Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Cc No. 14/13; Cbi vs . S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 1 Of 94 on 22 December, 2018

   IN THE COURT OF MS. SANTOSH SNEHI MANN,
         SPECIAL JUDGE­03 (P. C. ACT) (CBI),
        PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI

CC No. 14/13
CIS No. 58/2016
RC No. CBI/ACB/RC­34A/09

Central Bureau of Investigation
Versus
     1. S. V. Subba Rao
        S/o Sh. S. Pitchaiah
        R/o Shree Rajmatha Devi Towers, Flat No. U­2,
        Trunk Road, Ongole, Prakasam Distt.
        Andhra Pradesh

     2. K. Narayana Rao
        Late Sh. Madhu Sudan Rao
        Present r/o G­13, Nivedita Kunj,
        New Delhi.
        Permanent r/o Plot No. 6,
        Osmania University, Teacher's Colony,
        Sainikpuri, Hyderabad (AP).

Date of filing of charge­sheet                 :   30.07.2010
Date of conclusion of final arguments          :   10.12.2018
Date of announcement of judgement              :   22.12.2018

JUDGMENT :

1. Accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) and accused Professor K. Narayana Rao (A­2) have been charge­sheeted to face the trial for having committed offences punishable u/s CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 1 of 94 120­B IPC r/w Section 7, 8 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P. C. Act); substantive offences u/s 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act against accused Professor K. Narayana Rao (A­2) and u/s 8 of PC Act against accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1). Brief facts:

2. As per the allegations in the charge­sheet, complainant Laxmi Kant Reddy is one of the partners of Vijaya Educational Society, 202 Ajay Chambers, Habsiguda, Hyderabad (here­in­after referred as 'Society'). The Society had applied to All India Council for Technical Education (here­in­after referred as AICTE) with respect to which the Society got a letter of AICTE for starting an Engineering college in the name of - "Vijaya College of Engineering and Technology", Narsampally village, Yadagarpally G.P. Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy, Distt. Andhra Pradesh. It is alleged that when the complainant and his partner Uma Maheshwar Reddy approached accused Professor K. Narayana Rao (A­2), Member Secretary, AICTE for an early approval of the college, accused Professor K. Narayana Rao (A­2) asked them to talk to accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) and to do accordingly and also gave his contact details. Allegedly CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 2 of 94 when the complainant and his partner spoke to accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1), he demanded Rs. 35 lacs to be given to accused Professor K. Narayana Rao (A­2) for sending a favourable inspection team to the college and for early approval. Accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) also told them that after receipt of money, he will get work done from accused Professor K. Narayana Rao (A­2). Since the complainant was not ready and willing to pay the bribe, he lodged a complaint with SP CBI, ACB, New Delhi.

3. Genuineness of the allegation in the complaint were verified and case was registered.

4. On the basis of the complaint, pre­trap proceedings were conduct on 04.07.2009 in which independent witnesses along with complainant and his partner besides CBI officials joined. Complainant produced Rs.5 lacs currency notes to be used in the trap proceedings, the numbers of GC notes were noted and they were smeared with phenolphthalein powder, chemical reaction of which with the solution of Sodium Carbonate was demonstrated.

5. Complainant along with his partner and one independent witness went to Asian Hotel, Ashok Road, CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 3 of 94 New Delhi & met accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1), where he was lodged. Accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) asked the complainant to bring the remaining amount on Wednesday and shared his 02 mobile numbers with the complainant to stay in touch. Conversation was recorded in a DVR carried by the complainant.

6. On 15.07.2009 a trap team was constituted afresh on the basis of a conversation between the complainant and accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) on 13.07.2009 in which accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) asked the complainant to bring money and deliver to him in the hotel. However, before the trap team proceeded to the designated place, accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) told the complainant on phone that he will arrange his meeting with the Member Secretary (A­2) and will inform him over the telephone.

7. In furtherance of the proceedings dated 15.07.2009, a trap team was constituted again on 16.07.2009 which reached opposite Hotel Southern at Karol Bagh, the place told by accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1), to deliver the bribe amount. Accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) was seen standing near the hotel on the main road with a lady, who was later on identified as his wife, keeping his luggage in the taxi. Accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) asked CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 4 of 94 the complainant to follow accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1). Complainant along with his partner, a shadow witness and Trap Laying Officer (TLO) Sh. Raj Singh, followed him and they reached at the entrance gate of Nivedita Kunj, Sector­12, R. K. Puram, New Delhi.

8. After reaching at the entrance gate of Nivedita Kunj, accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) by way of gesture and in dim voice asked the complainant to hand over to him the bag containing Rs. 5 lacs bribe amount. Accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) received the bag from the complainant and asked him to wait in the park in front of G­Block, Nivedita Kunj and entered G­Block. Accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) came out of the building after about 10 minutes carrying the bag and asked the complainant to follow him. As soon as accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) sat in the taxi carrying the bag containing bribe amount, he was challenged by Inspector Raj Singh, the TLO for accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 5 lacs and was apprehended.

9. Thereafter accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) spoke to accused Professor K. Narayana Rao (A­2) on the mobile and this conversation was recorded wherein accused Professor K. Narayana Rao (A­2) agreed to accept Rs. 5 CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 5 of 94 lacs as bribe and asked accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) to deliver the money to his wife at Hyderabad. The trap team went to the house of accused Professor K. Narayana Rao (A­2) at Nivedita Kunj, challenged him for agreeing to accept bribe of Rs. 5 lacs from the complainant and apprehended him. Both the accused were arrested, search was conducted at the residence of accused Professor K. Narayana Rao (A­2) at Nivedita Kunj from where Rs. 9 lacs was recovered in cash which accused Professor K. Narayana Rao (A­2) could not account for. Mobile phones used by accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) & K. Narayana Rao (A­2) were recovered in their personal search.

10.Specimen voices of accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) and accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) were taken in the presence of independent witnesses & were transferred and sealed in blank audio cassettes S­1 & S­2. During investigation, specimen voices of both the accused along with questioned voices in the recorded conversation during trap proceedings were sent to CFSL for voice Spectography. CFSL gave the report that the specimen voice samples of the accused persons matched with the voices in the questioned recorded conversation.

CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 6 of 94 Charge:

11.On the basis of material filed along with the charge­ sheet, charge for the offence u/s 8 of the PC Act was framed against the accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1); charge for the offence punishable u/s 7 and Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act were framed against the accused Professor K. Narayana Rao (A­2) and charge for the offences punishable u/s 120­B IPC, Sections 7 & 8 PC Act r/w 120­B IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act r/w 120­B IPC were framed against accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) and accused Professor K. Narayana Rao (A­2). Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. CBI was then directed to lead evidence. Prosecution evidence:

12.CBI has examined 20 witnesses in all:

PW­1 Laxmi Kant Reddy is the complainant, who has deposed that in the year 2009, he had taken over Vijaya Educational Society as partner along with his brother Sh. K. Uma Maheshwar Reddy (PW­8) and they wanted to start an Engineering college at Narsampally, Hyderabad in the name of Vijaya Engineering and Technology college. His brother Sh. Uma Maheshwar Reddy (PW­8) met accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2), Member Secretary, CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 7 of 94 AICTE for approval as per law, who demanded Rs. 35 lacs for sending the favourable inspection team to grant approval to the college and also told to speak to the mediator accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1).

13.PW­1 has further deposed that he agreed to pay Rs. 35 lacs and a deal was struck for payment of bribe in 02 installments of Rs. 20 lacs and Rs. 15 lacs. He requested accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) that he will pay Rs. 5 lacs as first installment to which accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­

1) agreed. PW­1 has deposed that since he did not want to pay the bribe, he lodged a complaint [Ex. PW­1/A (D­

2)] with CBI. Thereafter he made a telephone call to accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) to ask where he should pay Rs. 5 lacs. Accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) was staying in Asian Hotel in Delhi and twice gave time to PW­1 for payment. When PW­1 met accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1), he (A­1) suggested that they both should go to accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2), Member Secretary, AICTE next day.

14.PW­1 has deposed that on 04.07.2009, he along with his brother (PW­8) went to Asian Hotel from where they were accompanied by accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) and his wife to go to the residence of accused K. CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 8 of 94 Narayana Rao (A­2). Accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) was not found at home and when accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) made a telephone call to accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2), he asked him to wait for 15 minutes and they all waited in the park outside the flat of accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2). In the meantime, a CBI team comprising of Sh. Vivek Priyadarshi, SP, CBI (PW­9) and 04 others went inside the house of accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) from where they apprehended both S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) and Professor K. Narayana Rao (A­2). Thereafter PW­1 was called inside by the CBI and search was conducted. PW­1 has deposed that he was not made to sign on any paper by the CBI officials and was asked to leave by saying that they will register a case. PW­1 stated that thereafter he was never contacted or called by CBI officials nor asked to sign any document. PW­1 then returned to his native place and never met CBI officials.

15.PW­1 was cross­examined at length by Special PP for CBI with the permission of the Court on the ground that he resiled from his previous statement on material aspects. The entire case of the prosecution was then put to PW­1 in the cross­examination by leading questions, CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 9 of 94 which were accepted as correct by PW­1, who also identified his signatures on various documents prepared by CBI in the proceedings.

16.PW­2 Sh. Arun Madhav is the Nodal Officer from Idea Cellular Ltd., who referred to the letter of his colleague Sh. Jitender dated 19.08.2009 as Ex. PW­2/A [D­24(1)] vide which he had forwarded to CBI the Call Detail Record of mobile no. 9505498464 from 01.07.2009 to 16.07.2009 as Ex. PW­2/B (D­24/2) in the name of Sh. Laxmi Kant Reddy s/o Sh. Krishna Reddy, r/o 1­8­168/A, Behind Vegetable Chikkadpally, Hyderabad.

17.PW­3 M. C. Kashyap, Deputy S.P., was posted at Special Unit, CBI, New Delhi to collect intelligence through telephonic surveillance at the relevant time and has deposed that In July, 2009, telephones used by accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) and accused Professor K. Narayana Rao (A­2) were put on interception after taking approval of the competent authority and record of 30 calls (including 24 voice calls and 06 SMSs) between the period 10.07.2009 to 16.07.2009 was given in a CD [Q­ 6 (Ex. P­2)] to the IO along with the order of the competent authority dated 09.07.2009 and a certificate u/s 65­B of the Indian Evidence Act. The witness CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 10 of 94 identified his signatures on the seizure memo dated 10.08.2009 Ex. PW­3/1 [D­20 (1)]. He also referred to the copy of the order from the Ministry of Home Affairs as Mark A­1 [D­21 (1)], his certificate u/s 65­B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW­3/2 [D­22 (1)] in support of the CD and recorded calls information record as Ex. PW­3/3 (colly) [D­23(1) to 23 (4)]. He identified the CD during trial, which was produced in a sealed envelope as Ex. P­2, the In­lay card as Ex. PW­ 3/4 and the envelope as Ex. PW­3/5.

18.PW­4 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Ganju, Sr. Administrative Officer of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), deposed that he worked with accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2), who was the Member Secretary of AICTE and referred to the order dated 31.01.2007, Ex. PW­4/A [D­29 {1}]. issued under the signatures of Dr. Lokesh Garg vide which accused K. Narayana Rao (A­

2) had assumed the charge of Member Secretary in AICTE w.e.f 31.01.2017 (F/N)

19.PW­5 Sh. Ajay Kumar, was the Assistant/Nodal Officer in Bharti Airtel in the year 2010, who vide his letter dated 18.02.2010 [Ex. PW­5/A [D­37 (1)], had forwarded to CBI the certified copy of the call details of CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 11 of 94 mobile no. 9177077665 from 01.07.2009 to 16.07.2009 (Ex. PW­5/B) and certified copy of call details of mobile no. 9866049448 from 01.07.2009 to 16.07.2009 (Ex. PW­5/C). He had also forwarded to CBI vide his letter Ex. PW­5/D [D­37(49)] to CBI, the subscriber's detail of mobile no. 9971182525 including certified copy of the Customer Application Form (Ex. PW­5/E), which was in the name of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), 7th Floor, Chandralok Building, Janpath, New Delhi and CDR of this mobile no. 9971182525 from 01.07.2009 to 16.07.2009 (Ex. PW­5/F).

20.PW­6 Sh. Jayanta Kumar Dey, Assistant General Manager at Airports Authority of India, was the member of CBI team constituted on 16.07.2009 which conducted search at the office of accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) and seized files, visiting cards, CPU of the computer and one mobile phone vide Search­cum­Seizure Memo dated 16.07.2009 [Ex. PW­6/A (D­19, Pages 147 to 150)].

21.PW­7 Smt. Rita Arora, Administrative Officer at All India Council for Technical Education, had handed over to IO, the documents regarding selection to the post of Member Secretary, AICTE, which were seized vide memo Ex. PW­7/A (D­26, pages 1 & 2). The witness identified CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 12 of 94 the documents, handed over by her to the IO, as Ex. PW­ 7/B [D­27(1)], Ex. PW­7/C [D­28(2)], Ex. PW­4/A [D­29(1)], Ex. PW­7/D (D­30), Ex. PW­7/E (D­31), Ex. PW­7/F (D­32) and Ex. PW­7/G (D­33).

