Delhi District Court
State vs . Charanjeet Singh Arora Page 1 Of 20 on 20 November, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAROTTAM KAUSHAL, SPECIAL
JUDGE
(PC Act)05, (ACB), (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Date of Institution : 13.09.2012
Date of reserving the Judgment : 20.02.2014
Date of pronouncing the Judgment : 28.02.2014
Corruption Case No. : 07/2013
FIR No. : 40/2008
Case Identification No. : 02401R0107232013
Police Station : Anti Corruption Branch
Under Section : 7 &13(i)(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988
STATE
Versus
Charan Jeet Singh Arora
S/o Sh. Mohar Singh
R/o 4/1, Race Course Road,
Dehradun, Uttrakhand
JUDGMENT
1.1 Aneesh Yadav S/o Sh. Rajinder Singh lodged complaint dated 16.12.2008 addressed to Inspector Anti Corruption Branch. As per his complaint one Charanjeet Singh Arora, Assistant Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. ( for short UIIC Ltd. ) had demanded State Vs. Charanjeet Singh Arora Page 1 of 20 2 bribe for handing over a cheque towards insurance claim. His mother Smt. Prem Kumari had purchased Maruti Car bearing registration No. DL2CZ2180, which had been insured with UIIC Ltd.. The said vehicle was stolen and FIR had been lodged and information to UIIC Ltd. was given. To pursue the insurance claim he went to its Head Office at Barakhamba Road, where he met Assistant Manager, Charanjit Singh Arora. Despite repeated visits over a period of several months, the insurance claim was not allowed. His mother filed a petition before the Consumer Court, Kashmiri Gate which awarded compensation of Rs. 2,01,260/ and penalty of Rs. 8,000/ vide its award dated 14.07.2008. Respondent/UIIC Ltd. was directed to make the payment within sixty days. Complainant filed an application before Assistant Manager, Charanjit Singh Arora who noted complainant's phone number on the application. He subsequently called up the complainant after the office hours and on meeting the complainant he demanded 15% of the awarded amount. On complainant's reluctance to pay the aforesaid amount, Charanjit Singh Arora demanded Rs. 28,000/ failing which he threatened that amount will not be disbursed and appeal will be filed. 7/8 days later Charanjit Singh Arora again called him up on mobile phone No. 9911757755 demanding the bribe and extending the threat of causing delay. Complainant called up Charanjit Singh, the next day, on phone number 9213176557 and was asked to meet him at his house bearing No. 56, DDA Flats, West Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. He was also asked State Vs. Charanjeet Singh Arora Page 2 of 20 3 to bring the demanded amount. Complainant went to the house of Charanjit Singh Arora who extracted Rs. 5,000/ from the complainant. On 15.12.2008 complainant and his mother visited PS ACB and SI Ramesh was sent with them with audio/video recording device to record the demand. Complainant and his mother with SI Ramesh left PS ACB. Complainant spoke to Charanjit Singh Arora on mobile and appointment for meeting at his house was confirmed for payment of bribe. At about 8.00 PM they reached near his house and confirmed his availability. Leaving SI Ramesh on the ground floor, complainant and his mother went to the 4th floor house of Charanjit Singh Arora. After reaching the house of Charanjit Singh Arora, complainant received a call from him asking him to come down stairs. Complainant and his mother went down stairs and met the accused there. He took both of them back to his house and demanded bribe. Complainant again paid him Rs. 9,000/ and audio/video device recorded the proceedings. When they were going back, Charanjit Singh Arora again made a demand for balance amount. Audio/Video recording device was returned to SI Ramesh and complainant went back to his house with his mother. On 16.12.2008 he was called at PS ACB where his complaint Ex. PW22/A was recorded. He had paid Rs. 6,000/ to be used as trap amount. 1.2 On aforesaid complaint Raid Officer/Inspector Roop Lal ( hereinafter called as RO) associated panch witness Subhashish. A raiding team was constituted. Complainant and panch witnesses were State Vs. Charanjeet Singh Arora Page 3 of 20 4 briefed and use of phenolphthalein powder was demonstrated to them. Serial number of currency notes made available by the complainant, were noted. Phenolphthalein powder was applied on the currency notes. In the meantime SI Karnail Singh brought the CD of audio/video recording of the visit of complainant to the house of accused, containing the sting operation of 15.12.2008. The CD was played and after satisfaction of its contents, raiding team left for office of accused. The raid was conducted, where accused was nabbed accepting Rs. 6,000/ at Jheel Park, near his office. Raiding team recovered the GC notes from the right hand pocket of the jacket of the accused. Hand wash/pocket wash proceedings were conducted, case property was seized and rukka was prepared. Further investigation was carried out by Inspector V.K. Singh (hereinafter called as IO). Finding sufficient material against the accused, challan was filed in the court.
