Delhi District Court
1. V. Venkata Subha Rao vs . State Of A. P. 2007 Cri. on 25 September, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. N. K. SHARMA, SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC ACT)-02 DELHI.
RC No. 47(A)/2000.
CC No. 15/06
CBI
VS
1. PHOOL SINGH,
S/O LATE SH. SRI CHAND,
R/O VILLAGE NANGAL KALAN,
PS RAI, DISTRICT SONIPAT,
HARYANA.
2. SANT RAJ,
S/O SH. HARDEVA,
R/O VILLAGE & POST BAYANA KHURD,
PS GANNAUR,
DISTRICT SONIPAT, HARYANA.
Date of Institution : 01.11.2006
Date of Arguments : 18.09.2012
Date of Judgment : 25.09.2012
1 of 63
2
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment will dispose off the CBI criminal case referred to herein above filed by the CBI on 01.11.2006 u/s 120B IPC r/w section 7 as well as Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Phool Singh, ATI and Sant Raj, Conductor, BBMD1, New Delhi.
2. It is relevant to mention here that initially the CBI filed a charge sheet u/s 120B IPC r/w section 7 as well as Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Phool Singh, ATI and Sant Raj, Conductor, BBMD1, New Delhi, before my Ld. predecessor on 26.03.2001 vide CC no. 115 of 2001 and charges were framed against both of them on 22.2.2002 and after hearing final arguments, ld. Predecessor of this court dropped the 2 of 63 3 proceedings against both the accused persons vide judgment dt. 28.9.2005 on the ground that the sanction order Ex.PW1/A with respect to accused Sant Raj itself speaks that the sanction has been accorded by PW1 Sh.R.K.Sharma without any application of mind and without even caring to see as to whether the same was granted in respect of Sant Raj or Phool Singh and he was unable to state what material was placed before him or perused by him even after going through the Sanction order Ex.PW1/A. With respect to sanction against accused Phool Singh, it is held by my ld. Predecessor that there was clear admission by the Sanctioning Authority that before granting the sanction he has not seen any document and just signed the draft sanction order on all the pages.
3. Thereafter, Prosecution has filed fresh charge sheet on 01.11.2006 vide CC no. 15/2006 after obtaining fresh sanction orders 3 of 63 4 against both the accused persons Phool Singh and Sant Raj from their competent authorities.
4. In brief, the present case was registered on 29.08.2000 on the basis of a written complaint dated 29.08.2000 of complainant Dalbir Singh, Driver, DTC u/s 120B IPC and section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Shakeel Ahmed Khan, Depot Manager and Phool Singh, ATI, I/C, TI Schedule, both from BBMD I, DTC,Delhi.
5. It is alleged by the complainant in his complaint that he was working as a Driver in DTC and was engaged to ply bus on Delhi Katra route. On 08.08.2000, he left Delhi by bus no. DLIP 2613 along with conductor Surender Pal. During return journey from Katra at about 1.30 a.m. on 10.8.2000, when the bus had reached near Karnal Buy Pass, two passengers boarded the bus and started 4 of 63 5 quarreling with the conductor. On seeing their quarrel, the complainant had stopped the bus. Both the passengers and the conductor alighted from the bus and ran away and as the conductor did not return, the complainant stayed on the spot. In the morning when ATI Sh. Deewan Singh reached there, the complainant along with ATI Sh. Deewan Singh came back to BBMDI. On arrival at Delhi, he came to know that a false complaint of looting had been lodged against him by the Conductor and when on 14.08.2000, the complainant came for duty, he was placed under suspension.
6. It is further alleged that on 16.8.2000, accused/ ATI Phool Singh called the complainant to his village Nagal Kalan and told him that Sh. Shakeel Ahmed khan, Depot Manager had demanded bribe of Rs. 25,000/ to close the case against the complainant. On that the complainant pleaded for reducing the amount. Accused Phool Singh 5 of 63 6 told him to pay Rs. 10,000/ as advance and balance Rs. 15,000/ after closing of the case. Similarly, a day prior to the trap, accused Phool Singh demanded and reiterated for making payment of Rs. 10,000/. The Complainant was not interested to give bribe to the accused person and as such he lodged the complaint with the CBI for taking legal action against the accused persons.
7. On the basis of the written complaint of Dalbir Singh, case RC47(A)/2000 for commission of offences u/s 120B and Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988 was registered against accused Shakeel Ahmed Khan, DM and accused Phool Singh, ATI, I/C Schedule. The investigation was entrusted to Inspector A. K. Pandey, who then laid a trap after constituting a trap team consisting of himself and Inspector U. K. Goswami, Inspector S. K. Lal, Inspector Surender Malik and other subordinate staff. Two independent witnesses Sh.
6 of 63 7 Ram Avtar and Sh. Satish Sharma, were arranged from Enforcement Department, Delhi Zone, Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi. All the members of the trap party had assembled in the room of Inspector A. K. Pandey, who introduced the independent witnesses to the complainant. The complaint of Dalbir Singh was shown to all the members of the trap party including the independent witnesses. Thereafter Inspector A. K. Pandey asked certain questions from the complainant and satisfied with the genuineness of the complaint. Thereafter, the complainant produced a sum of Rs.10,000/ in the form of 20 GC notes of Rs.500/ denomination each, the number of which were noted down in a separate annexure which was enclosed with the Handing Over Memo.
8. Thereafter, Inspector U. K. Goswami treated those notes with Phenolphthalein Powder and gave practical demonstration 7 of 63 8 regarding its reaction. The independent witness Satish Sharma was asked to touch those GC notes and put his fingers in the freshly prepared solution of Sodium Carbonate. On doing so, the solution turned pink in colour. The importance and significance of this reaction was explained to the witness. Thereafter, the remaining Phenolphthalein Powder was returned to the Malkhana. The pink colour solution of Sodium Carbonate was destroyed. The personal search of the complainant was taken and he was not allowed to carry any other incriminating document/article except the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/. The treated GC notes were kept in his left hand side shirt pocket and was directed to hand over the amount to the accused person on his specific demand or on his direction to some other person and not otherwise. Thereafter, all the members washed their hands with soap and water. The independent witness Ram Avtar was 8 of 63 9 directed to act as a shadow witness and to remain as close as possible to the complainant to hear the conversation and to see the transaction of bribe. He was further instructed to give signal by scratching his head with both his hands as soon as the process of passing over the bribe amount was completed. The leather bag was arranged and all the material required for formalities after trap was kept in it. These proceedings were noted down in the Handing Over Memo which was duly signed by all including independent witnesses. These formalities were completed at about 2.45 PM in CBI office and thereafter the trap team alongwith independent witnesses and complainant had proceeded for the spot.
