Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. R.C. Anand on 3 February, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI B.R. KEDIA, SPECIAL JUDGE07
(CENTRAL), (PC ACT CASES OF ACB, GNCTD), DELHI
C.C. No. : 20/12
Unique Case ID : 02401R0000372000
STATE VS. 1. R.C. ANAND
S/o Late Sh. K.R. Anand,
R/o CII/20, Ansari Nagar,
East, New Delhi (AIIMS
Campus).
Presently R/o A1139, 2nd Floor,
SushantlokI, Gurgaon122002.
2. VYAS NARAIN SINGH (V.N. Singh)
S/o Sh. Awadh Bihari Singh,
R/o H. No. G9, Ansari Nagar, New
Delhi (AIIMS Campus).
Presently R/O RZ21,
Vaishali, Gali No.1,
Palam, Dabri Road,
New Delhi45.
FIR NO. : 12/98
U/S : 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 & 201/465/471 IPC
P.S. : ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH,
DELHI
C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 1 of 100
Date of Institution 13.05.2000
Judgment reserved on 31.01.2012
Judgment delivered on 03.02.2012
JUDGMENT
1. The precise case of the prosecution is that on dated 08.05.1998 complainant Sageer Ahmad Khan S/o Sh.Abdul Wahid Khan went to Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi and got lodged his complaint Ex.PW8/A regarding demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.5,000/ by the accused R.C. Anand who was posted as Medical Superintendent (MS) in All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) in consideration for not black listing the complainant's firm Shifaa Scientific Fibres which had been supplying absorbent cotton rolls to AIIMS and further demand of bribe in the form of commission on supply order of cotton rolls to be issued in future from AIIMS in favour of complainant's firm.
2. The gist of the said complaint is that the complainant had been doing the business of manufacturing absorbent cotton in the name of Shifaa Scientific Fibres and had been supplying the same to AIIMS periodically. As per last contract, the supply of the cotton C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 2 of 100 rolls to AIIMS was to be made upto 14.3.98 @ Rs.28.20 paise per roll and supply of the same was running smoothly but after some period of joining as MS, accused R.C. Anand called the complainant at his office and demanded bribe in the form of commission for supply of cotton rolls to AIIMS for which complainant declined on the plea that he had been supplying the cotton rolls at competitive rate on which the accused R.C. Anand got annoyed and thereafter, tried to harass the complainant and got an order for supply of 12000 rolls of absorbent cotton but granted only one month time for supplying the same to the complainant in order to find out the way for cancellation of the said contract due to failure of the supply during stipulated period. Though the complainant could not supply the entire quantity within the stipulated period of one month but had been supplying periodically as per requirement from the AIIMS and in the meantime, accused R.C. Anand had been pressurizing the complainant for giving commission but the complainant had declined. Thereafter, in February 1998, fresh tender for supply of absorbent cotton was floated by AIIMS for the year 199899 in which the complainant had also participated and his quotation of Rs.34.90 paise per roll being found to be lowest was approved but sample test of the same remained to be done. On 21.4.98 the complainant got another order for supply of 5000 rolls of C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 3 of 100 absorbent cotton at old rate when the earlier order for 12000 rolls had not been supplied in toto. Thereafter, the complainant finding difficulty in supplying the cotton rolls at old rate, met accused R.C. Anand and expressed his inability for supply of cotton rolls at old rate and requested him for cancellation of the supply order for old rate and for passing order for supply at current rate for which accused R.C. Anand demanded bribe of Rs.5000/ otherwise he would black list him and therefore, the complainant was constrained to agree for payment of said bribe amount of Rs.5000/ on 8.5.98. Since the complainant was against giving of bribe to the accused R.C. Anand, he alongwith Rs.5000/ and one tape recorder went to accused R.C. Anand on that day i.e. 8.5.98 and after giving bribe of Rs.5000/ to him got the supply order dated 21.4.98 cancelled and for the future supply of cotton at rate of Rs.34.90 paise per roll for which commission of Rs.1/ per roll of cotton was to be paid to accused. The accused R.C.Anand further stated that he can approve the rate of Rs.35.90 paise per cotton roll if commission of Rs.2/ per cotton roll is paid by the complainant to him. The complainant got recorded the entire conversation between him and the accused R.C.Anand in this respect in the AudioCassette and has produced the same. Since the complainant was against giving of bribe so he went to Anti C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 4 of 100 Corruption Branch and got lodged his complaint Ex.PW8/A before PW14/Inspector Satyavir Dagar, Raid Officer. Said AudioCassette was played in presence of Panch witness Ajay Sharma and was converted into a sealed pullanda and was seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW8/B. Thereafter, said PW14/Inspector Satyavir Dagar prepared Rukka Ex.PW14/A and got FIR registered, copy of which is Ex.PW14/B, on that day i.e. 8.5.98.
3. The further case of the prosecution is that the complainant Sageer Ahmad was briefed by Raid Officer to inform him in advance in case accused R.C. Anand demand money so that the trap can be conducted. Thereafter, the complainant used to inform Raid Officer regarding conversation between him and the accused R.C. Anand. That on 15.6.98 complainant informed the Raid Officer that accused R.C.Anand had demanded commission/bribe of Rs.2.50 per cotton roll and asked the complainant to come after one week for taking order for supply of 4000 cotton rolls on payment of bribe amount of Rs.10,000/. Thereafter, on 22.6.98 the Raid Officer provided one pocket tape recorder to the complainant and advised him to record the conversation between him and the accused R.C.Anand with the instructions to the complainant to come to the Raid Officer without C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 5 of 100 giving bribe money to the accused R.C.Anand if deal was matured. Thereafter, the complainant came to AC Branch on 6.7.98 and produced the cassette containing the conversation between him and the accused R.C.Anand as recorded on 22.6.98 which was played in the presence of complainant and Panch witness and said conversation reflect about the demand of bribe by the accused R.C. Anand from the complainant. Duplicate cassette of said Original Cassette was also got prepared and Original Cassette was marked as B and duplicate was marked B1. Original Cassette was converted into sealed parcel with the seal of SD and was seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW8/J. On the same day i.e. 6.7.98 complainant also produced documents Ex.PW7/B1, Ex.PW8/D, Ex.PW8/E, Ex.PW8/F, Ex.PW8/G, Ex.PW8/H before Raid Officer which were seized vide Seizure memo Ex.PW8/C.
4. The further case of the prosecution is that on dated 20.7.98 complainant came to Anti Corruption Branch and informed the Raid Officer that the deal was matured and accused R.C. Anand has to give supply order for 4000 absorbent cotton rolls to him for which said accused had demanded Rs.10,000/ as bribe. Complainant further informed the Raid Officer that another person namely R.G.Garg, C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 6 of 100 Financial Adviser had also to accept Rs.7000/ as bribe for the said work. Complainant produced 20 GC notes of Rs.500/ each before the Raid Officer in the presence of two Panch witnesses PW9/ J.P.Sharma and PW6 Lalit Mohan and phenolphthalein powder was applied on the said GC notes and same were got touched with the hand of Panch witness and hand wash of Panch witness was taken in colourless solution of sodium carbonate which turned pink. Complainant had also produced another 14 GC notes in denomination of Rs.500/ each before the Raid Officer in presence of said Panch witnesses J.P.Sharma and Lalit Mohan. Thereafter, phenolphthalein powder was applied on the said GC notes and same were got touched with the hands of Panch witness and hand wash of Panch witness was taken in colourless solution of sodium carbonate which turned pink. Thereafter, said GC notes were handed over to the complainant and Panch witness Lalit Mohan was instructed to remain close to the complainant and to overhear the conversation between the complainant and the accused and to give signal to Raiding party by coughing twice. The demonstration of Remote Recording System was also given to the complainant and Panch witness as it was to be used in the Raid Proceeding. Remote Recording System was handed over to Panch witness J.P.Sharma and he was directed to record and C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 7 of 100 overhear the conversation between the complainant Sageer Ahmad and the accused and mike card of the recording system was given to the Panch witness Lalit Mohan with the instructions to keep the same in his shirt pocket during conversation between the complainant and the accused and as soon as the deal was completed, he was to give signal to Raiding party by coughing twice. Demonstration of tainted GC notes by applying phenolphthalein powder was conducted vide Memo Ex.PW6/B.
5. The further case of the prosecution is that on that day i.e. 20.7.98 at about 2:30 p.m. the Raid Officer besides the members of the Raiding team comprising of ACP R.K.Pandey, ACP Rohtash Singh, complainant Sageer Ahmad, Panch witnesses namely Lalit Mohan and J.P.Sharma etc. left Anti Corruption Branch in official vehicle and reached AIIMS, New Delhi at about 3:15 p.m. Raiding party was briefed and deployed in convenient position. At about 3:45 p.m. complainant alongwith Panch witness Lalit Mohan who was having Mike card in his shirt pocket were sent in the office of the accused R.C.Anand and Raid Officer alongwith another Panch witness J.P.Sharma who was having Remote Recording System with overhearing facilities remained outside the office of accused C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 8 of 100 R.C.Anand and other members of the Raiding team took suitable position at the nearby. At about 4:00 p.m. Panch witness J.P.Sharma standing with the Raid Officer, on overhearing the predetermined signal as given by another Panch witness Lalit Mohan told the Raid Officer that the transaction has been completed on which Raid Officer alongwith Panch witness J.P.Sharma and other members of the Raiding team rushed inside the office of accused R.C.Anand. Thereafter, the Raid Officer after disclosing his identity challenged the accused R.C. Anand that he had accepted bribe from the complainant and offered search of Raiding party but accused declined. Panch witness Lalit Mohan informed the Raid Officer that the accused R.C.Anand had demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.10,000/ from the complainant and kept the same in right pocket of his pant by his right hand and said facts were also corroborated by the complainant. Thereafter, on instructions of Raid Officer, Panch witness Lalit Mohan recovered the tainted GC notes of Rs.10,000/ from the right side pocket of the pant of the accused R.C. Anand and compared the serial number of the said GC notes with serial number mentioned in Pre Raid Proceedings Ex.PW6/B and the same tallied. That recovered GC notes were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/C. The wash of right hand of the accused R.C. Anand and wash of his C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 9 of 100 right side pant pocket were taken separately in colorless solution of sodium carbonate which turned into pink and solution was transferred into four empty small clean bottles which were sealed with the seal of SD and were marked as RHWI & II and RPPWI & II by pasting slips thereon which were signed by Raid Officer, complainant and Panch witness. The pant of the accused R.C. Anand was converted into a pullanda and was sealed and thereafter, all said four bottles alongwith the pant pullanda of accused R.C. Anand and sample seal were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/D. Thereafter, due to safety reason, accused R.C. Anand was sent to AC Branch in a Government vehicle but because of the exposure of the members of the Raiding team, it was not possible to go for conducting another Raid as against R.G.Garg, Financial Adviser, AIIMS.
6. The further case of the prosecution is that the Audio Cassette so recorded during the Raid was played and duplicate of the same was also prepared and Original Audio Cassette was marked as C and duplicate one was marked as C1 and Original Audio Cassette was converted into a parcel and sealed with the seal of SD and was signed by Raid Officer, Complainant and Panch witness and was seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW6/E. Supply Order Ex. PX which C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 10 of 100 was given to complainant by coaccused V.N.Singh on the direction of accused R.C.Anand was seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW6/F. Raid Officer prepared the Site Plan Ex.PW14/C. Thereafter, House search of accused R.C. Anand was got conducted and thereafter, Raiding team came back to the AC Branch. Accused R.C.Anand was arrested and his personal search was got conducted vide Memo Ex.PW6/H. Specimen voice of accused R.C. Anand was recorded in Audio Cassette which was converted into sealed parcel and marked as D and was seized vide Memo Ex.PW6/G. Relevant case properties were deposited in Malkhana, PS Civil Lines and statements of witnesses were recorded and accused R.C.Anand was put up in the lock up. During the course of the verification of related documents in the office of accused V.N. Singh, Junior Store Officer, certain discrepancies were found. During course of investigation, several connected documents were taken into possession. Transcription of the conversation in Audio Cassettes Mark A1, Mark B1 and Mark C1, were prepared. Relevant exhibits were sent to CFSL and CFSL result Ex.PW14/S was collected which reflect that bottles marked RHWI and RPPWI gave positive test for phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate. Office search and House search of accused V.N. Singh was got conducted vide Memo Ex.PW14/V and Ex.PW14/W C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 11 of 100 respectively and ultimately accused V.N.Singh was also arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW14/X. During the course of the Investigation, Sanction Order of accused Ex.PW3/A was obtained. On recording the statement of the witnesses and after completion of the Investigation, chargesheet was prepared and filed in the court.