22.PW­8 Sh. Uma Maheshwar Reddy is the brother of the complainant (PW­1) who deposed that Vijaya Educational Society, 202, Ajay Chamber, Habsiguda, Hyderabad was established by Rama Kant Reddy and Smt. Vijaylakshmi and an application was submitted for establishment of a new Engineering college in the name of Vijaya College of Engineering and Technology. After submission of the application, he along with his brother Laxmikant Reddy (PW­1) met accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) in his office, who asked them to meet accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) and gave his contact mobile phone number. His brother spoke to accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) on telephone, who demanded Rs. 35 lacs to pursue approval of Vijaya College of Engineering and Technology. Since they did not want to pay the bribe, they approached CBI and lodged a complaint.

23.PW­8 has deposed that while his brother was sitting in the CBI office, he received a call from accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1), who told him that he was staying in CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 13 of 94 Asian Hotel and asked his brother to met him there. He along with his brother and independent witness P. Harikrishna (PW­12) met accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) in the hotel room where asked them to bring Rs. 35 lacs the next morning. They returned to the CBI office where in the pre­trap proceedings Rs. 5 lasc brought by his brother were smeared with some powder and it was explained and demonstrated that if the powder treated currency notes are touched it will turn into rose color.

24.On the next day, PW­8 along with his brother (PW­1) reached CBI office around 4.00 AM and met the CBI team. A Voice recorder was put in the bag along with GC notes. PW­8 along with his brother (PW­1) and one CBI official proceeded to Asian Hotel in Tavera car. Other CBI officials came in another vehicle. On reaching Asian Hotel, accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) told them to bring Rs. 20 lacs and pay the balance amount after work was done. They then returned to the CBI office and informed about their conversation with accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) at the hotel.

25.PW­8 deposed that on 08.07.2009, his brother (PW­1) called accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1), who told his brother that he was at his native village at Ongle, CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 14 of 94 Andhra Pradesh. On 14.07.2009 this witness along with his brother (PW­1) came to Delhi when his brother received a call from accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1), who told him that he had come to Delhi and asked him to also come. PW­8 deposed that on 15.07.2009 they informed CBI officials that accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) had called them to give Rs. 5 lacs in Delhi and balance of Rs. 15 lacs at Hyderabad at the residence of accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2). On 15.07.2009 in the evening, accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) told them not to come as there were relatives at the house of accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) at Nivedita Kunj and asked them to come next day in the morning. CBI officials were informed accordingly.

26.PW­8 further deposed that on 16.07.2009 in the early morning at about 4.00 AM, he reached at CBI office where he met Sh. Vivek Priyadarshi, SP, CBI (PW­9) and other CBI officials along with independent witness J. Chitti Babu (PW­10). The GC notes in the denomination of Rs. 1000/­ & Rs. 500/­ were put in a bag. Their numbers were noted. A voice recorder was also put in the said bag and the witness along with his brother, CBI team and independent witness J. Chitti Babu (PW­10) CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 15 of 94 proceeded to Southern Hotel at Karol Bagh, opposite Dakha hotel. After reaching there, they saw accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) along with his wife outside the hotel, who was loading his luggage in a car. Accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) told PW­1 to follow him in his own car. Witness has deposed that they followed accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) in their car and reached Nivedita Kunj, R. K. Puram where accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) got down from his car while his wife remained seated. His brother also got down and handed over the bag containing money to accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) on his demand.

27.PW­8 further deposed that accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) asked his brother (PW­1) to follow him to the residence of accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) but then asked him to wait at the nearby park. Accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) returned with money bag and told that the house of the accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) was locked. Accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) then made a phone call to accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2), who told accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) to get the money delivered to his wife at his factory at Hyderabad. Witness deposed that at this juncture, CBI apprehended accused accused S. V. Subba CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 16 of 94 Rao (A­1), who then again called accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) in the presence of CBI keeping the mobile phone on speaker mode. On receiving the call, accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) angrily asked accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) as to why was he (A­1) calling again and again, when he (A­2) had instructed him to hand over the money to his wife at Hyderabad.

28.PW­8 further deposed that thereafter he and his brother (PW­1) along with CBI team, went to the house of accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2), on being guided by accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) where accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) was found present alone. The house was searched and the team returned to CBI office.

29.PW­8 identified his signatures on the verification memo dated 03.07.2009 Ex. PW­1/C (D­3, pages 1 & 2), handing over memo dated 03.07.2009 Ex. PW­1/E (D­4, pages 1 to 10), memo dated 04.07.2009 Ex. PW­1/F (D­5, pages 1 & 2), handing over memorandum dated 15.07.2009 Ex.PW­1/F­1 (colly) (D­6, pages 01 to 11), handing over memo dated 16.07.2009 Ex. PW­1/G (D­ 7, pages 1 to 3), recovery memo dated 16.07.2009 Ex. PW­1/H (D­8, pages 1 to 6), transcript of telephonic conversation in Telugu dated 03.07.2009 Ex. PW­1/P CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 17 of 94 (D­39, pages 1 to 10), transcript of telephonic conversation in Telugu dated 03.07.2009 Ex. PW­1/Q (D­39, pages 11 to 17), transcript of telephonic conversation in Telugu dated 10.07.2009 Ex. PW­1/Z­ 10, transcript dated 11.07.2009 Ex. PW­1/Z­12, transcript dated 11.07.2009 Ex. PW­1/Z­14, transcript dated 12.07.2009 Ex. PW­1/Z­16, transcripts dated 13.07.2009 Ex. PW­1/Z­18, Ex. PW­1/Z­20, Ex. PW­ 1/Z­22, Ex. PW­1/Z­24, Ex. PW­1/Z­26, Ex. PW­1/Z­ 28, Ex. PW­1/Z­30, Ex. PW­1/Z­32 and Ex. PW­1/Z­ 34, transcripts dated 15.07.2009 Ex. PW­1/Z­36, Ex. PW­1/Z­38, Ex. PW­1/Z­40, Ex. PW­1/Z­42 and transcripts dated 16.07.2009 Ex. PW­1/Z­44, Ex. PW­ 1/Z­46 and Ex. PW­1/Z­48 [D­40, pages 1 to 19 & 19­B].

30.PW­8 further deposed that he had also identified his signatures on the translations of conversation from Telugu to English Ex. PW­1/Z­11, Ex. PW­1/Z­15, Ex. PW­1/Z­17, Ex. PW­1/Z­21, Ex. PW­1/Z­19, Ex. PW­ 1/Z­23, Ex. PW­1/Z­25, Ex. PW­1/Z­27, Ex. PW­1/Z­ 29, Ex. PW­1/Z­31, Ex. PW­1/Z­33, Ex. PW­1/Z­35, Ex. PW­1/Z­37, Ex. PW­1/Z­39, Ex. PW­1/Z­41, Ex. PW­1/Z­43, Ex. PW­1/Z­45, Ex. PW­1/Z­47, Ex. PW­ CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 18 of 94 1/Z­49 and transcript of SMS messages Ex. PW­1/Z­53, Ex. PW­1/Z­51, Ex. PW­1/Z­55 and Ex. PW­1/Z­50.

31.PW­9 Sh. Vivek Priyadarshi, Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, New Delhi, has deposed that in July, 2009 he was posted as Addl. S.P. in ACB, CBI, New Delhi when on 03.07.2009, complaint (Ex. PW­1/A) of Sh. Laxmikant Reddy was marked to him for verification alleging that accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2), Member Secretary at AICTE has demanded bribe of Rs. 35 lacs through a middle­man, accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1), for arranging favourable inspection team and favourable report for their upcoming college at District Rangarddy, Andhra Pradesh in the name of Vijaya Educational Society. He discussed the complaint with the complainant (PW­1) and arranged independent witness Inspector Kanwaljeet Singh (PW­11). During discussion with the complainant (PW­1), he found that accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) was likely to converse with the complainant in Telugu and so he took services of Ct. Y. A. Reddy posted at ACB, New Delhi, who was conversant with Telugu language. Simultaneously, PW­9 made request to the State Bank of Hyderabad to arrange a Telugu speaking independent witness.

CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 19 of 94

32.PW­9 Sh. Vivek Priyadarshi further deposed that before the Telugu speaking witness joined, a call was received on the mobile phone of the complainant (PW­1) from accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1), but complainant was asked not to pick up the call. A Digital Voice Recorder was arranged and on the instruction of PW­9, complainant made a call to accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­

1) by keeping his mobile phone on speaker mode. The conversation was recorded in the DVR. Complainant disclosed that accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) was demanding Rs. 35 lacs as bribe and had asked the complainant to come for detailed discussion to his room at Asian Hotel, where he was staying. In the meantime, independent witness P. Hari Krishna (PW­12) came and joined further verification at Asian Hotel.

33.PW­9 Sh. Vivek Priyadarshi deposed that functioning of DVR was explained to the complainant (PW­1), who was instructed to switch it on before meeting accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) in the hotel. After briefing, the team left for Asian Hotel where complainant (PW­1) met accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) in the hotel room. Conversation between the two was recorded in the DVR in which accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) reiterated the CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 20 of 94 demand of Rs. 35 lacs on behalf of accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) whom he referred as "MS". In the said conversation accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) also asked about the status of construction of the college, discussed modalities for payment of bribe and asked the complainant to pay the first installment of Rs. 5 lacs, on the next day in the early morning. Recorded conversation was transferred from the DVR to a cassette which was marked as Q­1 (Ex. PW­1/T), which was sealed in the presence of witnesses. Verification memo in this regard was prepared [Ex. PW­1/C (D­03)] on which all signed. This memo was submitted by PW­9 to S.P. on the basis of which FIR bearing no. RC­DAI­2009­A­0034 (Ex. PW­9/A, D­1) was registered and investigation was entrusted to Inspector Raj Singh (PW­15).

34.PW­9 Sh. Vivek Priyadarshi deposed that he was the member of the trap team and witness to the proceedings conducted by the IO on 04.07.2009. He further deposed that he was the witness to the handing over memo dated 04.07.2009 (Ex. PW­1/E, D­04, Pg. 1 to 4) and its annexure­A [Ex. PW­1/D (D­04, Pg. 5 to 10)] on which he identified his signatures. He is also witness to the memo [Ex. PW­1/F (D­05)] and preparation of cassette CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 21 of 94 Q­2 (Ex. PW­1/X) of recorded conversation.

35.PW­10 Sh. J. Chitti Babu, Sr. Manager, Andhra Bank was an independent witness, who had joined the proceedings on 15.07.2009 and 16.07.2009. He deposed that on 15.07.2009, he reached at CBI office at 4.30 AM and met Inspector Raj Singh (PW­15), who introduced him to other team members including complainant Laxmi Kant Reddy (PW­1) and another independent witnesses Kanwaljeet Singh (PW­11). PW­15 apprised him about the demand of bribe by a person from the complainant (PW­1). PW­10 deposed that he joined the pre­trap proceedings in which Rs. 5 lacs produced by the complainant (PW­1) was sprinkled with powder, demonstration of reaction of the powder with the solution was done and a call was made by the complainant (PW­1) to mediator accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1), which was heard by him and was recorded. The recorded conversation was transferred to a cassette and the witness was asked to come to CBI office on 16.07.2009 in the early morning. He identified his signatures on the handing over memos dated 15.07.2009 [Ex. PW­1/F­1 (D­06)] at point C on each page and dated 16.07.2009 [Ex. PW­1/G (D­07)] at point D on CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 22 of 94 each page. He also identified his signatures on the audio cassette Q­3 (Ex. PW­1/Z­2) produced in a cloth pullanda (Ex. PW­1/Z­4) and a in­lay card (Ex. PW­1/Z­

3) on which he identified his signatures at point A. PW­ 10 also identified his signatures on the recovery memo dated 16.07.2009 [Ex. PW­1/H (D­8)] at point D, rough site plan made at the time of transaction dated 16.07.2009 of bribe money [Ex. PW­1/R (D­9(1)], another rough site plan dated 16.07.2009 was made at the time of challenge, recovery from accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) as Ex. PW­1/S [D­9(2)] arrest­cum­personal seizure memo dated 16.07.2009 of accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) as Ex. PW­11/A (D­10), arrest­cum­personal seizure memo dated 16.07.2009 of accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) as Ex. PW­11/B (D­11) and seizure memo dated 16.07.2009 vide which EDIC MINI Digital Voice Recorder kept in the cotton bag containing bribe money [Ex. PW­11/C (D­12)].

36.PW­10 J. Chitti Babu further deposed that specimen voices of accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) and accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) were recorded in the DVR which were then transferred in the blank audio cassettes S­2 (Ex. PW­11/N) & S­1 (Ex. PW­11/K) and identified his CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 23 of 94 signatures on the respective memos to this effect Ex.

PW­11/D (D­13) & Ex. PW­11/E (D­14).

37.PW­10 J. Chitti Babu deposed that on 22.07.2009 investigation copies of CDs and audio cassettes Q­1, Q­ 2, Q­3 and Q­4 prepared in connection with the trap proceedings containing conversation were played and heard, transcription/transmission of the conversation was prepared and the voice of the accused persons was identified by the complainant. Witness identified his signatures on various documents including transcription­ cum­Voice Identification Memo [Ex. PW­1/J (D­16)], transcription of the conversation between accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) and the complainant (PW­1) on the mobile phone on 03.07.2009, 04.07.2009, 15.07.2009 as Ex. PW­1/K (D­38, pg. 1 to 3), Ex. PW­1/L (D­38, pg.