9. It is further alleged that at about 4.30 PM, the trap team reached near BBM Depot. The complainant and shadow witness were directed to proceed to the office of accused Phool Singh, ATI 9 of 63 10 and other members of the trap team took suitable positions. After about five minutes, the complainant Dalbir Singh along with shadow witness Ram Avtar came out of the room of accused Phool Singh and proceeded to a Tea stall outside the Depot premises. After a while, accused Sant Raj, Conductor of DTC also joined them and had a tea with complainant and shadow witness. They had a talk for about ten minutes and after finishing their tea they went inside Depot and started moving towards canteen then accused Sant Raj asked for the bribe amount. The complainant gave Rs. 10,000/ to accused Sant Raj who after counting with both of his hands, put the same in his left pocket of his Kurta. This fact was witnessed by Inspector Surender Malik and Sh.U.K.Goswami, who were then present in the gallery at the distance of about 10 feet. Thereafter, accused Sant Raj took the complainant and shadow witness to the office of accused Phool 10 of 63 11 Singh, ATI and asked them to wait outside. Thereafter, when accused Sant Raj started walking outside the Depot, Inspector Surender Malik and U.K.Goswami caught hold of the accused Sant Raj by his right and left wrist, who were in constant vigil of the activities of accused Sant Raj. After disclosing their identities, both the Inspectors challenged accused Sant Raj of having demanded and accepted bribe from Sh. Dalbir Singh but accused Sant Raj got perplexed and started perspiring. On being questioned, accused Sant Raj disclosed that he had kept bribe amount in his left side pocket of kurta and has accepted this amount from Sh. Dalbir Singh on being asked to do so by accused Phool Singh. Thereafter, accused Sant Raj was brought in the same condition to the room of accused Phool Singh. The Independent witness Satish Sharma was directed to recover the bribe amount from the pocket of accused Sant 11 of 63 12 Raj. After recovery of GC notes, the numbers were tallied with the number noted down in the annexure to the Handing Over Memo which tallied.
10. It is also alleged that three colourless solution of Sodium Carbonate were prepared separately and washes of right hand fingers, left hand fingers and left side kurta pocket were taken which turned the colourless solution into pink in colour. These were then transferred into three separate empty bottles and were sealed with CBI seal. Both the independent witnesses signed on these. On query, shadow witness Ram Avtar narrated that when he, alongwith the complainant, had first met the accused Phool Singh in his office, the following conversation took place between the complainant and accused Phool Singh: 12 of 63 13 Phool Singh "Paisa laye ho."
Dalbir Singh "Abhi das hazar laya hu, baki 15 hazar bad mein kar dunga."
Phool Singh "Lakin Sh. Shakeel Ahmed Khan sahab manenge ya nahin. Kal Kaha tha ki 25 hazar mil jayenge tabhi uska kaam karenge. Isliye der mat karna. Baki 15 hazar bad mein de dena. Bahar chaye ki dukan par ek Conductor Sant Raj Milenge. Use paise abhi de dena."
11. The above mentioned conversation was also confirmed by the complainant. Both the accused persons namely Phool Singh and Sant Raj were arrested on the spot and their personal search were conducted. A rough site plan showing the position of the trap party members was prepared. Recovery Memo was also prepared on the spot. All the memos were signed by all the members present including independent witnesses.
13 of 63 14
12. It is further alleged that during the investigation, statement of all the witnesses were recorded and various documents in support of the case were seized. The file relating the Department action of the complaint against Sh. Dalbir Singh was seized, has revealed that the complainant Dalbir Singh was placed under suspension on 14.08.2000 vide order BBMDI/AI/N/2000/829, dated 14.08.2000 by Dy. Manager (T). Immediately after suspension order, charge sheet was drafted by the concerned clerks and put up before DM on 22.08.2000 as the Dy. Manager BBMDI was on long leave. However, accused Shakeel Ahmed Khan, Depot Manager lingered the issuance of the charge sheet to the complainant without recording anything on the file, obviously with an ulterior motive. The interrogation of Dealing Assistant J. R. Arora and ATI S. K. Das has revealed that he did not attend issuing of the charge sheet on some 14 of 63 15 plea as and when approached by them. It has also revealed that accused Phool Singh was very close to DM Shakeel Ahmed Khan, who soon after the trap, had proceeded on leave and filed application before the Special Judge for anticipatory bail.
13. It is revealed that the CFSL vide their report, have confirmed the presence of Sodium Carbonate and Phenolphthalein in the solution in which the right hand, left hand and left side kurta pocket washes of accused Sant Raj, were taken on 29.08.2000.
14. Phenolphthalein Power treated notes which were handed over to the complainant for giving as bribe demanded by accused Phool Singh was accepted by accused Sant Raj. There is oral evidence of shadow witness, complainant that accused Phool Singh had directed the complainant to hand over the same to accused Sant Raj and that bribe money was accepted by accused Sant Raj from 15 of 63 16 the complainant and counted the same with his both hands and thereafter kept the same in his left side pocket of Kurta. There is sufficient oral evidence of independent witness and the members of the trap party that on specific demand and direction of accused Phool Singh, the complainant had taken out tainted money which was accepted by accused Sant Raj. The washes of right hand finger, left hand finger and left side Kurta Pocket of accused Sant Raj in colourless Sodium Carbonate Solution turned pink corroborated by positive CFSL opinion establish the case against the accused persons.