7. After compliance with the provision U/S 207 of Cr.P.C and after hearing both sides on the point of charge, charge for offence punishable U/S 120B IPC and U/S 7 and 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as against both the accused namely R.C.Anand and V.N.Singh and charge for additional offence punishable U/S 201 IPC as against accused V.N.Singh was framed vide order dated 10.03.2005 to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. That in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined 14 prosecution witnesses namely Sh.R.G. Garg, Financial Adviser, AIIMS, a formal witness as PW1, HC Surender Singh, the then MHC(M), PS Civil Lines, a formal witness as PW2, Retd. ACP Abhey Ram, a formal witness as PW3, Dr. C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 12 of 100 P.K.Dave, the then Member Secretary of the Governing body of AIIMS, a formal witness as PW4, Addl.DCP R.K.Pandey, a formal witness as PW5, Sh. Lalit Mohan, Panch witness to the Raid Proceedings, a material witness as PW6, Sh. R.L.Prasad, Store Officer in AIIMS, a formal witness as PW7, Sageer Ahmad Khan, complainant who is the most material witness as PW8, Sh. J.P. Sharma, another Panch witness to Raid Proceedings, a material witness as PW9, Mrs. Anupama Talwar who was posted as Typist in Hospital Store, AIIMS, a formal witness as PW10, Mrs. Devender Kaur who was posted as Head Clerk in Hospital Store, AIIMS, a formal witness as PW11, Ajay Kumar Sharma, a formal witness as PW12, Dr. Rajinder Singh, Director, CFSL who has proved the CFSL Report Ex.PW13/A, a formal witness as PW13 and Inspector Satyavir Dagar, Raid Officer/IO as PW14.
9. After closure of the PE, statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which they denied about any demand and acceptance of the bribe from the complainant. Accused R.C. Anand claimed to be falsely implicated in this case at the instance of some officials of AIIMS who were not happy with his functioning. Similarly, the accused V.N.Singh also claimed to be C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 13 of 100 innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. However, the accused have got examined one witness namely Sh.Ravi Kant Sharma as DW1 in their defence.
10. I have heard Final Arguments as addressed by Sh. R. K. Anand, Senior Adv. accompanied with Sh.Yogesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused R.C. Anand, Sh.Salim Akhtar, Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused Vyas Narain Singh and Sh.Vinod Kumar Sharma, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and perused the relevant record.
11. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused R.C. Anand that the accused was merely working as Medical Superintendent (MS) in AIIMS and was the Financial Sanction Authority regarding the the purchase of various items by AIIMS and was neither a Member of Surgical Selection Committee nor a Member of Store Purchase Committee and therefore, the accused was not competent for demanding any bribe from the complainant Sageer Ahmad Khan on the plea of blacklisting the complainant's firm Shifaa Scientific Fibres due to nonsupply of the cotton rolls within the stipulated period of contract nor on the plea of enhancing the rate of the cotton rolls as awarded in favour of the firm of the complainant. It is further added C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 14 of 100 by Ld. Counsel that even otherwise the contract for the year 199798 for supply of the cotton rolls by the firm of the complainant had already expired on 14.3.1998 and there was no occasion on the part of the accused R.C.Anand for demanding any bribe from the complainant on the plea of blacklisting the complainant's firm in case of nonpayment of bribe. It is further added by him that since the order for supply of 4000 rolls of cotton in favour of the complainant's firm was already sanctioned by this accused on 18.7.98, there was no reason on the part of this accused to demand and accept any bribe towards commission from the complainant on 20.7.1998. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that even otherwise since the order for supply of 4000 rolls of cotton vide document Ex.PX dated 17.7.98 was not in favour of the complainant's firm i.e. Shifaa Scientific Fibres but in favour of another firm namely Seven Seas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., there was no reason on the part of this accused to demand and accept bribe on 20.7.98. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that as per the case of the prosecution, on dated 8.5.98 this accused is alleged to have demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.5000/ for cancellation of an order of supply of 5000 cotton rolls issued to the complainant on 21.4.98 and for not blacklisting complainant's firm due to nonsupply of the cotton rolls within the stipulated period and on the basis of said C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 15 of 100 allegation, present FIR has been registered on 8.5.98 but as regards the incident of dated 20.7.98 regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.10,000/ for handing over supply order for 4000 cotton rolls by the accused, no separate FIR has been registered on 20.7.98 though the alleged incident of 8.5.98 and 20.7.98 are independent in nature and therefore, the further investigation carried out by the IO with regard to the incident of 20.7.98 without the registration of the separate FIR is illegal and hence, the accused deserves to be acquitted on this count itself. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that in order to attract penal provision U/S 7 and 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it must be established that the accused had demanded and obtained illegal gratification as a motive or reward to do or to forebear to do any official act but same are found missing in the present case and therefore, this accused deserves to be acquitted. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the governing body of the AIIMS being the Appointing Authority concerning this accused was competent to grant Sanction U/S 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, for launching prosecution as against this accused but in the present case, Ex.PW3/A is merely a communication issued by the Director of AIIMS and there is nothing on record whether any Sanction was granted by governing body of AIIMS and therefore, the C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 16 of 100 accused deserves to be acquitted on this count itself. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the complainant was having enmity towards this accused because of the fact that this accused had issued a Circular dated 1.5.98 whereby middlemen and spurious firms were sought to be eliminated and for the reason that the complainant's firm was not called for short rate enquiry for the period 14.3.98 to 17.6.98 and said enmity is also established from the registration of two false cases against the accused by the complainant. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that as the complainant had been supplying the cotton rolls to AIIMS since 1993, he knew the procedure for award of tender and that this accused was neither competent to enhance the quantities or the rate of the material as the accused was merely a Financial Sanctioning Authority. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that there are several contradictions in the deposition of various PWs which falsify the case of the prosecution and taken me through the depositions of PWs in this respect. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that though several independent witnesses from the AIIMS or from the general public were available near the spot, none of them have been joined in the Raid Proceeding which create suspicion on the case of the prosecution. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the Panch witnesses are the tutored witnesses and have deposed at the instance C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 17 of 100 of the Raid Officer/IO and hence, cannot be treated as trustworthy. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that as the complainant is an accomplice and was having enmity as against this accused, his deposition cannot be treated as reliable. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that as the Raid Officer is interested for the success of his Raid, his deposition cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that DW1 Ravi Kant Sharma has not been cross examined on certain material aspects and therefore, his statement has to be believed and same falsify the case of the prosecution. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that as per the CFSL Report the voice of the accused could not be matched with the voice recorded in the taperecorder and therefore, the corroborative piece of evidence is found missing. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that even otherwise neither the cassette containing the alleged conversation was kept in safe custody nor the taperecorder was produced and therefore, same can be of no help for the prosecution. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that as per the JamaTalashi of this accused conducted at AC Branch, a sum of Rs.8610/ was recovered from the accused and it is not clear as to from which pocket, the said money was recovered and the same create doubt regarding the recovery of the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/ from pant pocket of the C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 18 of 100 accused. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that there is no evidence as to how another pant of the accused was brought and who had brought it, which was given to the accused for wearing after removal of his earlier pant and the same also creates serious doubt regarding the recovery of bribe money from the pant pocket of the accused at the spot. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that as there are no stains in the right side pocket of the pant of the accused and the inner lining is white, the same also creates serious doubt regarding the recovery of the bribe money from the pant pocket of the accused. Ld. Counsel for the accused thus urged for acquittal of this accused R.C. Anand and referred and relied on following judgments: 2001 (1) Crime 315 titld as J.S.Sathyanarayana Vs. The State, Karnataka Lokayukta, Madikari, 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 titled as State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors., 54 (1994) DLT 380 (DB) titled as Kuldeep Singh Vs. State, AIR (32) 1945 Privy Council 18 titled as Emperor Vs. Nazir Ahmad, 2001 CRI.L.J. 2587 (SC) titled as Mohindro Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., (2005) 9 SCC 315 titled as Ravi Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, 2006 CRI. L.J. 518 SC titled as State Vs. K. Narsimhachary, 1974 Vol. II C.L.R. 193 titled as C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 19 of 100 Sushil Kumar Vs. State, 2003 CRI. L.J. 4286 titled as Kailash Chandra Pandey Vs. State of West Bengal, 2006 (1) C.C. Cases (SC) 124 titled as CBI Vs. Purnandu Biswas, 2006 CRI. L.j. 804 titled as T. Subramaniam Vs. State of T.N., 1995 CRI. L.J. 107 titled as Suryabhan Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2011 (3) C.C. Cases (HC) 328 titled as P.K.Gupta vs. CBI, AIR 2007 SC 489 titled as V. Vekata Subba Rao Vs. State of A.P., 1998 (2) JCC (DELHI) 69 titled as Chander Bhan Vs. State, CBI, 1994 (1) C.C. Cases 509 (HC) titled as Rishi Pal Vs. State, 1993 (1) C.C. Cases 316 HC titled as L.D.Laxman Singh Vs. UOI, Delhi, 2005 (3) JCC 1677 titled as L.K.Jain Vs. State and AIR 1994 SC 1538 titled as Babu Lal Bajpai Vs. State of U.P.
12. Similarly, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused Vyas Narain Singh that this accused was merely posted as Junior Store Officer in AIIMS and has no concern with the alleged demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused R.C. Anand from the complainant. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that on 20.7.98 this C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 20 of 100 accused on the asking of the accused R.C. Anand had brought supply order for 4000 rolls of cotton in the office of accused R.C. Anand and thereafter went away. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that this accused has neither participated nor had any talk regarding payment of bribe with the complainant on account of said supply order of 4000 cotton rolls. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that this accused had no knowledge regarding the alleged demand and acceptance of the bribe by the coaccused R.C. Anand and this accused cannot be held liable for the same. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the supply order of 4000 cotton rolls is Ex.PX which does not relate to the complainant's firm Shifaa Scientific Fibres but relate to other firm namely Seven Seas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that said Ex.PX was typed by PW10 Mrs. Anupam Talwar and she has deposed that she has delivered the file alongwith the typed copies of said supply order to Dealing Assistant Mrs. Devender Kaur, PW11. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the said file was lying with PW11 Mrs. Devender Kaur and not with this accused and therefore, there was no occasion on the part of this accused for commission of any offence U/S 201 IPC. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that this accused was merely working as Junior Store Officer and had no concern with the alleged demand and acceptance of the C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 21 of 100 bribe by the accused R.C. Anand nor he had any concern for removal of the office copy of this supply order of 4000 cotton rolls from the concerned file and therefore, no case is made out as against this accused. Thus, Ld. Counsel urged for acquittal of this accused V.N. Singh.
13. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution by examining 14 PWs have clearly established its case as against both the accused and therefore, the accused persons deserve to be convicted for the charged offence. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the fact regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused R. C. Anand from the complainant has been successfully proved by the prosecution through the deposition of PW8/Sageer Ahmad, complainant, PW6/Lalit Mohan, Panch witness, PW9/ J.P.Sharma, Panch witness and PW14/Inspector Satyavir Dagar, Raid Officer/IO and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that there is no reason as to why PW8/Sageer Ahmad, complainant, PW6/Lalit Mohan, Panch witness, PW9/ J.P.Sharma, Panch witness and PW14/Inspector Satyavir Dagar, Raid Officer/IO would falsely implicate the accused specifically when there is no C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 22 of 100 previous enmity as against the accused by them. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP that the governing body of AIIMS who is the Appointing Authority of the accused persons have rightly accorded the valid Sanction for launching prosecution as against both the accused through its Member Secretary PW4/Dr.P.K.Dave and therefore, said Sanction Order Ex.PW3/A is legally valid. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP that PW4/Dr.P.K.Dave has clearly deposed that the matter was duly considered by the governing body of AIIMS and thereafter, valid Sanction has been granted on behalf of the governing body of AIIMS and not by PW4 in his individual capacity and therefore, there is no infirmity in the process of according Sanction Ex.PW3/A. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP that the accused have failed to establish regarding any previous enmity by the complainant as against the accused R.C. Anand for his false implication in this case. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP that the complainant was not having any grievance nor suffered any loss due to the Circular dated 1.5.98 as issued by the accused R.C.Anand. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP that even otherwise the registration of two other cases by the complainant against the accused was after the date of Raid and therefore, the same can be of no help for the accused persons. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP that the plea on the part C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 23 of 100 of the Defence Counsel as accused R.C.Anand was merely Financial Sanction Authority and had no concern with the fixation of the rate and quantity of material to be supplied to the AIIMS can be of no help for the accused in view of the fact that the said facts were merely known to the accused R.C.Anand and not to the complainant. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP that the accused R.C.Anand was duly apprehended on demand and acceptance of the bribe in his office and bribe amount of Rs.10,000/ was duly recovered from him at the spot on 20.7.98 and said facts are duly found corroborated from the deposition of PW8/complainant, PW6/Lalit Mohan, Panch witness, PW9/J.P.Sharma, Panch witness and PW14/Inspector Satyavir Dagar, IO coupled with the contents of the CFSL Report which gave positive test for phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP that the contradictions in the deposition of certain PWs as pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the accused R.C.Anand are minor and usual in nature and the same cannot be a ground for throwing the case of the prosecution. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP that in the Complaint dated 8.5.98 Ex.PW8/A, it is reflected that the allegation regarding demand of bribe by the accused R.C.Anand on further passing of the supply order for cotton rolls in favour of the complainant's firm has given C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 24 of 100 rise to the consequence of acceptance of the bribe on 20.7.98 and since the incident of 8.5.98 and 20.7.98 are interconnected, there was no need for registration of separate FIR on 20.7.98 specifically when the FIR in this respect had already been registered on 8.5.98. It is also added by Ld. Addl. PP that the judgments as referred and relied by Ld. Counsel for the accused R.C.Anand are not applicable in the present case and therefore, it can be of no help for the said accused. Ld. Addl.PP for the State has added that the prosecution has been successful in establishing its case as against both the accused for the charged offence and hence, both the accused deserve to be convicted.
14. The first and foremost question having significant bearing on the fate of this case is whether prosecution has proved that valid Sanction has been accorded by the Competent Authority as per Section 19 (1) (c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In order to prove the Sanction, the prosecution has examined PW4/Dr.P.K. Dave, the then Member Secretary of the Governing body of AIIMS, who has categorically deposed that in April, 2000 while he was posted as Member Secretary of the Governing body of AIIMS, a request alongwith the relevant documents were received in his office to grant Sanction to prosecute accused R.C.Anand, Medical Superintendent C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 25 of 100 and accused Vyas Narain Singh, Junior Store Officer of AIIMS and the same were placed before the Governing body of AIIMS which after consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and applying their mind, being competent authority to remove the accused persons from their service, the Governing body was of the view that both said accused persons should be prosecuted in this case and therefore, the Sanction Order U/S 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was accorded to prosecute both the said accused and said Sanction Order is Ex.PW3/A bearing his signature at point A. Said PW4 further deposed that he had signed the Sanction Order on behalf of the Governing body of the AIIMS and said Sanction Order was sent to Addl. C.P., Anti Corruption Branch through Covering Letter Ex.PW3/B which bears signature of Sh. T.P. Singh, Deputy Director, Administration at point A. In the cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel said PW4 has further added that the Governing body was working under the chairmanship of Chairman Mr.Shanmugam. He also reiterated that Governing body is the Appointing Authority of accused R.C.Anand. He further added that the Governing body has perused the documents sent by Anti Corruption Branch including the copy of FIR etc. before according the Sanction. Though Ld. Counsel for the accused during course of argument has taken the plea that C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 26 of 100 PW4 had no authority to sign Sanction Order but has given the contrary suggestion to said PW4 by asking said PW4 that he on behalf of the Governing body had accorded the Sanction, under the pressure of officials of Anti Corruption Branch which he denied as under: "It is wrong to suggest that I, on behalf of the governing body, accorded the Sanction, under the pressure of officials of Anti Corruption Branch."
Furthermore, from the perusal of the said Sanction Order Ex.PW3/A, it is clearly reflected that it is the Governing body of the AIIMS as constituted U/S 10 of AIIMS Act, 1956 being the competent authority to remove accused R.C. Anand and accused Vyas Narain Singh from services after careful examination of the material placed before them, have accorded the Sanction for launching prosecution as against both said accused and Para 3 & 4 of said Sanction Order reads as under: "Whereas the Governing Body, AIIMS being the authority competent to remove Dr. R.C. Anand, Medical Supdt. AIIMS, New Delhi and Shri Vyas Narain Singh, Junior Store Officer of AIIMS, New Delhi from offices/services, after examining carefully the material placed before it in C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 27 of 100 regard to the above said acts and allegations and circumstances of the case, consider that said Dr. R.C.Anand, Medical Supdt. AIIMS and Shri Vyas Narain Singh, Junior Store Officer, AIIMS, New Delhi be prosecuted in the court of law for the said offences."
" Now, therefore, The Governing Body of AIIMS as constituted u/s 10 of the AIIMS Act 1956, do hereby accord sanction under section 19 (1) (c) of Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 for the prosecution of said Dr. Raghunath Chand (RC) Anand, Medical Supdt., of AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi and Shri Vyas Narain Singh, Junior Store Officer of AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi for the said offence/offences or any other offence/offences punishable under any other provision of law in respect of the acts aforesaid and for taking cognizance of the said offence/offences by the court of competent jurisdiction."
Furthermore, from the perusal of the said Sanction Order Ex.PW3/A as well as the deposition of PW4/Dr. P.K.Dave, Member Secretary of the governing body of the AIIMS, it is clearly reflected that said Sanction Ex.PW3/A has been accorded by the Governing C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 28 of 100 body of AIIMS and PW4 has signed at point A on said Sanction Order Ex.PW3/A for and on behalf of the Governing body, AIIMS who was competent to accord Sanction for launching prosecution as against both accused persons. Furthermore, it is revealed from the record that said Sanction Order Ex.PW3/A was sent to Addl. Commissioner of Police, Anti Corruption Branch through Covering Letter Ex.PW3/B which bears signature of T.P.Singh, Deputy Director, Administration, AIIMS at point A and said Covering Letter also clearly indicate that the accompanied Sanction was accorded by the Governing body of AIIMS which is the competent authority for according Sanction for prosecution of both the accused. Besides that, an attested copy of "Minutes of Extraordinary 126th Meeting of Governing body of AIIMS held on 3.4.2000 in Board Room of AIIMS at 11:30 A.M." whereby according permission for prosecution of accused R.C.Anand and V.N.Singh coupled with the Covering Letter dated 27.4.2000 as signed by Sh.T.P.Singh Deputy Director, Administration, AIIMS being addressed to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Anti Corruption Branch, are available on the record.
15. In the case reported as 2004 (13) SCC 487, Shankar Bhai Lalji Bhai Vs. State of Gujrat, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 29 of 100 Court of India as under: "So far as the question of Sanction is concerned, in the absence of anything to show that any defect or irregularity therein caused failure of justice, that plea is without substance."
16. In the case reported in 2011 I AD (CRI.) (S.C.) 1, Kootha Perumal Vs. State (through) Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption, it was held in Para 14 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "Keeping in view the aforesaid statement of law, it would not be possible to conclude that the sanction order in the present case was not valid. Ex.P2 with the present appeal is the copy of the sanction order. A perusal of the same would show that the sanctioning authority has adverted to all the necessary facts which have been actually proved by the prosecution in the trial. Upon examination of the material facts, the sanctioning authority has certified that it is the authority competent to C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 30 of 100 remove the appellant from the office. It is specifically stated that the statements of the witnesses have been duly examined. Sanction order also states that the other materials such as copy of the FIR as well as other official documents such as the different mahazars were carefully examined. Upon examination of the statements of the witnesses as also the material on record, the sanctioning authority has duly recorded its satisfaction that the appellant should be prosecuted for the offences, as noticed above. We, therefore, find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel that the sanctioning order to prosecute the appellant was not legal".
17. By taking cue from the aforesaid judgments and applying the same to the facts of the present case, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused R.C.Anand to the effect that Sanction Order Ex.PW3/A was not legally valid as PW4 was not competent to sign the same. I am of considered view that the C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 31 of 100 judgment reported as 2001 (1) Crimes 315 titled as "J.S.Sathyanarayana Vs. The State, Karnataka Lkayukta, Madikari" as referred and relied upon by Ld. Counsel can be of no help for the accused R.C.Anand being not applicable in the present case as in the said case PW8 who was the then Under Secretary to the Government in the Housing and Urban Development Department, who had accorded the Sanction was found to be not legally empowered to accord Sanction for prosecution as against the concerned accused therein. But in the present case, Sanction for prosecution as against the accused has been given by the Governing body of AIIMS which is constituted U/S 10 of the AIIMS Act, 1956 and is duly competent to remove the accused R.C.Anand, Medical Superintendent, AIIMS and Vyas Narain Singh, Junior Store Officer from the service and the Sanction Order Ex.PW3/A has been signed by Dr.P.K.Dave, Member Secretary of Governing body for and on behalf of the Governing body, AIIMS and therefore, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for accused R.C.Anand whereby challenging the validity of Sanction Order Ex.PW3/A in this case.
18. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused R.C.Anand that as the Raid Officer/IO is an C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 32 of 100 interested witness for success of his Raid and therefore, his deposition cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable. I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused R.C.Anand in this respect. Reference is placed on case of Hazari Lal V/s State ( Delhi Admn ) AIR 1980 Supreme Court 873. In that case the allegations against the accused who was a police officer was that he demanded bribe from the complainant for release of his scooter rickshaw which was seized by the police. The trap was laid and the accused was caught red handed. However, during trial complainant turned hostile and deposed that when he went to the police station on first occasion to obtain delivery of his scooter rickshaw it was not the accused that was present but one Hawaldar was present and it was not the accused but that Hawaldar who demanded bribe of Rs. 60/ from him and when he went to the police station along with punch witness he found accused there and asked him to take a sum of Rs. 60/ and return the scooter rickshaw. He stretched his hand with the money towards the pocket of accused 's trouser but accused said the money might be paid to the person for whom it was meant for. He refused to receive the money and jerked complainant's hand with his hand as a result of which the notes came to be flung across the wall into neighboring room. He deposed that accused neither demanded the amount from C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 33 of 100 him nor accepted the amount. The punch witness who went along with the complainant could not be examined as he became insane and other punch witness turned hostile. The conviction was based on the statement of trap officer and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "We are not prepared to accept the submission of Shri Frank Authony that he is the very Police Officer who laid the trap should be sufficient for us to insist upon corroboration. We do wish to say that there is no rule of prudence which has crystallized into a rule of law, nor indeed any rule of prudence, which requires that the evidence of such officers should be treated on the same footing as evidence of accomplices and there should be insistence on corroboration. In facts and circumstances of a particular case a Court may be disinclined to act upon the evidence of such an officer without corroboration, but, equally, in the facts and circumstances of another case, the Court may unhesitatingly agent the evidence of such an officer." C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 34 of 100
19. Besides that in the case reported as AIR 1998 SC 1474 State of U.P. Vs. Zakullaha it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the evidence of Trap Officer in a bribe case can be acted upon even without the help of any corroboration and similar view was held in the judgment reported as "Prakash Chand Vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1979 SC 400".
