash Surekha to say that he do not know accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam, whereas it is undisputed fact that PW6 and the ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 37 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:55:26 +0530 accused are next door neighbours. As such the evidence of PW6 rather corroborates the evidence of PW1 showing that there was a specific demand of bribe/commission by way of depositing money by Paytm account of PW6, for clearance of CRN by the accused. Plea that accused provided Paytm number of PW6 to complainant on his repeated insistence, cannot sustain in law, a public servant cannot accept any favour, even on insistence from someone.
63. Testimony of PW6 has also been challenged, on the ground that PW6 was earlier made an accused, however later was let off and made witness in the present case. It is submitted that evidence of an approver is inherently unreliable, unless it is corroborated on material aspects. Reliance has been placed on judgment in Ravinder Singh vs. State of Haryana (supra), Mangoo Singh vs. Dharmender and others (supra) and Satya Narayan Murti vs. District Inspector of Police, State of AP (supra).
64. Having examined such submission, it be noted that there is no denial being matter of record that at initial stages of proceedings, when money was transferred to the account of PW6, investigating agency/CBI considered PW6 Kiran Bharat Duduskar to be co-accused with accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam. Witness Kiran Bharat was even arrested during the investigation of the matter but it is matter of record as reflected from the charge sheet (para 17.22) that Kiran Bharat was next door neigbour of the accused. Wife of accused, who was working as freelancer, used to receive payments from various sources as such accused used to receive his money and his wife's money through account of Kiran Bharat, whenever their account get technical issues. IO of the CBI during investigation got ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 38 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:55:32 +0530 recorded statement of Kiran Bharat u/s 164 Cr.PC, and concluded that nothing came in the investigation to reveal that Kiran Bharat was having any criminal knowledge or part of conspiracy with accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam. As such he was made witness instead of an accused.
65. Witness Kiran Bharat (PW6) cannot be considered to be an approver per se because it is not that he was made accused and later, pardon was given in terms of Section 306 of Cr.PC (Section 343 of BNSS) for making him as an approver. No doubt initially Kiran Bharat was being made an accused but his status was changed in the investigation itself without him being charge sheeted as an accused. As such PW6 cannot be considered to be an "approver" in strict sense of law. Therefore the judgments as relied upon, would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. Even otherwise, if witness Kiran Bharat (PW6) is assumed to be an approver, still this court finds that his evidence gets corroboration from the evidence of PW1, recorded conversations. As such there is nothing on the record to disbelieve or not to rely upon the evidence of PW6 when it is to be read along with evidence of PW1 and recorded conversations.
66. It is also argued on behalf of the accused that there has been no evidence that complainant/ PW1 had supplied any material to railway or to railway Sanpada previously, prior to the supply in question. This aspect in the opinion of this court has no much bearing, firstly because there is no dispute to the fact that complainant had supplied 3000 kg light weight body filler, to railway under a tender, the documents of which are D-10. There is no dispute regarding supply of material under the tender to ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 39 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:55:42 +0530 railway by the complainant/PW1. Therefore the fact that there is no evidence that PW1 had earlier been also supplying material to railway or other government department, does not affect the prosecution case or the evidence of PW1 on this count itself.
67. It is also argued that complainant/PW1 had never made any complaint either before senior officials of railway department, immediate senior of accused or even did not raise any grievance before railway vigilance department, prior to filing of complaint to the CBI on 14.02.2024.
68. Having examined such submissions, in the facts, no doubt PW1 has admitted in his cross-examination that he had not filed any complaint, before any other authority, prior to filing the complaint to the CBI, however such conduct of complainant, cannot be considered to be abnormal per se as there is no requirement of law that any complainant would make complaint or raise grievance before any other authorities, prior to filing of complaint to CBI or any enforcement agency. If otherwise the allegation regarding demand of bribe by way of commission, is verified by the CBI, mere fact that no prior complaint was filed before any other authority, would not affect the credibility of prosecution case, particularly when the allegations do get corroboration from the recorded conversation as discussed above.
69. No doubt it has come in the evidence of PW1 as well as in the complaint that complainant has alleged that since the supply of material, accused has been demanding bribe by way of commission on the value of the material supplied and such demand has also been made to the ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 40 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.11.29 14:55:48 +0530 employees of complainant. As a matter of record, prosecution has not examined any employee of the complainant/PW1 to prove that accused made any call to any of the employee of the complainant for demanding bribe/commission. This aspect in the opinion of this court does not affect the evidence of PW1 when there is material in the evidence of PW1 establishing demand of bribe as has already been discussed above.