15. According to the charge sheet, there is sufficient oral as well as documentary evidence to prove the guilt of accused persons namely Phool Singh and Sant Raj, who were privy to the offence of conspiracy and the offence of demanding and taking bribe from the 16 of 63 17 complainant Dalbir Singh. The recovery of cash amount from the person of accused Sant Raj coupled with the result of washes confirm that accused Sant Raj had accepted the bribe amount at the instance of accused Phool Singh.
16. On the above facts, the CBI filed a charge sheet u/s 120B IPC r/w section 7 as well as Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Phool Singh, ATI and Sant Raj, Conductor, BBMD1, New Delhi.
17. After obtaining the Fresh sanction of prosecution from the competent authority, IO has filed present charge sheet for the trial of accused no.1 Phool Singh and accused no. 2 Sant Raj for the commission of offences punishable under Section 120B of IPC read with Section 7 as well as Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against accused Phool Singh and 17 of 63 18 accused Sant Raj.
18. On appearance of the accused persons, copies of charge sheet and documents relied upon by the CBI were supplied to them.
19. Charges against accused no.1 Phool Singh and accused no. 2 Sant Raj for their trial for the commission of offences punishable under Section 120B of IPC read with Section 7 as well as Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were framed. Substantive charges under Section 7 read with Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were also framed against accused no.1 Phool Singh and accused no.2 Sant Raj.
20. In support of its case the CBI examined the following witnesses:
21. PW1 Sh. Satish Sharma, independent witness / shadow 18 of 63 19 witness, had identified his signatures on Handing Over Memo Ex. PW1/A1, document Ex. PW1/A, Recovery Memo Ex. PW1/B, Site Plan Ex. PW1/C, Search cum Arrest Memo of accused Sant Raj Ex. PW1/D, Search cum Arrest Memo of accused Phool Singh Ex. PW1/E.
22. PW2 is Kulbhushan, who was running a tea stall. He has deposed orally. He has not proved any document.
23. PW3 Sh. K. S. Chhabra, Retd. SSO Grade1 cum Assistant Chemical Examiner proved the CFSL report Ex. PW3/A.
24. PW4 Joginder Singh, who was working as Senior Clerk at BBM DepotI, DTC, Delhi, proved a letter dated 28.09.2000 Ex. PW4/A. He further deposed that he was directed to hand over the letter Ex. PW4/A alongwith leave applications of Hem Raj and Shakeel Ahmed to CBI Ex. PW4/B1 to Ex. PW4/B5 (already 19 of 63 20 exhibited as Ex. PW6/B1 to B5). He identified the signatures of Sh. Hem Raj on the letter Ex. PW4/A.
25. PW5 V. K. Gupta, Depot Manager, DTC, Nand Nagri Depot, New Delhi had granted the Sanction for prosecution of accused Phool Singh vide Sanction Order Ex. PW5/A.
26. PW6 Sh. Som Nath Luthra, proved his signatures on Production cum Seizure Memo Dated 13.09.2000 Ex. PW6/A (already exhibited as Ex. PW11/B), vide which he handed over one file pertaining to suspension proceedings against Dalbir Singh, Driver posted at BBM, DepotI to Inspector CBI.
27. PW7 is J. R. Arora, Senior Clerk, DTC, BBM DepotI, Kingsway Camp, Delhi9, who was posted as Ticket Telly Clerk from November, 1982 to 2008 in DTC. During the year 2000, he was posted in BBM DepotI in AIT Section. He proved the file of Dalbir 20 of 63 21 Singh Driver Ex. PW7/A (D16). He has further deposed that relevant page no.1 was typed by him at the instance of his incharge. He has identified his signatures as well as signatures of Sh. S. K. Dass, Incharge Supervisor on the relevant page no.1, 3,6,7 and 8.
28. PW8 is M. K. Sardana, Senior Manager, DTC, Central Work Shop at K.W.Camp, Delhi, identified his signatures on the photocopies of the leave applications Ex. PW4/B4 and Ex. PW4/B5.
29. PW9 Raj Pal Singh has deposed that he has seen the file Ex. PW7/A in respect of Dalbir driver, which was put up before him on 30.08.2000 for his signatures but he ignored to sign the same and thereafter, the file was sent to Regional Manager, who made endorsement on the same. He has further deposed that the Disciplinary Authority of Dalbir Singh Driver is Depot Manager.
30. PW10 Hem Raj Singh remained as Dy. Manager, Transport 21 of 63 22 (Traffic) from 1990 to 2005. He has identified his signatures on the page no.1 of Ex. PW7/A. As per record, driver Dalbir Singh was suspended by him. He has further deposed that Suspension Memo Ex. PW10/A of Dalbir Singh placed on said file.
31. PW11 Manohar Lal has proved the Suspension Order of driver Dalbir Singh available on the reverse of page no. 42 Ex. PW11/A encircled in red. He has also identified the signatures of Sh. Rajpal Singh, Dy. Manager and Sh. S.K. Dass on Ex. PW11/A.
32. PW12 Ved Parkash has identified his handwriting in recording the complaint Ex. PW12/A. He has further deposed that this complaint was lodged by conductor Surinder Pal on 10.08.2000 against the driver Dalbir Singh.
33. PW13 Diwan Singh has identified the noting on the complaint Ex. PW12/A, wherein he has stated that he went to Panipat 22 of 63 23 alongwith conductor Surinder Pal Singh. He further deposed that driver Dalbir Singh met them in the bus on the way.
34. PW14 S. K. Dass Gupta has deposed that he had received a complaint against driver Dalbir Singh. He has identified his signatures on Suspension Order Ex. PW10/A and signatures of Jhangi Ram Arora as well as signatures of Dy. Manager, Traffic.
35. PW15 Inspector Surender Malik is the member of the Trap team and he has identified his signatures on several documents as proved by PW1 Satish Sharma.
36. PW16 Satyavir Singh has identified his signatures on all the five pages of the Sanction Memo Ex. PW16/A for prosecution of accused Sant Raj.
37. PW17 U. K. Goswami, Additional Superintendent of Police, is the member of the trap team. He has identified his signatures on 23 of 63 24 several documents as proved by PW1 Satish Sharma.