2. This court vide order dated 12.3.2013 took cognizance of offence punishable u/sec.7/13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PC Act'). Accused was summoned and provisions of section 207 Cr. P.C. were complied with. Vide order dated 27.05.2013, charge for offences punishable u/sec.7/13(1) (d) r/w section 13 (2) of the PC Act was framed. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3.1 Prosecution in support of its case examined 30 witnesses. Complainant Aneesh Yadav (PW22), his mother Prem Kumari (PW26) State Vs. Charanjeet Singh Arora Page 4 of 20 5 and panch witness Subhashish (PW27) were cited and examined by the prosecution to prove demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe. However, none of the three supported the prosecution case and gave statements which were inconsistent to each other as well. 3.2 HC Sat Dev (PW15) was Duty Officer at PS ACB, on 16.12.2008. He proved Ct. Suraj Pal (PW25) having brought the rukka sent by Inspector Roop Lal and recording of FIR No. 40/08 (Ex. PW15/A). HC Anand Sarup (PW8) was the Duty Officer on 16.12.2008 from 8.00 AM to 2.00 PM. He proved the DD entry of arrival of panch witness at 9.15 AM and departure entry of raiding team at 11.40 AM. HC Jitender (PW7) was the MHC(M) at PS Civil Line on 16.12.2008. He deposed about deposit of case property by IO/Inspector V.K. Singh on 16.12.2008. He further deposed that the case property was sent by him for analysis to FSL and subsequently remnants and FSL report were returned. HC Anand Prakash (PW10) had collected the remnants from FSL and on 13.4.2010 and deposited the same with MHC(M). HC Krishna Dasan (PW18) had collected two bottles from MHC(M) on 26.3.2009 and deposited in the FSL. Ct. Ravinder (PW5) had collected two pulandas on 23.6.2009 and deposited the same at FSL. All the aforesaid witnesses deposed that case property had not been tampered with, so long as it remained in their custody.
3.3 Rajiv Ranjan (PW3), Nodal Officer, Tata Tele Services Ltd. proved customer application form of phone number 9213176557 in State Vs. Charanjeet Singh Arora Page 5 of 20 6 favour of Prem Shankar and its call detail record. Amar Nath Singh Nodal Officer, Idea Celluar Ltd. was examined as PW11 and also as PW1. He proved customer application form of phone No. 9911757755 in the name of Pramod Kumar and its call detail record. Pramod Kumar (PW17) deposed that phone No. 9911757755 with its sim number had been gifted by him to complainant Aneesh Yadav, who was his tuition teacher.
3.4 SI Ramesh (PW4) deposed that he went with complainant and his mother to the house of accused on 15.12.2008. He handed over an audio/video recorder to the complainant after switching it on . Complainant and his mother went inside the house of the accused, recorded conversation and returned the recorder to him. Karnail Singh (PW6) deposed that he had handed over recording device to SI Ramesh on 15.12.2008 which was returned by him on the same day. The contents of audio/video recorder were transferred by him to two CDs which was seized by the IO on 16.12.2008. Mohan Lal (PW12) was a panch witness to the proceeding dated 15.4.2009 when transcript of the audio recording Ex. PW12/A was prepared.
3.5 Krishan (PW13) proved the consent memo of the accused for making available his voice sample. Anjuman Kumar Sharma (PW16) was a panch witness to the proceeding dated 17.06.2009 when the voice sample of complainant and accused were recorded at FSL, Rohini. Prem Swaroop Gupta (PW19), Divisional Manager, UIIC Ltd. was cited to State Vs. Charanjeet Singh Arora Page 6 of 20 7 prove identity of accused in the video recording. However, he denied having identified the accused. Devender Kumar (PW20) was a panch witness to the proceeding dated 17.12.2008 when Prem Sarup Gupta (PW19) identified the accused in the video recording. This witness has deposed that Prem Shankar Gupta had identified the accused to be a Manager in UIIC Ltd. . Dr. C.P. Singh (PW2) proved his report Ex. PW2/A wherein he had opined that voice of accused and complainant in CD Ex. P1 matched with their voice samples.
