Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Title: State (Cbi) vs . Manmeet Pokhriyal on 31 October, 2013

  IN THE COURT OF MS. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, SPECIAL 
          JUDGE, CBI­05, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
                       NEW DELHI

CC No:  57/12

RC No: DAI­2012­A­0015­CBI­ACB­Delhi
Unique Case ID No: 02403R0055532012
Title: State (CBI) Vs. Manmeet Pokhriyal
U/s: 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988


                Date of Institution           :  24.08.2012
               Date of reserving order        :  30.10.2013
               Date of pronouncement          :  31.10.2013

(Appearances)

Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senior PP for CBI. 

Sh.   P.K.   Dubey,   Advocate,   Ld.   Counsel   for   accused   Manmeet 
Pokhriyal.


JUDGMENT

1. Brief facts of the case are that a written complaint was lodged by Sh. B.K. Chawla, Authorized consultant for industrial sales of M/s Bodycare Creations Pvt. Ltd and M/s Superfine Knitters Ltd., on 18.05.2012 with CBI that both the companies had submitted their applications for enlistment in Central Police Canteen, Ministry of Home Affairs for supply of their products. Accused Manmeet Pokhriyal, Deputy Commandant, CRPF who was in possession of the file for listing the companies in Central Police Canteen, was CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 1 of 82 demanding bribe of Rs.1,00,000/­ as illegal gratification for the same.

The further case of CBI is that after verification, present case was registered against accused Manmeet Pokhriyal, Deputy Commandant, CRPF on 19.05.2012. A trap team was constituted, headed by Inspector R.L. Yadav including independent witnesses and complainant Sh. B.K. Chawla.

The trap was successfully laid and on 19.05.2012, and accused Manmeet Pokhriyal was caught red handed while demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.1,00,000/­ from the complainant. Left hand and right hand washes of accused Manmeet Pokhriyal were taken separately on the spot and were sealed in two glass bottles marked as Left Hand Wash (LHW) and Right Hand Wash (RHW) respectively.

The independent witness had recovered the bribe amount that was kept on a fixed platform nearby a Pan Shop after being taken out of the left side pant pocket of the accused. The numbers of recovered GC notes were tallied by both the independent witnesses with the numbers noted down in the handing over memo. Wash of the left side pant pocket was also taken and was transferred in a glass bottle which was properly sealed and marked as "LHJPW".

The opinion of Chemical Expert regarding the washes was obtained which showed positive result for the presence of Phenolphthalein in washes of the left hand, right hand as well as pant pocket was of the accused.

Investigation by CBI had further revealed that CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 2 of 82 intercepted conversations revealed demand and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ by accused Manmeet Pokhriyal.

2. Accused Manmeet Pokhriyal had appeared in the Court and copies of documents, as required by the Section 207 Cr.P.C., were supplied to him, to his satisfaction.

3. The charge against accused Manmeet Pokhriyal under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. Now, the points for determination are :

(i) Whether the accused, being a public servant, demanded and accepted bribe from the complainant in the discharge of his official duties?

(ii) Whether the bribe amount was recovered from the accused?

(iii) Whether the accused obtained the bribe amount by corrupt or by illegal means or by otherwise abusing his official position?

Section 7 of the P.C. Act provides as under:

"Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 3 of 82 or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government Company referred in clause (c) of Section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.....".

Section 13 of the P.C. Act provided as under:

CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 4 of 82 (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct ...................................

..................................................... ..................................(d) if he­

(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantages; or

(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest....."

(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 5 of 82 with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."

Section 20 of the P.C. Act provides as under:

"Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration :­ (1) Where, in any trial of offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 or Clause (a) or clause (b) of sub­section (1) of Section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 6 of 82 gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7 or, as the case may be without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.

(2) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 12 or under Clause (b) of Section 14, it is proved that any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or attempted to be given by an accused person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he gave or offered to give or attempted to give that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7, or as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.

CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 7 of 82 (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub­sections (1) and (2), the court may decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said sub­sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no interference of corruption my fairly be drawn."

5. Let me examine the testimony of the material witnesses and the other documents filed before me in light of law and the case law to decide whether charges are proved against the accused or not.

6. CBI has examined 12 witnesses in support of its case.

7. PW­1 Sh. Deepak Kumar Tanwar has proved the CFSL Report regarding the intercepted conversation and stated that after examining Q­1, Q­2 and S­1, he had given his report which is Ex. PW1/A running into 8 pages. He stated that he had given his report on the basis of auditory analysis. The voice spectrum analysis had also been conducted to prepare the report.

On being cross­examined by learned counsel for the accused, he stated that in his report Ex. PW1/A he has not mentioned the word "Positive Identification". He also stated that he had found similarity in the questioned and specimen CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 8 of 82 voice more than 90 per cent. He stated that it is true that through mimicry or by mechanical / electromagnetic voices, similar voices can be generated. He stated that he had not mentioned in his report Ex. PW1/A the speed of speech of sample voice and suspected voice. He stated that he had not examined the original DVR allegedly used by CBI. He denied that he had given false report.

8. PW­2 Sh. B.K. Chawla stated that he is authorized consultant for institutional sales of M/s Body Care Creation Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Super Fine Knitters Ltd. He stated that the complaint Ex. PW2/A is in his own handwriting. He had made the complaint on 18.5.2012. He had gone to CBI office to lodge the complaint as accused had demanded bribe for registering M/s Body Care Creation Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Super Fine Knitters Ltd. with Central Police Canteen to supply its products. He stated that accused was checking the files to forward the papers of the said companies for registration with Central Police Canteen. He stated that accused had demanded the bribe of Rs.2,00,000/­ for forwarding the file for the above said purpose. He stated that registration fees for such registration is Rs.1000/­, however, Rs.2,00,000/­ were demanded to forward the file. After getting the registration done, he had met accused at Dwarka and had gone to Cafe Coffee Day. He had paid Rs.1,00,000/­ in cash to the accused for forwarding the file as part payment. On the next day of filing the complaint with CBI, he had again gone to CBI on 18.5.2012. He stated that he had shown CBI CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 9 of 82 the currency notes. CBI officials had taken the money from him and had kept the same in his pocket. He had been asked by the CBI not to touch the notes until they are handed over to the accused. He stated that no paper work was conducted in CBI office and a team was prepared by the CBI officers. He stated that he had travelled in his own car to Metro Station, Dwarka from where he made a call to the accused through mobile. He stated that the accused asked him to come at CRPF Residential Complex, Dwarka only. Accused joined him in his car to Dwarka Market at Cafe Coffee Day. Thereafter, after having coffee there, they discussed about the registration of above said companies with Central Police Canteen and he had handed over the money to the accused. From there, both of them had come down. The CBI officers were present there who had apprehended the accused. Thereafter, he had gone to sit inside his car. He stated that rest of the procedure was done by CBI at the spot. The accused was with CBI officers who was also brought to the CBI Headquarter. Certain papers were prepared and he was asked to sign the same. He stated that nothing else had happened in his presence. He had merely signed the papers.

The witness was declared hostile by learned senior PP for CBI. On being cross­examined by him, the witness admitted that his statement was recorded by CBI in this case. On being confronted with the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he denied that he had stated in his statement that he along with Sh. Nikunj Goel and Sh. Malkit Singh (independent witnesses), both Inspector of Income Tax CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 10 of 82 along with Sh. R.L. Yadav, Inspector/Trap Laying Officer, Anand Swarup, Inspector, Nikhil Malhotra, Inspector, Pramod Kumar, Inspector, M.P. Singh, Inspector, Jagroop Singh, Inspector, Alok Kumar Singh, Sub­Inspector, Tikka Ram, Sub­ Inspector, Ashish Prateek, Sub­Inspector and Naval Kishore, Sub­Inspector of CBI had assembled in the office of Superintendent of Police, CBI on 19.5.2012 at 02:00 PM. He, however, admitted that he had been introduced to the above said officers in CBI office and the purpose of assembly for laying the trap on the accused was explained to all the members.

He admitted that his handwritten complaint dated 18.5.2012 was explained to the team members and the independent witnesses. He admitted that he had mentioned in the complaint that the accused was demanding Rs. 1,00,000/­ for registering the companies with Central Police Canteen. He admitted that as per his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 19.5.2012, a verification was done during which accused had agreed to accept Rs. 1,00,000/­ on the same day at about 04:30 PM near Dwarka Metro Station and the verification memo Ex.PW2/C in this case was prepared on 19.5.2012.

He also admitted that he had stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the complaint Ex. PW2/B had been signed by him but he had not stated that Sh. Nikunj Goel and Sh. Malkit Singh (independent witnesses) satisfied themselves regarding the genuineness and allegations mentioned in the complaint. He stated that CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 11 of 82 he was not aware whether his complaint was got verified from the independent witnesses by CBI. He further stated that CBI might have given the complaint to independent witnesses for verification of its genuineness.

He admitted that he had produced a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/­ comprising of 98 GC Notes of denomination of Rs. 1000/­ each and 4 GC Notes of denomination of Rs.500/­ which he had arranged to give to the accused against the demanded bribe amount. He also admitted that he had stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the CBI that the distinctive number of GC Notes produced by him were recorded in his statement and the details are mentioned in Ex. PW2/B. He stated that he had not stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that a demonstration was done by Ms. Veer Jyoti, Sub­ Inspector, CBI to all the members present to explain the purpose and significance of use of phenolphthalein power and its chemical reaction with sodium carbonate solution in water. He also denied that it was orally explained to all that if any part of any object / person comes in contact with phenolphthalein powder, and if that part of the the object / person is washed in a solution of sodium carbonate in water, the colour of solution would turn into pink. He denied that he had stated that the currency notes produced by him were treated by SI Ms. Veer Jyoti with the said powder. He had also denied that SI Ms. Veer Jyoti had touched the the amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ with her right hand finger and washed in the freshly prepared colourless sodium carbonate CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 12 of 82 and water in the neat and clean glass tumbler and the colourless solution had turned pink which was thrown away after explaining the significance of the reaction. He denied having stated to the CBI that the remaining phenolphthalein power was returned to the Malkhana.

He admitted that he had stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that his personal search was conducted by Nikunj Goel and he was not allowed to keep anything incriminating on his person except his mobile phone. He admitted that he had stated in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. that the tainted bribe amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ was kept in his front right side pant pocket by Sh. Nikunj Goel, independent witness and he was directed to handover the same to the accused on his specific demand only or on his specific direction to some other person. He admitted that all the team members had washed their hands with soap and water. He also stated in his statement that the suspect officer had instructed him to come alone and it was decided that the shadow witness shall not accompany him. He admitted that he had stated in his statement that Nikunj Goel was asked to remain close to him and try to see the transaction of the bribe amount which may take place between him and the accused. He admitted that he had also stated in his statement that he was also directed to give signal after the transaction of the bribe money was over. He stated that witness Malkeet Singh was directed to remain present with the trap team. He also stated that he was directed to give missed call from his mobile phone to CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 13 of 82 mobile phone of Trap Laying Officer Sh. R.L. Yadav, Inspector or on the mobile phone of Inspector Nikhil Malhotra after the transaction of the bribe amount.