38. PW18 Inspector C. K. Sharma is the Investigation Officer of the present case. He has deposed that he received the investigation of the present case in the mid of September, 2000. He recorded the further statement of the complainant and independent witnesses and statement of concerned persons of DTC Department and trap team members. He has identified his signatures on Production cum Seizure Memo dated 20.09.2000 Ex. PW18/A, Production cum Seizure Memo dated 13.09.2000 Ex. PW6/A, Production cum Seizure Memo dated 28.09.2000 Ex. PW18/B. He has further deposed that he received CFSL Opinion which gave positive results and case was sent for obtaining prosecution sanction against accused persons.
39. PW19 Inspector A. K. Pandey is the Trap Laying Officer of 24 of 63 25 the present case. He has identified his signatures on Handing Over Memo Ex. PW1/A, annexure to Handing Over Memo Ex. PW1/A1, Recovery Memo Ex. PW1/B, Rough Site Plan Ex. PW1/C, Personal Search cum Arrest Memo of accused Sant Raj Ex. PW1/D, Personal Search cum Arrest Memo of accused Phool Singh Ex. PW1/E. He has also identified the signatures of SP R. S. Dwevdi on complaint Ex. PW19/A, FIR Ex. PW19/B and a letter Ex. PW19/C.
40. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of both the accused persons u/s 313 Cr. P.C was recorded. The accused persons have denied their involvement in commission of offence.
41. Accused no. 1 Phool Singh has stated that this story has been concocted by the complainant with a view to pressurize "Depot Manager" and grind his own axe otherwise too the complainant had a 25 of 63 26 grudge against him as real brother namely Jagbir of the complainant, who was driver in BBM Depot had threatened him and a complaint has been lodged by him to his Senior Officers regarding the same. Accused Phool Singh has further stated that it is a false case which has been foisted upon him due to personal animosity.
42. Accused no.2 Sant Raj has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He had merely collected Rs.10,000/ from the complainant on behalf of coaccused Phool Singh and he had no knowledge that the same was a bribe amount. He had nothing to do with the above mentioned bribe transaction between the complainant and the coaccused Phool Singh.
43. In defence, Accused no. 1 Phool Singh has examined the following two witnesses.
44. DW2 Ramesh s/o Late Sh. George Mati, r/o 188, Village 26 of 63 27 Rajpura, Gurmandi, Near Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi.
45. DW3 Satish Kumar Duggal s/o Late Sh. Gurcharan Lal Duggal, r/o E72, Om Vihar Extension, Post Office Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
46. Accused no. 2 Sant Raj has examined only one witness in his defence.
47. DW1 Sh. Mahavir Singh, T. I. Token No. 20367, Delhi Transport Corporation, Azadpur Bus Terminal, Azadpur, Delhi.
48. After completion of the defence evidence, I have heard final arguments of Learned PP for CBI and Learned Counsel for the accused persons and perused the record. Ld. Defence counsel for accused no.1 Phool Singh has addressed oral arguments and also filed written submissions running into 18 pages. As the detailed written submissions have been filed on behalf of accused no.1 Phool 27 of 63 28 Singh, which are on the judicial file, hence on account of brevity, the same are not incorporated in this judgment.
49. Ld. PP for the CBI has argued that the prosecution has proved its case that accused Phool Singh while working as ATI, BBMDI, DTC, Delhi entered into criminal conspiracy with his co accused Sant Raj, Conductor, DTC, BBMDI, Delhi and in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, on 16.08.2000 accused no. 1 Phool Singh called complainant Dalbir Singh, Driver at his residence at Village Nangal Kalan and demanded Rs.25,000/ from him in the name of Shakeel Ahmed, Depot Manager, for closing case against him (complainant) for which he was placed under suspension on 14.08.2000 and accused Phool Singh told him to pay Rs.10,000/ in advance and balance Rs.15,000/ after closing of the case and on 28.08.2000, accused Phool Singh again demanded bribe money from 28 of 63 29 the complainant at BBM Depot and on 29.08.2000 accused Sant Raj accepted Rs.10,000/ on the directions of accused Phool Singh. Ld. PP further argued that the prosecution has proved that the bribe money of Rs.10,000/ was recovered from the lower left side Kurta pocket of accused no. 2 Sant Raj. Ld. PP also argued that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts against both the accused persons, hence they may be convicted.
50. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused no.1 Phool Singh that the Prosecution has failed to bring any iota of evidence to show the criminal conspiracy between accused no.1 Phool Singh and accused no. 2 Sant Raj. Ld. Defence Counsel further argued that accused Phool Singh has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is no iota of evidence regarding demand except the sole testimony of the complainant. He further 29 of 63 30 argued that accused Phool Singh has no power to revoke the suspension of the complainant Dalbir Singh. Ld. Defence Counsel further argued that no recovery has been effected from the person of accused Phool Singh as he has not accepted the same and the same was effected from the possession of accused no.2 Sant Raj. It is also argued by the ld. Defence counsel that the defence taken by one accused cannot in law be treated as evidence against his co accused. He placed reliance on the following citations :
1. V. VENKATA SUBHA RAO VS. STATE OF A. P. 2007 CRI. L. J. 754.
2. G. V. NANJUNDIAH VS. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION), AIR 1987 SUPREME COURT 2402.
3. PANALAL DAMODAR RATHI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, AIR 1979 SUPREME COURT 1191.
4. SURAJ MAL VS. THE STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION), AIR 1979 SUPREME COURT 1408.
5. SITA RAM VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN, 1975 CRI. L. J. 1224.
6. S. P. BHATNAGAR AND ANOTHER VS. THE STATE OF 30 of 63 31 MAHARASHTRA, AIR 1979 SUPREME COURT 826.
7. SUBHASH CHAND CHAUHAN ORS. VS. C.B.I, 2005 III AD (DELHI)41.
8. JAGDISH NARAIN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, 2009 (4), CRIMINAL COURT CASES 171 (RAJASTHAN).
9. SURESH KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF M. P., 1994 CRI. L. J. 3738.
10.P. K. GUPTA VS. C. B. I, 2011(4) JCC 2352.