70. It is also argued that money transferred in the account of PW6, and there is no evidence to show that accused or his wife received that amount from PW6. Such argument cannot sustain in law because offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act, 1988 is complete, upon proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. There is no requirement of law to prove that accused actually used that illegal gratification.
71. It be noted that the case of the prosecution precisely is that when the process of approval of tender, passing of order, supply of material under the tender, acceptance of the material by officer/officials of railway and issuance of CRN and acknowledgment of the CRN, everything was on railway website and in a transparent manner, accused deliberately delayed in acknowledging the CRN. That aspect has been proved from the evidence of PW1.
72. Above noted aspect also required to be examined in the light of the submissions made on behalf of the accused to the effect that the material in question was received by Paint & Rehab Section i.e. the section of the accused only on 27.11.2023 as is evident from D-10 (page no.255) Ex.PW1/X and it is argued that there has not been any call from the ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 41 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:55:54 +0530 accused from 27.11.2023 to 14.02.2024 to complainant to establish that there was any prior call logs regarding demand of bribe/commission.
73. In order to examine such submission on behalf of the accused, let us discuss relevant evidence regarding supply of material, the procedure of railway to accept that material and issuance, acknowledgment of CRN etc. Prosecution in this regard has examined PW8 Praveen Kumar Kore who was posted in Central Railway Sanpada, Navi Mumbai as Divisional Material Manager, at the relevant time. PW8 stated that his duty in his such capacity was to procure, store, check and issue the material as well as to process the tender and allotment etc. as well as regarding procuring of material under the tender. PW8 testified that he provided file no. 74235155 (D-10 (i) containing certified copy relating to tender, purchase of material by M/s Krishna Udyog. That file is Ex.PW8/B. This document is otherwise not disputed. PW8 goes on to refer to another file no. 74235155100198 containing certified copies of material receipt, inspection and acceptance as well as issuance of R Note pertaining to material supplied by M/s Krishna Udyog Delhi. These documents are Ex.PW8/C. This document is also not disputed.
74. On being asked specifically about the procedure of Central Railway, PW8 went on to testify the procedure of issuance of tender and material supplied. PW8 says that first of all consignee ascertain the demand and prepare a note for the same, get it approved from the competent authority and then intent would be prepared on Integrated Material Management System (IMMS) portal. PW8 says that after scrutiny of demand, his department float the tender on Indian Railway E ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 42 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:56:00 +0530 Procurement System (IREPS), for submitting bids. Upon receiving the bids, lowest eligible bidder would be awarded the tender. PW8 says that from seeing the file Ex.PW8/B the entire procedure as stated above was carried out and tender for supply of 3000 kg of light weight body filler was awarded to complainant's firm.
75. PW8 inter alia testified that from perusal of file Ex.PW8/C it can be stated that above mentioned material was supplied by Krishna Udyog on 26.10.2023, material and quality and quantity was inspected by Chief DMS and it was accepted. Thereupon R Note (Receipt Note) was prepared by Chief DMS and approved by him on 18.11.2023. On the same day R Note was auto forwarded to accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam on online portal (UDM Portal), for acknowledgment. After acknowledgment of R Note by SSE, the concerned firm gets opportunity to raise the bill as per terms of the tender. PW8 on specifically asked, testified that normally should take 2 to 3 days for acknowledging the R Note, when R Note has been prepared by Chief DMS and auto forwarded to SSE (the position on which accused was working). PW8 further says that in this case R Note was accepted on 14.02.2024 i.e. after three months of issuance of the same.
76. Reference can also be given of evidence of PW12 Pankaj Kale who was working as JE in Sanpada Workshop Navi Mumbai and accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam at the relevant time was Incharge of Rehab and Paint Section. PW12 also referred to files Ex.PW8/B and Ex.PW8/C and also testified regarding the similar procedure regarding floating of tender, acceptance and giving of order and regarding acceptance, inspection of material supplied. PW12 also testified that from reading of files ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 43 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:56:06 +0530 Ex.PW8/B and Ex.PW8/C tender for supply of material in question was awarded to M/s Krishna Udyog Delhi, which supplied the material on 26.10.2023. PW12 says that quantity and quality of the material was inspected by Chief DMS, upon acceptance of same R Note was auto forwarded by store department to consignee i.e. Paint Section on 28.11.2023.
77. PW12 says that accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam was Incharge of Paint Section, upon receipt of R Note on IREPS, said R Note was to be acknowledged and accepted within three to four days. PW12 says that said R Note was accepted on 14.02.2024 by him on the instructions of accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam as on that day he was on leave. PW12 says that he received a call from the accused at 03.00 p.m. on 14.02.2024 for acceptance of said R Note. PW12 says that at that time only R Note of M/s Krishna Udyog Limited was pending.