He admitted that he had stated in his statement that all the members of the team had mutually searched each other to ensure that they may not carry anything incriminating. He also admitted that he had stated in his statement that a leather bag was arranged and empty clean glass bottles, tumblers, sodium carbonate powder, sealing material and stationery items were kept in the bag. He admitted having stated in the statement that the contents of the bag were shown to all. He also stated that the complaint, copy of FIR and Rs.1000/­ were also kept to meet the incidental expenses.

He admitted that he had stated in his statement that the sealed CD Mark Q­1 containing the recorded conversation between him and the accused recorded during verification of the complaint was taken into possession vide handing over memo. He proved the same vide Ex. PW2/D. The same was prepared in Anti Corruption Branch, CBI, New Delhi and was forwarded after its signing in token of its correctness and genuineness. He stated that all the trap team members including him and the independent witnesses had left for the spot by his car bearing No. DL­8CT­0711 and two officials vehicles had reached at Dwarka Metro Station at about 04:30 PM. He admitted having stated in his statement that he was directed to make a phone call to the accused on his mobile phone. He admitted in his statement before CBI that he had CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 14 of 82 stated that the call he made to the accused upon reaching Dwarka Metro Station had been recorded in DVR. He stated that when he had made the phone call, the accused had responded that he would be waiting at Gate No. 1, CRPF Campus, Near Dwarka Metro Station. He stated that he had stated in his statement that he was directed to move alone in his car and the DVR in 'switched on' mode was given to him for recording conversation which may take place between him and the accused. He also stated that in his statement he has said that CBI team had followed him in official vehicle from safer distance and he had stopped his car for a while at Gate No. 1 of CRPF Residential Campus.

He denied having stated in this statement that after some time, a person in blue T­Shirt and blue Jeans was seen approaching his car. He stated that he does not remember the description of the clothes worn by the accused, however, he identified the accused in the court who had met him and had joined him in that car. He admitted having stated in his statement before CBI that he had opened his car and the accused had entered into the same and had occupied the left front seat. He admitted that thereafter he had gone towards the market and the CBI team had followed his car in the market area of Sector 12, Dwarka where he had parked his car.

He denied that CBI team also parked their vehicle at a distance and had taken suitable positions in a disguised manner so as not to raise any suspicion. He also admitted that he and accused had moved to coffee shop situated at CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 15 of 82 first floor, Vardhman Plaza in the said market. He also admitted in his statement that after some time, the accused had taken seat in the coffee shop towards the window side. He admitted that after sitting there for about 10­15 minutes, they came came out of the said coffee shop but denied that they sat there for 30 minutes. He denied that the Trap Laying Officer alerted the team members to get ready or that he had given the prefixed signal by rubbing his face with both his hands or that CBI team had watched his movements and that of the accused or that they had stopped at a nearby Pan Shop or that Trap Laying Officer along with CBI team had rushed towards the said person.

He denied having stated to CBI that after giving introduction, the Trap Laying Officer had challenged the accused for accepting bribe of Rs.1,00,000/­ from him and on this the said person had become perplexed. He also denied that the said person had taken the bribe money from his left side jeans pant pocket and had put the same on a platform near the Pan Shop. He also denied having stated to CBI that he had confirmed that the said person was accused Manmeet Pokhriyal, Deputy Commandant, CRPF. He also denied that CBI officer had caught hold of the right and left hand of the accused. He stated that these proceedings might have taken place in his absence when he had gone to the shop to take back his balance amount from the shopkeeper. He stated that while sitting in the coffee shop, they were discussing on general topics and during that time, he had given bribe amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ to the accused for forwarding the CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 16 of 82 file to enlist his products for Central Police Canteen. He stated that on 19.5.2012, he had met the accused to give him the bribe amount.

He admitted having stated to the CBI that the DVR was taken back from the complainant and switched off and that numbers of notes were tallied with the numbers mentioned in the handing over memo and were found to be same. He admitted having stated to CBI that in the presence of independent witnesses, the hand wash of right hand of the accused was taken and colour of the same turned pink. The pink colour wash was transferred in the clean glass bottle and was marked "RHW" which was sealed by CBI. He also stated that the same procedure had taken place for the hand wash of left hand of the accused and the colour of the solution turned pink. The pink colour wash was transferred in the clean glass bottle and was marked "LHW". He admitted having stated to CBI that the accused had demanded total Rs. 2,50,000/­. He also admitted having stated to CBI that a rough site plan was prepared depicting the place of occurrence etc. which was signed by the independent witnesses and Trap Laying Officer.

He also admitted having stated to CBI that the recording in the DVR during the trap proceedings was transferred to a DVD with the help of official laptop. The said DVD was signed by the Trap Laying Officer. Thereafter, the same was put in its plastic cover and was sealed with the seal of CBI. He stated that after recording the specimen voice of the independent witnesses, the specimen voice of the CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 17 of 82 accused was also recorded in the DVR in the presence of the independent witnesses. The said recording was marked as S­1. The same was also signed by the Trap Laying Officer and the independent witnesses. He admitted having stated to CBI that impression of the seal was taken. The seal after use was handed over to Nikunj Goel. Wash of the Jeans Pant of the accused was also taken by CBI. He admitted having stated to CBI that he had heard the conversation recorded and marked Q­1 and Q­2 and had signed transcription identification memo thereafter. He proved copy of FIR vide Ex. PW2/E and the recovery memo vide Ex. PW2/F. He admitted that intercepted conversation was prepared in his presence and had signed the same which is Ex. PW2/H. He stated that he had not heard each and every word of the intercepted conversation when the same was reduced to a transcript. He stated that the transcript was not prepared in his presence. He had only signed it after its preparation. The CD was played in the court. After hearing the conversation, he stated that he cannot identify any of the voice in the CD and he did not identify the voice in most of the conversation and the conversation itself. He identified the voice of Nikunj Goel and Malkit Singh (independent witnesses) in CD which is Ex. P­3. He denied that the conversation in portion W to W1 of the transcript Ex. PW2/H had taken place between him and the accused. Currency notes were produced from Malkhana which were identified by the witness after tallying with the handing over memo.

CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 18 of 82 On being cross­examined by learned counsel for the accused he stated that he knew the accused prior to the date of trial in connection with his official dealings. He admitted that he had sold his Ford Icon car bearing registration No. DL­8CG­7823 to the accused and had taken an advance of Rs. 1,00,000/­. He stated that he knew Sh. Mahender Singh Deo who was GM­cum­CEO of Central Police Canteen, Ministry of Home and was boss of the accused. He stated that in fact the complaints were lodged against Mahender Singh Deo regarding repeated demands of bribe with Central Vigilance Commission and Enforcement Directorate. The two complaints were identified by him which are dated 27.6.2011 Ex. PW2/DA­1 and dated 29.6.2011 Ex. PW2/DA­2. He stated that he had very cordial terms with the accused and there was no need for written agreement or receipt when the car was sold to the accused. He stated that he had returned the advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/­, towards sale of his car, to the accused as the accused wanted to buy a new car. He stated that the said amount was termed as bribe by CBI. He further stated that he had told CBI that he was paying the said amount to the accused which was taken as advance from the accused and the accused had never demanded bribe from him at any point of time. He stated that his complaint to the Enforcement Department was forwarded to CBI. He stated that he was called by CBI and told to implicate any other officer, if he wanted and any action to be taken against Sh. Mahender Singh Deo. He stated that to implicate Sh. Mahender Singh Deo, he had CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 19 of 82 back stabbed his friend i.e. accused Manmeet Pokhriyal.

Attention of the witness had been drawn to Ex. PW2/A i.e. the complaint. He stated that he had not lodged this complaint. He stated that a draft of this complaint was given to him by CBI and he had only copied the draft and had handed over the same after signing the same. He stated that verification report was not prepared in his presence and he was told to put his signatures on the same on the direction of CBI. He also denied that the handing over memo and the recovery memo were prepared in his presence. He stated that he had put his signatures on the same at the instance of CBI. He stated that the site plan was not prepared in his presence or at his instance. He stated that the accused was arrested at the spot at about 5:30 PM on 19.5.2012 and no personal search of the accused was conducted in his presence. He stated that he had merely put his signatures on the documents. He denied that the accused had demanded any bribe from him. He stated that on the next day, he had gone to CBI office as directed by them, and there he had signed the documents without going through them. He stated that his signatures were not obtained by CBI on any documents at the spot. He further stated that no post­trap or pre­post proceedings had taken place in his presence since he was not interested to lodge complaint against the accused. He stated that whatever he had stated against the accused in his examination­in­chief or during the cross­examination by learned Senior PP for CBI, it was under pressure of CBI. He stated that he wanted to bring truth before the court, CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 20 of 82 therefore, whatever he had stated during his cross­ examination by learned counsel for the accused is the only truth.

Learned Senior PP for CBI had sought permission of the court to re­examin the witness. The witness was re­ examined by him. The witness stated that he cannot show any document to support his version that Ex. PW2/DA­1 or Ex. PW2/DA­2 were ever forwarded to CBI. He stated that he had received one telephonic call from Sh. Amit Srivastava, Inspector, CBI regarding the same. He stated that he used to visit CBI office to inquire about the status of the complaint. The Court and the Ld. Senior PP for CBI had explained him about the legal consequences of deposing falsely. However, he stated that he knows the legal consequences to falsely implicate any person for demand of bribe. He admitted that there was no mention in the intercepted conversation about the sale of car.

He admitted before the Court on oath that his examination in chief was recorded on 09.10.2012 on oath and he had made a false statement in the court that the accused had demanded Rs.2,00,000/­ from him for forwarding his file. He further admitted that he had falsely deposed that he had paid Rs.1,00,000/­ in cash to the accused for forwarding his file as part payment of Rs. 2,00,000/. He admitted that whatever he had deposed earlier in the court regarding demand of bribe by the accused or the pre and post trap proceedings etc., were totally false and the reason behind it was that the accused was falsely CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 21 of 82 implicated solely on the assurance of CBI. He denied that he had concocted a new story to save the accused and there was no oral agreement between him and the accused for sale of the car. He denied that he had given Rs.1,00,000/­ to the accused as bribe amount.

9. PW 3 Sh. Nikunj Kumar Goel, Inspector, Income Tax, Jhandewalan, New Delhi is an independent witness who stated that On 18.5.2012 he had received a letter from his Senior Officers that he had to reach CBI Headquarter in connection with secret duty. At about 11:00 AM, he alongwith another Inspector from his office Sh. Malkiat Singh had reached CBI Headquarter. He had met an officer from Anti­Corruption Branch. He had introduced him to the complainant Sh. B.K. Chawla. The written complaint of Sh. Chawla was given to them for reading.