3.6 Ashutosh Mathur (PW14), Ex. Chief Regional Manager, UIIC Ltd. proved the biodata of accused. Ms Rama Bhasin (PW9), General Manager, UIIC Ltd. proved grant of sanction to prosecute the accused. Prem Swaroop Gupta (PW19) , Deputy Manager, UIIC Ltd. proved seizure of claim file for Maruti Car No. DL2CZ2180 by the IO. Vijender Kumar, LDC from Transport Authority proved registration record of Car No. DL2CZ2180.
3.7 Preetam Singh (PW23) was cited as a witness to prove that he had borrowed Rs. 14,000/ from the accused which was kept in his house and was recovered by the police at the instance of the accused. He, however, denied the same. Raghbir Singh (PW24) was a panch witness to the proceeding dated 16.12.2008, when Rs. 14,000/ were allegedly recovered from the house of Preetam Singh. He also denied any recovery from the house of Preetam Singh. Dr. Madhulika Sharma (PW28) proved her report Ex. PW28/A detecting presence of State Vs. Charanjeet Singh Arora Page 7 of 20 8 phenolphthalein powder in the hand wash and jacket pocket wash, analysed by her.
3.8 RO/ACP Roop Lal (PW29) proved the preraid and post raid proceedings. Inspector V.K. Singh (PW30) was the investigating officer. He proved having been handed over accused and the case property by Roop Lal and having further conducted the investigation.
4. Incriminating evidence that has come up against the accused was put to him. He denied having demanded bribe of Rs. 28,000/ from the complainant. He also denied having accepted Rs. 14,000/. He denied demanding Rs. 6,000/ at the time of trap. He also denied recovery of the same from pocket of his jacket. He claimed the washes to have been planted upon him. He also denied that Rs. 14,000/ were recovered from the house of Preetam Singh. He stated that the amount was planted in this case. He stated that on 15.12.2008 accused and his mother were looking for one Babbeji and met him. They discussed about their insurance claim with him. He advised them to go and met the concerned officer. On 16.12.2008 he was walking in the sun at Jheel Park near his office, when somebody came and thrust something in his jacket pocket. Before he could understand anything, he was over powered by many persons. They caught hold of him by the fingers and both his hands were crossed.
5. Shri B.B. Bhasin, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor has argued that complainant has admitted his signatures on complaint Ex. State Vs. Charanjeet Singh Arora Page 8 of 20 9 PW22/A and the raid report. Though he has not deposed in terms of his complaint and raid report, yet his complaint and raid report bearing his signatures can be relied upon. It is further argued that presence of phenolphthalein powder in the hand wash and jacket pocket wash of the accused proved that treated GC notes were recovered from his possession. Demand having been proved by way of complaint Ex. PW22/A and recovery having been established in the testimony of RO/Inspector Roop Lal (PW29) and the hand wash and pocket wash proceeding; the recovery can be presumed u/s 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is further argued that demand is also established from the audio/video recording contained in CD Ex. P1 and its transcript Ex. PW12/A Complainant has deposed that at the time of his visit to the house of accused a digital voice recorder was given to him at PS ACB in recording mode.