4) and Ex. PW­1/M (D­38, pg. 5) respectively. He also identified his signatures on the transcript of the conversation between accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) and accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) dated 16.07.2009 [Ex. PW­1/N (D­38, pg. 6)], transcript of conversation between complainant (PW­1) and accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) recorded in EDIC MINI Digital Voice Recorder on 16.07.2009 [Ex. PW­1/O (D­38, pg 7 to 10)]. He CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 24 of 94 identified his signatures on the transcription of telephonic conversation in Telugu language, Ex. PW­ 1/Z­10, Ex. PW­1/Z­12, Ex. PW­1/Z­14, Ex. PW­1/Z­ 16, Ex. PW­1/Z­18, Ex. PW­1/Z­20, Ex. PW­1/Z­22, Ex. PW­1/Z­24, Ex. PW­1/Z­26, Ex. PW­1/Z­28, Ex. PW­ 1/Z­30, Ex. PW­1/Z­32, Ex. PW­1/Z­34, Ex. PW­1/Z­ 36, Ex. PW­1/Z­38, Ex. PW­1/Z­40, Ex. PW­1/Z­42, Ex. PW­1/Z­44, Ex. PW­1/Z­46 & Ex. PW­1/Z­48 (D­40, pages 1 to 37) and corresponding English translation as Ex. PW­1/Z­11, Ex. PW­1/Z­13, Ex. PW­1/Z­15, Ex. PW­1/Z­17, Ex. PW­1/Z­19, Ex. PW­1/Z­21, Ex. PW­ 1/Z­23, Ex. PW­1/Z­25, Ex. PW­1/Z­27, Ex. PW­1/Z­ 29, Ex. PW­1/Z­31, Ex. PW­1/Z­33, Ex. PW­1/Z­35, Ex. PW­1/Z­37, Ex. PW­1/Z­39, Ex. PW­1/Z­41, Ex. PW­ 1/Z­43, Ex. PW­1/Z­45, Ex. PW­1/Z­47, Ex. PW­1/Z­ 49, Ex. PW­1/Z­51, Ex. PW­1/Z­53, Ex. PW­1/Z­52, Ex. PW­1/Z­54 & Ex. PW­1/Z­55 (D­40, pages 11 to 27).

38.PW­11 Sh. Kanwaljeet Singh is an independent witness, who had joined verification proceedings on 03.07.2009 and trap proceedings on 04.07.2009, 15.07.2009 and 16.07.2009.

39.PW­12 Sh. P. Harikrishna is an independent witness, who had joined the verification proceedings on CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 25 of 94 03.07.2009 and trap proceedings on 04.07.2009.

40.PW­13 Dr. Bhupendra Kumar Sarma, the Assistant Director, All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) testified that AICTE is a statutory body under Ministry of Human Resources and Development (MHRD) to oversee co­ordinated development of Technical Education in the country including Engineering & Technology, Architecture, MBA, MCA and Applied Arts & Crafts, which also gives approval for establishment of new Technical Institutions in the country. He deposed that procedure for grant of approval to new institutions is followed as per the "Approval Process Handbook" (Ex. PW­13/DA). He also referred to the file pertaining to the "Society" [Ex. PW­13/X (colly)] including application of the "Society" for establishment of Engineering college Ex. PW­1/Z­56, letter of regional office of AICTE to AICTE Headquarters as Ex. PW­13/A (D­34/89) and recommendation of accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) in the file for issuance of Letter of Intent (LOI) to the "Society", approved by the Chairman, AICTE as Ex. PW­ 13/B (D­34/6).

41.PW­14 Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Supervisor (HR), Airport Authority of India had joined the CBI team which CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 26 of 94 conducted search in the office of accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) on 16.07.2009 from where some documents and a desktop computer was seized vide memo Ex. PW­ 6/A. Witness stated that the documents seized included a file relating to Vijaya College of Engineering & Technology [Ex. PW­13/X (colly)].

42.PW­15 Sh. Raj Singh, DSP, CBI is the Trap Laying Officer (TLO) to whom investigation was transferred after registration of case and had conducted trap proceedings on 04.07.2009, 15.07.2009 and 16.07.2009. PW­15 deposed that on 03.07.2009, investigation was handed over to him after verification of the complaint [Ex. PW­1/A (D­2, pg. 9)] of the complainant Laxmi Kant Reddy (PW­1) vide verification memo dated 03.07.2009 [Ex. PW­1/C (D­3, pg 1)] and registration of FIR (Ex. PW­9/A). Witness deposed that since accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) had asked the complainant to come with the bribe amount of Rs. 5 lacs in the morning at about 6.00 AM on 04.07.2009, a trap team was constituted comprising himself, CBI officers, complainant (PW­1), his partner (PW­8) and 02 independent witnesses namely Kanwaljeet Singh (PW­

11) and P. Hari Krishna (PW­12).

CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 27 of 94

43.PW­15 deposed that complainant produced Rs. 5 lacs in the GC comprising of 290 notes of Rs. 1000/­ denomination and 420 notes of Rs. 500/­ denomination, numbers of which were noted down. A trap kit containing empty glass bottles and sodium carbonate was arranged from malkhana. Phenolphthalein powder was also separately arranged. Practical demonstration of chemical solution of Sodium Carbonate and phenolphthalein powder was given in which independent witness Kanwaljeet Singh (PW­11) was to touch the phenolphthalein powder treated currency notes and then wash his fingers in the freshly prepared solution of Sodium Carbonate and water, which then turned pink. The pink colour solution was thrown away. Complainant was searched to ensure that he was not carrying any incriminating. Powder treated GC notes were kept in a brown color envelope which was also smeared with the phenolphthalein powder. This envelope containing GC notes was put in a light green polythene bag Pantaloon which was also brought by the complainant and was handed over to the complainant with direction not to touch the envelope and to hand it over to accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) only on his CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 28 of 94 specific demand and not otherwise.

44.PW­15 Sh. Raj Singh, DSP further deposed that a DVR, Cassette Recorder, 02 sealed empty cassettes were arranged. DVR was played to ensure that it did not contain any pre­recorded voice. Introductory voice of independent witnesses were recorded in the DVR and it was handed over to the complainant with instructions to switch it on before starting conversation with the accused. Functioning of DVR was explained to the complainant (PW­1). Independent witness P. Hari Krishna (PW­12) was made a shadow witness and was instructed to remain close to the complainant in order to over­hear the conversation and to see the transaction of bribe. Shadow witness was also given instruction to give signal to the trap team by rubbing his face with his both hands after the transaction of bribe. He was also instructed to give a missed call to PW­15 if he was not able to give the signal. Complainant was also instructed to signal after the transaction of bribe if shadow witness was not able to do so.

45.PW­15 further deposed that remaining phenolphthalein powder was kept in the office. All the team members washed their hands with soap and water, the trap team CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 29 of 94 members and complainant conducted mutual search to ensure that no one was carrying anything incriminating and the proceedings were recorded in the handing over memo dated 04.07.2009 Ex. PW­1/E on which the witness and all team members signed. Trap team then proceeded to Asian Hotel at Ashoka Road, New Delhi in 02 vehicles and one team headed by ASP Sh. Vivek Priyadarshi (PW­9) left for Nivedita Kunj, the residence of accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2).

46.PW­15 deposed that after reaching Asian Hotel, complainant alongwith his brother Uma Maheshwar Reddy (PW­8) and shadow witness P. Hari Krishna (PW­12) went to the room of accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) taking along the polythene bag containing bribe money. The other team members took position around the hotel. After about 15­20 minutes, PW­15 was informed that accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) inquired from the complainant about the status of the construction of the college and asked the complainant (PW­1) and his brother (PW­8) to come on Wednesday with Rs 20 lacs bribe money, assuring that after receipt of money the matter regarding approval will be processed favourably. Team returned to CBI office.

CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 30 of 94

47.At the CBI office, conversation between complainant and accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1), recorded in the DVR was transferrd to one blank cassette, which was sealed with the CBI seal and was marked as Q­2. Before sealing, a copy of cassette Q­2 was prepared for investigation. A memo to this effect was prepared vide Ex. PW­1/F (D­5) which was signed by all. Powder treated GC notes of Rs. 5 lacs were retained in the CBI office for safe custody.

48.PW­15 Sh. Raj Singh deposed that on 08.07.2009, complainant (PW­1) informed him that he had contacted accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1), who told him that he was in Ongole at Andhra Pradesh and would not be able to come to Delhi for another 3­4 days. Complainant (PW­1) also informed PW­15 that on 11.07.2009 or 13.07.2009, he contacted accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1), who told PW­1 that he was reaching Delhi and asked him to Delhi to deliver Rs. 5 lacs for the Member Secretary accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) and to deliver the remaining the amount of Rs. 15 lacs at the residence of accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) at Hyderabad. Complainant (PW­1) also told PW­15 that accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) had directed him to deliver the bribe amount of Rs. 5 lacs on 15.07.2009. On 14.07.2009 in the late evening, CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 31 of 94 complainant (PW­1) informed PW­15 that accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) was staying in a hotel at Karol Bagh and that he will give further details in the morning.

49.On the basis of above information, trap team members including the independent witnesses Sh. J. Chitti Babu (PW­10) and Sh. Kanwaljeet Singh (PW­11) assembled in the CBI office on 15.07.2009 at 4.00 AM. Team members were mutually introduced and were explained the purpose of assembling. All the relevant material and information was shared with the team members. Bribe money of Rs. 5 lacs was produced and the numbers of GC notes were checked. Trap kit and phenolphthalein powder was arranged. SI Manoj Kumar gave the practical demonstration of chemical reaction of the solution of Sodium Carbonate with phenolphthalein powder. Personal search of the complainant (PW­1) was conducted to ensure that he was not carrying any incriminating thing with him. GC notes were placed in a blue and golden color empty cloth bag. Once again complainant (PW­1) was instructed not to touch the GC notes and hand over them to accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­

1) on a specific demand and not otherwise.

50.PW­15 deposed that a Digital Voice Recorder (DVR), CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 32 of 94 Cassette Recorder and 02 blank cassettes were arranged. Blankness of DVR was ensured after which introductory voices of the 02 independent witnesses was recorded. The DVR was handed over to the complainant (PW­1) after explaining its functions and he was instructed to switch it on while having conversation with the accused.

51.PW­15 further deposed that complainant (PW­1) also produced a Digital Voice Recorder - EDIC MINI and informed that accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) had told him that he (PW­1) will not be allowed to enter the house of accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) at the time of delivery of the bribe money. For this reason, the EDIC MINI DVR was placed in the side pocket of the bag containing bribe money after checking and recording introductory voices of the independent witnesses in it. The left over phenolphthalein powder was kept in the office almirah. Witness J. Chitti Babu (PW­10) was deputed as shadow witness, who was given instruction to stay close to the complainant (PW­1) to over hear the conversation and to see the transaction of bribe. Witness J. Chitti Babu (PW­10) was also instructed to give signal by rubbing his face on his both hands after the transaction was over and to give missed call to PW­15, CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 33 of 94 if he could not give above signal. Similarly, complainant (PW­1) was also briefed as before and PW­8 Uma Maheshwar Reddy was instructed to remain with the complainant to over hear the conversation and see the transaction of bribe.

52.It has come in the deposition of PW­15 that at 6.00 AM, on the instructions of PW­15, complainant (PW­1) made a call to accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1), who asked him to wait for 10 minutes. After about 10 minutes, a call was received from the mobile phone of accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) on the mobile phone of the complainant (PW­1) which did not materialize. Complainant (PW­1) then immediately called back accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) on his mobile phone, who told the complainant (PW­1) that Mala Reddy & others were present at the residence of accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) and he (A­1) will inform him (complainant) after checking the same in the afternoon or evening from accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2). This conversation between the complainant (PW­1) and accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) was recorded in the DVR as well as in the EDIC MINI device. The conversation recorded in the DVR was transferred to the blank cassette which was CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 34 of 94 sealed and marked as Q­3 (Ex. PW­1/Z­2). The EDIC MINI device and the bag containing Rs. 5 lacs bribe money was kept in the CBI office and the memo in this regard was prepared [Ex. PW­1/F­1 (D­06)] which was signed by all.

53.PW­15 further deposed that on the night of 15.07.2009 he received a call from the complainant (PW­1) that accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) has asked him to come to his room at Hotel Southern, Karol Bagh tomorrow (16.07.2009) at 7.00 AM along with the bribe money and also told him to accompany him up to the residence of accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2), where accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) would alone go to the house of the accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) to deliver the bribe amount and complainant (PW­1) will wait in the park near the house of accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2). On the basis of this information, a trap team including the independent witnesses, complainant (PW­1) and Uma Maheshwar Reddy (PW­8) assembled at the CBI office on 16.07.2009 at 4.00 AM, and the team members were informed about the conversation between the complainant (PW­1) & accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) on the previous night. The cotton bag containing bribe CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 35 of 94 money of Rs. 5 lacs was taken out from the almirah and given to the independent witnesses Sh. J. Chitti Babu (PW­10) and Sh. Kanwaljeet Singh (PW­11), who tallied the number of GC Notes with the numbers mentioned in the Annexure A prepared on 04.07.2009 [Ex. PW­1/D (D­4, pages 5 to 10)]. The GC notes were then kept in the cotton bag in which EDIC MINI device was also placed. Once again, instructions were given to the complainant and shadow independent witness Sh. J. Chitti Babu (PW­10). The bag containing GC notes was given to the complainant and trap kit was arranged. The memo about pre­trap proceedings dated 16.07.2009 [Ex. PW­1/G (D­7, page 1 to 3)] was prepared, on which all signed. At about 6.15 AM, the trap team left the CBI office in 02 vehicles.