The complaint was regarding an officer Manmeet Pokhriyal working in a Police Canteen that he was demanding bribe of Rs. 1 lakh each from the complainant as he was representative of two companies who were to be registered with the canteen for supplying goods.

Thereafter, the CBI officers had taken an empty DVR. The same was checked before them that it was empty and thereafter, his introductory voice sample had been taken thereafter the same was given to the complainant in switch "ON" condition. He stated that he does not remember as to whether the introductory voice of any other person were taken or not.

CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 22 of 82 He does not remember whether any other proceeding had taken place. The DVR was given to the complainant for the purpose that the conversation between him and the officer against who the complaint had been lodged can be recorded. He was instructed to remain with the complainant when he will interact with the said officer to hear the conversation. Two CBI officers were to accompany them. They had decided that they will maintain distance from them and will be able to gather whatever happens between the complainant and that officer.

He stated that he does not know whether any other proceeding had taken place before starting from CBI office. Thereafter, he himself and Mr. Chawla went on foot to CGO Complex. The complainant had spoken to accused Manmeet Pokhriyal present in the Court on phone. The complainant told him that accused Manmeet Pokhriyal had asked him to wait there only and he will come out to meet him. The complainant and he himself had waited for a few minutes when the accused came out. The accused had made inquiry about his identity from the complainant. The complainant introduced him as one of his new staff members. Thereafter, they had gone to the roof of the building which is above a tea shop. He stated that accused told the complainant that he will not speak to him in his presence. Thereafter, the complainant had sent him downstairs.

After some time, the accused and the complainant also came downstairs. Nothing happened in his presence as he had been sent downstairs by the complainant.

CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 23 of 82 Thereafter, the complainant alongwith him had gone inside the CRPF Office and had met an officer for few minutes. The DVR was played in his presence in CBI Headquarter and he had heard the same and found that there was conversation about demand of bribe in connection with the registration of the company. There was also conversation between the complainant and accused Manmeet Pokhriyal to meet again in the evening of the same day i.e. 18.5.2012.

He stated that it was decided to avoid meeting on 18.5.2012 and it was decided that the complainant has now met the accused Manmeet Pokhriyal on 19.5.2012 for the purpose of paying the bribe amount. Thereafter, he himself, the complainant and Sh. Malkiyat Singh, Inspector, Income Tax were directed to come to CBI office on 19.5.2012 in the morning. Accordingly, he had attended CBI office on 19.5.2012. The complainant Sh. Chawala as directed, made a call on the mobile phone of accused Manmeet Pokhriyal to fix the time and place for delivery of bribe amount.

He stated that again his introductory voice was recorded in one DVR. He cannot tell as to whether that DVR was the same DVR in which his introductory voice was recorded on 18.5.2012. The conversation which took place between the complainant and accused Manmeet Pokhriyal was recorded in DVR and the same was heard by him when it was played in their presence. In that conversation, Dwarka Metro Station was fixed between the complainant and accused to handover the bribe amount.

CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 24 of 82 He stated that the data of the DVR was transferred into a CD and the transcript of the same was also prepared after hearing the conversation. He stated that he does not remember whether the CD was sealed or not. He stated that all the proceedings which had taken place on 18.5.2012 and 19.5.2012 were incorporated in a memo was already exhibited as Ex. PW2/C. He had signed the same after going through the contents of the memo and in token of its correctness.

The complainant had produced Rs. 1 lakh to CBI officer. The numbers and denomination of each currency note was noted down in a memo Ex. PW2/D. Powder was smeared on each currency note. An officer of CBI had given a demonstration regarding the reaction of the said powder when it comes in contact with water which will contain a chemical. They were given a demonstration as to how when the powder comes in contact with the hand and thereafter, is dipped into water it turns into red colour. The powder smeared currency notes were given to the complainant in a wad. The CBI officials had explained to the complainant as to how the currency notes were to be handed over to accused Manmeet Pokhriyal and they had also decided upon a signal which was given by the complainant to CBI team after the transaction will be over.

He stated that the complainant had self driven his car. He was alone in his car. He alongwith other CBI officers had followed him in other vehicles. They had reached Dwarka Metro Station in their respective vehicles. Thereafter, the CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 25 of 82 complainant had moved his car again, they followed him. He had stopped his car outside the society gate of Dwarka. The accused sat down in the car of complainant. Thereafter we kept following their car. They finally got down and went in a restaurant. He stated that he does not remember the name or location of the restaurant.

He stated that they kept sitting in their respective vehicles outside the restaurant. The pre­decided signal i.e. an SMS had been received from the complainant to one CBI officer. After some time the accused came out of the 1st floor of the restaurant. As soon as the accused had came out the CBI officials had apprehended accused Manmeet Pokhriyal and had caught hold of his hands. One of CBI officers had taken out the bribe amount from the front pant pocket of accused Manmeet Pokhriyal. He stated that it was the same amount which had been taken to the complainant for being handed over to accused Manmeet Pokhriyal.

Thereafter, CBI officials had tallied the numbers of the currency notes with the memo prepared in CBI office Ex. PW2/D which bears my signature at point B. The numbers of currency notes were the same.

Both the hands of the accused were dipped in water containing a chemical and upon doing so the colour of the water had turned Red. The same was put in bottles. The bottles were sealed and my signatures were obtained on the same.

He stated that he does not remember as to whether any of the paper work had been done at the spot. Thereafter, CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 26 of 82 all of us had came to CBI office. Attention of the witness was drawn to recovery memo Ex. PW2/F. After going through the same the witness stated that Ex. PW2/F was prepared in his presence.

He stated that the transcription cum voice identification memo was prepared in his presence. He identified the bottles of hand washes and jeans pocket wash which was sealed in his presence. On being cross examined by Sh. Pramod Kumar Dubey, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for accused Manmeet Pokhriyal he stated that he cannot tell exact time till when he had remained in CBI office on 18.5.2012, but he stayed till evening. He left CBI office on 18.5.2012 alongwith Sh. Malkiat Singh. He stated that he does not remember whether any memo was prepared for the proceedings which took place on 18.5.2012 in CBI office. Vol. "However, whatever proceedings took place and memo prepared he had signed the same with date." He stated that he does not remember whether Sh. Malkiat Singh had also signed the memos which were prepared by CBI in his presence or not. He cannot tell as to how many officers of CBI he had met on 18.5.2012 in CBI office. He stated that he does not remember whether his statement was recorded on 18.5.2012 in respect of the proceedings carried out on the same day. Again said that as far as he remembers on that day his statement was not recorded.

He denied that he had not gone for any verification with Sh. Chawala on 18.5.2012. He further denied that he had never gone for any verification of the complaint on CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 27 of 82 18.5.2012.

He stated that the complaint was not written in his presence.

He stated that CBI officials had not visited the place where the verification was done on 18.5.2012. People were present at the tea stall situated in CGO Complex where they had met accused Manmeet Pokhriyal. They had stayed at the said tea stall while waiting for accused Manmeet Pokhriyal for approximately around 5 to 10 minutes.

He denied that his statement mark PW/3X1 was not recorded. When his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C was recorded, the case property was not shown to him. The GC notes were not shown to him on the day when his statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C was recorded by the CBI. He has stated that he had not noted down himself serial number of the GC notes which were used during the trap proceedings.

He stated that he had not accompanied the complainant or CBI team inside the restaurant at the market in Dwarka. CBI team had also not gone inside the restaurant at the market in Dwarka. Inspector R.L. Yadav and Inspector Nikhil Malhotra were standing with him at the time of trap. He had not seen the complainant handing over or accused accepting the bribe amount from him. He stated that he does not know as to what transpired inside the restaurant since he had not gone inside. He stated that he cannot say what conversation had taken place between the complainant and the accused inside the restaurant.

CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 28 of 82

10. PW­4 Sh. Malkiat Singh, Inspector, Office of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi­VIII, Civic Center, New Delhi was posted as Inspector, Income Tax, Investigation Unit­ V, Jhandewalan, New Delhi in May, 2012. On 18.5.2012, he had visited CBI office on the direction of his senior officer alongwith Sh. Nikunj Goel who is colleague. We had reported initially to the Reception of CBI office.

They were informed that there was a complaint of Sh. Chawala against accused Manmmet Pokhriyal who is present in the Court today for demanding bribe of Rs. 1 lakh in connection with supply of goods to the canteen so far as he remember.

He stated that he does not remember as to whether the complaint was shown to him or not. The complainant was introduced with him by CBI officials though he did not have any interaction with him personally. He was directed to visit CBI office again on the next day i.e. 19.5.2012. No proceedings took place on 18.5.2012. On 19.5.2012 he had again visited CBI office as directed by CBI official on 18.5.2012.

He stated that in the office, demonstration was done regarding the reaction of some chemical powder with water and due to reaction of the powder and solution in water the colour of the solution turns Red or Pink. Chemical powder was applied on the GC Notes total in Rs. 1 lakh. They were explained that if someone touches the GC Notes smeared with powder and dips his finger in water then the colour of the water turns pink. The said GC Notes were kept in the CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 29 of 82 pant pocket of complainant. Two teams were constituted to trap accused Manmeet Pokhriyal. Before proceeding the proceedings were written in which the numbers of the GC Notes were recorded.

He stated that the trap teams rushed towards Dwarka Metro Station. The team members had informed that the trap team members have to reach Dwarka Metro Station. After waiting for sometime, they had rushed towards Dwarka Market.

He was part of the second team. The first team had reached Dwarka Market earlier. When he had reached alongwith the second team there the first team was already sitting in a Scorpio Car alongwith accused present in the Court. As soon as they had reached there, the accused was made to dip both his hand in water and the colour of the water had turned into Red. The said water was transferred into bottles and after putting caps on the bottle wthey had left for CBI Headquarter.

He stated that does not remember if any other proceeding had taken place at the spot. Some memos were prepared in CBI office. Attention of the witness was drawn to Recovery memo Ex. PW2/F. After going through the same the witness stated that he had signed the said memo after going through the contents of the same and in token of its correctness.

The witness was declared hostile by the Ld. Senior PP for CBI.

On being cross examined Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 30 of 82 Senior PP for CBI he stated that the conversation between accused Manmeet Pokhriyal and the complainant was recorded in his presence. He admitted that his statement was recorded by Sh. Pankaj Bansal, Inspector, CBI on 11.6.2012. The contents of his statement were read over to him by Sh. Pankaj Bansal. He admitted that it is correctly mentioned in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C that the written complaint dated 18.5.2012 of the complainant were read over and explained to them and the other team members. He admitted that on 19.5.2012, verification was done in his presence and during which accused Manmeet Pokhriyal had agreed to accept Rs. 1 lakh on the same day at about 1630 hours near Dwarka Metro Station, Delhi.