20. During the course of the arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused R.C. Anand that the accused was merely working as Medical Superintendent in AIIMS and was the Financial Sanction Authority regarding the the purchase of various items by AIIMS and was neither a Member of Surgical Selection Committee nor a Member of Store Purchase Committee and therefore, the accused was not competent for demanding any bribe from the complainant Sageer Ahmad Khan on the plea of blacklisting the complainant's firm Shifaa Scientific Fibres due to nonsupply of the cotton rolls within the stipulated period of contract nor on the plea of enhancing the rate of the cotton rolls as awarded in favour of the firm of the complainant. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that even otherwise the contract for the year 199798 for supply of the cotton rolls by the firm of the complainant had already expired on 14.3.1998 C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 35 of 100 and there was no occasion on the part of the accused R.C.Anand for demanding any bribe from the complainant on the plea of blacklisting the complainant's firm in case of nonpayment of bribe. It is further added by him that since the order for supply of 4000 rolls of cotton in favour of the complainant's firm was already sanctioned by this accused on 18.7.98, there was no reason on the part of this accused to demand and accept any bribe towards commission from the complainant on 20.7.1998. From the perusal of the record, no doubt, it is reflected that the accused R.C.Anand was posted as MS in the AIIMS during the relevant period and proforma for purchase of various items in AIIMS after endorsement of StoreKeeper used to be placed before this accused for his administrative approval and financial sanction after which the supply order concerning the required items were being issued to the concerned party for making necessary supply in AIIMS. It is further revealed from the record that this accused was not a Member of Store Purchase Committee which was entrusted with the duty to award the rate contract for the purchase of bandage items on annual rate contract basis as found reflected from Memorandum dated 25.5.98 Ex.PW14/L but said internal power concerning the accused R.C.Anand is known to him and other officials of AIIMS but cannot be attributed as against the complainant C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 36 of 100 being a outsider. Law is well settled that it does not matter whether the public servant was competent to do the work or not and reference can be placed in the case reported as Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel Vs. State of Gujrat, 1976(3) SCC 46 as referred in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. C. Uma Maheshwar Rao and Anr. 2004, V AD (SC) 176, wherein it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the question whether a person has an authority to do the act for which bribe is accepted, is of no consequence. In the case reported as Gopal Singh Vs. CBI, ILR (2005) II Delhi 35, It was observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Para 22 as under: "It has to be added that in cases under PC Act, the prosecution is under no obligation to prove that a public servant demanding bribe was in a position to help the person from whom the bribe was being demanded. The prosecution succeed the moment it is shown that a public servant had accepted some money from someone which was not legal remuneration. The presumption U/S 20 of the Act comes into play shifting the burden upon the public servant to explain C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 37 of 100 as to why he had received the money. A public servant may misguide, mislead or befool his victim to pay him illegal gratification knowing fully well that he is not in a position to help him and as such it can be no defence for him to say that since he was not in a position to help the complainant/victim the money received by him does not amount to illegal gratification."
21. That during the course of arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused R.C.Anand that there are several contradictions in the deposition of various PWs which falsify the case of the prosecution and Ld. Counsel pointed out the contradictions in the deposition of PWs as under: (A) PW14 Inspector Satyavir Dagar deposed that the accused R.C.Anand was sent from the spot to the Anti Corruption Branch for safety reason whereas PW6 Lalit Mohan, Panch witness deposed that after apprehension of the accused R.C.Anand, he was taken to his residence and search was conducted in his residence. (B) PW8 complainant deposed that the Raid Officer was called by the Panch witness after about 1520 minutes whereas PW9 C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 38 of 100 J.P.Sharma, Panch witness deposed that after about one minute or one and half minute, he alongwith members of the Raiding team entered in the room of accused.
(C) PW8 complainant deposed that no commotion took place after trap whereas PW14 Inspector Satyavir Dagar deposed that as there was huge crowd outside the office of accused R.C.Anand after trap, accused R.C.Anand was removed to AC Branch immediately. (D) PW9 J.P.Sharma, Panch witness deposed that in his presence accused V.N.Singh was not called whereas PW8 complainant deposed that accused V.N.Singh was called for preparing the supply order.
I am of the considered view that said contradictions appear to be on formal aspects and because of time gap between the period of incident and deposition of PWs in the court and hence cannot be treated as fatal for the prosecution. My said view is found supported from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding contradictions in case of Bharuda Broginbhai Harjibhai V/s State of Gujrat AIR 1983 SC 753 wherein it was held that discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution should not be attached undue importance. C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 39 of 100 Furthermore, in the case reported as Krishna Pillai Sree Kumar Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1981 SC 1237, it has been held that Inconsistencies here and discrepancies there are the shortcoming from which no criminal case is free. The main thing to be seen is whether the inconsistencies etc. go the root of the matter.
22. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused R.C.Anand that despite the availability of several independent witnesses from the AIIMS or from the general public near the spot none of them had been joined in the Raid Proceedings which create suspicion on the case of the prosecution. I do not find any force in the said submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused R.C.Anand in view of the fact that since two independent witness i.e. PW6/Lalit Mohan and PW9/J.P.Sharma, Panch witnesses had already been joined in the Raid Proceedings on dated 20.7.1998 by the PW14 Raid Officer/IO, nonjoining of any other person available at the spot cannot be over emphasized. My said view is also found supported from the judgment reported as 2011 V AD (DELHI) 500, Anna Wankhade Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (Through State), wherein it was held in Para 21 as under: "21. There is no dispute with regard to the C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 40 of 100 proposition regarding desirability of association of independent witnesses by the police so as to lend more credence and authenticity to the case, but there is also no dispute that nonassociation of the independent witnesses per se for any reason whatsoever was in itself not enough to discard the prosecution witnesses or throw away the case as a whole. In the present case, CBI associated two independent witnesses on the written requisition made to the office of NDMC. Since the prosecution/CBI already had two independent witnesses, who had been informed and apprised about the technicalities involved in the procedure during the trap proceedings, it was not necessary for the IO to have joined other public witnesses at the time of apprehension. May be to avoid the risk of such a raw public person getting won over or being unable to understand the proceedings at the last moment of raid, that the IOs usually avoid associating public witnesses at that stage in such C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 41 of 100 type of cases."
23. During the course of the argument, Ld. Counsel for the accused R.C.Anand also pointed out several lapse on the part of the IO i.e. nonjoining of official witness available at the spot, in the Raid Proceedings, nonrecording of separate FIR relating to incident of dated 20.7.98, nonexamination of PW who had brought the alternative pant for the accused R.C. Anand, nonexamination of the IO regarding the process for allotment of the supply order etc. and added that the same are fatal for the case of the prosecution. I do not find any force in the said submission of Ld. Defence Counsel in view of the fact that the aforesaid lapse on the part of the IO appears to be merely formal in nature and I am of considered view that criminal justice should not be made casualty of lapse committed by the IO and my said view is found nourished from the judgment as rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case reported as "2000 (I) A.D. (Delhi) 67 Manoj @ Manu Vs. State of Delhi." In the case reported as "State of Rajasthan Vs. Kishore (1996 SCC (Crl) 646)" it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that mere fact that the investigating officer committed irregularity or illegality during the course of investigation would not and does not cast doubt on the C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 42 of 100 prosecution case nor trustworthy and reliable evidence can be cast aside to record acquittal on that account. Furthermore, in another case reported as "Ram Bihari Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (1998(4) SCC 517)" it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigation, to the omission or lapses by perfunctory investigation or omissions, the faith and confidence of the people would be shaken not only in the Law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice". The view was again reiterated in "Amar Singh Vs. Balwinder Singh and Ors. (2003 (2) SCC 518)."
24. By taking cue from the aforesaid judgments and keeping in mind that the prosecution has brought on record adequate evidence to establish its case as against the accused R.C.Anand, I am of considered view that the lapse on the part of the IO as pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the accused cannot be treated as fatal for the case of the prosecution.
25. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 43 of 100 Counsel for the accused R.C.Anand that the complainant is an accomplice and was having enmity against this accused and therefore, his deposition cannot be treated as reliable. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the accused R.C.Anand that complainant was having enmity against this accused because of the fact that this accused has issued a Circular dated 1.5.98 whereby middlemen and spurious firms were sought to be eliminated and for that reason that complainant's firm was not called for short rate enquiry for the period 14.3.98 to 17.6.98 and said enmity is also established from the registration of two false cases against the accused by the complainant. From the perusal of the record, no doubt, it is reflected that the accused R.C.Anand had got issued Circular dated 1.5.98 relating to terms and conditions for supplying surgical store items, copy of which is Ex.PW8/DA but the accused R.C.Anand has failed to establish regarding any financial loss or disadvantage to the complainant because of the issuance of said Circular dated 1.5.98 by this accused and therefore, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for this accused for entertaining enmity by this complainant due to issuance of said Circular dated 1.5.98 by this accused. Besides that, the accused R.C.Anand has failed to adduce any evidence on record in order to establish the prior enmity by the complainant as C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 44 of 100 against this accused. No doubt, from the perusal of the record, it is reflected that after the date of Raid i.e. 20.7.98, the complainant had got registered two cases as against the accused and PW8/complainant had duly admitted regarding the said fact in his crosss examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused R.C.Anand and has deposed in this respect as under: "It is correct that I had lodged an FIR No. 252/2000 with P.S. Sadar, Palwal, District Faridabad, U/s 279/337 IPC. It is correct that the above said FIR was got cancelled by the police after due investigation. The copy of said FIR is Ex.PW8/DX. Prior to this FIR I had lodged a complaint to SSP Faridabad on 15.06.2000 regarding the threatening given by both the accused and case FIR No. 353/2000 was registered on that complaint and copy of complaint is Ex.PW8/DX1."
In view of the aforesaid deposition of PW8/complainant, it is clearly reflected that this complainant had got registered two cases as against the accused but as said cases were registered in June, 2000 which is after about period of 2 years from the date of the Raid and therefore, the same can be of no help for the accused R.C.Anand. Furthermore, in the case reported as M. O. Shamshuddin V/s State C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 45 of 100 of Kerela 1995 ( 2 ) Crimes 284, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 11 has held as under : "Now confining ourself to the case of bribery it is generally accepted that the person offering a bribe to a public officer is in the nature of an accomplice in the offence of accepting illegal gratification but the nature of corroboration required in such case should not be subjected to the same rigorous tests which are generally applied to a case of an approver. Though bribe givers are generally treated to be treated in the nature of accomplices but among them there are various types and gradation In case under the Prevention of corruption Act the complainant is the person who gives the bribe in a technical and legal sense because in every trap case wherever the complainant is filed there must be a person who has to give money to the accused which in fact is the bribe money which is demanded and without such a giving the trap cannot be succeed. When there is such a demand by the public servant C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 46 of 100 from a person who is unwilling and if to do public good approaches the authorities and lodges complaint then in order that the trap succeeds he has to give the money. There could be another type of bribe giver who is always willing to give money in oder to get his work done and having got the work done he may send a complaint. Here he is a particeps criminis in respect of the crime committed and thus is an accomplice. Thus there are grades and grades of accomplices and therefore a distinction could as well be drawn between cases where a person offers a bribe to achieve his own purpose and where one is forced to offer bribe under a threat or loss or harm that is to say under coercion. A person who falls in this category and who becomes a party for laying a trap stands on a different footing because he is only a victim of threat or coercion to which he was subjected to. Where such witnesses fall under the category of "accomplices' by reason of their being bribe givers, C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 47 of 100 in the first instance the court has to consider the degree of complicity and then look for corroboration if necessary as a rule of prudence. The extent and nature of corroboration that may be needed in a case may vary having regard to the facts and circumstances."
Furthermore, in the case reported as Dewan @ Vasudeva and etc. V/s The state 1988 Crl. L. J 1005 , it has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Kerela as under: "True, the person who pays the gratification is, in a way, an accomplice in the offence, when his role is viewed from a wide angle. But before his evidence is dubbed as unworthy or credit without corroboration, a pragmatic or realistic approach has to be made towards such evidence. If the bribe giver voluntarily goes to the offender and persuades him to accept the bribe, his position is that of an undiluted accomplice and it is a rule of prudence to C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 48 of 100 insist on independent corroboration such evidence. On the other hand, if the giver of gratification was persuaded to give it, he actually becomes a victim of persuasion by the offender. To name him an accomplice and to reject his testimony due to want of corroboration, would sometimes, be unrealistic and imprudent. The court must always bear in mind that insistence on corroboration for the evidence of accomplice is not on account of any rule of law, but is a caution of prudence. The density of the stigma to be attached to a witness as an accomplice depends upon the degree of his complicity in the offence. Suspicion towards his role as an accomplice should vary according to the extent and nature of his complicity. It must be considered in each case whether the bribe giving or payment of gratification was done in such a way that independent persons had no occasion to witness such acts".