78. From the evidence of PW8 and PW12, it is very much established that material of complainant's firm was supplied to railway department on 26.10.2023. Quantity and quality of the material was inspected by Chief DMS thereafter, and same was accepted, as per the procedure. Thereupon R Note was prepared by Chief DMS on 18.11.2023, it was auto forwarded to Paint Section on 18.11.2023 for acceptance by accused in his capacity as SSE of that section. It further came in the evidence of PW8 that upon issuance of R Note, it was only to be acknowledged by the accused in his capacity as SSE, which according to PW8 generally take 2 to 4 working days for acknowledging the same once ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 44 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:56:13 +0530 the material has already been accepted by Chief DMS and R Note has been created.
79. It is argued on behalf of the accused that R Note could have been acknowledged by the accused only after it is accepted by Paint and Rehab Section and as per the document D-10 (page no.255) Ex.PW1/X, material was accepted in Paint and Rehab Section only on 27.11.2023, therefore according to defence there was no much delay in acknowledging of R Note on 14.02.2024. Moreover as per ld. Sr. Counsel for the accused there has been no communication/call logs between accused and complainant from 27.11.2023 to 14.02.2024.
80. Having examined such submissions, in the light of evidence as noted above, first of all it be noted that perusal of files Ex.PW8/B and Ex.PW8/C clearly show the document regarding receipt of material, inspection of the same and acceptance of the same by Chief DMS. Perusal of the same shows that material was received in railway department on 26.10.2023, it was thereafter inspected by Chief DMS and accepted by him. Thereupon R Note was approved by Chief DMS. As per evidence of PW8 and PW12, after creating of R Note it was auto forwarded to the section of the accused for his acknowledgment only. R Note was created on 18.11.2023 for acknowledgment but accused acknowledged it after about three months on 14.02.2024.
81. The argument that material was accepted in Paint and Rehab Section only on 27.11.2023, has no much significance, firstly because there was no requirement in guidelines of railway to the effect that R Note to be acknowledged by accused only upon of receipt of material by ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 45 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:56:18 +0530 concerned section, once the same has already been inspected and accepted by senior officer i.e. Chief DMS. Even if it is taken that material was accepted by the section of the accused on 27.11.2023, still there was delay of more than 2 ½ months for acknowledging of R Note already generated by Chief DMS. This circumstance certainly points finger of suspicion towards the accused who was duty bound to only acknowledge the R Note already created by his administrative superior. Accused cannot escape from his failure of explaining undue delay in acknowledging of R Note, particularly when it came in the evidence of PW8 and PW12 that generally such R Note was to be acknowledged within 2 to 3 days. No doubt in cross-examination of PW12 witness has stated that there is no specific guidelines in writing regarding time line of acknowledging/processing of R Note, however the transparency of functioning of railway on its portal, certainly require that once the material upon its delivery till its acceptance and creating of R Note by senior officer of railway, took mere 20 odd days (26.10.2023 to 18.11.2023), why accused kept on sitting in acknowledging of R Note from 18.11.2023 to 14.02.2024 or even from 27.11.2023 when material was accepted by his section till 14.02.2024.
82. The argument that there was no telephonic communication between accused and complainant during the period from 27.11.2023 to 14.02.2024, has least significance, firstly because accused in his capacity as SSE was otherwise not supposed to be in personal communication with complainant. If at all there could be any situation for accused to communicate with complainant, it could have been only through official channel, regarding deficiency of quality or quantity of material or any ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 46 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.11.29 14:56:25 +0530 other issue. Whereas in the evidence of PW1 document D-2 (page no.16 to 19), print out of screen shots of WhatsApp chat of mobile phone of complainant with accused, has been proved as Ex.PW1/F, shows that accused made WhatsApp missed call on 16.11.2023, thereafter had a call on the same day i.e. 16.11.2023, again missed call on 18.11.2023 and had a WhatsApp call on 20.11.2023 and thereafter two missed calls of 23.11.2023 and 26.11.2023. Screen shot of call logs Ex.PW1/F clearly show that it is accused who has been making a call to complainant, after the creation of R Note by Chief DMS on 18.11.2023. Even if there may not be any details of call logs subsequent to 27.11.2023, but accused was supposed to explain as to for what purpose he was communicating with complainant from 16.11.2023 to 26.11.2023 as is reflected from Ex.PW1/F.