He stated that he does not remember as to whether he had been instructed by CBI officers to remain present with the complainant to witness any transaction of the bribe amount. He admitted that before proceeding to the spot for trap his introductory voice was recorded in a DVR. On the way to Dwarka Metro Station, the complainant was directed to make a call from his mobile phone to accused Manmeet Pokhriyal and this call was simultaneously recorded in the DVR. The accused had responded that he would be coming at gate no. 1 of CRPF Campus nearby Dwarka Metro Station. He admitted that the complainant was directed to move alone in his car and the DVR was given to him in switch "ON" condition for recording conversation which took place between the complainant and the accused.

CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 31 of 82 Since he had been left at Dwarka Metro Station and the other team along with the complainant had proceeded, as such he could not see as to whether the complainant had stopped his car and accused Pokhriyal had approached the car of the complainant.

He stated that since he was left at Dwarka Metro Station, no further proceedings had taken place in his presence.

He admitted that the wash of the front side pant pocket of accused was also taken, the same was transferred into bottle which was sealed and his signatures were obtained on the same. He admitted the proceedings regarding hand washes and sealing of the same as well as taking sample voice of accused Manmeet Pokhriyal.

He stated that the transcript of the recorded conversation as well as the Voice Identification cum Transcription Memo was also prepared in his presence when he was called again to CBI Office.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that the complaint which he had mentioned was read over to him and explained on 18.5.2012 during the cross examination of Ld. Senior PP for CBI, was not written in his presence.

He stated that he was not told when, by whom and where the said complaint had been written.

He stated that they had remained at the spot on 19.5.2012 for about 20­25 minutes. He did not visit the restaurant on 19.5.2012. He was not asked by CBI to visit CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 32 of 82 the said restaurant.

He stated that some paper formalities were conducted at the spot on 19.5.2012 but he does not remember the detail and description thereof.

He stated that Ex.PW2/D was prepared by some CBI official whose name he does not remember. This document was prepared on 19.5.2013 at 2:00 pm. This document was not prepared on his dictation. He stated that he had not noted down the contents of Ex.PW2/D. He admitted that that Ex.PW2/D was not typed in his presence. Ex.PW2/F was also not typed in his presence nor it was prepared on his dictation. He denied that that he had signed Ex.PW2/E, Ex.PW2/F and Ex.PW4/B under pressure of CBI.

He stated that Ex. PW4/C is the same statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C which was recorded by Mr. Pankaj Bansal on 11.6.2012.

The witness was questioned that he had stated in his statement recorded in Court that day that the copy of the recovery memo, any document prepared by CBI was not supplied to him or neither he had noted down the contents of any of the document prepared by CBI, the currency notes were also not shown to him at the time of recording his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, nor he remembered the number of the currency notes. Therefore, he was to explain as to from where he has got the number of currency notes mentioned at Portion X5 to X5 in Ex. PW4/C. The witness replied that the CBI official had given description of currency notes.

CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 33 of 82 He admitted that portion X5 to X5 in Ex. PW4/C was stated by him upon the details being provided by CBI.

He stated that the transcription was prepared on computer by putting either CD or Pen Drive or it was already stored in the computer system.

He denied that he had put his signatures under the pressure of CBI on the false documents prepared by CBI. He denied that no post trap or pre trap or any other proceeding allegedly connected with this case took place in his presence.

11. PW­5 Sh. Romesh Chandra stated that he had joined ITBP as Sub­Inspector in the year 1981. He was promoted as Inspector in April 1991 and Assistant Commandant in November 2002. Since November 2008, he had been attached to Central Officer, Central Police Canteen, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. He stated that his duty profile is to look after the policy matters and arranging meetings of Central Administrative Committee and joint meetings with MHA in connection with review or progress of Central Police Canteen. He stated that Central Police Canteen is a Department under MHA.

He stated that he is conversant with procedure of enlistment and registration. In case a firm is interested in enlistment or registration with CPC, they can download the Application Form from the Website of CRPF, BSF, ITBP etc. After completion of Application Form, the firm submits it in the Central Officer, CPC along with Bank Draft of Rs.1000/­ in favour of CEO­cum­GM, CPC as cost of Application Form.

CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 34 of 82 Thereafter, the file is scrutinized by Central Office, CPC which is generally done by Manager 1. During the year 2012, Sh. Rakesh Chaudhary, Deputy Commandant, ITBP, was Manager

1. Earlier to that accused Manmeet Pokhriyal, Deputy Commandant was Manager 1 used to deal with the Firms. The Scrutiny used to be done on the basis of check list containing list of documents. If some discrepancy is found, the same is intimated to the firm to rectify the application and complete the documentation. If the documentation is complete, the file along with complete data like Brand, Turnover etc. is prepared on separate sheets and is submitted before the Central Purchase Committee. In the year 2012, the Central Purchase Committee consisted of IG, ITBP as Chairman i.e. Sh. K.B. Singh, and the members were one DIG each from CRPF, CISF, SSB and BSF. The work of this committee was to select the firm for price negotiation. When the firm is qualified for the price negotiation, it is called for negotiation on fixed date and time. The senior officer who is authorized to take decision and sign on behalf of the firm, is required to attend the negotiation proceedings. If the negotiation is successful, the firm is requested to deposit Rs. 5,000/­ as registration fee and Rs.500/­ per product as product registration fee. As and when the deposit is made, the firm becomes free to do business with all the master canteens all over India and the master canteens in turn can make the payments to the firm.

The witness had been shown file pertaining to M/s Superfine Knitters Limited engaged in the business of hosiery CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 35 of 82 knitted fabrics and garments (D­11). The witness after going through the same stated that an application dated 21.3.2012 had been received from one Vivek Lakra, Director, M/s Superfine Knitters Limited for registration with CPC enclosing price proforma application containing information pertaining to the firm and related documents. The same was signed by MD Sh. Ajit Lakra. The application is Mark­A and the Application Form which had been signed by MD Sh. Ajit Lakra is Mark­B. He further stated that on the Application Form the then DIG, CPC Sh. Mahender Singh Deo had marked "Detailed Board to Check" at Point­A1. He identified the handwriting and signatures of Sh. Mahender Singh Deo as he had seen him signing and writing during the course of his official duty. The file was checked by the board comprising of one officer of Second in Command Sh. Subrata Deb and Inspector B.K. Upadhyay. He had seen the signatures on the check list/inspection list which is Ex. PW5/A (D­11) and bears signatures of Sh. Subrata Deb and Sh. B.K. Upadhyay at Point­A and B respectively. He stated that he can identify the handwriting and signatures of Sh. Subrata Deb and Sh. B.K. Upadhyay as he had seen them signing and writing during the course of his official duty.

He proved Ex. PW5/B (D­11) which is a letter dated 28.3.2012 vide which the firm was informed regarding discrepancy of non­attachment of costing proforma and renewal of ISO Certificate. The said letter bears the signatures of Sh. Subrata Deb at Point­A and initials of Sh.

CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 36 of 82 B.K. Upadhyay at Point­B. He also proved letter dated 12.4.2012 which is Mark­C vide which the costing proforma was submitted and it was requested that the ISO Certificate will be submitted on 14.4.2012. On 14.4.2012, ISO Certificate was submitted on behalf of the firm by someone.

He also proved the letter dated 19.4.2012 which is Ex. PW5/C (D­11) vide which the firm was called for price negotiation. He identified the signatures on this letter to be of accused Manmeet Pokhriyal on behalf of GM­cum­CEO Sh. Sanjeev Dhundi intimating the firm that the price negotiation will take place on 24.4.2012. He stated that he can identify the handwriting and signatures of accused Manmeet Pokhriyal since he had seen him signing and writing during the course of his official duty.

He stated that he had seen page No. 139 of D­11. As per the same, on 24.4.2012 the price negotiation had taken place on behalf of the firm and one B.K. Chawla had attended the negotiation meeting. As per the record, the firm was cleared to supply products to CPCs subject to deposit of Rs. 5000/­ as Firm Registration Fee and Rs.500/­ as Product Registration Fee for each product.

He proved the letter Ex. PW5/D (D­11) vide which the firm M/s Superfine Knitter Limited was informed to deposit the registration fee stated above. He identified the signatures on this letter to be of accused Manmeet Pokhriyal on behalf of GM­cum­CEO Sh. Sanjeev Dhundi.

CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 37 of 82 He also proved the acceptance letter Ex. PW5/E (D­11) signed by Sh. Sanjeev Dhundi, DIG/CEO­cum­GM, CPC which was issued to the firm. He identified the signatures of Sh. Sanjeev Dhundi since he had seen him signing and writing during the course of his official duty. He also proved the rate sheet / price list which is Ex. PW5/F (D­11) which was attached with the above said acceptance letter. The price has been signed by the Chairman, Central Purchase Committee along with its members. The same was objected by learned defence counsel being a photocopy. He further stated that the Chairman of the Committee is nominated by MHA for the period of two years and the Members are nominated by respective force/Department.

As regards M/s Bodycare Creations Pvt. Limited (D­12), he stated that an application had been received on 17.3.2012 signed by one Sanjay Dabur, MD of the firm with address at D­30, Sec­60, Noida with request for registration. The same is Mark­D. The request letter was marked by Sh. Mahender Singh Deo, the then DIG­cum­CEO, CPC. As per the check list signed by Sh. B.K. Upadhyay, Inspector and Sh. Subrata Deb, Second in Command, Assam Rifles, there was no discrepancy and the file was submitted for pre­negotiation before the Central Purchase Committee. The Committee had selected the firm for negotiation. Accordingly, letter dated 11.4.2012 Ex. PW5/G (D­12) was signed by accused Manmeet Pokhriyal on behalf of CEO­cum­GM Sh. Sanjeev Dhundi, which was sent to the firm for negotiation on 24.4.2012. On 24.4.2012, negotiation had taken place and CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 38 of 82 the representative of the firm Miss Brishti Sen had attended the negotiation meeting.

He proved letter dated 03.5.2012 Ex. PW5/H (D­12) vide which the firm M/s Bodycare Creations Pvt. Ltd. was informed to deposit the registration fee. This letter was also signed by accused Manmeet Pokhriyal on behalf of CEO­cum­ GM, CPC Sh. Sanjeev Dhundi, DIG.

He proved the acceptance letter dated 17.5.2012 Ex. PW5/J (D­12) which was signed by Sh. Sanjeev Dhundi, DIG. Along with this letter, the negotiation rate list/price list was also enclosed. The price had been signed by the Chairman, Central Purchase Committee along with its members which is Ex. PW5/K (D­12). The same was objected to by learned defence counsel being a photocopy.