54.PW­15 has deposed that at about 6.45 AM, they reached near Hotel Southern, Karol Bagh. Complainant (PW­1) received a call from accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1), who asked him to reach opposite to the Hotel Southern, Karol Bagh where accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) was seen keeping his luggage in a taxi in front of Hotel Dakha. Accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) was accompanied by a lady, who was later on identified as his wife.

CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 36 of 94 Complainant (PW­1) met accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1), who asked the complainant (PW­1) to follow his taxi. Complainant (PW­1) followed the taxi of accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1), in another car, whereas other team members also followed by keeping a safe distance.

55.PW­15 deposed that At about 7.30 AM, they reached near Nivedita Kunj, R. K. Puram, New Delhi, where accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) parked his taxi outside the complex and the complainant (PW­1) parked his car near the taxi. Accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) came out of the car and met the complainant (PW­1). They both then went inside the complex of Nivedita Kunj. Other team members, Uma Maheshwar Reddy (PW­8) and independent witness J. Chitti Babu (PW­10) also followed them keeping the safe distance. After about 10 minutes, accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) was seen coming out of the complex carrying the cotton bag containing bribe amount in his right hand followed by the complainant (PW­1) and other 02 members. When accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) was about to get in his taxi taking along with the cotton bag, he was challenged by PW­15 that he had demanded and accepted Rs. 5 lacs from the complainant (PW­1). Accused S. V. Subba Rao CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 37 of 94 (A­1) became perplexed and admitted his guilt. Other team members also reached at the spot.

56.PW­15 Sh. Raj Singh, DSP deposed that cotton bag containing bribe money and EDIC MINI device was recovered from accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1). DVR was taken back from the complainant (PW­1) and the EDIC MINI was taken out from the cotton bag. Both the devices were switched off. Accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) informed that accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) was not present at his residence and that he has spoken to accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2), who has instructed him to deliver the bribe amount of Rs. 5 lacs at his residence at Hyderabad. Accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) himself proposed to confirm his conversation by calling accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) on the phone and he was allowed. This conversation between the two was recorded in the DVR in which accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) agreed to accept the bribe amount. This conversation was also heard by other team members as the phone of accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) was on the speaker mode.

57.PW­15 further deposed that he along with team went to the residence of the accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 38 of 94 where a person was sitting in the drawing room, who was identified by accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2). PW­15 challenged accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) for demanding and accepting the bribe amount of Rs. 5 lacs through accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1). House of accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) was searched and a search­cum­ seizure memo was prepared vide recovery memo Ex. PW­1/H (D­8, pages 1 to 6). The two independent witnesses checked the numbers of the recovered GC notes of the bribe amount with the numbers mentioned in Annexure A dated 15.07.2009.

58.PW­15 deposed that DVR was played and it was not found containing any recording during the running time from Karol Bagh to Nivedita Kunj. Complainant (PW­1) informed that he had forgotten to switch on the device. The EDIC MINI device recovered from the cotton bag containing bribe money was given to the independent witness Sh. Kanwaljeet Singh (PW­11) for safe custody. Conversation recorded in the DVR was transferred in a blank audio cassette which was sealed and marked Q­4 (Ex. PW­1/Z­6), a copy of which was prepared for investigation purposes before sealing. Both the accused persons [Accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) & accused K. CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 39 of 94 Narayana Rao (A­2)] were arrested and personally searched vide arrest cum personal search memo Ex. PW­ 11/B (D­11) and Ex. PW­11/A (D­10) respectively. The rough site plan of transaction of cotton bag containing bribe money of Rs. 5 lacs and EDIC MINI was prepared vide Ex. PW­1/R (D­9/1). Another rough site plan of challenge and recovery from accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­

1) was prepared as Ex. PW­1/S (D­9/2). All the memos were signed by all present. After completion of the trap proceedings at the residence of accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2), trap team returned to CBI office

59.It has come in the deposition of PW­15 that at the CBI office, conversation recorded in the EDIC MINI device, was transferred in a Compact Disk in the presence of the independent witnesses for investigation. The device was sealed and was marked as Q­5 (Ex. PW­11/J). Memo in this regard was prepared vide Ex. PW­11/C (D­12) on which all witnesses signed. Specimen voices of accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) and accused K. Narayana Rao (A­

2) were taken in the presence of the witnesses which were transferred in the audio cassettes, which were marked as S­2 (Ex. PW­11/N) & S­1 (Ex. PW­11/K) respectively, sealed in the presence of independent CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 40 of 94 witnesses and memos in this regard were prepared vide Ex. PW­11/D (D­13) & Ex. PW­11/E (D­14) respectively.

60.PW­15 further deposed that on 22.07.2009, copy of Q­1 to Q­5 were played in the presence of the complainant and independent witnesses, who identified their voice & voice of accused persons, with respect to which memo Ex. PW­1/J (D­16) was prepared. PW­15 got prepared the English translation (Ex. PW­1/K) of the recorded conversation in Telugu language in Q­1 to Q­4. PW­15 further deposed that English translation of the conversation recorded in EDIC MINI device was also prepared by him in the presence of independent witnesses, which is part of Ex. PW­1/K (D­38, pg 9 &

10). PW­15 filed his certificates u/s 65­B of Indian Evidence Act with respect to authenticity and correctness of the recorded/transferred conversation from the DVR & EDIC MINI devices to the audio cassettes Q­2 to Q­5 as (Ex. PW­15/B­1 to Ex. PW­15/B­4].

61.PW­16 Deepak Kumar Tanwar, Sr. Scientific Officer, CFSL, CBI is an voice expert, who analysed recorded questioned voices in CDs and Audio Cassettes Mark Q­1 to Q­4 and in DVR Mark Ex. Q­5 with the sample voices CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 41 of 94 S­1 & S­2, who had analysed and compared the questioned voices in the audio cassettes Q­1, Q­2, Q­3 & Q­4, Digital Voice Recorder (Q­5) and CD Mark Ex. CD­1 (Q­6) with the sample voices of accused persons in cassettes S­1 & S­2 and gave his report Ex. PW­16/A. He identified the cassettes, the CD and the EDIC Mini device in the Court during his deposition.

62.PW­17 Dr. M. Bhaskar, Deputy Director (Physics), CFSL, Chandigarh, had analysed 05 mobile phones -

Mark­1 (Nokia, Model: 2600c, IMEI No. 351946036971777), Mark­2 (Nokia, Model: N97, IMEI No. 354225032024627), Mark­5 (Nokia, Model 5130c, IMEI No. 355246035713643), Mark­6 (Nokia, Model:

N92, IMEI No. 359393000086245) & Mark­7 (Nokia, Model: 5310, IMEI No. 354171026043118); one 160 GB hard disc (Samsung, S. No. S14JJ9CQ232121); one laptop (hp Elite Book, model: 8530p, S. No. SGH9160GM2) and gave his report Ex. PW­17/A.

63.PW­18 Inspector Vivek Prakash, CBI, had further verified the complaint on 03.07.2009 and was also member of the trap team on 04.07.2009, 15.07.2009 & 16.07.2009. He also referred to his certificate u/s 65­B of Indian Evidence Act (Ex. PW­18/A) with respect to CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 42 of 94 preparation of audio cassette Q­1 (Ex. PW­1/T) by him and transferring recorded conversation in it from the DVR.

64.PW­19 Inspector Sanjay Kumar Khullar, Anti Corruption Branch prepared the final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C vide Ex.PW­19A (11 pages) and filed it in the Court.

65.PW­20 Sh. R. P. Sharma, Retired Deputy S.P., CBI was assigned investigation of this case on 27.07.2009. He referred to the letter of S.P., ACB, New Delhi to Director, CFSL, CBI dated 25.08.2009 [Ex. PW­20/A (D­18, 02 pages)], prepared by him, vide which questioned voice recording and specimen voice recording were sent for examination and opinion. He also referred to the seizure memo dated 10.08.2009 [Ex. PW­3/1 (D­20)] vide which he had seized the compact data disc in a sealed packet, unsealed recorded call information report along with one compact disc containing the same content for investigation purposes and original Top Secret, Union Home Securities order dated 09.07.2009 for surveillance of telephone numbers 9177077665, 9866049448, 9971182525 & 011­26195492. He had sent mobile phones, laptop and a CPU to CFSL for examination vide CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 43 of 94 his letter dated 29.09.2009 (Ex. PW­17/DC). He referred to the production­cum­seizure memo dated 12.02.2010 (Ex. PW­7/A)(D­06) vide which he had seized the documents from Smt. Rita Arora.

66.PW­20 further deposed that he got prepared from the witnesses J. Chitti Babu (PW­10), a member of the trap team, Telugu transcriptions Ex. PW­1/Z­10, Ex. PW­1/Z­ 12, Ex. PW­1/Z­14, Ex. PW­1/Z­16, Ex. PW­1/Z­18, Ex. PW­1/Z­20, Ex. PW­1/Z­22, Ex. PW­1/Z­24, Ex. PW­ 1/Z­26, Ex. PW­1/Z­28, Ex. PW­1/Z­30, Ex. PW­1/Z­ 32, Ex. PW­1/Z­34, Ex. PW­1/Z­36, Ex. PW­1/Z­38, Ex. PW­1/Z­40, Ex. PW­1/Z­42, Ex. PW­1/Z­44, Ex. PW­1/Z­46, Ex. PW­1/Z­48 and its English translation Ex. PW­1/Z­11, Ex. PW­1/Z­13, Ex. PW­1/Z­15, Ex. PW­1/Z­17, Ex. PW­1/Z­19, Ex. PW­1/Z­21, Ex. PW­ 1/Z­23, Ex. PW­1/Z­25, Ex. PW­1/Z­27, Ex. PW­1/Z­ 29, Ex. PW­1/Z­31, Ex. PW­1/Z­33, Ex. PW­1/Z­35, Ex. PW­1/Z­37, Ex. PW­1/Z­39, Ex. PW­1/Z­41, Ex. PW­ 1/Z­43, Ex. PW­1/Z­45, Ex. PW­1/Z­47 & Ex. PW­1/Z­ 49, of the conversation recorded by Special Unit, CBI on different dates from 10.07.2009 to 16.07.2009. He also got prepared from PW­10, transcription of SMSs intercepted by Special Unit, CBI (Ex. PW­1/Z­50 to Ex.

CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 44 of 94 PW­1/Z­55).

67.Statements of both the accused persons were recorded separately u/s 313 Cr.P.C without oath. Both denied the incriminating evidence against them and claimed to be falsely implicated. Both the accused desired to lead evidence in defence.

68.No defence evidence is lead by the accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1). Statement of the counsel for the accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) was recorded without oath to this effect on 02.07.2018.

69.Accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) has examined 05 defence witnesses.

D2W1 Sh. K. Sasikanth, Assistant Manager, Andhra Bank, Kapra Sainikpura branch, Hyderabad testified that there is no current account no. CA/01/00007717 in the name of Vijaya Educational Society in the bank and further that as per the bank record there are no Fixed Deposits vide nos. AB/COM/MPL/218899 and AB/COM/MPL/218898 for Rs. 75,00,000/­ each, in the name of Vijaya Educational Society. Witness filed the related documents to this effect collectively as Ex. D2W1/A (04 pages).

70.D2W2 Smt. P. Prameela Devi, Panchyath Secretary, CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 45 of 94 Village G.P. Yadagarpally, Keesara Mandal, Medchal district, Hyderabad, produced the summoned record and filed the photocopies including the RTI application dated 21.12.2010 of accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) to Sarpanch, Yadagarpally (Gram Panchayath), Keesara Mandal, Medchal district, Hyderabad (Ex. D2W2/B), pay order of Rs. 10/­ towards RTI fee (Ex. D2W2/C), letter dated 10.12.2010 of accused K. Narayana Rao (A­

2) to Sarpanch Yadagarpally (G.P.) (Ex. D2W2/D), reply of the Secretary, Gram Panchayath to Dr. K. Narayana Rao (A­2) dated 22.12.2010 in Telugu Language (Ex. D2W2/E) and its certified English translation (Ex.D2W2/E­1), the extract of land information of survey no. 14 & 15 located at Narsampally village, Yadagarpally Gram Panchayath, Keesara Mandal, District Medchal in Telugu language (Ex. D2W2/F) and its certified English translation (Ex.D2W2/F­1). Witness also produced the register maintained in Telugu language from the year 2016, with respect to permission of Gram Panchayath, Yadagarpally village for construction on agricultural land for the year 2007­08 and filed the photocopy of the extract as Ex. D2W2/G and its certified English translation as Ex. D2W2/G­1.

CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 46 of 94 Witness deposed that as per the record there is no entry in the year 2007 and 2008 about granting permission to Vijaya Educational Society for construction of Engineering college on survey no. 14 & 15.

71.D2W3 Sh. B. Tarin Rao, Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Habsiguda, Hyderabad, testified that the bank record is computerized since the year 2003, prior to which it was maintained in physical form. He deposed that as per the bank records there was no current account no. 3935002100003216 in the name of Vijaya Educational Society in the bank in the year 2008. He saw the photocopy of the statement of account no. 3935002100003216 in the name of Vijaya Educational Society placed at page 48 of file Ex. PW­13/X (colly) (D­34) and deposed that it was issued by the bank and the seal impression on it was not the seal of the Punjab National Bank.

72.D2W4 Sh. William Cary Gujjarlapudi, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Nacharam branch, Hyderabad, deposed that no TDR bearing no. 0072813 for Rs. 75 lacs in the name of Secretary, Vijaya Educational Society, Habsiguda, Hyderabad was ever issued by the bank and no such Term Deposit existed in the bank in the name of CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 47 of 94 the Secretary, Vijaya Educational Society, Habsiguda, Hyderabad. He referred to his letter dated 20.07.2018 addressed to the Court as Ex. D2W4/B in this regard and his affidavit Ex. D2W4/C in support of his letter.

73.D2W5 Sh. E. B. Nag Raj, Deputy Tehsildar, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Collectorate, Ranga Reddy, Laddikapul, Hyderabad, produced the file no. B/62 of 2007 relating to Mutation file of survey no. 329, Rampally village maintained in Telugu language and testified that file no. C/62/2007 never existed and maintained in the office. Witness deposed that as per the record, there was no survey no. 14 & 15 of Narsampally village and filed the attested photocopy of the complete file [Ex. D2W5/B (colly)]. Witness saw the photocopy of the Land Use Certificate dated 29.12.2007 placed at page 39 of the file Ex. PW­13/X and deposed on the basis of record maintained in the office that the said certificate was never issued from the office of Tehsildar, Keesara R. R. District.

74.I have heard at length Mr. Manoj Shukla, Sr. PP for CBI, Mr. Yogesh K. Verma, counsel for accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) and Mr. Madhukar Pandey, counsel for accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2). I have perused the CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 48 of 94 evidence brought on record.

75.Accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) was a public servant at the time of alleged commission of offence. He retired from the public service before the charge­sheet was filed and therefore, sanction for his prosecution is not required under Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988. Accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) is a private person. CASE AGAINST THE ACCUSED K. NARAYANA RAO (A­2) AND NATURE OF EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD

76.It is the case of CBI that in the year 2009, accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) was the Member Secretary of All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi (here­ in­after AICTE), the Competent Authority for grant of approval for starting the professional colleges. Vijaya Educational Society, 202, Ajay Chambers, Habsiguda, Hyderabad (here­in after the Society) had applied to AICTE for starting an Engineering College by the name of "Vijaya College of Engineering and Technology" at Narsampally village, Yadagarpally G.P. Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy, Distt. Andhra Pradesh with respect to which the Society had got a 'Letter of Intent' from AICTE.

77.Complainant Laxmi Kant Reddy (PW­1) and his brother Sh. Uma Maheshwar Reddy (PW­8), partners of the CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 49 of 94 Society, met the accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) in his office for an early approval of the college, when allegedly accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) asked them to talk to accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) and to do accordingly. Accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) also gave the contact details of accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) to the complainant (PW­1).

78.When complainant (PW­1) and his brother (PW­8) talked to accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1), he demanded Rs. 35 lacs to be given to the accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2), for sending a favourable inspection team to the college and to get an early approval. Accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) received Rs. 5 lacs as part of bribe money from PW­1 at the behest of accused K. Narayana Rao (A­

2) which was recovered from him in the trap proceedings. Accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) was arrested from his house at the instance of accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1).

79.Evidence against the accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) includes ­ (i) Testimony of complainant Sh. Laxmi Kant Reddy (PW­1) and his brother Sh. Uma Maheshwar Reddy (PW­8) and (ii) Tape recorded conversation between the complainant (PW­1) & accused S. V. Subba CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 50 of 94 Rao (A­1) and between accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) & accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2).

80.Undisputedly accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) had assumed the charge of Member Secretary, AICTE at New Delhi w.e.f 31.01.2007 and continued on this post till mid of the July, 2009. Ex. PW­4/A is the office order dated 31.01.2007 to this effect that accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) had assumed the charge of Member Secretary in AICTE w.e.f 31.01.2007 (F/N). It is also not disputed that AICTE is the statutory body under the Ministry of Human Resources and Development (MHRD) to oversee coordinated development of technical education in the country and is the competent authority to grant approval for establishment of new technical institutions in the country.

81.It is also not disputed that file Ex. PW­13/X (colly) (D­

34) pertaining to the application of Vijaya Educational Society dated 31.12.2007 (Ex. PW­1/Z­56), seeking approval for establishment of a new Engineering College in the name of 'Vijaya College of Engineering and Technology' at Narsampally Village, Yadagarpally, G.P. Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distt. Andhra Pradesh for the academic year 2008­2009, was pending at AICTE, CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 51 of 94 which was forwarded by the Southern Regional Office, AICTE to AICTE, New Delhi vide its letter dated 25.02.2008 (Ex. PW­13/A). Note­sheets in the file Ex. PW­13/X (colly)(D­34) show that this file was dealt by accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) being Member Secretary, who had approved issuance of 'Letter of Intent' to the applicant Society in a printed proforma for Recommendation of the Hearing Committee for establishment of New Technical Institution for the block period 2008­2011, in the prescribed column for - Signature(s) of the Competent Authority (Ex. PW­13/B), which was then approved by the Chairman. Photocopy of Chapter­4 of AICTE Handbook for approval process is filed on record as Ex. PW­13/DA. Testimony of PW­13 and the record produced (Ex. PW­13/X) shows that a 'Letter of Intent' dated 19.03.2008 (Ex. PW­1/Z­57) was issued by AICTE to the Chairperson/President of the Society for establishment of new Degree Engineering Institution in the name of 'Vijaya College of Engineering and Technology' at Narsampally Village, Yadagarpally, G.P. Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distt. Andhra Pradesh, for further compliances as detailed in letter and also to indicate its readiness for expert committee visit within CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 52 of 94 02 months of the issuance of Letter of Intent. TESTIMONY OF COMPLAINANT SH. LAXMI KANT REDDY (PW­1) AND HIS BROTHER SH. UMA MAHESHWAR REDDY (PW­8)

82.Sr. PP for CBI argued that testimony of Laxmi Kant Reddy (PW­1) & Uma Maheshwar Reddy (PW­8) proves that they had met accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) in connection with approval of the Engineering College of the 'Society', which was pending before the accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) being Member Secretary of AICTE, who asked them to meet accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) and to do accordingly. It was argued that testimony of these 02 witnesses further proves that they had met accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1), who on behalf of accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) demanded and accepted bribe money from PW­1 and was caught with the bribe money in the trap proceedings.

83.The defence counsel for accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) argued that deposition of PW­1 & PW­8 is not credible because they have falsely deposed that they are the partners or office bearers of the Society and that there is no evidence to show that the complainant (PW­1) and Sh. Uma Maheshwar Reddy (PW­8) ever visited AICTE, Delhi or met accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2). There is no CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 53 of 94 evidence of specific demand by accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) from PW­1 & PW­8 and no recovery has been made from him. It was argued that testimony of PW­1 & PW­8 is to be discarded on the grounds inter­alia that forged documents were filed with the application of the Society to obtain 'Letter of Intent' and it could not have been processed for want of supporting documents; that accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) had no role to play in constitution of the expert team; that voice recordings have been tampered and there is contradiction in the recordings simultaneously made in 02 devices; that recordings are in Telugu language, the English translation of which is not proved as per law and lastly that there are material contradictions in the deposition of various witnesses.

84.Before analysing the deposition of PW­1 & PW­8 about their meeting with accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) in his AICTE office at New Delhi, it is necessary to take note of the following documents filed by the Society along with its application dated 31.12.2007 (Ex. PW­1/Z­56) to AICTE for approval of establishment of new engineering degree college:

a) The statement of Account of M/s Vijaya Educational CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 54 of 94 Society in Punjab National Bank bearing A/c No. 3935002100003216 [Ex. PW13/X (colly), D34/48],

b) Term Deposit Receipt No. TD CS/007 0072813 for Rs.

75,00,000/­ (Rupees Seventy Five Lacs Only) dated 17.03.2008 in the name of Secretary, Vijaya Educational Society, 201, Habsiguda, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh (Ex. PW­13/X (colly), D34/47]

c) Statement of Account of Vijaya Educational Society in Andhra Bank bearing A/c No. CA/01/00007717 (Ex. PW­13/X (colly), D34/131]

d) Deposit Receipt No. AB/COM/MPL/218899 for Rs.75,00,000/­ (Rupees Seventy Five Lacs Only) dated 28.12.2007 in the name of Secretary, Vijaya Educational Society (Ex. PW­13/X (colly), D34/132]

e) Deposit Receipt No. AB/COM/MPL/218898 for Rs.75,00,000/­ (Rupees Seventy Five Lacs Only) dated 28.12.2007 in the name of Secretary, Vijaya Educational Society (Ex. PW­13/X (colly), D34/134]

f) Land use certificate dated 29.12.2007 issued by Thasildhar, Keesara, R.R. Dist. to M/s Vijaya Educational Society (Ex. PW13/X (colly), D34/39]

85.With respect to document mentioned at serial no.1 above, D2W3 Sh. B. Tarin Rao, Branch Manager, Punjab CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 55 of 94 National Bank, Habsiguda, a summoned witness has testified that the entire bank record is computerized since 2003 and there was no such current A/c no. 3935002100003216 in the name of Vijaya Educational Society in the bank in the year 2008. He further deposed that the seal impression appended on the photocopy of the statement of Account no. 3935002100003216 in the name of Vijaya Educational Society placed at page no. 48 of file Ex. PW­13/X (colly)(D­34) in the Court record was not the seal of the concerned bank and further that the photocopy of the account statement did not pertain to the bank.

86.With respect to document mentioned at serial no. 2 above, D2W4 Sh. William Cary Gujjarlapudi, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Nacharam branch, a summoned witness deposed that Term Deposit Receipt (TDR) No. 0072813 for Rs. 75 lacs dated 17.03.2008 in the name of Secretary, Vijaya Educational Society, Habsiguda, Hyderabad (Ex. PW­13/X (colly), D34 at page 47) in the Court record was not issued from State Bank of India Habsiguda, Nacharam Branch and also filed his letter to this effect as Ex. D2W4/B along with the affidavit Ex. D2W4/C. CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 56 of 94

87.With respect to documents mentioned at serial no. 3, 4 & 5 above, D2W1 Sh. K. Sasikanth, Assistant Manager, Andhra Bank, a summoned witness has deposed that as per the bank record there is no current A/c no. CA/01/00007717 in the name of Vijaya Educational Society in the bank and that Fixed Deposits filed in the court record vide deposit receipts nos. AB/COM/MPL/218899 & AB/COM/MPL/ 218898 for Rs. 75 lacs each in the name of Vijaya Educational Society (Ex. PW­13/X (colly), D34/132 & D34/134) respectively are not issued by the bank. A letter of AGM dated 25.07.2018 is filed along with the certified copy of the information given by the Data Center (ZCC Secunderabad) as Ex. D2W1/A.

88.With respect to document mentioned at serial no. 6 above, D2W5 Sh. E. B. Nag Raj, Deputy Tehsildar, Government of Andhra Pradesh, a summoned witness produced the file no. B/62 of 2007 relating to Mutation file of Survey No. 329, Rampally Village and deposed that no record by file no. C/62 of 2007 (Ex. PW­13/X (colly), D34/39) ever existed in the office and that the record maintained does not contain Survey No. 14 & 15 of Narsampally Village. Witness filed the attested CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 57 of 94 photocopy of the record produced, maintained in Telugu as well as in English and filed the attested photocopy (Ex. D2W5/B) (colly). He deposed that photocopy of Land use certificate dated 29.12.2007 placed at page no. 39 of file Ex. PW­13/X (colly) (D­34) in the court record was never issued from the office of Tehsildar because there was never any file by no. C/62 of 2007, mentioned in the photocopy of the certificate.

89.D2W2 Smt. P. Prameela Devi, Panchayath Secretary, Keesara Mandal, produced the register pertaining to the permission for construction on agriculture land given by the Gram Panchayath from the year 2007 and 2008 and filed the photocopy (Ex. D2W2/B). The register is maintained in Telugu language and the witness filed the photocopy of abstract of this register for the year 2007 and 2008 as Ex. D2W2/G along with its English translation certified by witness as Ex. D2W2/G1. Witness deposed that as per record, there is no entry in the year 2007­2008 about granting permission to Vijaya Educational Society for construction of Engineering college on survey no. 14 & 15.

90.All the 05 defence witnesses produced by accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2), were cross­examined by Sr. PP for CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 58 of 94 CBI. Nothing has come on record to shake credibility of their deposition and the record produced, which proves that all the 06 documents filed by the Society along with its application at AICTE were false and fabricated.