11.VISHAL CHAND JAIN @ V. C. JAIN, VS. C. B. I., 2011 (1) JCC 570.
12.KHUSHI RAM VS. STATE, 1995 JCC 711.
13.RESHAM SINGH VS. THE STATE, 1981 CRI. L. J. 1691.
14.SURESH KUMAR VS STATE OF HARYANA, 2009 (4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 962 (P&H).
15.V. SUBRAMANIAM VS. STATE, 2006 CRI. L. J. (NOC) 556 (MAD.).
16.AYYASAMI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, 1992 CRI. L. J. 608
51. It has been argued by the ld. Counsel for accused Sant Raj that the Prosecution has failed to bring any iota of evidence to show the criminal conspiracy between accused Phool Singh and accused Sant Raj. He further argued that the name of the accused Sant Raj 31 of 63 32 has not been mentioned in the complaint dated 29.08.2000 lodged by the complainant in the CBI and he has not demanded the bribe money from the complainant. Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that accused Sant Raj is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he may be acquitted. He placed reliance on the following citations :
1.KADIAM PAPARAO VS. SIDDIREDDY SATYANARAYANA & ORS. AIR 1983 ANDHRA PRADESH 257.
2. SURJIT KAUR VS. D. S. KAPOOR AND ORS., 2010 CRI. L. J. 1008, 2010(1) CRIMES 221.
3. VIRENDRANATH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, AIR 1996 SC 490, (1996) 11 SCC 688.
4. TRILOK CHAND JAIN VS. STATE OF DELHI, AIR 1977 SC 666, (1975) 4 SCC 761, (1976) 78 PLR 323.
5. YOGESH KUMAR VS. STATE, 158 (2009) DLT 16.
6. SH. L. K. JAIN VS. THE STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 124(2005) DLT 371.
7.VIRENDRANATH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, AIR 1996 SC 490, (1996) 11 SCC 688.
8. K. C. SINGH VS, CBI, CRIMINAL APPEAL 976/2010.
32 of 63 33
9.H. V. PANCHAKSHARAPPA VS. K. G. ESHWAR,
10. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS PRAKASH VISHNURAO MANE, (1977) 79 BOMLR 217.
11. STATE OF PUNJAB VS SOHAN SINGH, AIR 2009 SC1887.
12. PREM SINGH YADAV VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 178(2011) DLT 529.
TESTIMONY OF PW4 COMPLAINANT DALBIR SINGH
52. The first point for consideration is as to whether the testimony of PW4 Complainant Dalbir Singh, which was recorded in previous case i.e. CC No. 115/01 can be read into the present case i.e. CC No. 15/06 or not.
53. It is pertinent to mention that Prosecution has examined the complainant Dalbir Singh as PW4 in previous case i.e. CC No. 115/2001. But Ram Avtar, shadow witness could not be examined in that case since he had expired during the trial of that case. The 33 of 63 34 proceedings against both the accused persons were dropped in previous case i.e. CC No. 115/2001 for want of valid sanction.
54. At the time of filing of the fresh charge sheet i.e. CC No. 15/06, the complainant Dalbir Singh had also expired. Now the controversy has arisen as to whether the testimony of PW4 Complainant Dalbir Singh, which was recorded in previous case i.e. CC No. 115/2001 could be read in evidence for disposal of the present case or not.
55. I have heard the arguments on this issue. It is submitted by the ld. Defence counsel for accused Phool Singh that the testimony of PW4 complainant Dalbir Singh, which was recorded in previous case i.e. CC No. 115/2001 should not be considered in the disposal of the present case. On the other hand, it is submitted by the ld. Defence counsel for accused no.2 Sant Raj that the testimony of PW4 34 of 63 35 complainant Dalbir Singh can be read in view of the Section 33 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
56. In order to appreciate this contention, it is useful to reproduced Section 33 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which is as under: "33. Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, the truth of facts therein stated: Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorized by law to take it, is relevant for the purpose of proving, in a subsequent judicial proceeding or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, the truth of the facts which it states, when the witness is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or if his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable: Provided: that the proceeding was between the same parties or their representatives in interest;
that the adverse party in the first proceeding had the right and opportunity to crossexamine;
35 of 63 36 that the questions in issue were substantially the same in the first as in the second proceeding."
57. A reading of this Section makes it clear that it is not only the evidence given in a judicial proceeding but the evidence given before any person authorized by law to take it, is admissible in evidence.
58. It is an admitted fact that the previous proceedings took place between the same parties and the present proceedings are also between the same parties and the adverse party in the first proceeding had the right and opportunity to cross examine and that the questions in issue were substantially the same in the first as in the second proceeding. In the present case, PW4 Complainant Dalbir Singh was cross examined by both the accused persons during the previous case.
59. In view of the above, I am of the view that the testimony of 36 of 63 37 PW4 Complainant Dalbir Singh recorded in the previous case can be read into evidence for the disposal of the present case.
PUBLIC SERVANT & SANCTION
60. The next point for consideration is as to whether the proper sanction for prosecution was accorded before initiation of prosecution against the accused persons or not as required under Section 19 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which is mandatory and reads as under: "19. Previous Sanction necessary for Prosecution: (1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 7,10,11,13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction,
(a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with sanction of the State Government, of that Government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to 37 of 63 38 remove him from his Office."
61. The undisputed position is that accused no.1 Phool Singh was working as ATI and accused no. 2 Sant Raj was working as Conductor in Delhi Transport Corporation and both the accused persons did not dispute this fact in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. Therefore, it stands proved that both the accused persons were public servants within the meaning of Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988.
SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION AGAINST ACCUSED NO.1 PHOOL SINGH.