On being cross­examined, he admitted that there is no fixed procedure for checking registration or enlistment by a particular person or a Board by CPC. It keeps changing according to convenience by DIG, CPC. However, generally it is dealt with by Manager 1. He stated that in the present case, accused Manmeet Pokhriyal had not dealt with the files of M/s Bodycare Creations Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Superfine Knitters Limited. After going through the check list placed on judicial record, he stated that these files had been dealt with for the purpose of checking by Sh. Subrata Deb and Inspector B.K. Upadhyay. He stated that the Central Purchase Committee decides collectively as to whether a particular product is to be accepted or rejected to be purchased. He stated that it is never an individual decision and the Central CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 39 of 82 Purchase Committee and the Price Negotiation Committee are the same. He stated that Accused Manmeet Pokhriyal was working as Deputy Commandant, CRPF. He admitted that Deputy Commandant cannot decide as to what goods from which firms can be accepted or rejected or are to be enlisted with Central Police Canteens. He also admitted that accused Manmeet Pokhriyal was not a member of the Central Purchase Committee.

He admitted that the letters Ex. PW5/C, Ex. PW5/D, Ex. PW5/G and Ex. PW5/H had been signed by accused Manmeet Pokhriyal in routine as per procedure. After seeing the court record, he admitted that Sh. Sanjeev Dhundi, DIG, CEO­cum­GM, Central Police Canteen had issued letters dated 17.5.2012 to M/s Superfine Knitters Limited and M/s Bodycare Creations Private Limited, Ex. PW5/E and Ex. PW5/J respectively, with respect to acceptance to prices of products for Central Police Canteen. He stated that he had worked with accused Manmeet Pokhriyal for about one year and there was no previous complaint against him for any misconduct/violation of procedure/demand of bribe.

He admitted that accused Manmeet Pokhriyal was interested in purchasing a second hand car but he denied that the accused had ever mentioned this fact to him i.e. purchase of car from Sh. B.K. Chawla. He denied that he was deposing falsely.

12. PW­6 Ms. Brishti Sen stated that she had been working with M/s Bodycare Creations Pvt. Ltd. since October CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 40 of 82 2010 as a Merchant. She stated that her duty profile is to look after the procedure from the sampling stage till final dispatching of the products. She admitted that she knows Sh. B.K. Chawla who works as an agent for the company and he used to assist in filling and submission of application forms in connection with enlisting with Central Police Canteen.

Attention of the witness was drawn to the price negotiation sheet Ex. PW5/A. After going through the same, she stated that she had signed the same as representative of the firm and bears her signatures at Point­F. She proved the letter dated 17.5.2012 Ex. PW5/J vide which acceptance of prices of products was sent by Central Police Canteen to the firm.

On being cross­examined, she admitted that the meeting for price negotiation for enlistment of the products in Central Police Canteen was personally attended by her and no one else had attended the same on her behalf. She stated that no Authority Letter was ever issued to Sh. B.K. Chawla to negotiate prices or enlistment of products of M/s Bodycare Creations Pvt. Ltd. with Central Police Canteen. She stated that he had only helped her to fill the form for submission in Central Police Canteen. She admitted that accused Manmeet Pokhriyal had never demanded any bribe from her for enlisting the products of the firm in Central Police Canteen. She further admitted that Sh. B.K. Chawla also never informed her that accused Manmeet Pokhriyal was demanding any bribe for enlistment of the products of their CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 41 of 82 firm in Central Police Canteen. She denied that she was deposing falsely.

13. PW­7 Sh. V.B. Ramteke stated that he was working as Senior Scientific Officer, Grade­I in CFSL, New Delhi. He had seen his CFSL Report dated 31.5.2012. After going through the record, he stated that vide letter dated 23.5.2012 of CBI, three sealed bottles were forwarded for laboratory examination and expert opinion which were received in CFSL, New Delhi on 23.5.2012. The bottles were sealed with the seal of CBI, New Delhi. The exhibit bottles were marked as Ex. RHW, LHW and LHJPW. He stated that contents of the bottle on chemical examination gave positive test of the presence of phenolphthalein.

He stated that remnants of the exhibits were sealed with his seal and were returned to the forwarding authority along with his chemical analysis report. He stated that the seal impressions along with wrappers removed from the exhibit bottles were also returned in a sealed envelope to the forwarding authority. He proved his report dated 31.5.2012 Ex. PW7/A (D­16) which bears his signatures and official seal at Point­A. He also proved the forwarding letter dated 23.5.2012 Ex. PW7/B (D­6) which bears the signatures of Case Assistant, CFSL at Point­A. He also proved his signatures on the sealed bottles Ex. P­106, P­107 and P­108 regarding 'left hand wash', 'right hand wash' and 'left hand jeans pocket wash' respectively.

CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 42 of 82 On being cross­examined, he stated that while examining the said samples, he had prepared a worksheet but the same had not been handed over to CBI. He admitted that CFSL, CBI, Delhi is under the administrative control of CBI.

He admitted that Ex. P­106 i.e. the bottle containing left hand wash contained almost colourless solution with faint traces of pink strands. While court observation was made that the said bottle contained colourless solution, he voluntarily stated that the pink colour of the solutions had no bearing or connection with the presence of phenolphthalein, and even otherwise the pink coloured solution of the phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate has a tendency to fade away with the passage of time and is dependent on the concentration of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate.

He admitted that Ex. P­107 i.e. the bottle containing right hand wash contained light pink solution.

He stated that he cannot say whether all the GC notes were smeared with the same phenolphthalein power or not. He admitted that as regards Ex. P­106 to P­108, he had not mentioned the concentration of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate in his report. He admitted that in his report Ex. PW7/B, he had not mentioned the detailed procedures followed by him for examining the samples contained in Ex. P­106 to P­108. He denied that he had not performed any test on these samples. He admitted that CFSL, Delhi is also certified by National Accreditation Board of Laboratories and it is mandatory to give a proficiency test every two years. He CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 43 of 82 denied that he had not passed the proficiency test and for the said reason, he was not qualified to conduct the examination. He also denied that he had never cleared the said proficiency test and that is why the same had not been mentioned in his report Ex. PW7/B at Point­3. He denied that since CFSL, Delhi is under the administrative control of CBI, he had given his report under the pressure and asking of CBI. He further denied that his report was false and manipulated at the behest of CBI and he was deposing falsely.

14. PW­8 Sh. Nikhil Malhotra stated that he was working as Inspector, CBI, ACB, New Delhi since 2011. He stated that on 18.5.2012, a complaint was given by Sh. B.K. Chawla was marked to him for verification by the SP. It was mentioned in the complaint that Sh. B.K. Chawla was the authorized consultant of two firms, namely, M/s Bodycare Creations Pvt. Ltd and M/s Superfine Knitters Ltd. which were desirous of being registered in Central Police Canteen. Accused Manmeet Pokhriyal, Dy. Commandant, CRPF who was to process the files was demanding Rs.1,00,000/­ from complainant Sh. B.K. Chawla. He stated that in order to verify the complaint, presence of independent witness Sh. Nikunj Goel was secured. One DVR was also arranged. He stated that he along with the complainant and independent witness had gone to the office of the accused i.e. Block 4, CGO Complex.

He stated that near the office, DVR was switched on and given to the complainant so that the conversation CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 44 of 82 between the complainant and the accused could be recorded. The independent witness Sh. Nikunj Goel was directed to remain close to the complainant and try to hear the conversation between the complainant and the accused. He stated that thereafter both of them had gone towards the office of the accused. He stated that after sometime, the complainant and the accused were seen moving towards the Central Police Canteen and he had followed them. He stated that after sometime, the complainant had come back and the DVR was taken back and switched off. He stated that all of them had returned to CBI office where the DVR was played and heard which confirmed demand of bribe by the accused.

He stated that on 19.5.2012, in order to confirm the place for the delivery of bribe amount, a call was made on the mobile phone of the accused from the mobile phone of the complainant Sh. B.K. Chawla. In the said conversation, the accused had asked the complainant to come to Metro Station, Near CFPR Camp with the bribe amount. He stated that this call was also recorded in DVR which was transferred into a blank CD Mark­Q­1. The said CD was got signed by the independent witness and was sealed with CBI seal. He stated that thereafter the case was registered against the accused and the FIR was marked to Sh. R.L. Yadav, Inspector, CBI.

He admitted that the CD Ex. P­2 was prepared by him in the presence of independent witness by transferring the data from DVR to this CD. He stated that the cloth wrapper Ex. P­1 bears the signatures of Sh. Nikunj Goel, independent witness at Point­A and he had signed in his presence. He CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 45 of 82 stated that he was also the trap team member. He stated that the pre­trap and post­trap proceedings had also been conducted in his presence and the proceedings were reduced into writing vide handing over memo Ex. PW2/D and recovery memo Ex. PW2/F. On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he admitted that in case a complaint is received by Dak, it bears the complaint number, however, in case the complainant himself appears before the SP to present his compliant, complaint number is not mentioned on the same. Dak is sent to the Complaint Section. In this case, complainant had appeared before the SP with this complaint directly. Only after appearance of the complainant before the SP, the complaint is marked to the Complaint Section for being given a number. A file is maintained in the Complaint Section regarding such complaint along with the details and receipt of the officer to whom such complaint is marked for verification. In this case, the complaint was marked to him for verification, thereafter, it was sent to the Complaint Section from where he had received it for verification. He had not kept copy of this complaint with him for verification before being received in the Complaint Section from the office of SP. The same complaint was produced by him before the SP concerned.

Attention of the witness was drawn to Ex. PW2/A at Point­C where 'CO­28/12' is mentioned and Ex. PW2/E internal Page No. 4, where 'CO­28/12' is not mentioned. After going through the same, the witness stated that it is CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 46 of 82 correct that 'CO­28/12' is not mentioned on internal Page No. 4 of Ex. PW2/E. He denied that he had not conducted verification of the complaint. He denied that the FIR in this case is ante­dated. He stated that he cannot say as to who has written 'CO­28/12' at Point­C on Ex. PW2/A. He admitted that no separate file was prepared regarding verification of the complaint. No document was prepared regarding the time taken in verification of the complaint on 18.5.2012. There is no document on record to show as to what time the complainant and the independent witnesses met him on 18.5.2012. He stated that it is not mentioned in any document as to from where the DVR was procured in this case, whether it was in working order or not and as to whether he had ascertained it was blank or had battery or not. He had not obtained any document regarding entry or exit of the complainant and independent witnesses in this case on 18.5.2012. No document was prepared on 18.5.2012 regarding any proceeding conducted on 18.5.2012. No departure entry was made on 18.5.2012 regarding anyone or any article for the purpose of verification of this case. No arrival entry was made on 18.5.2012 after verification was conducted. No other CBI officer had accompanied him on 18.5.2012 for verification purpose.

The DVR was switched "On" at the spot. He was present at the spot at the time for verification. No site plan of the place of verification was prepared by him. The DVR was switched "Off" at the spot. He had general conversation with the complainant on his way from CBI office to the spot.

CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 47 of 82 Sh. Nikunj Goel was also present with him at the spot. They remained at the spot for about 20 minutes. He denied that neither he himself nor the complainant or independent witnesses had not gone for verification purposes to the spot as deposed by him on 18.5.2012. He denied that he had not conducted verification on 18.5.2012.