91.Before examining the testimony of PW­1 & PW­8, it is to be noted that PW­1 in his deposition before the Court remained silent on material aspects of the case pertaining to his meetings with the accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) & accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) and the proceedings (pre­trap & trap) on 03.07.2009, 04.07.2009, 15.07.2009 and 16.07.2009. He was cross­ examined at length by the Sr. PP for CBI with the permission of the Court on the ground that the witness was resiling from his previous statement during investigation on material aspects. Cross­examination of PW­1 by Sr. PP runs into 82 pages which continued on 23.01.2012, 12.12.2012, 13.05.2013, 18.07.2013, 19.07.2013, 29.08.2013 and 30.08.2013 in which PW­1 was confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C and given suggestion on material facts of the case, which he admitted. It is also pertinent to notice that except for the complaint (Ex. PW­1/A), no other document was referred by PW­1 in his examination­in­chief, which were CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 59 of 94 then put to him by Sr. PP for CBI in the cross­ examination, on which he admitted his signatures.

92.Complainant Laxmi Kant Reddy (PW­1) in his written complaint dated 03.07.2009 (Ex. PW­1/A) to CBI has claimed that he is one of the partners of the Society and when he along with another partner Uma Maheshwar Reddy (PW­8) had approached accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) for early approval of the college, accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) asked them to talk to accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) and to do what he (A­1) says.

93.CBI has not led any evidence to show and prove that PW­1 and PW­8 are the partners of the Society or are anyway related to the Society. PW­1 has stated in the cross­examination by the counsel for accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) that he and his brother Uma Maheshwar Reddy (PW­8) became partners of the Society in the year 2009 and that he was a working partner. However, at another place in his cross­ examination, he stated that he and his brother (PW­8) held the positions of General Secretary and President of the Society in the year 2009. PW­1 admitted that he was not formally shown as General Secretary in the record filed at the Registrar of Societies. In the cross­ CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 60 of 94 examination of PW­1 by the counsel for accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1), at one point he admitted that he was not authorized by any written authority to act on behalf of the Society for making the application/pursuing the matter of affiliation from AICTE. However, during further cross­examination he changed his statement and said that he was given in writing by Rama Kant Reddy, Member Secretary of the Society to pursue the matter of the 'Society'. PW­1 also stated that he could produce the letter, but despite the fact that his cross­examination continued for about an year on many dates, no such letter was produced.

94.Similarly, it has come in the cross­examination of PW­8 by the counsel for accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) that he cannot produce any document to show that he was authorized by Vijaya Educational Society to deal with AICTE about starting the college and stated that same might have been done by his brother (PW­1). In this context deposition of PW­13 Dr. Bhupender Kumar Sarma, Assistant Director, AICTE is relevant, who has stated in his cross­examination by the counsel for accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) that there is no letter of authorization in the record [Ex. PW­13/X (colly)(D­ CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 61 of 94

34)] by the management of Vijaya Educational Society in the name of Uma Maheshwar Reddy (PW­8) or Laxmi Kant Reddy (PW­1).

95.In view of above, a doubt is created about the capacity of PW­1 & PW­8 to represent or pursue the matter of the Society pending approval of AICTE. The fact that forged documents were filed with the application of the 'Society' and claim of PW­1 & PW­8 that they are partners of the Society stands falsified, their deposition about meeting accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) in the context requires deeper scrutiny.

Official capacity of accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2)

96.Defence counsel argued that as per AICTE handbook for approval process (Ex. PW­13/DA), there is a timeline for various compliances before the expert committee visit and accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) had no role in constitution of the Expert Committee, which according to the Clause 4.3.5 of the manual will comprise of the following members:

a) Three expert members not below the level of Associate Professor/Reader nominated by the Chairman, AICTE;

b) Expert members one each not below the level of CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 62 of 94 Associate Professor/Reader to be nominated by the State Govt. and the respective Affiliating University;

c) Concerned Regional Officer or an Officer of the Council as convenor to be nominated by the Chairman, AICTE.

Ld. defence counsel referred to the deposition of PW­13, who said that constitution of expert committee for visit is done as per the manual.

97.The clause 4.3.5 of the manual only prescribes the qualification of various members of the expert committee, to be nominated by the Chairman, AICTE, the proposal for which would go from accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) to the Chairman and therefore, role/administrative influence of accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) in selection of members of the committee cannot be ruled out.

98.There is no merit in the argument that there were no compliances by the Society as per the timeline. Despite the fact that documents filed with the application of the Society were forged and fabricated, the Letter of Intent was issued by AICTE, which could not have been done as per the procedure and has not been explained by the defence.

CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 63 of 94 Meeting of PW­1 & PW­8 with accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) and demand.

99.As per complaint (Ex. PW­1/A), Laxmi Kant Reddy (PW­

1) along with Uma Maheshwar Reddy (PW­8) had approached accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) for early approval of the college. However, while deposing in the Court as PW­1 in the examination­in­chief, he stated that his brother K. Uma Maheshwar Reddy (PW­8) had met the Member Secretary, which creates doubt whether PW1 met accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) along with his brother (PW­8) or PW­8 alone met accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) in his AICTE office.

100.PW­1 Laxmi Kant Reddy was cross­examined at length by the defence counsel on proof of his visit to AICTE office. No documentary proof to this effect could be produced by PW­1 & PW­8 in the form of travel tickets and stay in the hotel which becomes relevant because both are residents of the Hyderabad.

101.It has come in the cross­examination of PW­13 by the counsel for accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) that a visitor to the AICTE Headquarters has to show his identity proof at the reception and if a visitor has come for a CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 64 of 94 meeting representing any trust/society, he has to produce the authorization letter from the Chairman/ Secretary of the Society/Trust. No such authorization was produced by PW­1 & PW­8 in support of their visit to AICTE, which makes their visit to the office of accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) at AICTE doubtful.

102.There is contradiction in the statements of PW­1 & PW­ 8 about the alleged demand by accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2). Complainant (PW­1) in his examination­in­chief has deposed that accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) had demanded Rs. 35 lacs for sending a favourable team for grant of early approval of the college, whereas Uma Maheshwar Reddy (PW­8) has deposed that accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) had asked them to meet accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) and gave his contact number. Deposition of PW­1 is not only contradictory to the deposition of PW­8, it is also contradictory to his complaint (Ex. PW­1/A), which does not mention abut any demand of Rs. 35 lacs by accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2). Fact of demand by accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) is very crucial in the present case and contradiction in the deposition of PW­1 on this fact vis­a­vis his complaint (Ex. PW­1/A) and testimony of PW­8 creates doubt CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 65 of 94 about the alleged demand.

103.Other material contradiction in the deposition of PW­1 is that according to the complaint (Ex. PW­1/A) and deposition of PW­8, he along with his brother PW­8 had met accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) only once in his office, but in the cross­examination by the Sr. PP for CBI dated 30.08.2013, PW­1 stated that when he met accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) with regard to expeditious disposal of the matter, he asked him to come on the next date and when he visited accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) again, he asked him to meet to accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1). Meaning thereby that PW­1 had met accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) twice in his office and not once, which is contrary to the CBI case. It is pertinent to mention that none of the witnesses (PW­1 & PW­8) could tell the address and area of AICTE office, which is unusual. It is unlikely that none of them would not remember the address of AICTE or the place, if they had actually visited.

104.On the basis of the documentary evidence brought on record in defence evidence, it is established that supporting documents filed with the application of Vijaya Educational Society (Ex. PW­1/Z­56) in the file CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 66 of 94 Ex. PW­13/X (colly)(D­34) were false and fabricated. Signatory of the application, who is the Secretary/ Correspondent of the Society, has not been produced as a witness to prove the application. Complainant (PW­1) and his brother (PW­8) have failed to prove their capacity and authority to pursue the application of the 'Society'. There are material contradictions in the testimony of PW­1. Lastly, the fact that PW­1 remained silent in his examination­in­chief on material aspect of the investigation and so was cross­examined by Sr. PP for CBI on the ground that he was resiling from his previous statement, create doubt about credibility of the deposition of PW­1 and related deposition of PW­8.

105.Sr. PP for CBI argued that PW­1 admitted all facts & documents in the cross­examination by him. This argument has no merit because by way of cross­ examination, prosecution can plug some holes, but cannot construct the entire case. Rather circumstantial evidence brought on record discredit deposition of PW­1 & PW­8 about their alleged meeting with accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) and the cause there of. TAPE RECORDED CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE COMPLAINANT (PW­1) & ACCUSED S. V. SUBBA RAO (A­1) AND BETWEEN ACCUSED S. V. SUBBA RAO CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 67 of 94 (A­1) & ACCUSED K. Narayana RAO (A­2).

106.As per the prosecution case, conversation between the complainant and accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) was recorded during verification proceedings on 03.07.2009 in the DVR make Cenix (Sony) from which the recordings were transferred in a cassette Q­1 (Ex. PW­ 1/T). The same DVR was used in the trap proceedings on 04.07.2009, 15.07.2009 and 16.07.2009 and the recordings of different dates were transferred in the cassettes Q­2 (Ex. PW­1/X), Q­3 (Ex. PW­1/Z­2) and Q­4 (Ex. PW­1/Z­6) respectively. In the proceedings conducted on 15.07.2009 & 16.07.2009, conversations were simultaneously recorded in a DVR make EDIC MINI Q­5 (Ex. PW­11/J), which was kept in the bag allegedly containing bribe money. Besides this, mobile phone nos. 9866049448, 9177077665 allegedly used by accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) and mobile phone no. 9971182525 allegedly used by accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) were put on surveillance by the Special Unit of the CBI and from the Voice Logging System installed there, record of 30 calls was given to the CBI in a CD Q­6 (Ex. P­2) along with recorded call information.

CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 68 of 94

107.Evidence brought on record by the prosecution about the mobile phones allegedly used by the accused persons and the tape recorded conversation is as under:

Mobile Phones Sl. Mobile Phone Name of the user Customer No & No. Information & CDR

1. Nokia 2600C ­ Accused K. Narayana Rao Ex. PW­5/D;

9971182525 (A­2) Ex. PW­5/F

2. Nokia 5130 ­ Accused S. V. Subba Rao Ex. PW­5/C 9866049448 (A­1) (CDR)

3. Nokia 5310 ­ Accused S. V. Subba Rao Ex. PW­5/B 9177077665 (A­1) (CDR)

4. No. Complainant Laxmikant Ex. PW­2/A;

                    9509498464    Reddy (PW­1)            Ex. PW­2/B
           5.       No.           Wife of accused A­2     No record
                    9848471850

108.It is to be noted that though, it was argued by Sr. PP for CBI that the mobile phone no. 9848471850 was used by the wife of the accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2), reflected in the CDR of his mobile phone no. 9971182525 (Ex.

PW­5/F) and English translation of the recorded conversation, surprisingly there is not an iota of evidence to prove that mobile phone no. 9848471850 was used by the wife of the accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2).

CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr.                      Page No. 69 of 94
           Recorded conversation & Transcripts
  Sl.      Device used &              Date         Conversation     Transcript in        Transcript in
  No.      conversation                            alleged          Telugu               English
           derived                                                  language             language
  1.       DVR CENIX (Sony)           03.07.2009   Between          Ex. PW­1/P           Ex. PW­1/K
           - cassette Q1                           accused (A1) &   (by PW­12 P.         (by PW­10 J.
           (Ex. PW­1/T)                            complainant      Harikrishna)         Chitti Babu)
                                                   (PW1)                                  &
                                                                                         Ex. PW­1/Q
                                                                                         (by PW­12 P.
                                                                                         Harikrishna)
  2.       DVR CENIX (Sony)           04.07.2009   Between          Ex. PW­12/A          Ex. PW­1/L
           - cassette Q2                           accused (A1) &   (by PW­12 P.         (by PW­10 J.
           (Ex. PW­1/X)                            complainant      Harikrishna)         Chitti Babu)
                                                   (PW1)                                  &
                                                                                         Ex. PW­12/B
                                                                                         (by PW­12 P.
                                                                                         Harikrishna)
  3.       DVR CENIX (Sony)           15.07.2009   Between                  ­­­­         Ex. PW­1/M
           - cassette Q3                           accused (A1) &                        (by PW­10 J.
           (Ex. PW­1/Z­2)                          complainant                           Chitti Babu)
                                                   (PW1)
  4.       DVR CENIX (Sony)           16.07.2009   Between                ­­­­­          Ex. PW­1/N
           - cassette Q4                           Accused (A1) &                        (by PW­10 J.
           (Ex. PW­1/Z­6)                          Accused (A2)                          Chitti Babu)
  5.       DVR EDIC MINI -            15.07.2009   Between                ­­­­­          Ex. PW­1/O
           Q5                         &            accused (A1) &                        (by PW­10 J.
           (Ex. PW­11/J)              16.07.2009   complainant                           Chitti Babu)
                                                   (PW1)
  6.       Voice Logging              10.07.2009   Between          Ex. PW­1/Z­10        Ex. PW­1/Z­
           System installed at        to           Accused (A1) &   to Ex. PW­1/Z­       11 to Ex.
           Special Unit, CBI,         16.07.2009   Accused (A2)     48 (only even        PW­1/Z­49
           New Delhi - CD             (calls &                      numbers); no         (only odd
           Q6 (Ex. P2)                SMSs)                         transcript of        numbers);
                                                                    SMSs                 Ex. PW­1/Z­
                                                                    (by PW­10 J.         51 to Ex.
                                                                    Chitti Babu)         PW­1/Z­55
                                                                                         (SMSs)
                                                                                         (by PW­10 J.
                                                                                         Chitti Babu)

109.Sr. PP for CBI argued that accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) was using the mobile phone make Nokia 2600C CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 70 of 94 bearing SIM No. 9971182525 which was seized during his house search on 16.07.2009 vide memo Ex. PW­11/F (D­15). Accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) was using mobile phone make Nokia 5130 bearing SIM No. 9866049448 and another mobile make Nokia 5310 bearing SIM no. 9177077665 which were seized in his personal search during arrest vide memo Ex. PW­11/B (D­11). Complainant (PW­1) was using mobile SIM No. 9509498464, which is proved by the Nodal Officer of the Service Provider vide his letter Ex. PW­2/A (D­24). Wife of the accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) was using mobile no. 9848471850, which is reflected in the CDR of the mobile phone (Ex. PW­5/F) used by accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) and in the English translation of the transcriptions of the recorded conversation (Ex. PW­ 1/Z­19, Ex. PW­1/Z­21, Ex. PW­1/Z­23, Ex. PW­1/Z­25 and Ex. PW­1/Z­29).