62. The evidence on record shows that on 13.06.2006, the Sanction Order was given for launching Prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act against accused no.1 Phool Singh by PW5 Sh. V. K. Gupta, Depot Manager, DTC, who in his deposition testified that he 38 of 63 39 was the Competent Authority to remove the accused from the service at the time of granting sanction. PW5 further deposed that at the time of according Sanction Orders Ex. PW5/A against accused no.1 Phool Singh, he had gone through the complaint, FIR, Statement of witnesses and relevant memos and after application of his mind, he accorded sanction. A perusal of the Sanction Order Ex. PW5/A shows that the facts and material placed before PW5 by the CBI were the photocopies of the documents and statements of witnesses collected during the investigation in respect of the said allegations and circumstances of the case.
63. In the entire evidence of PW5, there is nothing to even remotely suggest that he had not applied his mind before according sanction vide Ex. PW5/A. There being no dispute about PW5 being the Competent Authority to accord Sanction and the testimony of 39 of 63 40 PW5 proving due application of mind, the Sanction order Ex. PW5/A is legal and valid.
SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION AGAINST ACCUSED NO.2 SANT RAJ.
64. The evidence on record shows that in the month of August, 2006, the Sanction Order was given for launching Prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act against accused no.2 Sant Raj by PW16 Satyavir Singh, Depot Manager, DTC, who in his deposition stated that one CBI Official came to his depot and asked him to put his signatures on Ex. PW16/A and on his directions he put his signatures. PW16 has identified his signatures on Sanction Order Ex. PW16/A. He has further deposed that he had not read Ex. PW16/A prior to put his signatures on the same. PW16 was cross examined by the ld. PP for CBI and he has failed to extract anything 40 of 63 41 in favour of the Prosecution.
65. In the entire evidence of PW16, there is nothing to even remotely suggest that he had applied his mind before according sanction Ex. PW16/A. During the testimony, it is stated by the PW16 that he had not read the Ex. PW16/A prior to put his signatures on the same and he has put his signatures on the directions of one CBI Official. The testimony of PW16 shows that he has not applied his mind while signing the Sanction Order Ex. PW16/A. Hence the Sanction order Ex. PW16/A is illegal and invalid.
CONSPIRACY, GRATIFICATION & CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT
66. Before adverting to the discussion of this case, it would be useful to have a look upon the relevant provisions of law. Accused Phool Singh and accused Sant Raj had been charged for the 41 of 63 42 commission of offences punishable under Section 120B of IPC read with Section 7 as well as Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Substantive charges under Section 7 read with Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were also framed against accused Phool Singh and accused Sant Raj, which are reproduced as under: Section 120A defines "Criminal Conspiracy", which reads as under: "120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy - When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy.
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
42 of 63 43 Explanation - It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object."
67. As per definition of criminal conspiracy U/s 120A of Indian Penal Code when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, (a) an illegal act; or (b) an act, which is not illegal by illegal means, such agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy. The essence of offence of conspiracy is the fact of combination by agreement. The agreement may be express or implied, or in part express and in part implied. The conspiracy arises and the offence is committed as soon as the agreement is made; and the offence continues to be committed so long as the combination persists, that is until the conspiratorial agreement is terminated by completion of its performance or by abandonment or frustration. The gist of offence of 43 of 63 44 conspiracy is an agreement to break the law. In considering the question of criminal conspiracy, it is not always possible to give affirmative evidence about the date of formation of conspiracy, about the persons who took part in the formation of conspiracy, about the object which the conspirators set before themselves as the object of conspiracy and about the manner in which the object of conspiracy was to be carried out. All this necessarily a matter of inference. The essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act. Such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both. It is not necessary that there should be express proof of the agreement, far from the acts and conduct of the parties, the agreement can be inferred.
68. On the point of criminal conspiracy, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Narayan Laxmi Narayan Joshi Vs 44 of 63 45 State of Maharashtra, AIR 1980 SC 439, that a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same. The offence can be only proved largely from inference drawn from acts or illegal omissions committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design.
69. The agreement to conspire may be inferred from circumstances, which raised a presumption of a concerted plan to carry out an unlawful design. A conspiracy need not be established by proof which actually brings the party together; but may be shown like any other fact, by circumstantial evidence.
70. In Kehar Singh and Others Vs State, AIR 1988 SC 1883, it is observed:
"Generally, a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. The prosecution will often rely on 45 of 63 46 the evidence of acts of various parties to infer that they were done in reference to their common intention. The prosecution will also more often rely upon the circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy can be undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial. But the Court must require whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together to the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators, but the later does. It is however, essential that the offence of conspiracy required some kind of physical manifestation or agreement the express agreement however need not be proved. Nor mutual meetings of the two persons is necessary. Nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient."
"7. Public Servant taking gratification other then legal remuneration in respect of an official act. Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification, whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or 46 of 63 47 forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, Corporation or Government Company referred to in Clause (c) of Section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less then 6 months but which may extend to 5 years and shall also be liable to fine."
"13. Criminal Misconduct by a Public Servant.
(1)A Public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct;
(a) to (c) ..........
(d) if he,
(i)by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary 47 of 63 48 advantage without any public interest; or ***** (2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less then one year but which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine."
71. On bare reading of the above provisions, it is clear that in order to bring home the charge under Section 120B of IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that both the accused persons in criminal conspiracy have demanded or accepted the bribe money from the complainant. A conspiracy need not be established by proof which actually brings the party together, but may be shown like any other fact, by circumstantial evidence.
72. It is also clear that in order to bring home the charge under Section 7 of the PC Act, the Prosecution is required to prove that the accused accepted or obtained or attempted to obtain illegal 48 of 63 49 gratification from any person and in order to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 also, the Prosecution is required to establish that the accused by corrupt or illegal means or by using his official position, obtained advantage or a valuable thing for himself or for any other person. Thus, it is obvious that two essential components to be proved for bringing home the charge under Section 7 & Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988, are the demand and acceptance of the bribe.
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY, DEMAND, ACCEPTANCE & RECOVERY
73. PW4 Complainant Dalbir Singh has specifically deposed that on 16.08.2000, he was called by accused no.1 that he had a talk with Depot Manager Shakeel Ahmed and if he (PW4) pay Rs.25,000/ he 49 of 63 50 (PW4)would be reinstated. PW4 further deposed that he expressed his inability to pay this amount as he was poor man and also not at fault. A settlement was made out for paying bribe which was that he should pay Rs.10,000/ in first installment and remaining later on.