No documents regarding verification proceedings or any other proceedings were prepared on 18.5.2012. Neither any statement of the witnesses or complainant were recorded on that day. The intercepted conversation which had taken place on 18.5.2012 was played in the presence of complainant and the independent witnesses on his laptop. Rough transcript of this conversation was prepared. It was not produced before the SP concerned. Signatures of independent witnesses and complainant were not obtained on rough transcript. Copy of CD of intercepted conversation of 18.5.2012 was not prepared on 18.5.2012. It was prepared on 19.5.2012. The CD was not sealed on 18.5.2012. It was not deposited in the Malkhana on 18.5.2012.

Attention of the witness was drawn to Ex. PW2/C. After going through the same the witness stated that he had prepared it on his laptop. He admitted that he has not mentioned in Ex. PW2/C that copy of Q­1 had been prepared by him. No separate document in this regard was prepared by him. He denied that Ex. PW2/C is false and fabricated document as no such proceedings ever took place. He denied that copy of Q­1 was not prepared by him. He had not CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 48 of 82 verified the fact whether the name of the companies mentioned in complaint Ex. PW2/A were already listed with CPC. He did not obtain any document from the complainant or Bodycare and Superfine Knitters Pvt. Ltd. that the complainant Sh. B.K. Chawla was the authorized representative of those companies. He did not find out the procedure for enlisting the company with CPC. He did not verify as to whether accused Manmeet Pokhriyal was dealing or had power for enlisting the company with CPC.

He had met the complainant on 19.5.2012 at 11:30 am in CBI office. Thereafter, he did not meet him. Attention of the witness was drawn to handing over memo Ex. PW2/D. After going through the same he stated that he had prepared it, but he did not remember on which system he had prepared it. He did not know as to who had prepared the recovery memo. He had not prepared the recovery memo, but it was prepared in his presence.

He stated that he cannot comment as to whether the font, size, space are identical in Ex. PW2/D and Ex. PW2/F. He had not given any pen drive containing the data of handing over memo to anyone for the purpose of preparation of any other document. He denied that the handing over memo is false and fabricated document.

The complainant had gone to the spot for trap laying proceedings on 19.5.2012 in his own vehicle. No departure entry regarding the persons or articles was made on 19.5.2012.

CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 49 of 82 He stated that no team member had accompanied the complainant to Cafe Coffee Day on 19.5.2012. Hand washes of complainant were not taken on 19.5.2012. Clothes of complainant were not seized on 19.5.2012. Hand washes of the person who had recovered and counted the bribe amount were not taken on 19.5.2012.

No specific mark or specimen signatures were put on the currency notes after or before recovery from accused Manmeet Pokhriyal. As far as he remembers no other document was prepared on 19.5.2012 at the spot. Vol. "Only site plan was prepared at the spot". The site plan was prepared by Sh. Pramod Kumar, Inspector, CBI at the pointing out of the complainant. Inspector Pramod Kumar had gone inside Cafe Coffee Day for preparation of site plan. Inspector M.P. Singh was standing with him outside when the trap was laid. He did not remember the positions of Sh. Nikunj Goel and Sh. Malkiat Singh at that time. He did not remember the number of trap laying team members. They remained at the spot for around one hour.

He stated that when his statement was recorded by Inspector Pankaj Bansal the recorded conversation was played and heard. He stated that he cannot tell as to for how long he had joined the investigation on the day when his statement was recorded. He had not handed over pen drive containing data of handing over memo when his statement was recorded by him. The currency notes were not shown to him by the IO on that day. He stated that he had gone through his statement when the IO had recorded regarding CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 50 of 82 its correctness. He did not inform the IO as to when the transcript of the intercepted conversation was prepared.

A Court observation was made that upon perusal of the file, list of witnesses and the challan, it was clear that the statement of witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C was not recorded as has been mentioned against his name in the list of witnesses filed alongwith charge sheet.

He stated that he had no information that the complainant had lodged two complaints against the DIG Mahender Singh Deo dated 27.6.2011 and 29.6.2011 bearing Ex. PW2/DA­1 and Ex. PW2/DA­2 respectively which had been marked to Inspector Amit Srivastava for investigation. He denied that during the course of verification proceedings it had come to his knowledge that the complainant had been asked by CBI officers to falsely implicate accused Manmeet Pokhriyal in order to trap the DIG Mahender Singh Deo.

He denied that the case property was tampered in this case. He denied that he had deliberately concealed the relevant facts in this case to prejudice the rights of the accused. He denied that he has deposed falsely.

15. PW­9 Sh. R.L. Yadav, Inspector, CBI stated that during his posting, FIR No. 15 of 2012 was entrusted to him for the investigation by Sh. Ghanshyam Upadhyay, SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi. On receipt of the FIR, a team was constituted and services of two independent witnesses, namely, Sh. Malkiat Singh and Sh. Nikunj Goel, both Inspectors of Income Tax Department were taken. In the team, Sh. B.K. Chawla CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 51 of 82 and the said two independent witnesses were also present.

He stated that as per the complaint, Sh. B.K. Chawla, Authorized Consultant for M/s Bodycare Creations Pvt. Ltd and M/s Superfine Knitters Ltd. had alleged that accused Manmeet Pokhriyal, Dy. Commandant, Central Police Canteen was demanding bribe of Rs.1,00,000/­ for listing these two companies in Central Police Canteen list. He stated that the complainant had produced the bribe amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ which consisted of 98 GC Notes of denomination 1000 each and 4 GC Notes of denomination 500 each. The numbers of these Notes were noted down in the pre­trap memo.

He stated that Sub­Inspector Ms. Veer Jyoti had given practical demonstration and informed about the chemical reaction of phenolphthalein powder with the solution of sodium carbonate prepared in water. She had explained that if any part of our body is touched with phenolphthalein powder and if that part is washed in the solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of the solution will turn into pink. She had applied phenolphthalein power on the currency notes and washed her fingers in the freshly prepared sodium carbonate solution. On her doing so, the colour had turned into pink. The said pink solution was thrown away.

He stated that the tainted bribe amount was put in the front right pant pocket of the complainant with the directions to handover the same to the accused on his specific demand or to any other person on the directions of the accused. The complainant was asked to give signal after completion of the transaction. Specimen voices of the witnesses were recorded CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 52 of 82 in the DVR for recording the conversations that were likely to take place during the transaction.

A trap kit was arranged and the proceedings were mentioned in the handing over memo. After conclusion of the pre­trap proceedings, the team along with independent witnesses and the complainant had proceeded for Dwarka Metro Station. The complainant had informed that the accused had instructed him to come alone and, therefore, Sh. Nikunj Goel, the independent witness was asked to try to remain close to the complainant to see the transaction and hear the conversation, if possible.

He stated that the team had reached Dwarka Metro Station from where the complainant had made a call to the accused which was simultaneously recorded in the DVR. The complainant had reached at Gate No. 1 of CRPF Campus, near Dwarka Metro Station as informed by the accused. The complainant was followed by CBI team. After sometime, the complainant had driven his car along with the accused to Sector­12, Dwarka Market and had parked his car. The CBI team had followed his car. He stated that the complainant and the accused were seen occupying a seat near one of the windows of Cafe Coffee Day, 1st Floor, Vardhman Complex. After about half­an hour or so, the complainant and the accused were seen coming out and walking towards a nearby Pan Shop. The complainant had given pre­decided signal and thereafter the accused was challenged for having demanded and accepted bribe amount from the complainant. The accused had got perplexed and had taken out the bribe CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 53 of 82 amount from the left side pant pocket with his left hand and had kept the same on a nearby platform near the Pan Shop. The accused was caught by Inspector M.P. Singh and SI Tika Ram. The DVR was taken back from the complainant and was switched off. Sh. Nikunj Goel was asked to pick the bribe money and count the same.

Thereafter, hand washes of the accused were taken one by one. A fresh sodium carbonate solution was prepared and the accused was asked to wash his right hand finger in the said solution. On doing so, the colour of the solution had turned pink. The pink coloured solution was transferred into a clean glass bottle and was sealed with CBI seal. The paper slip was pasted on each bottle marked as 'RHW' and 'LHW' denoting 'right hand wash' and 'left hand wash' respectively. Thereafter, the bottles were sealed with CBI seal.

He stated that both the independent witnesses had counted the bribe amount and had tallied the numbers mentioned in the handing over memo and found it to be correct. The complainant was asked about the sequence of the events happened, and he narrated the same. He stated that rough site plan Ex. PW4/A was prepared which was signed by him and the independent witnesses.

Thereafter, the trap team along with the witnesses, accused and the complainant had returned to CBI office. Wash of left pant pocket of the accused was taken. On washing the left pant pocket, the colour of the sodium carbonate solution had turned pink and the said solution was transferred into a glass bottle which was marked as Left CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 54 of 82 Hand Jeans Pocket Wash (LHJPW) and was sealed with CBI seal. The recordings in the DVR were transferred into blank CD and was marked as Q­2. The CD was also sealed with CBI seal. Thereafter, the accused was arrested vide arrest­cum­ personal search memo Ex. PW5/B. Thereafter, the specimen voice samples of the accused given by him voluntarily were recorded by using DVR and the same were transferred into a CD marked as S­1. This CD was also sealed with CBI seal. The trap proceedings were reduced into writing vide recovery memo Ex. PW2/F. When produced from Malkhana, CBI, he stated that the CD marked as Q­2 and another marked as S­1 were prepared by him. He also identified the jeans pant (blue colour) which was worn by the accused at the time of trap and the left hand jeans pant pocket wash was taken in the presence of independent witnesses.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Manmeet Pokhriyal he stated that the handing over memo was prepared at his dictation by one of the trap team members. He stated that he does not remember in which computer or laptop it was typed but it was an official computer. He stated that same is his answer regarding the recovery memo Ex. PW2/F. Contents of no memo were transferred into any pen drive.

He denied that the handing over memo Ex. PW2/D and recovery memo Ex. PW2/F were prepared at the same time. He stated that the complainant and the two independent witnesses met him at about 2:00 pm on CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 55 of 82 19.5.2012 when they had assembled for trap laying proceedings. He stated that he had not issued any notice to the complainant and independent witnesses nor he had called them on 19.5.2012. He stated that as per practice witnesses are arranged by Duty Officer of the branch as per requirement." He stated that he did not send any requisition for calling witnesses in this case.

Attention of the witness was drawn to Ex. PW2/F. After going through the same the witness admitted that the same does not bear the numbers of the currency notes. No identification marks were put on the bribe amount. He admitted that it is not mentioned in the recovery memo or handing over memo that they were prepared at his dictation. He denied that Ex. PW2/D and Ex. PW2/F are false and fabricated documents and both were prepared simultaneously.

He admitted that DVR is not the case property in this case. Transcript of the intercepted conversation was not prepared by him.

He stated that the hand washes were sealed at the spot. No public person was asked or made witness to the proceedings at the spot.