C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 49 of 100
26. During the course of the arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused R.C.Anand that since the Panch witnesses are the tutored witness and have deposed at the instance of the Raid Officer/ IO and hence, cannot be treated as trustworthy. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that PW6/Lalit Mohan who was posted as Superintendent in Directorate of Education, Old Secretariat has joined duty as Panch witness on dated 20.7.98 in the Anti Corruption Branch. Similarly, PW9/J.P.Sharma who was posted as EOAInspector Development has also joined duty as Panch witness on 20.7.98 in the Anti Corruption Branch. It is further revealed from the record that both of them have participated as Panch witness in the Pre Raid Proceedings, Raid Proceedings as well as PostRaid Proceedings on dated 20.7.98 and have duly deposed regarding the same during the course of their deposition in the court. It is further revealed from the record that the deposition of said two Panch witnesses i.e. PW6/Lalit Mohan and PW9/J.P.Sharma are found corroborated from the deposition of PW8/complainant as well as PW14 (RO)/IO. It is further revealed from the record that it is not even the stand of the accused R.C.Anand that both said Panch witnesses were having previous enmity as against accused R.C.Anand. Furthermore, both said Panch witnesses being public servant were joined duty as Panch C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 50 of 100 witness in Anti Corruption Branch on dated 20.7.98 as per the Official Roaster prepared in Anti Corruption Branch and have been requisitioned from their parent department and not as per their own sweet will. In view of the same, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused R.C.Anand to the effect that said Panch witnesses are tutored witnesses at the instance of the RO/IO and hence, cannot be treated as trustworthy.
27. During the course of argument, it is also submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused R.C.Anand that since DW1 Ravi Kant Sharma has not been cross examined on certain material aspects and therefore, his statement has to be believed and same falsify the case of the prosecution. From the perusal of the record, it is clearly reflected that said DW1 Ravi Kant Sharma was working as P.A. to this accused at the relevant time. It is further revealed from the record that said DW1 has also admitted regarding the factum of meeting of the complainant alongwith another person with the accused R.C.Anand in his office on dated 20.7.98 at about 3:30 to 3:45 p.m. He has further admitted regarding arrival of 34 persons including police official and after sometime apprehending the accused R.C.Anand in his office and said fact corroborate the stand of the prosecution regarding the Raid C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 51 of 100 Proceedings in the office of the accused on 20.7.98. However, the deposition of this DW1 to the effect that the entire incident of Raid Proceedings concluded within 510 minutes and at the time of departure, the accused R.C.Anand was telling that he was falsely implicated in some case, found to be merely improvement by this DW1 in view of the fact that even the accused R.C.Anand has not stated regarding the same in his statement U/S 313 Cr.P.C. nor any suggestion in this respect has been put on behalf of this accused to any PW nor this DW1 has given any complaint regarding this aspect to any senior officer or any authority and said fact is found admitted even by this DW1 in his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP and therefore, I am of the considered view that the deposition of this DW1 who happened to be the P.A. to this accused R.C.Anand can be of no help for this accused.
28. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused R.C.Anand that as per the CFSL Report the specimen voice of the accused could not be matched with the voice recorded in the taperecorder and therefore, the corroborative piece of evidence is found missing. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that even otherwise neither the cassette containing the alleged C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 52 of 100 conversation between this accused and the complainant was kept in safe custody nor the taperecorder was produced and therefore, same can be of no help for the prosecution. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that PW14/Inspector Satyavir Dagar has deposed that on 8.5.98 the complainant gave his statement Ex.PW8/A and produced one AudioCassette stated to be containing the conversation between him and the accused R.C.Anand relating to demand of bribe by accused R.C.Anand from him and said Audio Cassette was played in the presence of Panch witness Ajay Sharma and on hearing said Audio Cassette, conversation regarding demand of bribe was found therein and said Audio Cassette was converted into a sealed parcel and was seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW8/B. Said PW14 has further deposed that complainant came to him on 6.7.98 and produced another Audio Cassette of conversation between him and the accused R.C.Anand as recorded on 22.6.98 and on hearing the conversation, demand of bribe by accused R.C.Anand from the complainant was found therein. Thereafter, duplicate Cassette from said Original Cassette was prepared and Original Cassette was marked as Mark B and duplicate one was marked as Mark B1 and Original Cassette was taken into possession vide Seizure Memo PW8/J. It is further deposed by said PW14 that the Audio Cassette as recorded during the C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 53 of 100 Raid on 20.7.98 was played and a duplicate of the same was got prepared and Original Audio Cassette was marked as Mark C and duplicate Cassette was marked as Mark C1 and Original Audio Cassette was converted into sealed parcel and was taken into possession vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW6/E. It is further deposed by said PW14 that specimen voice of accused R.C.Anand and complainant was recorded by him in an Audio Cassette which was converted into a sealed parcel and was marked as D and taken into possession vide Seizure Memo Ex. PW6/G. Said PW14 has also deposed that transcription of conversation in Audio Cassette Mark A1, B1 and C1 were prepared in the presence of complainant which are Ex.PW8/X, Ex.PW8/X1 and Ex.PW6/Z respectively. From the perusal of the deposition of PW13/Dr.Rajinder Singh, Director, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi, regarding the result of examination relating to Audio Cassettes, he is found to have deposed in this respect as under: "RESULT OF EXAMINATION:
The auditory and voice spectrography analysis of questioned cassettes marked Exhibits A, B, C and specimen cassette D reveals as under : I Questioned cassettes marked exhibits A, B and C have C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 54 of 100 recording in Hindi language while specimen cassette Marked Ex. D is recorded mostly in English language in an interview form.
II No common sentence was found between questioned cassettes Marked exhibits A, B, C and specimen cassette Marked exhibit D. Under the circumstances cited above voice containing in questioned cassettes Marked exhibits A, B and C could not be compared with specimen voice in cassette Marked exhibit D on voice spectrograph. Hence no opinion was offered.
My report is Ex.PW13/A, which bears my signatures at Point A."
Thus, from the perusal of the CFSL Report Ex.PW13/A coupled with the deposition of PW13, it is clearly reflected that the voice contained in questioned cassette Marked A, B and C could not be compared with the specimen voice contained in cassette Marked D and therefore, no opinion in this regard could be given by PW13 due to the lapse on the part of the IO as he has got recorded the specimen C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 55 of 100 voice mostly in English language despite knowing the fact that questioned cassettes Mark A, B and C contained language in Hindi. The net result is that since no specific opinion regarding the voice as contained in questioned cassettes as compared with the specimen voice could be given as per CFSL Report Ex.PW13/A and the same can be of no help for the prosecution.
29. During the course of the arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused R.C.Anand that as per the JamaTalashi of this accused conducted at AC Branch, a sum of Rs.8610/ was recovered from the accused and it is not clear as to from which pocket, the said money was recovered and the same create doubt regarding the recovery of the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/ from pant pocket of the accused. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that there is no evidence as to how another pant of the accused was brought and who had brought it, which was given to the accused for wearing after removal of his earlier pant and the same also creates serious doubt regarding the recovery of bribe money from the pant pocket of the accused at the spot. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that as there are no stains in the right side pocket of the pant of the accused and the inner lining is white, the same also creates serious doubt regarding the C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 56 of 100 recovery of the bribe money from the pant pocket of the accused.
From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that on the point of recovery the bribe amount from the pant pocket of the accused R.C.Anand, PW8/complainant has deposed in this respect as under: "On the instructions of the Raid Officer, panch witness took the search of the accused and recovered those treated GC notes from the right pocket of the pant of the accused. The sl. no. of those recovered GC notes were tallied with sl. no. mentioned in preraid report which tallied. Those treated GC notes were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/C which bear my signature at point B."
Furthermore, said PW8 has duly identified 20 GC notes of Rs.500/ each as Ex.P1 to P20 as recovered from the right pocket of the pant of the accused R.C. Anand, after tallying the serial numbers of GC notes with serial numbers of GC notes as mentioned in Pre Raid Report and Seizure Memo.
30. Similarly, PW6/Lalit Mohan, Panch witness with regard to the recovery of the tainted GC notes of Rs.10,000/from right pocket of the pant of the accused R.C.Anand has deposed in this respect as C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 57 of 100 under: "On the instructions of Raid Officer, I took the search of the accused and recovered those treated GC notes from the right pocket of the pant of the accused. The sl. no. of those recovered GC notes were tallied with sl. no. mentioned in memo Ex.PW6/B which tallied. Those treated GC notes were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/C bear my signature at point A."
Similarly, PW6 has duly identified the 20 GC notes of Rs. 500/ each as Ex.P1 to P20 as recovered from the right pocket pant of the accused R.C.Anand, after tallying the serial numbers of GC notes with serial numbers of GC notes as mentioned in Pre Raid Report and Seizure Memo.
31. Furthermore, PW9/J.P.Sharma, another Panch witness regarding the recovery of the tainted GC notes from the right pocket of the pant of the accused has deposed in this respect as under: "Thereafter on the instruction of Raid Officer, panch witness Lalit Mohan took the search of the accused and he C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 58 of 100 recovered those treated GC notes from the right pant pocket of the accused R.C.Anand. Thereafter the sl. no. of those GC notes were tallied with the sl. no. mentioned in the preraid report which tallied. Those GC notes were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW6/C which bear my signatures at point C."
Similarly, said PW9 on seeing 20 GC notes of Rs.500/ each has identified the same as Ex.P1 to P20 as recovered from the right pant pocket of the accused R.C.Anand, after tallying the serial numbers of GC notes with serial numbers of GC notes as mentioned in Pre Raid Report and Seizure Memo.
32. Similarly, PW14/Inspector Satyavir Dagar, Raid Officer/IO has also deposed regarding recovery of tainted GC notes of Rs. 10,000/ from the right pant pocket of the accused R.C.Anand as under: "On my instruction punch witness Lalit Mohan took formal search of the accused R.C. Anand and recovered tainted GC notes of Rs. 10,000/ from the right side C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 59 of 100 pocket of pant of accused R.C. Anand and on checking the numbers of the recovered GC notes from the numbers already noted in aforesaid memo, same were tallied. Bribe money of Rs.10,000/ were recovered from right side of pocket was taken into possession vide seizor memo Ex.PW6/C which bears my signatures at point D."
Similarly, said PW14 has also duly identified 20 GC notes of Rs.500/each as Ex.P1 to P20 as recovered from the right pant pocket of the accused R.C.Anand, after tallying the serial numbers of GC notes with serial numbers of GC notes as mentioned in Pre Raid Report and Seizure Memo.
33. From the perusal of the record, it is further revealed that sum of Rs.8640/ besides one ball pen, one small comb, one used handkerchief has been recovered as JamaTalashi from the accused on 20.7.98 in the presence of complainant as well as both Panch witness Lalit Mohan and J.P.Sharma as found reflected from JamaTalashi Memo Ex.PW6/H which is also found bear the signature of the accused R.C.Anand besides the aforesaid attesting witnesses. Besides that, PW14/Raid Officer/IO in his cross examination by Ld. Counsel C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 60 of 100 for the accused R.C.Anand has clearly stated that he cannot say from which pocket the JamaTalashi articles of accused R.C.Anand were recovered but added that said articles were not recovered from the pocket from which the bribe money was recovered. As regards substitute pant for accused R.C.Anand, said PW14 has stated that he got arranged the same from the house of this accused but do not recollect the name of the person who had gone to fetch the substitute pant.
34. In view of the aforesaid material as available on the record, I am of the considered view that the factum regarding the recovery of the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/ in the form of 20 GC notes of Rs. 500/ each from the right side pocket of pant of the accused R.C.Anand after the trap, has been duly proved by the prosecution and mere fact that the IO could not state as to from which pocket the JamaTalashi articles of accused R.C.Anand were recovered and as to who brought the substitute pant from the house of the accused R.C.Anand after the trap, cannot be overemphasized and hence, cannot be treated as fatal for the case of the prosecution.
35. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 61 of 100 Counsel for the accused R.C.Anand that as per the case of the prosecution, on dated 8.5.98 this accused is alleged to have demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.5000/ for cancellation of an order of supply of 5000 cotton rolls issued to the complainant on 21.4.98 and for not blacklisting complainant's firm due to nonsupply of the cotton rolls within the stipulated period and on the basis of said allegation, present FIR has been registered on 8.5.98 but as regards the incident of dated 20.7.98 regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.10,000/ for handing over supply order for 4000 cotton rolls by the accused, no separate FIR has been registered on 20.7.98 though the alleged incident of 8.5.98 and 20.7.98 are independent in nature and therefore, the further investigation carried out by the IO with regard to the incident of 20.7.98 without the registration of the separate FIR is illegal and hence, the accused deserves to be acquitted on this count itself. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that in pursuance of the Complaint dated 8.5.98 Ex.PW8/A, the FIR bearing No.12/98, U/S 7 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 was registered at PS Anti Corruption Branch on the same day and copy of said FIR is Ex.PW14/B. In the said Complaint Ex.PW8/A, the complainant has specifically alleged against the accused R.C.Anand that after some period of joining as MS, accused R.C. Anand called the complainant C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 62 of 100 at his office and demanded bribe in the form of commission for supply of cotton rolls to AIIMS for which the complainant declined on the plea that he had supplied the cotton rolls at competitive rates on which accused R.C.Anand got annoyed and thereafter, tried to harass him. The complainant further alleged in his said Complaint that on 8.5.98 after giving of bribe of Rs.5000/ as per his earlier demand to accused R.C.Anand, the complainant got the supply order dated 21.4.98 for supply of the 5000 cotton rolls at old rates cancelled and accused R.C.Anand demanded commission of Rs.1/ per cotton roll for future supply of cotton at new rate i.e. Rs.34.90 paise per roll and accused R.C.Anand also asked the complainant that he can get approved rate of Rs.35.90 per cotton roll in future supply in case commission of Rs.2/ per roll is paid to him. The complainant got recorded said conversation between the accused R.C.Anand and him in Audio Cassette and as he was against the giving of bribe to the accused R.C.Anand, got lodged this Complaint Ex.PW8/A and produced said Audio Cassette before PW14/IO (RO) which was seized by him. On the basis of said Complaint Ex.PW8/A, PW14/IO (RO) prepared the rukka Ex.PW14/A and got registered FIR, copy of which is Ex.PW14/B and in order to conduct trap proceedings against accused R.C.Anand in future, the complainant was advised to inform C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 63 of 100 the IO regarding future demand of bribe on issuance of supply order of cotton rolls. It is further revealed from the deposition of PW14 that on different dates the complainant came to the IO and informed him regarding the conversation between the accused R.C.Anand and him which were recorded by said PW14 U/S 161 Cr.P.C. Said PW14 has further deposed that on 15.6.98 complainant informed him that accused R.C.Anand had demanded commission of Rs.2.50 per cotton roll and threatened him to get cancel the contract in case of non payment of said commission and asked him to come after one week for taking supply order of 4000 cotton rolls with bribe amount of Rs.10,000/. Said PW14 further deposed that in the evening of 22.6.98 the complainant informed him on phone that he had recorded the conversation of the accused R.C.Anand with him and produced said Cassette before PW14 on 6.7.98 which was seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW8/J in the presence of one Panch witness. Said PW14 further deposed that on 20.7.98 the complainant informed him that accused R.C.Anand had to give supply order of 4000 cotton rolls to him for which he had demanded Rs.10,000/ as bribe from him and had produced 20 GC notes in the denomination of Rs.500/ each in the presence of two Panch witnesses namely J.P.Sharma and Lalit Mohan. Said PW14 has also narrated about the PreRaid Proceedings, C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 64 of 100 Raid Proceedings and PostRaid Proceedings as carried out by him on said date i.e. 20.7.98.
36. In view of the aforesaid material as available on the record, it is clearly reflected that the allegation of demand of bribe by the accused R.C.Anand from the complainant in the form of commission for future supply of cotton rolls at new rate as found mentioned in the original Complaint Ex.PW8/A dated 8.5.98, on the basis of which FIR bearing No.12/98, U/S 7 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered at PS AC Branch on 8.5.98, copy of which is Ex.PW14/B is inter connected with regard to the incident of demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.10,000/ by the accused R.C.Anand from the complainant on dated 20.7.98 and therefore, I am of the considered view that the IO cannot be faulted for not getting registered a separate FIR with regard to the incident of 20.7.98, specifically when the IO had already got recorded the FIR bearing No. 12/98 on dated 8.5.98 as per Ex.PW14/B and had been carrying out the investigation further as per the information made available to him from the complainant. I am of the considered view that the judgment as referred and relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the accused R.C.Anand can be of no help for this accused on this aspect in view of the fact C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 65 of 100 that on the basis of the information as given by the complainant in the form of his Complaint Ex.PW8/A, the FIR has been registered in this case on the same day itself i.e. on 8.5.98 and further Investigation was being carried out by PW14. Furthermore, even from the Judgments as referred by Ld. Counsel for the accused R.C.Anand, the legal position is well settled that where an information is given to the Officer in charge of a Police Station which discloses the commission of cognizable offence, he is bound to reduce the information in writing in a Book as prescribed in this behalf and this information is treated as FIR U/S 154 (1) of Cr.P.C. It is further well settled that the process of Investigation is initiated with the registration of the FIR U/S 154 of Cr.P.C. and it culminates in a report U/S 173 (2) of Cr.P.C.which has to be presented before a court competent to take cognizance of an offence. The process of Investigation is set to motion on registration of the FIR, the right of the police to investigate the circumstances of a cognizable offence and its duty to carry out the Investigation are qualified in various provisions of Cr.P.C. In view of the same, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused R.C.Anand to the effect that the Investigation carried out by the IO with regard to the incident of 20.7.98 without the registration of separate FIR is illegal and the accused deserves to be acquitted on the C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 66 of 100 said count itself.
37. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused R.C.Anand that even otherwise the prosecution could not prove about the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused R.C.Anand from the complainant and therefore, no case U/S 7/13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act could be established and hence, this accused deserves to be acquitted. On the other hand, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP that the fact regarding demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused R.C.Anand from the complainant has been successfully proved by the prosecution through the deposition of PW8/Sageer Ahmad, complainant, PW6/Lalit Mohan, Panch witness, PW9/ J.P.Sharma, Panch witness and PW14/Inspector Satyavir Dagar, IO and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that there is no reason as to why PW8/Sageer Ahmad, complainant, PW6/Lalit Mohan, Panch witness, PW9/ J.P.Sharma, Panch witness and PW14/Inspector Satyavir Dagar, IO would falsely implicate the accused specifically when there is no previous enmity as against the accused by them.
C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 67 of 100
38. In order to prove that the accused R.C.Anand had demanded and accepted the bribe amount from the complainant, the prosecution is found to have examined PW8/Sageer Ahmad, complainant, PW6/Lalit Mohan, Panch witness, PW9/ J.P.Sharma, Panch witness and PW14/Inspector Satyavir Dagar, IO. PW8/complainant Sageer Ahmad has deposed that he used to supply absorbent cotton in AIIMS and his last contract with AIIMS for supplying cotton rolls was found from 15.3.97 to 14.3.98 @ Rs.28.20 per roll. He further deposed that when he met accused R.C.Anand, he stated to him that complainant would be in trouble in supplying cotton in case of nonpayment of bribe to him. He further deposed that accused R.C.Anand got an order for supply of 12000 cotton rolls in order to harass him by thinking that he cannot supply the same within stipulated period. Said PW8 further deposed that accused R.C.Anand got another order for supply of 5000 cotton rolls on 21.4.98 while 12000 rolls had not been supplied in toto and after 23 days from 21.4.98 the complainant met accused R.C.Anand and stated him regarding his difficulty, on which accused R.C.Anand asked him to pay commission of Rs.1/ per roll to him so that he would cancel the earlier order otherwise he would blacklist him. Said PW8 further deposed that on 8.5.98 he alongwith Rs.5000/ and a Mini Tape Recorder went to the accused R.C.Anand C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 68 of 100 and met him in his office. Thereafter, he switch on the tape recorder and started talking with the accused and thereafter, the accused on accepting bribe of Rs.5000/ from him cancelled the earlier supply order dated 21.4.98 for 5000 cotton rolls. Accused R.C.Anand further told him that in case complainant pay bribe to him in future he would take cooperation from him. Said PW8 further deposed that on receiving the cancel order, he went to AC Branch at about 2:30 p.m. and got recorded his Complaint Ex.PW8/A which bears his signature at point A and delivered the Audio Cassette and copy of the order which was seized by Raid Officer vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW8/B, bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that one Lalit Mohan was called and Audio Cassette was heard and sealed with the seal of SD and said Audio Cassette was Marked as A and its duplicate copy was prepared which was Marked as A1. Said PW8 further deposed that on 12.5.98 when he met accused R.C.Anand in his office, accused told him that he was trying to get the rate increased on which he had to pay Rs.2/ per roll commission to him. Said PW8 further deposed that on 15.6.98 accused R.C.Anand asked him to come on 22.6.98 and he told that he would get an order prepared for supply of 4000 cotton rolls for which he has to give bribe of Rs.2.50 per roll. Said PW8 further deposed that on 22.6.98 he alongwith the C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 69 of 100 Mini Tape Recorder went to accused R.C.Anand and recorded his conversation with him and thereafter, handed over Audio Cassette to the Raid Officer which was heard and a duplicate Cassette was prepared and the Original Cassette was marked B and the duplicate one as Mark B1. Said PW8 further deposed that again on 6.7.98 he met accused R.C.Anand on which he told him that supply order is under process and asked him to come on 20.7.98 alongwith the bribe amount. Said PW8 further deposed that on 20.7.98 in the morning he went to accused R.C.Anand who told him that he had prepared an order for supply of 4000 cotton rolls and as per rate of Rs.2.50 per roll, he had to give Rs.10,000/ to him as bribe money on which complainant told him that he would give the said amount after lunch and went to Anti Corruption Branch and informed the Raid Officer regarding this aspect. He has also deposed regarding the PreRaid Proceedings Ex.PW6/B, bearing his signature at point B. Said PW8 further deposed that he alongwith Panch witness, Raid Officer and other members of the Raiding team left Anti Corruption Branch in a Government vehicle and reached AIIMS at about 3:45 p.m. and thereafter, he alongwith Panch witness went inside the office of accused R.C.Anand and met him who informed him that he had prepared an order for supply of 12000 rolls and enquired about his C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 70 of 100 commission and finally told him that amount of Rs.30,000/ became due as against 12000 rolls @ Rs. 2.50 per roll, on which the complainant stated that he had brought the bribe amount only for order of 4000 rolls and thereafter accused R.C.Anand told him that he would give him order of 4000 rolls. As regards the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/ by the accused R.C.Anand, said PW8/complainant has deposed in this respect as under: "Accused R.C.Anand called V.N.Singh accused present in the court today, correctly identified who was posted there as Store Officer and told him to give me an order for 4000 rolls. Accused V.N.Singh brought copy of order and gave in the hands of accused R.C.Anand and went away. Accused R.C.Anand kept the copy of order on the table and asked me to give Rs.10,000/. Copy of that order was picked up by panch witness and I took out those treated GC notes from my pocket and gave the same in the right hand of accused R.C.Anand and he kept the same in the right pocket of his pant."
C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 71 of 100
Said PW8 further deposed that thereafter Panch witness gave predetermined signal on which members of the Raiding team reached there and Raid Officer was informed regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused R.C.Anand. As regards the recovery of bribe amount from the accused R.C.Anand, said PW8/complainant has deposed in this respect as under: "On the instructions of the Raid Officer, panch witness took the search of the accused and recovered those treated GC notes from the right pocket of the pant of the accused. The sl. no. of those recovered GC notes were tallied with sl. no. mentioned in preraid report which tallied. Those treated GC notes were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/C which bear my signature at point B."
Said PW8/complainant has further deposed that the right hand wash and right pant pocket wash of the accused R.C.Anand were taken in some water type solution which turned into pink and same was transferred into 4 clean bottles which were sealed and taken into possession vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW6/D. He also deposed that the C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 72 of 100 pant of the accused was converted into pullanda and was also seized vide Memo Ex.PW6/D. He further deposed that Raid Officer had seized the supply order of 4000 rolls Ex.PX vide Seizure memo Ex.PW6/F which bears his signature at point B. He has also stated that Raid Officer has drawn the Post Raid Proceedings. He further deposed that accused R.C.Anand was arrested vide his Personal Search Memo Ex.PW6/A, which bears his signature at point B. Said PW8 has specifically denied the suggestion of Ld. Counsel for the accused R.C. Anand that no recovery was effected from the person of the accused or that he was bearing grudge against the accused R.C.Anand and had falsely implicated him in this case.