6. Shri Sanjay Gupta, Ld. defence counsel has argued that none of the material witnesses has supported the prosecution case. Complainant Aneesh Yadav (PW22) despite being cross examined by the Ld. Additional PP denied demand of bribe by the accused at any stage. The witness has rather deposed that it was one Babbeji who had made the demand from the complainant. The witness also deposed that he went to meet Babbeji at flat No. 56, Punjabi Bagh, where per chance they met the accused. They requested the accused to help in their insurance case and he asked them to meet him in his office. Shri Gupta State Vs. Charanjeet Singh Arora Page 9 of 20 10 has further pointed out that complainant in his testimony deposed that he thrust treated GC notes in the pocket of jacket of the accused without any demand from him. He denied the suggestion by the Ld. Additional PP that demand was made by the accused and only on the demand having been made, Rs. 6,000/ were handed over to him. It is argued that the complainant has deposed in cross examination that he had initially made a complaint on 14.12.2008 against Babbeji which he was asked to rewrite on 16.12.2008 and the same was dictated to him by an Inspector of PSACB. He used to speak Babbeji on mobile No. 9213176557. He had shaken hands with the accused before putting treated GC notes in left pocket of his jacket. He was caught hold of by his hands by the official of PSACB and immediately rushed to PSACB. He signed all the documents at PSACB. He had put money in the pocket of the accused, presuming that he had been sent by Babbeji. Referring to the testimony of Preetam Singh (PW23) and Raghbir Singh (PW24), it is argued that recovery of Rs. 14,000/ from the house of Preetam Singh is also not proved. It is thus argued that neither the demand and acceptance of Rs. 6,000/ on 16.12.2008 is proved; nor the recovery of Rs. 14,000/. from the house of neighbour of accused are proved. Referring to the law laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Roshan Lal Saini Vs CBI 2011 (1) C.C. Cases (HC) 219, it is argued that mere filing of complaint is not a proof of demand of bribe. It is further argued that recovery of bribe sought to be proved by presence of phenolphthalein powder is also not State Vs. Charanjeet Singh Arora Page 10 of 20 11 trustworthy, as the complainant has deposed that he had shaken hands with the accused. Similarly raiding team had caught hold of the accused from his hands, the chances of phenolphthalein powder being transferred from the hands of the complainant or the hands of the members of the raiding party to the hands of accused cannot be ruled out. It is next argued that CD Ex. P1 cannot be read in evidence as no certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act had been furnished by Karnail Singh who had prepared the CD. Original audio/video recording device was not sent to FSL for analysis. Reliance has been placed upon law laid down in Anvar P.V. Vs P.K. Basheer and others criminal appeal No. 4226/12 decided on 18.9.2014 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further argued that recording dated 15.12.2008 contained in CD Ex. P1 has not been identified by maker of the recording i.e. complainant and his mother. Thus in view of the law laid down in Ram Singh Vs Col. Ram Singh 1985 SCC 611 the same cannot be read in evidence. Referring to the testimony of complainant PW2, panch witness PW27 and Raid Officer (PW29) , it is argued that none of them was present at the office of accused on 16.12.2008 as they all referred to the place of occurrence as Vikram Tower whereas IO has referred to the place of occurrence to be Jheel Park near Vikrant Tower.
7. I have heard Ld. counsels and with their assistance perused the record. This is one of those cases where two material witnesses i.e. complainant and panch witness have not supported the State Vs. Charanjeet Singh Arora Page 11 of 20 12 prosecution case and have given statements which are even inconsistent to each other. Complainant (PW22) has given a totally novel version, wherein he has introduced one character namely Babbeji to have demanded the bribe and called him to the house which was occupied by accused. Complainant also claims to have been speaking on mobile number 9213176557 to said Babbeji. Complainant (PW22) and his mother Prem Kumari (PW26) were the sole witnesses to the initial demand of Rs. 28,000/ by the accused. They have both denied that the accused made any such demand from them. Supporting evidence to this oral testimony of complainant (PW22) and Prem Kumari (PW26) with respect to demand of bribe, was the audio/video recording contained in CD Ex. P1 and its transcript Ex. PW12/A. I find merit in the argument of Shri Sanjay Gupta that electronic evidence as contained in CD Ex. P1 cannot be relied upon. Reliance upon Anvar P.V.'s Case (Supra) has been rightly placed. Admittedly, there is no certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act furnished by Karnail Singh (PW6) regarding transfer of data from the recording device to the CD. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the original recording device was seized by the IO and sent to FSL for examination. In such circumstances, CD Ex. P1 and transcript of conversation Ex. PW12/A carry no evidenciary value and cannot be relied upon by the prosecution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. case held as under: "Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic State Vs. Charanjeet Singh Arora Page 12 of 20 13 record under the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and 65A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65B. Section 65B deals with the admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these provisions is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a computer. It may be noted that the Section starts with a non obstante clause. Thus, notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer shall be deemed to be a document only if the conditions mentioned under sub section (2) are satisfied, without further proof or production of the original. The very admissibility of such a document i.e. electronic record which is called as computer output, depends on the satisfaction of the four conditions under Section 65B." I, thus, hold that prosecution has failed to prove demand of Rs. 28,000/ as bribe by accused Charanjit Singh Arora, from the complainant on 15.12.2008 or on any prior date.