83. It is further argued on behalf of the defence that once the work of the complainant had already been done on 14.02.2024, there was no reason for complainant to pay bribe/commission on 15.02.2024 as accused had already done his work. Such argument is not sustainable in law because if we go through the provisions of Section 7 of P.C. Act 1988 (as amended after 2018), one can make out the following ingredients of offence u/s 7 :
1. Any Public servant who
(i) obtains; (ii) accepts; (iii) attempt to obtain from any person"an undue advantage" for
(a) with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly ; or
(b) to forbear or cause to forbear to perform such duty either by himself or by other public servant ; or ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 47 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:56:37 +0530
(c) as a reward for improper or dishonest performance of public duty or for forbearing to perform such duty either by himself or another public servant;
2. Perform or induces another public servant to perform improperly or dishonestly a public duty or forbear performance of such duty.
3. It is not necessary that performance of such public duty by public servant is or has been improper or not, if there is evidence of obtaining, accepting or attempting to obtain an undue advantage. (Expl. I)
4. Expressions 'obtain', 'accepts' or 'attempt to obtain' shall cover cases where a public servant obtains or accepts or attempt to obtain any undue advantage for himself or for another person by abusing his position as public servant or using his personal influence over another public servant or by other corrupt or illegal means.
5. It is not necessary that there should be evidence of public servant having personally obtains or accepts or attempt to obtain the undue advantage directly as if there is evidence of having obtained, accepted or attempt to obtain through a third party.
84. We all know that there is a different meaning of expression 'acceptance' and 'obtainment' in context of section 7 of P.C. Act. If the offer emanates from bribe giver, without there being any demand from public servant and later public servant accepts the offer and receives illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance. On the other hand in case of obtainment the offer emanates from public servant i.e. public servant makes a demand and bribe giver accepts the offer and pays the demanded gratification, which in turn received by such public servant. As such in ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 48 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:56:53 +0530 case of obtainment there is a prior demand of illegal gratification by public servant but there may not be specific demand in case of acceptance.
85. There is no denial to the well established legal proposition that for proving the offence under Section 7 r/w section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act (prior to the amendment) or under Section 7 of P.C. Act (after the amendment of 2018) that the essential ingredients for proof of offence is demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. However it is not possible that in each and every possible case there should be a direct evidence of demand of illegal gratification and acceptance of the same. Proof of demand and acceptance may not be in every case by direct evidence, it can be proved even through circumstantial evidence showing that there was a demand of illegal gratification and in pursuance thereto acceptance of the same. It all depends upon peculiar facts and circumstances of the case but the golden thread which need to be highlighted that there must be atleast some evidence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
86. It be noted that the demand or acceptance of bribe amount cannot be dependent on doing of work subsequent to the acceptance of illegal gratification. It is evident from the Explanation I of Section 1, that obtaining, accepting or attempting to obtain undue advantage, itself constitute the offence even if the performance of public duty by public servant is not or has not been improper. Clause (b) of Section 7 of the Act also make penalise acceptance of illegal gratification as a reward for performing public duties, even if lawful. Therefore the argument as raised on behalf of the accused has no legal bearing. On this legal aspect reference can also be given of judgment of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 49 Digitally signed SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.11.29 14:57:10 +0530 Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2022) SCC Online SC 1724.
87. Thus this court finds for the reasons as noted above that there is sufficient evidence showing that accused made the demand of bribe amount by way of commission from the complainant, which stood accepted also when complainant was asked to deposit the said amount by way of transfer of money to the Paytm account of PW6 Kiran Bharat.
(ii) Whether the sanction for prosecution Ex.PW10/A is bad in law, for want of independent assessment/non application of mind?
88. Ld. Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused challenged the prosecution case on the question of validity of sanction for prosecution u/s 19 of PC. Act against accused given by PW10 Sujeet Kumar Singh, on the ground that PW10 was not competent person to accord sanction for prosecution against the accused as he was Deputy CME and a Junior Administrative Grade Officer and in terms of Schedule II of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1968 and Rule 6 of the same, he was empowered to impose penalties specified in clause (i) to
(vi) of Rule 6. As such he was not empowered to impose penalties of clause (vii), (viii) and (ix) of Rule 6 which are reduction to lower rank, compulsory retirement and removal.