74. I have also gone through the complaint Ex. PW4/A of the complainant Dalbir Singh. It has been written in Ex. PW4/A that "ON 16.08.2000 KO SHRI PHOOL SINGH, ATI JO TI SCHEDULE INCHARGE HAI. USNE MUJHE APNE GHAR GAON NANGAL KALA BULAYA AUR KAHA KI DEPOT ADHIKARI SHAKEEL AHMED KHAN NE MERA CASE RAFADAFA KARNE KAIYE LIYE AUR WAPIS DUTY PER LENE KAIYE LIYE 25,000/ RUPAIYE BATORE RISHVAT MANGHE HAI, MAINE PAISE KAM KARNE KAE LIYE KAHA TOH SH. PHOOL SINGH NE KAHA KE PAHLE 10,000/ RUPAIYE DE DO AUR TUMHE DUTY PER LE LIYA JAYEGA BAAD 50 of 63 51 PE BAKI PAISE DE DENA AUR CASE KHATAM KAR DIYA JAYEGA".
75. From the above, it is clear that the evidence of PW4 complainant Dalbir Singh proved demand of illegal gratification made by accused Phool Singh in the name of Shakeel Ahmed, Depot Manager. However, in the charge sheet filed by the Prosecution, it is mentioned that besides the oral statement of accused Phool Singh implicating Sh. Shakeel Ahmed in the conspiracy, there is no evidence against Sh. Shakeel Ahmed to link him with the crime.
76. Prosecution has also failed to bring on record any direct or circumstantial evidence regarding the criminal conspiracy between accused Phool Singh and accused Sant Raj. No doubt the money was recovered from the kurta pocket of accused no.2 Sant Raj by PW1 Satish Sharma, recovery witness. In the cross examination of 51 of 63 52 PW4 conducted by ld. Defence counsel for accused no. 2 Sant Raj, he categorically deposed that he (the complainant) did not tell accused no.2 while handing over the money that it was bribe money. This suggestion itself exonerates accused no.2 Sant Raj from criminal conspiracy between accused no.1 Phool Singh and accused no. 2 Sant Raj.
77. PW1 Satish Sharma deposed that the CBI officers caught hold of accused Sant Raj and he was directed by CBI officers to take out the money from the pocket of Sant Raj and accordingly he took out the tainted GC notes from the pocket of the Kurta worn by accused Sant Raj. Again said, he was directed by the CBI Officers to carry out the search of the person of accused Sant Raj and while carrying out the search, he took out the tainted money from the Kurta pocket of accused Sant Raj.
52 of 63 53
78. PW15 Inspector Surender Malik deposed that accused Sant Raj took complainant Dalbir and shadow witness Ram Avtar towards the canteen and demanded the bribe amount from complainant Dalbir Singh which he handed over to accused Sant Raj, who after handling the bribe amount with his both hands kept the same in his lower left side shirt pocket. PW15 further deposed that the transaction of this bribe amount from Dalbir Singh to accused Sant Raj was seen by him. After the transaction, accused Sant Raj took Dalbir Singh and Ram Avtar to the room of accused Phool Singh and as per his (Sant Raj) directions they both waited outside the room of accused Phool Singh and accused Sant Raj went into the room of accused Phool Singh and came out in about 2 minutes therefrom.
79. PW17 ASP Umesh Kumar Goswami deposed that the complainant and Ram Avtar went to the office room of accused Phool 53 of 63 54 Singh and came out after sometime and proceeded towards outside the depot to a shop. One person (later came to be known as Sant Raj) joined them there and had tea with them. After this, they moved towards canteen in the depot and while they reached in a gallery, he (PW17) and Inspector Surender Malik saw that the complainant Dalbir Singh was taking out tainted currency notes from his shirt pocket and handed over to Sant Raj, who counted the same by his both the hands and kept the money in his left side pocket of his kurta. Thereafter, they further proceeded towards the room of accused Phool Singh and while the complainant and witness stated above, remained outside the room, Sant Raj went inside the room and came out after about 23 minutes.
80. PW19 TLO/Inspector A. K. Pandey deposed that it was seen that complainant alongwith one person aged about 45 years wearing 54 of 63 55 kurta and pyjama (later on identified as conductor Sant Raj) was coming outside from the office of accused Phool Singh. After 1015 minutes both complainant and accused Sant Raj were seen entering in the office of accused Phool Singh. In the meantime the shadow witness passed the preappointed signal. PW19 alongwith CBI team challenged to accused Sant Raj as to whether he has demanded and accepted Rs.10,000/ from the complainant on the directions of accused Phool Singh.
81. From the above discussion, there is evidence of PW1,15,17 and 19 to prove the acceptance and recovery of bribe money from the person of accused Sant Raj.
82. During the course of the arguments, ld. Defence Counsel for accused no.1 Phool Singh pointed out major contradictions and flaws in the statement of the Prosecution Witnesses regarding the 55 of 63 56 spot/place of alleged recovery of bribe amount from the person of accused no.2 Sant Raj. PW4 Complainant Dalbir Singh in his examination in chief has deposed that he paid Rs.10,000/ to accused no.2 Sant Raj at the tea shop. On the contrary, in his cross examination conducted on behalf of accused no.2, he has deposed that he paid the money to accused no.2 Sant Raj at the gallery of BBM Depot not at the tea shop. PW15 Inspector Surender Malik deposed that accused Sant Raj took the complainant and Ram Avtar towards the canteen and demanded the bribe amount from the complainant which he handed over to him. PW17 ASP Umesh Kumar Goswami deposed that while they reached in a gallery, complainant was taking out the tainted currency notes from his shirt pocket and handed over to accused Sant Raj.
83. From the above discussion, it is clear that the two different 56 of 63 57 spots / places have been mentioned where the transaction has taken place. The change of spot in the prosecution case also cast a serious doubt on the version of the prosecution.