He stated that the complainant remained seated with accused inside Cafe Coffee Day for about 30­40 minutes. He had gone inside Cafe Coffee Day for a brief period after the trap. No hand washes or wash of clothes of the complainant were ever taken. He denied that accused has been falsely implicated in this case. He denied that the accused had not CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 56 of 82 demanded or accepted bribe. He denied that the case property was tampered with in this case. He denied that neither any pre­trap nor post­trap proceedings ever took place. He denied that he has deliberately concealed the relevant facts in this case to prejudice the rights of the accused.

16. PW­10 Sh. Rakesh Soni stated that in the year 2012, he was posted as Junior Telecom Officer, MTNL, Tis Hazari Exchange. He admitted that he knew Smt. Vandana Gupta who was Nodal Officer, MTNL. He further stated that in June 2012, there were two JTO (CDR) in MTNL, Telephone Exchange Building, Tis Hazari including him and one Sh. R.S. Yadav. He stated that he can identify the signature of Sh. R.S. Yadav since he had seen him writing and signing during the course of his official duties.

Attention of the witness had been drawn to letter dated 07.6.2012 addressed to Sh. Pankaj Bansal, Inspector, CBI vide which call detail record of mobile No. 9868342606 and 9013618718 for the period from 01.5.2012 to 20.5.2012, and certified copies of call detail record of mobile no. 9868342606 and 9013618718 for the period 01.5.2012 to 20.5.2012 were provided. The said letter along with attested copy of CDR of the aforesaid mobile numbers were collectively proved as Ex. PW10/A. He stated that mobile No. 9013618718 stands in the name of accused Manmeet Pokhriyal and mobile No. 9868342606 stands in the name of Sh. Aditya Chawala as per CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 57 of 82 system records.

On being cross­examined, he stated that his duty as JTO is to provide call detail records to security agency. He admitted that their computer is connected with server and managed by IT Unit. He denied that the CDR Ex. PW10/A is incorrect and suffers from defects and is not reliable. He denied that he was deposing falsely at the behest of CBI to prove a false and fabricated document on record.

17. PW­11 Sh. Neeraj Kansal stated that in August 2012, he was posted as Director (Personnel), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. He stated that the Home Minister on behalf of President of India is the competent Authority to remove the officers of the rank of Deputy Commandant, CRPF from his office and to take disciplinary action. He stated that the sanctioning Authority i.e. Home Minister on behalf of President of India after fully and carefully examining the material i.e. FIR, Memos, Statement of Witnesses, CFSL Report, Transactions and other documents collected during the investigation in respect of the allegations and circumstances of the case, after being fully satisfied and applying his mind, had accorded the sanction in the present case. He stated that the sanction order accorded on behalf of President of India, for prosecution of accused Manmeet Pokhriyal, Deputy Commandant, CRPF was conveyed by him by order and in the name of President of India. The said sanction order running into three pages is Ex. PW11/A which bears his signatures with official seal on each page at Point­A. CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 58 of 82 On being cross­examined by learned Defence Counsel, he admitted that a file is maintained in their office for the process of according sanction. He stated that he had personally examined the file before the sanction was accorded in the present case. He admitted that a draft sanction Ex. PW11/DC order had been received in their office from CBI for the guidance of the sanctioning Authority. He denied that the sanction accorded is verbatim reproduction of the draft sanction sent to their office. The Sanction Order is Ex. PW11/A. He stated that he along with his officers had examined all the documents that had accompanied CBI Report sent to their office. He denied that no material was examined before grant of sanction in this case. He further denied that no inquiries regarding the duties and the responsibilities of the accused had been done in this case and the same would have revealed innocence of accused. He denied that he had deliberately concealed true facts from the Court in order to falsely support the case of CBI.

18. PW­12 Inspector Pankaj Bansal is Investigating Officer of the Case. He stated that in the last week of May 2012, he had taken over the charge of RC 15A/2012­DLI from Sh. R.L. Yadav who was TLO of the case for the purpose of the investigation. He stated that a letter dated 29.5.2012 was sent to Nodal Officer, MTNL for providing CAF and CDR of Mobile No. 9868342606 and 9013618718 for the period 1.5.2012 to 20.5.2012 under his signatures. The said letter CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 59 of 82 was proved Ex. PW12/A. Also, a letter was forwarded for expert opinion to the Director, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi along with CDs containing recorded conversations during verification, during trap proceedings and post­trap proceedings Mark Q­1, Q­2 and S­1 under the signatures of SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi, Sh. Vivek Priyadarshi.

He stated that during investigation, a letter under the signatures of SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi was sent to DIGP (CR & Vig.), CRPF, New Delhi requesting therein to handover the file of documents relating to the present case. The said letter was proved as Ex. PW12/B and signatures of the Sh. Vivek Priyadarshi.

He stated that he had collected the files pertaining to enlistment / registration of M/s Superfine Knitters Ltd. and M/s Body Care Creations Pvt. Ltd. with CPC vide seizure memo dated 05.6.2012 from Sh. Romesh Chander, Asstt. Commandant, ITBP who was attached with CPC. The seizure memo was proved as Ex. PW12/C. He stated that during investigation, he had received CDR of Mobile No. 9868342606 and 9013618718, Ex. PW10/A and attested copy of CAF along with enclosures of the said mobile numbers which were proved as Ex. PW12/D and PW12/E. He has also stated that he had also prepared a transcription­ cum­voice identification memo dated 11.6.2012 which is already Ex. PW2/G, from the investigation copy of the conversation recorded / prepared during trap proceedings containing conversation between accused Manmeet Pokhriyal and complainant Sh. B.K. Chawla in the presence of the CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 60 of 82 complainant Sh. B.K. Chawla and the independent witnesses Sh. Malkiat Singh and Sh. Nikunj Goel.

During the investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. During investigation, expert opinion from CFSL, CBI, New Delhi was also received from Physics and Chemistry Division, which is already Ex. PW1/A and PW7/A. The sanction for prosecution of accused Manmeet Pokhriyal was also received through office and after completion of investigation, the charge­sheet was filed on 24.8.2012 under his signatures which he had identified at Point­A. On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that he does not remember the exact date and time when he had became IO of this case. He stated that it is the practice in CBI to give the complaint number on the complaint received by CBI. He had recorded the statement of the complainant when he had met him for the first time. The witness was shown photocopies of two complaints dated 29.6.2011 addressed to the Director, Enforcement Directorate, Khan Market, New Delhi and another dated 27.6.2011 addressed to the Commissioner, Central Vigilance Commission, INA, New Delhi written by B.K. Chawla. After going through the same, the witness stated that he had seen these complaints for the first time. The same were already Ex. PW2/DA­1 and PW2/DA­2. He admitted that there is an Inspector, namely, Amit Srivastava in CBI. He stated that he is not aware as to whether the above mentioned complaints were marked to Inspector Amit Srivastava for investigation.

CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 61 of 82 He stated that the complaints received through Dak and the complaints relating to demand of specific bribe by a Government servant are maintained in CBI office. The complaints received by Dak are put up before the SP concerned by the concerned staff and in case of demand of bribe, the complainant is taken to the SP concerned for lodging his complaint directly with him and, therefore, it does not bear any complaint number when it is placed before him. He admitted that after the SP marks the complaint to an officer, that officer verifies the complaint. After verification, the verification report is put up before the SP again. Thereafter, an FIR is registered, if so required. In case the complaint relates to demand of bribe where the complainant himself comes in personally to lodge the complaint, it is not sent to the Complaint Section. He stated that he is not aware as to whether in this case the complaint was sent to the Complaint Section.

Attention of the witness was drawn to Ex. PW2/A at Point­C (D­2) and after seeing the same, the witness stated that 'CO' means registered complaint with Complaint Section. He admitted that it signifies that the complaint had, therefore, been sent to the Complaint Section first. He stated that the Complaint Section must have put up the file along with the complaint before SP concerned.

Attention of the witness was drawn to internal Page No. 4 Ex. PW2/E, Part of FIR. After going through the same, the witness admitted that the internal Page No. 4 of Ex. PW2/E does not mention 'CO­28/12' as mentioned at Point­C CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 62 of 82 of Ex. PW2/A. He stated that he did not try to find out during investigation as to who had written 'CO­28/12' on Ex. PW2/E. He denied that he had prepared false statement of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in respect of proceedings pertaining to 18.5.2012.

He denied that he had not recorded the statement of complainant or any independent witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He further denied that the statements filed on the record purported to be their statements are false and fabricated. He denied that he have copied and pasted the contents of the recovery memo and the handing over memo to record the statements of the complainant and two independent witnesses.

Prosecution Evidence was closed thereafter.

19. Statement of accused Manmeet Pokhriyal was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C in which accused Manmeet Pokhriyal had stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.

20. On 30.10.2013, the accused stated that he was not able to produce defence witness. Therefore, defence evidence was closed and the case was fixed for final arguments.

21. Final arguments were heard on behalf of Sh. Akshay Gautam Ld. Senior PP for CBI as well as Ld. Counsel for accused Manmeet Pokhriyal. I have heard arguments and CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 63 of 82 have carefully gone through the case file.

22. Ld. Counsel for accused Manmeet Pokhriyal states that neither the complainant nor the shadow witness nor the independent witnesses have supported the case of prosecution. These witnesses have turned hostile. They have not supported the prosecution in totality. He, therefore, pleads that the accused be acquitted.

23. Ld. Senior PP for CBI, on the other hand, has submitted that accused Manmeet Pokhriyal had demanded an amount of Rs. 1 lakh from the complainant as bribe and the complainant had arranged the said bribe amount.

24. He also states that witnesses of CBI have supported the prosecution case and conviction can be based on their statements alone.

25. While dealing with question of appreciation of evidence, Hon'ble Supreme Court in an authority reported as Syed Ibrahim Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2006 VI AD (SC) 593 observed in paragraph no. 11, as under:­ Stress was laid by the accused appellants on the non­acceptance of evidence tendered by PW1 to a large extend to contend about CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 64 of 82 desirability to throw out entire prosecution case. In essence prayer is to apply the principle of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in everything). This plea is clearly untenable. Even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of any accused, his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of Court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated from grain, if would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fat that evidence has been found to be deficient, out to be not wholly credible.

Falsity of material particular would not ruin CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 65 of 82 it from the beginning to end. The maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' has no application in India and the witness or witnesses cannot be branded as liar

(s). The maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to , is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a Court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but is it not what may be called 'a mandatory rule of evidence'.

(See Nisar Ali Vs. The state CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 66 of 82 of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1957 SC 366]). In a given case, it is always open to a Court to differentiate accused who had been acquitted from those who were convicted where there are a number of accused persons. (See Gurcharan Singh & Another Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1956 SC 460]). The doctrine is a dangerous one specially in India for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a dead­ stop. Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however, true in the main. Therefore, it has to be CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 67 of 82 appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and merely because in some respects the Court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respect as well. The evidence has to be sifted with care. The aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the reason that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment. See Sohrab S/o. Beli Nayata abd Anr. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, [1972 (3) SCC 751] and Ugar CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 68 of 82 Ahir and Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar [AIR 1965 SC 277]. An attempt has to be made to, as noted above, in terms of felicitous metaphor, separate grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood.