89. In order to examine such submission as made on behalf of the accused, let us examine the evidence of PW10 Sujeet Kumar Singh. PW10 says that when he was working as Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Sanpada Workshop, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra and was ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 50 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:57:20 +0530 competent authority to remove accused Kshitij Dilip Nikam, who at relevant time was working as Sr. Section Engineer (SSE), Sanpada Workshop, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra. PW10 says that during his tenure Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer of their Department received a letter from SP, CBI, ACB, regarding according of sanction for prosecution u/s 19 of P.C. Act, 1988 against accused. Deputy CVO marked the same to PW10 being competent authority, for necessary action.
90. PW10 thereafter went on to testify that CBI put up before him the entire charge sheet along with the documents and after examining the entire material, he passed the sanction order Ex.PW10/A for prosecution of the accused for offence u/s 7 of P.C. Act.
91. Having examined the evidence on the aspect as raised by ld. Sr. Advocate for the accused, it is not clear as to how it is argued that PW10 at relevant time was "Junior Administrative Grade Officer". There is nothing in the entire evidence of PW10 to show that said witness was working as "Junior Administrative Grade Officer" as stated in the written submissions because there is no cross-examination of PW10 on this aspect at all. Witness has not been even been suggested in cross-examination that he was not competent to accord the sanction. Whereas there is a specific testimony of PW10 that he was working as Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer in Sanpada Workshop, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra and was competent to remove the accused, who at relevant time was working as Sr. Section Engineer. Therefore there is nothing on the record to establish as to how serial no.4 of Schedule II of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1968, would apply in case of PW10 to assert that he was ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 51 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:57:27 +0530 Junior Administrative Grade Officer. In fact column 4 of Schedule II, applies in respect of Incharge of Department in any Division whereas PW10 in his evidence has stated that he was Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer of entire Sanpada Workshop, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra.
92. Evidence of PW10 has also been challenged on the ground that there has not been any due application of mind by PW10 while according sanction of prosecution Ex.PW10/A as it came in the cross- examination of PW10 that he had not heard the telephonic conversation of alleged verification, trap proceedings at the time of passing sanction order. It is argued that since the most vital evidence of the present case i.e. recorded conversation, was not heard by PW10, therefore sanction order would be considered to be improper on account of non-application of independent mind regarding incriminating evidence if any against the accused.
93. Having considered such submission of ld. Sr. counsel for the accused, it be noted that evidence of any witness, is required to be read in totality and not only in isolation. PW10 in his examination in chief has stated that he went through the entire charge sheet, along with the documents as put up before him by the CBI and upon examining the entire charge sheet, documents relied upon by the prosecution, including the complaint dated 14.02.2024 of complainant Prakash Surekha, verification proceedings, trap proceedings and other documents, he examined the material independently and found that there were sufficient material collected by the investigating agency against the accused for accepting bribe of Rs.9,850/- through Paytm from complainant and passed the ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 52 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:57:34 +0530 sanction order Ex.PW10/A. No doubt in cross-examination PW10 admitted that he had not heard the telephonic conversation. However, upon a specific question put to the witness to the effect that when he had not heard the recorded conversation, then on which basis he came to know and arrive at the conclusion, regarding accused allegedly demanded bribe from complainant. PW10 responded by testifying that he came to know about those facts on the basis of documents/reports furnished by CBI. In this context it be noted that from perusal of D-22 Ex.PW10/A, it is evident that sanction order was passed on 30.04.2024, whereas prior thereto Q-1 in CO-16/24 and Q-1 in RC 06(A)/24-DLI, along with S-1, S-2, S-3 and DVR had already been sealed and sent to CFSL on 06.03.2024. It is matter of record that CFSL report along with above sealed recorded conversations were received with the CFSL report, received in the court on 18.04.2024. As such there was no occasion for PW10 to hear the recorded conversation, as by that time same was already with CFSL expert for their examination.
94. No doubt the investigation copy of recorded conversation was prepared during investigation but said copy was only for the purpose of investigation and the copy of the same could not have been provided to sanctioning authority when the authenticity of recorded conversation was still in the process of examination by CFSL expert. Moreover as stated by PW10, he examined entire material as put up to him by the CBI for the purpose of assessing whether there was sufficient material for the purpose of according sanction. As such sanction cannot be found to be bad in law on the ground as raised on behalf of the accused.
______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 53 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:57:46 +0530
(iii) Whether the prosecution evidence prove the charge u/s 7 of P.C. Act or not?
95. In view of the findings of this court on above discussed two points of determination, this court concludes that accused is guilty u/s 7 of P.C. Act, 1988 (as amended n 2018), he be called upon for submissions on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open Court (Shailender Malik)
on 29.11.2025 Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI-21
RACC/New Delhi
______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Kshitij Dilip Nikam (judgment) Page No. 54 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.11.29 14:57:54 +0530