39. PW6 Lalit Mohan, Panch witness has deposed before the court that on 20.7.98 he was on duty as Panch witness in Anti Corruption Branch and went there at around launch time and found another Panch witness J.P.Sharma alongwith the complainant. He further deposed that the Raid Officer explained fact to them and complaint had already been recorded and gist of the complaint was regarding demand of bribe by the accused R.C.Anand. He further deposed that regarding the PreRaid Proceedings. He also deposed that at about 2:30 p.m. he alongwith the complainant and other C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 73 of 100 members of the Raiding team left Anti Corruption Branch in a Government vehicle and reached AIIMS at about 3:15 pm. He further deposed that he alongwith the complainant went inside the office of accused R.C.Anand and met him. He further deposed that the accused R.C.Anand on seeing the complainant told him that he had one order for 12000 rolls for which Rs.30,000/ @ Rs.2.50 per roll became due, on which complainant told the accused that he had brought Rs.10,000/ for 4000 rolls. Said PW6 as regards the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused R.C.Anand, has deposed in this respect as under: "Thereafter, accused R.C.Anand directed accused V.N.Singh to prepare an order for the supply of four thousand rolls. Accused V.N. Singh prepared a work order and got the same received from the complainant on the office copy of the work order. Thereafter, accused V.N.Singh went outside from the room and accused R.C.Anand asked the accused "LAAO" by extending his hand and complainant had took out Rs.10,000/ from his shirt pocket and gave in the right hand of the accused R.C.Anand which he kept in his right pocket of his pant. Thereafter, I gave predetermined signal by coughing C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 74 of 100 twice and by asking whether there is any toilet. The Raid Officer alongwith one or two members of raiding party immediately came in the room and Raid Officer disclosed his identity and challenged the accused R.C.Anand that he had taken bribe."
As regards the recovery, the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/ from the right pant pocket of the accused R.C.Anand, said PW6 has deposed in this respect as under: "On the instructions of Raid Officer, I took the search of the accused and recovered those treated GC notes from the right pocket of the pant of the accused. The sl. no. of those recovered GC notes were tallied with sl. no. mentioned in memo Ex.PW6/B which tallied. Those treated GC notes were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/C bear my signature at point A."
40. Said PW6 has also deposed regarding the Post Raid Proceedings. He has also deposed regarding taking of right hand wash and right side pant pocket wash of accused R.C.Anand in colorless C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 75 of 100 solution which turned into pink and said solution was transferred into 4 bottles which was sealed with the seal of SD and seizure of the same alongwith pant pullanda and impression of sample seal vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW6/D which bears his signature at point A. He has also deposed that the copy of the supply order Ex.PX was taken into possession vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW6/F which bears his signature at point A. He has also deposed regarding seizure of the Original Audio Cassette vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW6/E and specimen Audio Cassette vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW6/G, bearing his signature at point A. He has also deposed regarding arrest of accused R.C.Anand and his Personal Search Memo Ex.PW6/H which bears his signature at point A.
41. Similarly, PW9/Sh.J.P.Sharma, another Panch witness who has also joined in the Raid Proceedings on that day i.e. 20.7.98 has also deposed whereby corroborating the deposition of PW8/complainant as well as PW6/Lalit Mohan, Panch witness regarding the demand, acceptance and recovery of the bribe money of Rs.10,000/ from the accused R.C. Anand at the spot. As he deposed that at about 2:30 p.m.,he alongwith the complainant, Lalit Mohan, Panch witness and Raid Officer and other members of the Raiding C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 76 of 100 team left Anti Corruption Branch in a Govt. vehicle and reached AIIMS at about 3:15 p.m. As per directions of Raid Officer, Members of the Raiding team took suitable position and he took position outside the office of MS alongwith the Raid Officer. He further deposed at about 3:45 p.m., complainant alongwith Panch witness Lalit Mohan entered in the room of MS and he placed earphone on his ears and started hearing conversation. As regards the transaction of demand and acceptance of bribe, said PW9 has deposed regarding the conversation as he has heard through his earphone as under: "I heard that one person was saying that he had prepared the supply order of 12000 rolls for the complainant and what amount of bribe become for him. Thereafter, complainant asked thrice by saying "AAP BATA DO, AAP BATA DO, AAP BATA DO"
Thereafter, that another person said that "mere se hi kehlwana chahte ho to main hi bata deta hun, apki hamari baat 2.50/ main hui hai, 12000 roll supply order ke hisab se 3030000 rupey bante hain. Thereafter complainant said that main abhi 4000 supply roll ke 10000 laya hun. Thereafter complainant C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 77 of 100 inquired from that person that 12000 roll ke supply order ka kya hua? Then said person told that abhi process main hai 1 / 2 din lagenge. The complainant told that Abhi mughe 4000 roll supply order dilwa do 12000 ka baad main le lunga. I further heard the voice of said other person lao. Thereafter, I heard a voice of coughing twice and kya yahan toilet hai? I informed the Raid Officer that transaction had been done."
Said PW9 further deposed that thereafter he alongwith members of the Raiding team entered in the room of accused R.C.Anand and Raid Officer, after disclosing his identity challenged the accused R.C.Anand that he had demanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs.10,000/ from the complainant. As regards the recovery of the bribe amount from the person of the accused R.C.Anand, said PW9 has deposed as under: "Thereafter on the instruction of Raid Officer, panch witness Lalit Mohan took the search of the accused and he recovered those treated GC notes from the right pant pocket of the accused R.C.Anand.
C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 78 of 100 Thereafter the sl. no. of those GC notes were tallied with the sl. no. mentioned in the preraid report which tallied. Those GC notes were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW6/C which bear my signatures at point C."
Said PW9 has also deposed regarding taking of the right hand wash and right pant pocket wash of the accused R.C.Anand in some water type solution which turned into pink and said solution was transferred in 4 bottles which were sealed with seal of SD and were taken into possession besides the pant pullanda of the accused vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW6/D which bears his signature at point B. He also deposed regarding seizure of supply order of 4000 rolls Ex.PX from the complainant vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW6/F. He has also deposed that the Cassette recorded during the transaction was played and duplicate Cassette was prepared and was Marked as C and C1 and was seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW6/E. He also deposed that accused R.C.Anand was arrested vide Personal Search Memo Ex.PW6/H which bears his signature at point B. Said PW9 has denied the suggestion of Ld. Defence Counsel that he had given the statement under the fear of departmental action or that he has been deposing C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 79 of 100 falsely.
42. The aforesaid deposition of PW8/complainant, PW6/ Lalit Mohan, Panch witness, PW9/J.P.Sharma, Panch witness are also found corroborated from the deposition of PW14 Inspector Satyavir Dagar, Raid Officer/IO. As regards the recovery of bribe money of Rs.10,000/ from the person of accused R.C.Anand, said PW14 has deposed in this respect as under: "On my instruction punch witness Lalit Mohan took formal search of the accused R.C. Anand and recovered tainted GC notes of Rs. 10,000/ from the right side pocket of pant of accused R.C. Anand and on checking the numbers of the recovered GC notes from the numbers already noted in aforesaid memo, same were tallied. Bribe money of Rs.10,000/ were recovered from right side of pocket was taken into possession vide seizor memo Ex.PW6/C which bears my signatures at point D."
Said PW14 has also narrated regarding the Post Raid C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 80 of 100 Proceedings as carried out by him. He has also deposed regarding the seizure of the supply order Ex.PX from the complainant vide Seizure memo Ex.PW6/F which bears his signature at point C. Said PW14 further deposed regarding the arrest of the accused R.C.Anand and conduct of his Personal Search Memo vide Ex.PW6/A bearing his signatures at point C. Said PW14 has also narrated about the various steps as taken by him during the course of the investigation. Said PW14 denied the suggestion of Ld. Defence Counsel that the accused R.C.Anand has been falsely apprehended and arrested in this case at the instance of ACP R.K.Pandey.
43. It is also revealed from the record that the right hand wash and right pant pocket wash of the accused R.C.Anand with colourless solution of sodium carbonate were taken and the same turned into pink colour and said wash vide Ex.RHWI and RPPWI gave positive test for the presence of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate as per CFSL Report Ex.PW14/S which establish that the said treated GC notes of Rs.10,000/ were handled and accepted by the accused R.C.Anand and ultimately it was recovered from him.
44. In view of the above material as available on record, I am of C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 81 of 100 the considered view that the factum regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs.10,000/ by the accused R.C.Anand from the complainant and the factum regarding the recovery of the said amount in the form of 20 GC notes of Rs.500/ each from the right side pocket of the pant of the accused R.C.Anand have been duly established from the deposition of PW8/Sageer Ahmad, complainant, PW 6/Lalit Mohan, Panch witness, PW9/J.P.Sharma, Panch witness and PW14/ Inspector Satyavir Dagar, Raid Officer/IO coupled with the contents of Complaint Ex.PW8/A, Seizure Memo of the GC notes Ex.PW6/C, Seizure Memo of four bottles marked as Ex.RHWI & II, RPPWI & II, sample seal and pant of the accused vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW6/D, CFSL Report Ex.PW14/S. In view of the aforesaid material as available on the record, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused R.C.Anand that no tainted GC notes were recovered from the pant pocket of the accused R.C.Anand and has been falsely implicated in this case.
45. I also do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused R.C.Anand that the alleged recovery of the treated GC notes as against the accused R.C.Anand is not sufficient to convict the accused for the charged offence. Once the accused is C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 82 of 100 found to have accepted the bribe amount, it is for him to explain as to in which capacity he has accepted the same.
46. Three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported as Raughbir Singh V/s State of Punjab AIR 1974 SC 1516 held that very fact that the accused was in possession of marked currency notes against an allegation that he demanded and received the amount is "res ipsaloquitur".
47. In the case of Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai V/s State of Maharashtra, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 575 it was held as under: "Therefore, the court has no choice in the matter, once it is established that the accused person has received a sum of money which was not due to him as a legal remuneration. Of course, it is open to that person to show that though that money was not due to him as legal remuneration, it was legally due to him in some other manner or that he had received it under a transaction or an arrangement which was lawful. The burden resting on the accused person in such a case would not be as light as it is where a presumption is raised under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and cannot be held to be discharged merely by reason of the fact that the explanation C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 83 of 100 offered by the accused is reasonable and probable. It must further be shown that the explanation is a true one. The words 'unless the contrary is proved' which occurs in this provision make it clear that the presumption has to be rebutted by 'proof' and not by a mere explanation which is merely plausible. A fact is said to be proved when its existence is directly established or when upon the material before it the Court finds its existence to be probable that a reasonable man would act on the supposition that it exists. Unless, therefore, the explanation is supported by proof, the presumption created by the provision cannot be said to be rebutted."
48. Furthermore, it is also useful to refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M.Narsinga Rao V/s State of A.P. 2001 (1) SCC 691 rendered by Three Hon'ble Judges of Supreme Court. In that case accused demanded a bribe of Rs. 500/ from a milk transporting contractor for recommending the payment of an amount due to the contractor. The accused was caught red handed while accepting the bribe amount. Accused took the plea that currency notes were stuffed into his pocket. During trial complainant and panch witness did not support the prosecution case and it was argued before Hon'ble High Court that it is not possible to draw any presumption against the delinquent public servant in the absence of direct evidence C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 84 of 100 to show that the public servant demand bribe. The Hon'ble High Court held as under: "It is true that there is no direct evidence in this case that the accused demanded and accepted the money. But the rest of the evidence and the circumstances are sufficient to establish that the accused had accepted the amount and that gives rise to a presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act that he accepted the same as illegal gratification, particularly so, when the defence theory put forth is not accepted."
49. Furthermore, in another case reported as B. Noha V/s State of Kerela & Another 2006 VI AD ( Criminal ) 465 ( SC ) it was held in para 10 as under: "that when it is proved that there was voluntary and conscious acceptance of the money, there is no further burden cast on the prosecution to prove by direct evidence, the demand or motive. It has only to be deducted from the facts and circumstances obtained in the particular case."
Moreover, in another case reported as State of AP Vs. Kommaraju Gopala Krishna Murthy 2000 (9) SCC 752 it was held C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 85 of 100 that when the amount is found to have passed to the public servant the burden is on public servant to establish that it was not by way of illegal gratification. That burden was not discharged by the accused herein.