8.1 To prove demand and acceptance of bribe at the time of raid, complainant Aneesh Yadav ( PW22) and panch witness Subhashish (PW27) are the material witnesses. PW22 deposed that on reaching the office of accused he made a phone call to Babbeji who asked him to wait State Vs. Charanjeet Singh Arora Page 13 of 20 14 for him in the Jheel Park. He along with panch witness went to Jheel Park and after sometime accused was spotted. He wished the accused and took out treated GC notes from left pocket of his shirt and put the same in left side lower pocket of jacket of the accused. On this the raiding party rushed and overpowered the accused. Accused was immediately boarded in a vehicle and taken to PSACB. Subhashish (PW27) has deposed that on reaching the office of the accused, complainant made a phone call to some person and shortly after accused was seen coming from the tower towards them. He was standing at a little distance from the complainant. Complainant and accused started walking together towards Jheel Park. He followed them maintaining a distance of 10 to 15 steps. Both of them took a round of Jheel Park. Sometime later complainant gave a signal to him of having passed over treated GC notes to the accused. He noticed some movement of hands and gave predetermined signal to the raiding party. Raiding team arrived and he searched the accused and recovered treated GC notes. The serial numbers were compared. GC notes were seized. Right hand wash of accused was taken. Wash of right pocket of his coat was also taken. He has further proved the proceedings conducted at the spot. On being cross examined by Ld. defence counsel he reiterated that accused and complainant walked together for about 15 minutes in the Jheel Park. He further deposed that they remained at the spot for 1½ to 2 hours where the raiding team conducted its proceeding.
State Vs. Charanjeet Singh Arora Page 14 of 20 15 8.2 Raid Officer/Inspector Roop Lal has also deposed that on reaching the office of accused, he came out of Vikram Tower and walked towards Jheel Park. Accused and complainant walked together for sometime and then he saw the complainant handing over treated GC notes to the accused. He also received predetermined signal from the panch witness. He has then deposed about the recovery, hand wash, pocket wash, seizure and other proceedings conducted at the spot. 8.3 From the testimony of these three witnesses as noticed above, it can be safely concluded that there is no evidence of demand of bribe by the accused at the time of raid. Complainant has totally turned hostile, whereas panch witness Subhashish (PW27) has deposed that he was about 10/15 steps behind the complainant and the accused. Thus neither the complainant nor the panch witness have deposed that accused demanded any bribe at the time of raid. Complainant ( PW22) has deposed that he put the treated GC notes in the pocket of jacket of accused. On being cross examined by Ld. defence counsel he further improved upon his statement and deposed that he had shaken hands with the accused before putting money in his pocket. He again improved his version by saying that he had put the money thinking that he had been sent by Babbeji. Panch witness Subhashish (PW27) has not deposed having heard any conversation between the two regarding the demand. He has also not deposed that he had seen the complainant handing over treated GC notes to the accused. He only deposed that he State Vs. Charanjeet Singh Arora Page 15 of 20 16 noticed some transaction of movement of hands and was given signal by the complainant which he further transmitted to the raiding team. On the basis of evidence as noticed above, it cannot be said that complainant and the panch witness have corroborated each other as regards acceptance of treated GC notes. So it cannot be held that accused consciously accepted the treated GC notes, knowing the same to be bribe money. Complainant claims to have put the money in the pocket of the accused without any indication from him thinking him to have been sent by Babbeji. Panch witness does not even depose that he had seen the complainant putting money in the pocket of accused. He has only talked about movements of hands. Thus on the basis of evidence as noticed above, this court is unable to record finding of demand or acceptance of bribe at the time of raid.