84. Ld. Defence Counsel further pointed out that as per testimony of PW1 Satish Sharma, Recovery Witness, PW4 Complainant Dalbir Singh, PW17 ASP Umesh Kumar Goswami and PW19 TLO/Inspector A. K. Pandey, the prosecution has deliberately concealed the conversation which took place between the complainant and some other persons regarding the demand of bribe, which was being recorded by the CBI. PW1 Satish Sharma during his cross examination conducted by accused no.2 Sant Raj, deposed that he had heard the telephonic conversation between the complainant and some other persons regarding the demand of bribe which was being tape recorded by CBI. PW4 Complainant Dalbir 57 of 63 58 Singh during his cross examination conducted by accused no. 2, deposed that while leaving CBI Office, he was handed over GC notes as well as tape recorder. He was instructed to keep the recorder in his pocket and not to touch it as it was given to him for the purpose of recording the conversation between him and the accused no.1. After the raid, he handed over the tape recorder to CBI. PW17 ASP Umesh Kumar Goswami, during his cross examination conducted by accused no.2, deposed that he does not know whether any tape recorder was used during the trap or for confirmation of demand. PW19 TLO/Inspector A. K. Pandey, during his cross examination conducted by accused no.2 Sant Raj, deposed that he do not remember whether he had used tape recorder in this case or had given the tape recorder to the complainant to record the conversation. PW17 and 19 have given the evasive reply as regard to the use of 58 of 63 59 the tape recorder by the complainant during the conversation which took place between him and the other persons regarding the demand of bribe, which was being recorded by the CBI.
85. From the above discussion, it is clear that the use of the recording instrument and the said recorded conversation had been deliberately concealed by the Prosecution with a view to concoct a false story and falsely implicate the accused no. 1 Phool Singh in the present case. It is the duty of the prosecution to reexamine the witnesses when they are deviating from the version of the prosecution. In the present case, the ld. PP for CBI had not re examined PW4 Complainant Dalbir Singh and PW1 Satish Sharma, Recovery witness as regard to use of tape recorder for the reasons best known to him. An adverse inference is to be drawn against prosecution for withholding the use of tape recorder.
59 of 63 60
86. Ld. Defence counsel further pointed out that the co accused Sant Raj has taken a plea that he had accepted the alleged amount from the complainant on behalf of accused Phool Singh.
87. I have gone through the testimonies of the Prosecution witnesses. PW15 Inspector Surender Malik deposed that after the transaction, accused Sant Raj took complainant Dalbir Singh and Ram Avtar to the room of accused Phool Singh and as per his (Sant Raj) directions they both waited outside the room of accused Phool Singh and accused Sant Raj went into the room of accused Phool Singh and came out in about 2 minutes therefrom. PW17 ASP Umesh Kumar Goswami deposed that they moved towards canteen in the depot and while they reached in a gallery, he (PW17) and Inspector Surender Malik saw that the complainant Dalbir Singh was taking out tainted currency notes from his shirt pocket and handed 60 of 63 61 over to Sant Raj, who counted the same by his both the hands and kept the money in his left side pocket of his kurta. Thereafter, they further proceeded towards the room of accused Phool Singh and while the complainant and witness stated above, remained outside the room, Sant Raj went inside the room and came out after about 23 minutes.
88. From the above discussion, if the plea of the accused no. 2 Sant Raj is believed, certainly he would have handed over the said money to accused no.1 Phool Singh when he had gone inside the room of accused Phool Singh after the transaction but he had not done so. This shows that accused no. 1 Phool Singh has not made any demand. Mere recovery of the alleged tainted money from the possession of the accused no.2 Sant Raj is not sufficient to hold accused no.1 Phool Singh guilty.
61 of 63 62
89. Ld. Defence counsel for accused no.2 Sant Raj pointed out the contradiction regarding the washes of RHW, LHW and LSKPW. PW1 Satish Sharma deposed that hand washes of both hands and left side kurta pocket of accused Sant Raj turned pink but during his cross examination conducted by accused no.2 Sant Raj, he deposed after seeing the bottles containing RHW, LHW and LSKPW that these bottles contain white colour solution. PW3 K. S. Chhabra, during his cross examination conducted by accused no.2, after seeing the bottles containing RHW, LHW and LSKPW, deposed that all the three bottles contain colourless liquids.
90. From the above, no explanation is coming forth from the Prosecution as to why the pink colour turned into colourless solution. It also cast a serious doubt on the prosecution case.
91. In view of the above discussions, I am of the opinion that 62 of 63 63 prosecution has not successfully proved the case against the accused persons. Therefore, accused Phool Singh and Accused Sant Raj are acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 120B of IPC read with Section 7 as well as Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13(1)
(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accused no.1 Phool Singh and accused no.2 Sant Raj are also acquitted for the substantive offences punishable under Section 7 read with Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY I.E. ON . 25 SEPT. 2012.
th (N. K. SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)(CBI):02 DELHI.
63 of 63 64 CC NO. 15/06 CBI VS. PHOOL SINGH & ORS.
25.09.2012 Present: Sh. J. S. Wadia, Ld. PP for CBI.
Accused no.1 Phool Singh is present on bail with counsel Sh. Y. Kahol, Advocate.
Accused no.2 Sant Raj is present on bail with counsel Sh. Ravi Bassi, Advocate.
Vide separate Judgment announced of even date on separate sheets, accused Phool Singh and Accused Sant Raj are acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 120B of IPC read with Section 7 as well as Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accused no.1 Phool Singh and accused no.2 Sant Raj are also acquitted for the substantive offences punishable under Section 7 read with Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
As accused no.1 Phool Singh and Accused no.2 Sant Raj are acquitted but to secure their presence, in case, State files an appeal, is admitted to bail on furnishing a Personal Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/ each with one surety each in the like amount as per provisions of Section 437A of Cr. P. C. 64 of 63 65 Personal Bond and Surety Bond furnished and accepted. Accused Phool Singh and Accused Sant Raj are admitted to bail till 24.03.2013.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(N. K. SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)(CBI):02 DELHI/25.09.2012.
65 of 63