50. Once the bribe amount is recovered from the accused it is for the accused to explain as to how the bribe amount landed in his person. In the present case, the accused R.C.Anand has not given any explanation as to how bribe amount of Rs.10,000/ landed in his right pocket of his pant from which it was recovered. From the perusal of the record, it is clearly reflected that the accused R.C.Anand has neither stated anything in his statement U/S 313 Cr.P.C. as to how the bribe amount landed in right pocket of his pant nor adduced any evidence in his defence in this respect nor could state as to why his right hand wash Ex.RHWI and right pocket of his pant wash Ex.RPPWI have given positive test for the presence of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate as found established from the contents of the CFSL Report Ex.PW14/S.
51. In view of the aforesaid materials as available on the record, I am of the considered view that the presumption as contemplated U/S 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 could not be rebutted by C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 86 of 100 the accused.
52. Now, the next question having significant bearing on the fate of this case which arises is whether the accused Vyas Narain Singh had entered into any criminal conspiracy with the accused R.C.Anand for extracting said bribe amount from the complainant?
53. In order to get satisfactory answer to the aforesaid question, we will have to look into the requirement of the offence of criminal conspiracy as defined in Section 120A IPC.
The offence of criminal conspiracy has been defined in Section 120A IPC as under: "When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Thus, the ingredients of offence of criminal conspiracy are as under:
C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 87 of 100
(1) the agreement between two or more persons; (2) the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either;
(a) an illegal act or
(b) an act which is not illegal in itself but it is done by illegal means.
54. In the case reported as (1995) 1 SCC 142 P.K. Narayanan Vs. State of Kerala while dealing with the requirement of criminal conspiracy, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "The ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are that there should be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing of an illegal act or for doing by illegal means an act which by itself may not be illegal. Therefore the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both and it is a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Therefore the circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused. But if those circumstances are compatible also with the innocence of the accused C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 88 of 100 persons then it cannot be held that the prosecution has successfully established its case. Even if some acts are proved to have been committed it must be clear that they were so committed in pursuance of an agreement made between the accused who were parties to the alleged conspiracy. Inferences from such proved circumstances regarding the guilt may be drawn only when such circumstances are incapable of any other reasonable explanation.
55. Furthermore, in the case reported as AIR 1965 SC 682 Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar Vs. State of Maharashtra, Subba Rao, J. speaking for himself and his learned colleagues, observed:
" The essence of conspiracy is, therefore, that there should be an agreement between persons to do one or other of the acts described in the section. The said agreement may be proved by direct evidence or may be inferred from acts and conduct of the parties."
56. By taking the cue from the aforesaid judgments regarding the requirement of offence of criminal conspiracy as contemplated C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 89 of 100 U/S120A IPC and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case as found reflected from the deposition of various PWs as noted above, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that the accused Vyas Narain Singh was not a party to any criminal conspiracy for extracting bribe amount of Rs.10,000/ from the complainant Sageer Ahmad and it is the accused R.C.Anand who had demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/ from the complainant Sageer Ahmad on 20.7.98. From the deposition of PW8/complainant as well as PW6/Lalit Mohan, Panch witness, it is clearly reflected that the accused V.N.Singh on the asking of the accused R.C.Anand to prepare an order for supply of 4000 cotton rolls prepared the same and got received from the complainant on the office copy and thereafter, the accused V.N.Singh went outside from the room of accused R.C.Anand. There is nothing on record to suggest that this accused V.N.Singh had prior meeting of mind with the accused R.C.Anand for extracting said bribe amount of Rs.10,000/ from the complainant nor there is anything on record as against accused V.N.Singh to the effect that he insisted the complainant for payment of said bribe amount.
57. In view of the aforesaid material available on the record, I C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 90 of 100 have no hesitation to safely conclude that the prosecution could not establish regarding existence of any criminal conspiracy between the accused R.C.Anand and accused V.N.Singh for extracting any bribe amount from the complainant and since it is only the accused R.C.Anand who had demanded and accepted the bribe amount from the complainant, he should be liable for his own individual acts for offence punishable U/S 7 and 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the accused V.N.Singh cannot be held liable for the said offence.
58. Now, the next question arises whether the accused V.N.Singh can be held liable for offence punishable U/S 201IPC for which he has been charged with?
59. From the deposition of PW8/complainant as well as PW6/Lalit Mohan, Panch witness, it is clearly reflected that on the asking of accused R.C.Anand, the accused V.N.Singh prepared a supply order for 4000 rolls and brought in the office of the accused R.C.Anand immediately before the trap proceedings, as PW8/complainant has deposed in this respect as under: C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 91 of 100 "Accused R.C.Anand called V.N.Singh accused present in the court today, correctly identified who was posted there as Store Officer and told him to give me an order for 4000 rolls. Accused V.N.Singh brought copy of order and gave in the hands of accused R.C.Anand and went away. Accused R.C.Anand kept the copy of order on the table and asked me to give Rs. 10,000/. Copy of that order was picked up by panch witness and I took out those treated GC notes from my pocket and gave the same in the right hand of accused R.C.Anand and he kept the same in the right pocket of his pant."
60. Similarly, PW6/Lalit Mohan, Panch witness who was standing alongwith the complainant inside the office of the accused R.C.Anand on the date of Raid i.e. 20.7.98 has deposed as under: "Complainant told that R.C. Anand, accused present in the court today (correctly identified) that he had brought Rs.10,000/ for four thousand roll.
Thereafter, accused called Assistant Store Officer C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 92 of 100 V.N. Singh (the identity of accused V.N. Singh is not disputed and he is exempted for today) and accused asked about the status of the order of twelve thousand roll. V.N. Singh replied that the order is on the process and it would take one or two days. Then complainant asked the accused persons for issuing order for supply of four thousand roll only.
Thereafter, accused R.C.Anand directed accused V.N.Singh to prepare an order for the supply of four thousand rolls. Accused V.N. Singh prepared a work order and got the same received from the complainant on the office copy of the work order. Thereafter, accused V.N.Singh went outside from the room and accused R.C.Anand asked the accused "LAAO" by extending his hand and complainant had took out Rs. 10,000/ from his shirt pocket and gave in the right hand of the accused R.C.Anand which he kept in his right pocket of his pant."
61. From the perusal of the deposition of PW8/complainant as C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 93 of 100 well as PW14/Inspector Satyavir Dagar, Raid Officer/IO, it is reflected that said copy of supply order Ex.PX was seized from the possession of the complainant vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW6/F. PW14 has deposed in this respect as under: "Supply order Ex.PX which was given to the complainant Sagir Ahmed by accused B.N.Singh on the direction of accused R.C.Anand was produced to me by the complainant and same was taken into possession vide seizor memo Ex.PW6/F which bears my signatures at point C. On perusal of supply order Ex.PX it was noticed that supply order did not relate to the firm of the complainant Sagir Ahmed but it was related to seven seas pharmaceutical and the same was for the supply of 4000 gause bolt (thaan) but this could not be verified as the office was closed by that time. Complainant Sagir Ahmed also told me that he had signed on the office copy as token of receipt of supply order Ex.PX."
62. Furthermore, from the perusal of the record, it is clearly C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 94 of 100 reflected that the office copy of aforesaid supply order Ex.PX in which the signature of the complainant was taken as token of the receipt of the supply order Ex.PX is not found available in the concerned file of AIIMS and in place of the same, another copy of supply order which is Ex.PW10/C is available in the concerned file Ex.PW10/A and from the perusal of the said copy Ex.PW10/C, it is clearly reflected that the same has been got prepared afterwards and is not the copy of Ex.PX and said fact is also found corroborated from the deposition of PW10 Mrs. Anupama Talwar who has deposed in this respect as under: "In the year, 1998, I was employed as Typist in Hospital Store, AIIMS. Besides me there was one more typist namely Kundan. I had typed supply order Ex.P X(already exhibited) bearing no. 894/H/SSK/9899 dated 17.07.98 pertaining to file of Seven Seas Pharmaceutical Ltd Ex. PW10/A and I had typed 4 carbon copy plus 1 original of this order out of which 3 carbon copies of the said order are Ex.PW10/B1, Ex.PW10B2, Ex.PW10B3 which are lying in office file Ex.PW10/A and these are copy of original supply order Ex PX and are similar but, office copy of supply C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 95 of 100 order Ex.PW10/C is not similar and it is not carbon copy of original supply order Ex. PX and this copy of supply order i.e. Ex.PW10/C was not typed by me. Said file was with Assistant Store officer accused V.N. Singh present in the Court today, witness correctly identified so many days. I do not know as to who had typed office copy Ex.PW10/C."
Though said PW10 has specifically deposed on dated 20.2.2010 that said file remained with accused V.N.Singh for so many days but later on, on being recalled for cross examination on an application U/S 311 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused V.N.Singh, by taking a Uturn has deposed that she had never given any such statement to the AC Branch that the file of the present case remained in the custody of the accused V.N.Singh nor she has given any such statement before the court, in his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused V.N.Singh on dated 3.6.2010 which is after more than 100 days of her earlier statement as recorded on 20.2.2010. It appears that said PW10 has wriggled out from her earlier statement regarding this aspect on being won over by the accused V.N.Singh when her cross examination was recorded on dated 3.6.2010 which is after more C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 96 of 100 than 100 days of her recording examination in chief in the court. The subsequent wriggling out of the witness has been discarded with support of the enunciation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1853 :
"The High Court came to the conclusion and, in our opinion rightly, that during the one month period that elapsed since the recording of his examinationinchief something transpired which made him shift his evidence on the question of identity to help the appellant. We are satisfied on a reading of his entire evidence that his statement in crossexamination on the question of identity of the appellant and his companion is a clear attempt to wriggle out of what he had stated earlier in his examinationinchief. Since the incident occurred at a public place, it is reasonable to infer that the street lights illuminated the place sufficiently to enable this witness to identify the assailants. We have, therefore, no hesitation in concluding that he had ample opportunity to identify Gulab, his presence at the scene of occurrence is not unnatural nor his statement that he had C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 97 of 100 come purchase vegetables unacceptable. We do not find any material contradictions in his evidence to doubt his testimony. He is a totally independent witness who had no cause to give false evidence against the appellant and his companions."
63. Furthermore, PW11/Mrs. Devender Kaur is also found to have deposed in this respect as under: "On 29.7.98, I was working as Head Clerk in AIIMS in hospital store. On that day, IO of the case met me in the store of the hospital and showed the supply order no. 894/H/SSK/9899 dated 17.7.98 and also showed the office copy of the said order which is in the office file both were different to me which is already i.e. Ex.PW10/B1, B2 & B3. Usually the supply order would be prepared in the process of five carbon copy and I mentioned O/C on the office copy which is at point X on Ex.PW10/C but at that time I did not find four other carbon copy on the office file. At that time, I think it may be possible that other carbon copy would be in dispatch so, I marked the said O/C on said original copy." C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 98 of 100
64. From the aforesaid deposition of PW11/Devender Kaur, it is also clearly reflected that the copies of the supply order dated 17.7.98 Ex.PW10/B1, Ex.PW10/B2 and Ex.PW10/B3 are different from the office copy of supply order Ex.PW10/C as available in the case file Ex.PW10/A. Furthermore, said PW11 has also clearly deposed that all the relevant copies of this case were kept under the custody of V.N.Singh after arrest of accused R.C.Anand as she has deposed in this respect as under: "All the relevant copies of this case were kept under the custody of V.N.Singh, later arrest of the accused R.C. Anand, M.S, present in the court today. IO recorded my statement in this regard."
65. In view of the aforesaid material as available on the record, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that this accused V.N. Singh after having knowledge of commission of offence of the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused R.C. Anand from the complainant on dated 20.07.1998 has subsequently caused disappearance of the office copy of the supply order Ex.PX in which he obtained the acknowledgment of the complainant in token of receipt of the supply order Ex.PX and thereafter, replaced another C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 99 of 100 different copy which is Ex.PW10/C in the concerned file Ex.PW10/A and therefore, I am of considered view that this accused V.N.Singh can be held liable for offence punishable U/S 201 IPC.
66. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that the accused R.C.Anand is found guilty for offence punishable U/S 7 and 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and accused Vyas Narain Singh (V.N.Singh) is found guilty for offence punishable U/S 201 IPC and they stand convicted accordingly.
67. Let both these accused be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open court on this 3rd day of February, 2012 (B.R. Kedia) Special Judge07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC,Delhi C.C. No. 20/12 Page No. 100 of 100