110.It is further argued by the Sr. PP for CBI that there were 05 calls and 02 SMS exchanges between accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) and accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) from 03.07.2009 to 16.07.2009. Relevant calls recorded by Special Unit of CBI between 10.07.2009 to 16.07.2009 show that accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1), CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 71 of 94 accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2), complainant (PW­1) and wife of the accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) were in conversation with each other about the matter of Vijaya Engineering college and lastly that CDR details of mobile phone no. 9866049448 used by accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) (Ex. PW­5/C, D­37), CDR of mobile no. 9177077665 used by accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) (Ex. PW­5/B) and CDR of mobile no. 9971182525 used by accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) (Ex. PW­5/F), co­relate with the English translation of the relevant recorded conversations.

111.Defence counsel for accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) argued that the alleged Tape recorded conversations and their transcriptions produced by CBI need to be discarded because they are not legally proved and are tampered & manipulated.

112.Three different devices were used for recording conversations by CBI in the proceedings, descriptions of which are mentioned in para 107 of the judgment. Device­wise discrepancies pointed out by the defence counsel are :

a. DVR make CENIX (SONY) [Q­1 (Ex. PW­1/T), Q­2 (Ex. PW­1/X), Q­3(Ex. PW­1/Z­2) and Q­4 (Ex. PW­ 1/Z­6)] CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 72 of 94 i. DVR used by CBI during proceedings from 03.07.2009 to 16.07.2009 was neither produced in the Court nor sent to FSL.

ii. transcripts of the recordings made from Q­3 & Q­4, derived from the DVR used in the proceedings dated 15.07.2009 and 16.07.2009 are different from the transcript of the recordings of the same dates by the Special Unit of CBI (Q­6).

iii. transcripts of the voice recordings in the cassettes Q­1, Q­2, Q­3 and Q­4 are not proved as per law b. DVR make EDIC MINI [(Q­5) Ex. PW­11/J] i. transcript of the voice recordings made from the cassette Q­5 are different from the transcript of the voice recordings made by Special Unit of CBI (Q­

6).

ii. transcript of voice recordings in cassette Q­5 is not proved as per law.

c. VOICE RECORDINGS made by SPECIAL UNIT, CBI in its COMPUTER SYSTEM [(Q­6) Ex. P­2] i. mirror image of the computer system used for recordings, was not produced, proved and sent to FSL for examination ii. calls of voice recordings in Q­6 do not match with the CDR of mobile phones used by accused S. V. Subba CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 73 of 94 Rao (A­1) iii. voice recordings in Q­6 is not proved as per law iv. certificate given in support of Q­6 is falsified by the CDR of mobile phone no. allegedly used by accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) v. recorded call information report (Ex. PW­3/3) given by Special Unit by CBI during 10.07.2009 to 16.07.2009 (Q­6) does not match with the CDRs of the mobile phones used by accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) (Ex. PW­5/C) and accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) (Ex. PW­5/F) with respect to duration of calls.

113.The issue of admissibility and mode of proof of tape recorded conversation has been dealt with by the Apex Court. In Devinder Singh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [2014 SCC OnLine Del 1216], it was held that -

31. The other major prerequisite in terms of the decision in Ram Singh is that the prosecution must show that the tape and the device on which it was recorded were not tampered. The evidence of PW­2 merely talks of comparing the voice in question with the specimen voice. It does not indicate that the device was examined and that the expert formed an opinion that it was not capable of being tampered. Therefore, the test of purity of the sample and reliability of the device on which the voice has been recorded has not been established."

114.In Tukaram S. Dighole vs. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 74 of 94 [2010 4 SCC 329], it was held that -

23. In Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari (supra), relying on R. Vs. Maqsud Ali (supra), a Bench of three judges of this Court held that the tape­ records of speeches were admissible in evidence on satisfying the following conditions:

"(a) The voice of the person alleged to be speaking must be duly identified by the maker of the record or by others who know it.

(b) Accuracy of what was actually recorded had to be proved by the maker of the record and satisfactory evidence, direct or circumstantial, had to be there so as to rule out possibilities of tampering with the record.

(c) The subject­matter recorded had to be shown to be relevant according to rules of relevancy found in the Evidence Act."

24. Similar conditions for admissibility of a tape­recorded statement were reiterated in Ram Singh & Ors. Vs. Col. Ram Singh7 and recently in R.K. Anand Vs. Registrar, Delhi High Court8.

25. Tested on the touchstone of the tests and safeguards, enumerated above, we are of the opinion that in the instant case the appellant has miserably failed to prove the authenticity 1985 (Supp) SCC 611 (2009) 8 SCC 106 of the cassette as well as the accuracy of the speeches purportedly made by the respondent. Admittedly, the appellant did not lead any evidence to prove that the cassette produced on record was a true reproduction of the original speeches by the respondent or his agent. On a careful consideration of the evidence and circumstances of the case, we are convinced that the appellant has failed to prove his case that the respondent was guilty of indulging in corrupt practices.

26. For the afore­going reasons, we see CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 75 of 94 no merit in this appeal. We, therefore, affirm the decision of the Tribunal and dismiss the appeal with costs, quantified at Rs. 20,000/­."

115.In Ram Singh Vs. Col. Ram Singh, AIR 1986 SC 3, it was held that -

"31. Thus, so far as this Court is concerned the conditions for admissibility of a tape recorded statement may be stated as follows:

1) The voice of the speaker must be identified by the maker of the record or by others who recognise his voice. In other words, it manifestly follows as a logical corollary that the first condition for the admissibility of such a statement is to identify the voice of the speaker. Where the voice has been denied by the maker it will require very strict proof to determine whether or not it was really the voice of the speaker.

(2) The accuracy of the tape­recorded statement has to be proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory evidence - direct or circumstantial.

(3) Every possibility of tampering with or erasure of a part of the tape recorded statement must be ruled out otherwise it may render the said statement out of context and, therefore, inadmissible. (4) The statement must be relevant according to the rules of evidence Act.

(5) The recorded cassette must be carefully sealed and kept in safe or official custody.

(6) The voice of the speaker should be clearly audible and not lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbances."

116.In State vs. Ram Singh 212 (2014) DLT 99, it was CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 76 of 94 held that -

"32. Thus, so far as this Court is concerned the conditions for admissibility of a tape recorded statement may be stated as follows:

1) The voice of the speaker must be identified by the maker of the record or by others who recognise his voice. In other words, it manifestly follows as a logical corollary that the first condition for the admissibility of such a statement is to identify the voice of the speaker. Where the voice has been denied by the maker it will require very strict proof to determine whether or not it was really the voice of the speaker.

(2) The accuracy of the tape­recorded statement has to be proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory evidence - direct or circumstantial.

(3) Every possibility of tampering with or erasure of a part of the tape recorded statement must be ruled out otherwise it may render the said statement out of context and, therefore, inadmissible. (4) The statement must be relevant according to the rules of evidence Act.

(5) The recorded cassette must be carefully sealed and kept in safe or official custody.

(6) The voice of the speaker should be clearly audible and not lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbances."

117.Cassettes Q­1 to Q­4 were derived from the recordings made in the DVR CENIX (Sony) and CD Q­6 was made from the computer system by Special Unit of CBI. PW­18 Insp. Vivek Prakash is the maker of cassette Q­1 and has proved the certificate u/s 65­B of Indian CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 77 of 94 Evidence Act (Ex. PW­18/A). PW­15 Sh. Raj Singh, DSP is the maker of the cassettes Q­2 to Q­4 and has proved his certificates u/s 65­B of the Indian Evidence Act with respect to making of the cassettes respectively as Ex. PW­15/B1 to Ex. PW­15/B­3. PW­3 Sh. M. C. Kashyap, DSP, Special Unit is the maker of the CD Q­6 and has proved the certificate u/s 65­B of the Indian Evidence Act with respect to CD Q­6 as Ex. PW­3/2. The certificates of makers of cassettes Q­1 to Q­4 and CD Q­ 6, make them admissible in evidence and qualify the test of mode of proof.

118.It is a matter of fact that all conversations recorded in the 03 devices are in Telugu language which is not the language of this Court. Sr. PP for CBI argued that English translation along with the Telugu transcript of the recorded conversation is filed on record and proved by the witnesses who made the transcript & prepared the translation. It was argued that English translation of the recorded conversation between accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) and accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) dated 16.07.2009 in cassette Q­4 (Ex. PW­1/Z­6) & CD Q­6 (Ex. P­2) are proved by PW­10 J. Chitti Babu.

119.On perusal of the deposition of PW­10 J. Chitti Babu, it CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 78 of 94 is found that though, the witness has identified his signatures on the English translation Ex. PW­1/N of Q­ 4 and Ex. PW­1/Z­45, Ex. PW­1/Z­47 & Ex. PW­1/Z­49 of Q­6 of the alleged recorded conversation, between accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) and accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) on 16.07.2009, he has not stated in his deposition that these translations were prepared by him. The English translations filed on record does not bear any certificate of PW­10 J. Chitti Babu about their making and correctness. The recordings in Q­4 & Q­6 were not played during the deposition of PW­10 J. Chitti Babu in the Court. In these facts and circumstances, there is merit in the defence argument that since the translation of the alleged recorded conversation between accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) and accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) dated 16.07.2009 simultaneously in 02 devices, is not proved as per law, they cannot be relied.

120.The above English translations also bear signatures of the complainant (PW­1) with dates 22.07.2009 & 15.09.2009, who as per the prosecution case, is the witness of making of translations. However, it has come in the cross­examination of PW­1 that he never visited CBI office after 16.07.2009. Therefore, if PW­1 did not CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 79 of 94 visit CBI office after 16.07.2009, he could not have been present at the CBI office on 22.07.2009 & 15.09.2009 to sign the English translations. This creates doubt about the making of the English translation.

121.English translation of the alleged communication between accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) and accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) on 16.07.2009 recorded simultaneously in Q­4 (translation Ex. PW­1/N) & Q­6 (Ex. PW­1/Z­45, Ex. PW­1/Z­47 & Ex. PW­1/Z­49) are as under:

English Translation (Ex. PW­1/N) of Q­4 Transcription of the conversation held between accused Subba Rao (A­1) and Prof. K. Narayanaa Rao at CBI office on 16.07.09 (Morning) 1st Call Subbarao Hello K. N Rao Hello, tell me Sir, Sir, Namestay Sir. I will give at factory Sir. Tell Subbarao you to Medam Sir.

Sir Vijay's--­­­­­­­(voice not clear) KN Rao OK One second tell you to Medam Sir. I will handover 5 Subbarao lac Rs. Sir.

CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr.                           Page No. 80 of 94
                                                 2nd Call

           Subbarao          Hello
           KN Rao            Hello
           Subbarao          Sir, Sir. What is the address of Madam Factory, Sir.
           K N Rao           Shut up your mouth. You ­­­­­­­­­(not clear)
           Subbarao          Sir, if call here again, I will bring­­­­­­­­­
           K N Rao           It is problem to with mindless fellows. Are you a man

or animal? I have told a lot, I am in meeting, you again called me.

Subbarao No, Sir tell me address­­­­­­­ K N Rao What you ­­­­­­­­ I could not understood, I gave you respect but what gave you ? Put it.

Subbarao Sir, Sir.

English translation (Ex. PW­1/Z­45) of Q­6 I. No. Date Voice File Name Calling No. Called No.

22. 16­07­09 00550277­10­162453­0­ 9866049448 9971182525 14­20090716­073746.wav SR: Sir, good morning sir.

                    NR:       Hello.
                    SR:       Good morning sir. I have come to your house sir. Are
                              you not at home sir.
                    NR:       No I am not. I have gone out. I will not come before 1
                              or 2 hours.
                    SR:       OK. Sir. I have come here sir to talk another issue.
                    NR:       Friend has come so I have taken to restaurant.
                    SR:       My flight is 10.30 sir. Can I give to madam sir there?
                    NR:       OK.
                    SR:       I will give there only sir.
                    NR:       OK.
                    SR:       Haan... I will put Vijaya message sir.
                    NR:       Ok. No. don't do. Go now will see latter. Don't put
                              any message here. We will meet        latter.

CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr.                                  Page No. 81 of 94
                     SR:       Ok. Sir. Thank you sir.

English translation (Ex. PW­1/Z­47) of Q­6 I.No. Date Voice File Name Calling No. Called No.

23. 16­07­09 00550304­10­162453­0­ 9866049448 9971182525 09­20090716­080327.wav SR: Hello.

                    NR:       Narayana Rao.
                    SR:       Sir, sir Namastey sir. That I will give at the factory sir.

Will you inform to the madam sir regarding Vijaya ?

NR: Ok. Ok.

English translation (Ex. PW­1/Z­49) of Q­6 I.No Date Voice File Name Calling No. Called No.

24. 16­07­09 00550318­10­162453­0­ 9177077665 9971182525 29­20090716­081058.wav SR: Hello.

                    NR:       Hello.
                    SR:       Sir, Sir. Can you say the address of madam at
                              factory?
                    NR:       Are? you shut your mouth? If you phone to me again

you will be ...... it is very big problem to work with unknowledgable people. You are not needed. Get out.

Are you human being or beast? I already told you after that also? I told you I am in meeting even though you are calling me. You are calling me with another's phone. I cannot understand. What man you are, when I am giving respect you should be like that. Put off the phone.

                    SR:       Ok sir.

                    Abbreviation:
                    SR: Subba Rao (A­1)
                    NR: Narayana Rao (A­2).


CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr.                              Page No. 82 of 94

122.There is a vivid difference between the content 02 translations. The words attributed to accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) "One Second tell you to Medam Sir. I will handover 5 lac Rs. Sir." in translation Ex. PW­1/N (1st call) of recorded conversation in Q­4 is missing in the English translation Ex. PW­1/Z­47 of the same recorded conversation in Q­6. Since they are projected to be the translation of the same conversation between accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) and accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) on the given date and time recorded by 02 different devices, they should have been identical. The fact that there is difference in the content of the 02 translations, especially about words which are incriminating, demolishes the credibility of both the translations.

123.Further the cassette in Q­4 (Ex. PW­1/Z­6) and CD Q­6 (Ex. P­2) were sent to CFSL for opinion. PW­16 Sh. Deepak Kumar Tanwar, Sr. Scientific Officer, CFSL has deposed that difference of words in the text of the two translations indicates tampering and manipulation of the recordings.

124.On comparison of translation of call recordings by Special Unit, CBI (Ex. PW­1/Z­45, Ex. PW­1/Z­47 & Ex. PW­1/Z­49) with the CDRs of mobile phone nos.

CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 83 of 94 9866049448 & 9177077665, allegedly used by accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) (Ex. PW­5/C & Ex. PW­5/B respectively), it is found that above calls recorded by Special Unit, CBI are not reflected in the CDRs. If there was conversation made or received by accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) with accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) through these mobile phone numbers, those calls must have been reflected in the CDRs.

125.On comparison of recorded call information report (Ex.

PW­3/3) given on the basis of surveillance by Special Unit, CBI with the CDR of mobile phone no. 9866049448 allegedly used by accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) (Ex. PW­5/C) and CDR of mobile no.

9971182525 allegedly used by accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) (Ex. PW­5/F) show variation in the time and duration of calls between accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) & accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) on 16.07.2009. Voice expert PW­16 deposed that difference in the duration of the calls is suggestive of manipulation and tampering.

126.Above noted discrepancies are material in nature and therefore, make the evidence of tape recorded conversations unworthy of the credence and hence cannot be relied upon. Further, there is contradiction CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 84 of 94 between the deposition of witnesses about the circumstances in which the alleged calls were made by accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) to accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) on 16.04.2009. Though, PW­15 Sh. Raj Singh, DSP has deposed that on 16.07.2009, calls were made voluntarily by accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) to accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) after accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­

1) was apprehended, but independent witnesses have deposed that they were made on the direction of PW­15.

127.There is no cogent evidence brought on record by the prosecution to prove that PW­1 & PW­8 had met accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) in his office regarding matter of an Engineering College proposed to be established by the 'Society'. There is no cogent and credible evidence to establish that any demand in the context was made by accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) through accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) from the complainant (PW­1) & PW­8. CASE AGAINST THE ACCUSED S. V. SUBBA RAO (A­1) AND NATURE OF EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD

128.It is alleged against the accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) that when complainant (PW­1) & PW­8 Uma Maheshwar Reddy met him on the asking of accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2), he demanded Rs. 35 lacs from them to be given to accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) for sending a CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 85 of 94 favourable team to the college and to get early approval. Allegedly accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) negotiated with the complainant (PW­1) about the payment in installments and mode of proof. In this context accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) allegedly spoke to the complainant (PW­1) on phone on 03.07.2009 & 15.07.2009 and met him on 04.07.2009 & 16.07.2009. Allegedly accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) received from the complainant (PW­

1), Rs. 5 lacs as part payment of bribe money when he was caught by the trap team of the CBI.

129.Evidence against the accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) includes - (i) Testimony of complainant (PW­1) and PW­ 8, (ii) tape recorded conversation and (iii) recovery of Rs. 5 lacs, the bribe money from accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1).

TESTIMONY OF COMPLAINANT SH. LAXMI KANT REDDY (PW­1) AND UMA MAHESHWAR REDDY (PW­8)

130.Sr. PP for CBI argued that testimony of the complainant (PW­1) & his brother (PW­8) proves that accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) had demanded illegal gratification from PW­1 in connection with approval of the Engineering College of the 'Society' in the name of accused K. CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 86 of 94 Narayana Rao (A­2) and received Rs. 5 lacs from the complainant (PW­1), as part payment of total bribe money of Rs. 35 lacs, when he was caught by the CBI team and bribe money was recovered from his possession.

131.Defence counsel for the accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) argued that deposition of the complainant (PW­1) and his brother (PW­8) is not reliable and there are material contradictions in their deposition. Tape recorded conversation are tampered & manipulated and English translation is not legally proved. It was argued that deposition of witnesses about alleged recovery of Rs. 5 lacs from accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1), suffer from inherent contradictions.

132.Considering the fact that the complainant (PW­1) while deposing in the Court during his examination­in­chief remained silent on material aspects of demand and recovery, so was declared hostile by the Prosecutor for CBI, the application of the 'Society' for approval of a college was supported by fake documents, claim of PW­1 & PW­8 that they are the partners of the 'Society' has been falsified and thus puts question on their interest in the matter and their alleged meeting with accused K. CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 87 of 94 Narayana Rao (A­2) has not been proved, their deposition about demand by accused accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) and alleged recovery from him requires deeper scrutiny.

Pre­trap proceedings

133.According to the prosecution case, Rs. 5 lacs were brought by the complainant (PW­1) on 04.07.2009, which was treated with phenolphthalein powder in the pre­trap proceedings at the CBI office and was used in the trap proceedings on 16.07.2009.

134.PW­1 stated in his cross­examination that he had arranged Rs. 5 lacs from Hyderabad which was brought to Delhi by his cousin brother on 03.07.2009 and was handed over to him in the CBI office on 03.07.2009 at about 3.30 PM. This version of PW­1 is not corroborated by any other evidence and is rather contrary to the pre­ trap proceedings conducted in the office of CBI on 04.07.2009 vide handing over memo Ex. PW­1/E, according to which money was produced on 04.07.2009 and not on 03.07.2009. On this fact, PW­8 Uma Maheshwar Reddy stated in his cross­examination that he cannot say when his brother (PW­1) had told his cousin brother to bring the money to Delhi and he did CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 88 of 94 not remember when his cousin came to Delhi with the money. It is relevant to notice that in the cross­ examination when PW­1 was asked to give address and mobile number of the said cousin, he remained evasive and though he stated that he can produce the phone number and address of his cousin K. Sriniwas, but it was not produced and subsequently he deposed that he cannot bring the phone number and address of his cousin as he had changed his address and mobile number. In these circumstances, version of PW­1 as to how he had arranged Rs. 5 lacs, which is a substantial amount, does not inspire confidence.

135.There is contradiction and the deposition of PW­15 Sh.

Raj Singh (TLO) and other witnesses on the fact as to who had noted down the numbers of GC notes used in the trap proceedings. PW­15 has deposed that the numbers were noted down by the independent witnesses PW­10 J. Chitti Babu and PW­11 Kanwaljeet Singh. While PW­1 is totally silent on this fact, PW­8 Uma Maheshwar Reddy has stated that the numbers were noted down by the CBI; PW­10 J. Chitti Babu has stated that they were noted down by PW­11.

CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 89 of 94 Trap Proceedings

136.There is contradiction in the deposition of the witnesses about the presence of watchman/guard at Nivedita Kunj, R. K. Puram, New Delhi where the house of accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) was situated and from where accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) & accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) were apprehended by the trap team on 16.07.2009 and recovery of Rs. 5 lacs was made from accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2).

137.PW­15 Sh. Raj Singh, DSP (TLO) deposed that he does not remember whether there was any watchman/guard at the gate of the residential complex; complainant (PW­

1) has deposed specifically that there was no guard. On the same fact PW­8 Uma Maheshwar Reddy has deposed that there was a guard and PW­10 deposed that CBI officials spoke to the guard. Contradictions in the statement of these witnesses create doubt about their presence at the spot at the time of alleged trap.

138.According to the prosecution case and as deposed by PW­15 Sh. Raj Singh (TLO), on 16.07.2009 CBI trap team including the complainant (PW­1), his brother Uma Maheshwar Reddy (PW­8) and 02 independent witnesses PW­10 J. Chitti Babu and PW­11 Kanwaljeet Singh, CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 90 of 94 followed the taxi of accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) and reached near Nivedita Kunj, R. K. Puram, where accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) got out of the taxi and met PW­1. They both went inside the complex, followed by PW­8 & PW­10 keeping safe distance. After about 10 minutes, accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) was seen coming out of Nivedita Kunj carrying a cotton bag containing bribe amount of Rs. 5 lacs in his right hand, followed by the complainant (PW­1) and proceeded towards his taxi. When accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) was about to get in the taxi taking along the cotton bag containing bribe money, he was challenged by PW­15, apprehended, followed by recovery of the bribe money.

139.Deposition of PW­15 (TLO) on above facts is contrary to the prosecution case in the charge­sheet, according to which, after reaching at Nivedita Kunj, accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) demanded & received bag from the complainant (PW­1) by making a gesture and accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) alone went inside the building and told PW­1 to wait outside in the park.

140.On the aspect of date and place of delivery of the bag containing bribe money to the accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1), the complainant (PW­1) deposed that he handed CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 91 of 94 over the bag containing the bribe money to the accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) on 04.07.2009 in the morning in the hotel where only he and his brother (PW­8) had gone to meet accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1). On this fact PW­8 has deposed that the bag containing money was given by his brother (PW­1) to accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) on 16.07.2009 after reaching Nivedita Kunj, on the asking of accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1).

141.Above contradictions in the deposition of the complainant (PW­1), PW­8 & PW­15 (TLO) about the date, place and circumstances in which the bag containing bribe money was given by PW­1 to accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1), make the prosecution story about demand and receipt of bribe by accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1), highly doubtful.

142.With respect to the circumstances about apprehension of accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) and recovery of the bag from him, the evidence which has come on record is fractured. According to the deposition of PW­15 (TLO), he confronted accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) when he was getting inside the vehicle (taxi) carrying along the bag carrying bribe money. However, PW­1 is totally silent on this fact in his examination­in­chief and PW­10 J.

CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 92 of 94 Chitti Babu deposed that accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) was challenged by PW­15 as soon as he was seen coming out from Nivedita Kunj, carrying the money back in his hand. These contradictions about the circumstances of the recovery of bag cannot be ignored in the totality of circumstances of this case.

TAPE RECORDED CONVERSATION

143.This evidence has been dealt in detail and discussed in the earlier part of the judgment. For the reasons already given, this evidence cannot be relied upon. RECOVERY OF RS. 5 LACS, THE BRIBE MONEY FROM ACCUSED S. V. SUBBA RAO (A­1)

144.Contradictions in the deposition of PW­1, who has given entirely a different story, on the material aspect of delivery of bribe money to accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) and contradiction in the deposition of other witnesses as discussed above, demolish the prosecution case. Otherwise also recovery of bribe money on its own is inconsequential in the absence of evidence of the context and purpose for which the alleged bribe money was given and received, the link evidence to which effect being totally missing.

CONCLUSION:

145.In view of forgoing discussion on the evidence CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 93 of 94 produced, I am of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons. Therefore, accused S. V. Subba Rao (A­1) is acquitted of the charge u/s 8 of the PC Act; accused K. Narayana Rao (A­2) is acquitted of the charges u/s 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act and both the accused are acquitted of the charges u/s 120­B IPC, Sections 7 & 8 of the PC Act r/w 120­B IPC & Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act r/w 120­B IPC.

146.Bail bonds of the accused persons are cancelled and their sureties are discharged.

147.File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in the open court on 22nd December, 2018 (Santosh Snehi Mann) Special Judge­03 (PC Act)/ CBI/PHC/ND CC No. 14/13; CBI Vs. S. V. Subba Rao & Anr. Page No. 94 of 94