Where it is not feasible to separate truth from falsehood, because grain and chaff are inextricable mixed up, and in the process of separation an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details present by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made, the only available course to be made is to discard the evidence in toto.

(Zwinglee Ariel Vs. State of CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 69 of 82 Madhya Pradesh {AIR 1954 SC 15} and Balaka Singh and Ors. Vs. The State of Punjab {1975 (4) SCC 511}. As observed by this Court in State of Rajasthan V s. Smt. Kalki and Anr. {1981 (2) SCC 752}, normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there however, honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 70 of 82 categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so."

Similarly, in an authority reported as Sunil Kumar Vs. State 2007, IV AD (Delhi) 417, while dealing with a case under Section 7 and Section 13(i)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed in paragraphs 12, 13, 28 and 29 as under:­ "12. All cases of corruption have two important aspects and they are (i) demand and (ii) acceptance.

                         Unless   demand   and  
                         acceptance   of   illegal  
                         gratification   by   the  
                         public   servant   charged  
                         with         under                  the  
                         Prevention                           of 
                         Corruption   Act   are  
                         proved           by                 the  
                         prosecution                 beyond  

CC No: 57/12          CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal                            Page No. 71 of 82
                     doubt,   the   presumption  
                    provided   for   in   Section  
                    20 of the Act cannot be  
                    drawn.   Three cardinal  
                    principles   of   criminal  
                    jurisprudence   are   well  
                    settled   and   they   are   as  
                    follows:­


                                   i)   that   the 
                    onus   lies   affirmatively  
                    on   the   prosecution   to  
                    prove   its   case   beyond 
                    reasonable doubt and it  
                    cannot   derive   any  
                    benefit   from   weakness  
                    or falsity of the defence  
                    version while proving its  
                    case;


                                   ii) that in a  
                    criminal   trial   the 
                    accused   must   be 
                    presumed to be innocent  
                    unless he is proved to be  


CC No: 57/12     CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal                    Page No. 72 of 82
                     guilty; and


                                   iii)   that   the  
                    onus  of  the  prosecution 
                    shifts.


                                   13.                The  
                    Evidence   Act   also   does  
                    not   contemplate   that  
                    the   accused   should  
                    prove   his  case   with   the  
                    same   strictness   and  
                    rigour          as                the  
                    prosecution   is   required  
                    to   prove   a   criminal  
                    charge.     In   fact,   from  
                    the   cardinal   principles  
                    referred   to   above,   it  
                    follows   that   it   is 
                    sufficient   if   the   accused  
                    is able to prove his case  
                    by   the   standard   of  
                    preponderance                      of  
                    probabilities                      as  
                    envisaged   by   Section   5  


CC No: 57/12     CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal                          Page No. 73 of 82
                     of the Evidence Act as a  
                    result   of   which   he 
                    succeeds not because he 
                    proves   his   case   to   the  
                    hilt   but   because  
                    probability   of   his  
                    version throws doubt on 
                    the prosecution case.
                                  28.          In 
                    Jaswant   Singh   Vs.  
                    State   of   Punjab,   AIR 
                    1973   SC   707,   it   was 
                    held   by   the   Supreme 
                    Court that in a bribery  
                    case the complainant is  
                    an   interested   witness  
                    and   his   evidence   must  
                    be considered with great  
                    caution   and   it   can   be  
                    accepted   when   this   is 
                    corroborated   by   other  
                    evidence adduced by the 
                    prosecution.


                                  29.   In view  


CC No: 57/12     CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal                   Page No. 74 of 82
                        of the latest trend of the 
                       Supreme   Court   in   its  
                       judgments   particularly  
                       in  State   of   UP   Vs.  
                       Zakaullah's                case  
                       (supra),                    the 
                       complainant's   evidence  
                       does   not   require   any  
                       corroboration   and   the 
                       court   can   act   upon   the  
                       testimony   of   the  
                       complainant   provided  
                       the same is trustworthy  
                       to be acted upon."  


               It is also laid down in the case 
               of  Banarsi Dass Vs. State of 
               Haryana as under:


               "The         Court         remained 
               uninfluenced by the fact that 
               the   shadow   witness   had 
               turned   hostile,   as   it   was   the 
               opinion   of   the   Court   that 
               recovery   witnesses   fully 


CC No: 57/12        CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal                    Page No. 75 of 82
                satisfied   the   requisite 
               ingredients.   We must  notice 
               that the High Court has fallen 
               in   error   insofar   as   it   has 
               drawn   the   inference   of   the 
               demand   and   receipt   of   the 
               illegal   gratification   for   the 
               fact   that   the   money   was 
               recovered from the accused."


               "It   is   a   settled   canon   of 
               criminal   jurisprudence   that 
               the   conviction   of   an   accused 
               cannot   be   founded   on   the 
               basis   of   inference.     The 
               offence   should   be   proved 
               against   the   accused   beyond 
               reasonable   doubt   either   by 
               direct   evidence   or   even   by 
               circumstantial   evidence   if 
               each   link   of   the   chain   of 
               events is established pointing 
               towards   the   guilt   of   the 
               accused.  The prosecution has 
               to   lead   cogent   evidence   in 
               that   regard   so   far   as   it 

CC No: 57/12       CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal                 Page No. 76 of 82
                satisfied   the   essentials   of   a 
               complete          chain         duly 
               supported   by   appropriate 
               evidence."


               Also, in  the  case  of  State  of 
               Maharashtra                      Vs. 
               Dnyaneshwar   Laxman   Rao 
               Wankhede,  it   was   observed 
               that: 


               "Indisputably,   the   demand   of 
               illegal  gratification  is  a  since 
               qua non for constitution of an 
               offence   under   the   provisions 
               of the Act.  For arriving at the 
               conclusion   as   to   whether   all 
               the ingredients of an offence, 
               viz. Demand, acceptance and 
               recovery   of   the   amount   of 
               illegal gratification have been 
               satisfied   or   not,   the   court 
               must   take   into   consideration 
               the   facts   and   circumstances 
               brought on the record in their 
               entirety.  For the said purpose, 

CC No: 57/12       CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal                  Page No. 77 of 82
                indisputably, the  presumptive 
               evidence,   as   is   laid   down   in 
               Section   20   of   the   Act,   must 
               also   be   taken   into 
               consideration   but   then   in 
               respect thereof, it is trite, the 
               standard   of   burden   of   proof 
               on   the   accused   vis­a­vis   the 
               standard   of   burden   of   proof 
               on   the   prosecution   would 
               differ.     Before,   however,   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.     Even   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." 

CC No: 57/12       CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal                   Page No. 78 of 82

26. When the testimonies of the witnesses are seen in the light of the relevant Sections of Prevention of Corruption Act, it is clear that in the instant case, the material witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the case of CBI on material facts.

27. Despite lengthy cross­examination of the complainant and the independent witnesses after they turned hostile and despite the best efforts of Ld. Senior PP for CBI, they did not support the case of prosecution.

28. None of the witnesses examined including the star witnesses of the case i.e. complainant Sh. B.K. Chawla himself and the independent witnesses as well as the shadow witnesses have supported the case of CBI regarding demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused.

29. The complainant in this case did not support the case of prosecution and rather he has not only turned hostile on the fact of demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused but has also stated that the alleged Rs. 1 lakh which CBI wants to prove as the bribe amount had not been given to the accused as illegal gratification but was towards the payment of a car make Ford Ikon which the accused wanted to purchase from him, and later on the said Rs. 1 lakh were returned to the accused as the accused wanted to purchase a new car.

CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 79 of 82

30. Moreover, PW­6 Ms. Brishti Sen who is working with M/s Bodycare Pvt. Ltd. as a Merchant had stated that it was her duty profile to look after the procedure from the sampling stage till final dispatching of the products. She stated that Sh. B.K. Chawla only works as an agent for the company and used to assist in filling and submission of application form in connection with Central Police Canteen. She admitted in her cross examination that the meeting for price negotiation and for enlistment of the products in Central Police Canteen was personally attended by her and was not attended by anyone else. She also stated that Sh. B.K. Chawla did not have any authority to negotiate the price or enlistment of products of M/s Bodycare Pvt. Ltd. with Central Police Canteen. She stated that accused Manmeet Pokhriyal had never demanded any bribe from her for enlistment of products of the firm in Central Police Canteen.

She also admitted that Sh. B.K. Chawla had never informed her that accused Manmeet Pokhriyal was demanding any bribe amount for such work.

It is thus clear from her testimony also that Sh. B.K. Chawla was neither attending any meeting for enlistment of products for the company with Central Police Canteen nor he was authorized in this regard. Therefore, there was no question of accused demanding bribe amount from him for this purpose.

Moreover, the Ms. Brishti Sen who was authorized representative of the firm and had attended meeting for CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 80 of 82 enlistment of products with Central Police Canteen has denied that accused had ever demanded money from her or from Sh. B.K. Chawla. It thus makes case of prosecution further suspicious.

31. It is pertinent to mention that when complainant Sh. B.K. Chawla changed his statement in the Court, he was warned that in case of his tendering false statement before the Court, he will be liable for prosecution. However, he stated that he knows the consequences of his giving false statement on oath before the Court and accepted that he had given false statement in the Court on oath under pressure of CBI. After understanding the consequences of his conduct, the complainant went on stating on oath that the accused had never demanded bribe, therefore, no question of acceptance of any bribe amount arises.

32. The independent and the shadow witnesses i.e. Sh. Malkiat Singh and Sh. Nikunj Goel on the other hand also did not support the case of prosecution on the point of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused. Since the star witnesses of this case did not support the case on the crucial points which are essential to be proved by the prosecution to prove charges against the accused, no useful purpose would be served by going into other discrepancies which have emerged on record during the cross­examination of the witnesses.

CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 81 of 82

33. The prosecution has, therefore, failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe amount and thus charge under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. I, accordingly acquit accused Manmeet Pokhriyal of the charges framed against him.

34. Bail bond of the accused is cancelled and his surety is discharged. Documents of the surety be returned after cancellation of endorsement, if any, thereon. Case property i.e. is the alleged bribe amount belongs to the complainant as has been deposed by the independent as well as witnesses of CBI. There being no dispute regarding this fact amount of Rs. 1 lakh be returned to the complainant after the time of appeal is over.

35. The case file be not destroyed till further orders of the Court. Ahlmad is directed to mention on the cover of the case file that the Incharge, Record Room, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi will not destroy the case file till further orders.

36. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the open Court on 31st Day of October, 2013.

(SWARANA KANTA SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI­05) NEW DELHI/31.10.2013 CC No: 57/12 CBI Vs Manmeet Pokhriyal Page No. 82 of 82