9.1 Recovery of bribe from the possession of accused has also been differently stated by three witnesses to the said proceeding. Complainant Aneesh Yadav (PW22) has deposed that on arrival of the raiding team, accused was made to board vehicle and taken to PSACB, where complainant sat in a different room and subsequently signed the papers. Subhashish (PW27) has deposed about the recovery of GC notes, comparison of their serial numbers, their seizure, hand wash, pocket wash proceedings and seizure of the bottles and jacket at the spot. He has deposed that proceeding at the spot lasted about 1½ to 2 hours. ACP Roop Lal (RO) has also claimed to have conducted all the State Vs. Charanjeet Singh Arora Page 16 of 20 17 proceeding at the spot. Hand wash and pocket wash bottles when sent for analysis, were reported by FSL to be containing phenolphthalein powder. The argument of Ld. defence counsel that accused had shaken hands with the complainant and was caught hold of by his hands by the raiding team and therefore phenolphthalein powder could have been transferred to his hands; does not advance his case. Neither the complainant nor the panch witness has deposed that treated GC notes were handed over to the accused in his hand. Complainant has deposed that he had put the treated GC notes in the pocket of jacket of accused. Thus the pocket wash acquires importance in this case. No explanation has been tendered as to how the pocket acquired traces of phenolphthalein powder. Since the version of RO is corroborated by the testimony of panch witness Subhashish (PW27), I hold that prosecution has proved that treated GC notes were recovered from the pocket of jacket of the accused.
9.2 A challenge has also been made by Ld. defence counsel to sanction for prosecuting the accused. It is argued that Smt. Rama Bhasin (PW9) was not competent to remove the accused from service and was therefore not competent to grant the sanction. Referring to her cross examination it is submitted that appointing authority of the accused was Assistant General Manager, whereas the witness was of the rank of Deputy General Manager and was thus not competent to grant sanction. The witness explained that the post of Assistant General Manager had State Vs. Charanjeet Singh Arora Page 17 of 20 18 been designated as Deputy General Manager and she was, therefore, competent to grant the sanction. This court has applied mind to the aforesaid argument, and is of the opinion that no prejudice having been caused to the accused by grant of sanction by Deputy General Manager, Rama Bhasin; he cannot claim any benefit on this count. This issue stands settled in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs Rajmangal Ram 2014 SCC Online SC 277, wherein it was held as under: 'Interdicting a criminal proceeding midcourse on ground of invalidity of the sanction order will not be appropriate unless the court can also reach the conclusion that failure of justice had been occasioned by any such error, omission or irregularity in the sanction' I, therefore, find no merits in this argument raised by the Ld. defence counsel.
10. Having held in paras No. 7 & 8 above, that prosecution has failed to prove demand of bribe prior to the laying of trap and also at the time of trap. Having also held that conscious acceptance of bribe by the accused is not established, this court is of the opinion that mere recovery of treated GC notes would not be sufficient to indict the accused. This is settled law as enunciated in Banarasi Dass Vs. State of Haryana reported as AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1589. I, thus, hold that prosecution has failed to established its case beyond reasonable doubt. Charge of demand and acceptance of bribe by accused Charan Jeet Singh Arora has State Vs. Charanjeet Singh Arora Page 18 of 20 19 failed. Accused is thus acquitted of the charge of offences punishable u/s 7 & 13 (2) PC Act. However, in terms of sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C., accused is directed to furnish a bail bond for the amount of Rs.25,000/ with one surety in the like amount, to appear before the appellate court, as and when such notice is issued in respect of any appeal, which may be filed against this judgment.
11. Recovery of Rs. 14,000/ allegedly from the house of Preetam Singh (PW23) has been disputed by Preetam Singh as well, as panch witness Raghbir Singh . Even the accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C. while answering question No. 19 has claimed that the amount was planted upon him. I, thus, hold that neither the complainant nor the accused or his neighbour Preetam Singh has any right over this amount. The same stands confiscated to the State.
12. It is also noticed that complainant Aneesh Yadav ( PW22) has deposed on oath that no demand was made by the accused from him but it was one Babbeji who had made the demand. Despite knowing that the demand was made by one Babbeji, complainant as per his own version made a false charge by way of written complaint under his signatures against the public servant naming him and attributing him demand of bribe. Criminal proceeding came to be thus instituted against Charan Jeet Singh Arora ( a public servant ) for having committed an offence which is punishable with imprisonment upto seven years, with fine. This conduct of the complainant Aneesh Yadav prima facie State Vs. Charanjeet Singh Arora Page 19 of 20 20 amounts to an offence punishable u/s 211 IPC. Copy of this order be sent to CMM ( Central) with directions to register a complaint against complainant Aneesh Yadav S/o Sh. Rajinder Singh R/o S14, West Jyoti Nagar, Delhi94 and proceed as per law.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (NAROTTAM KAUSHAL)
on 20.11.2014 SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)05
(ACB), TIS HAZARI COURTS
State Vs. Charanjeet Singh Arora Page 20 of 20