Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement ... on 19 November, 2016
CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE03 (P. C. ACT) (CBI),
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Case ID no. 02403R0014472015
CC No.02/15
RC No. DAI/2014/A/0038/ACB/CBI
Central Bureau of Investigation
Versus
Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia
S/o Sh. Bhim Singh
R/o 1525/5, Patel Nagar,
Gurgaon, Haryana.
Date of filing of chargesheet : 21.01.2015
Date of conclusion of final arguments : 24.10.2016
Date of announcement of judgement : 19.11.2016
JUDGEMENT :
The instant RC 38(A)/2014DLI was registered on
the basis of complaint dated 21.11.2014 of Sh. Rao Satvir
Singh. In the complaint lodged with SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi,
it is alleged that Ram Niwas Yadav, made a call on the mobile
of the complainant on 15.11.2014 but the complainant could
not receive the said call, therefore, subsequently, he called on
the said mobile number and the person calling from the other
side introduced himself as Addl. SHO, PS Chhawla, Delhi, and
informed that in the incident of 2nd August, 2014, in which
CC No. 02/15 Page No. 1 of 63
CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016
employees working with MCD truck for carrying cattle were
manhandled due to which one person died in the scuffle,
therefore, a case has been registered and complainant has
been named as one of the accused in the said case. It is
further alleged that Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia, Addl. SHO
of PS Chhawla who was conducting investigation of the said
case, had demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 5 lacs from the
complainant for removing his name from the list of accused.
It was further alleged that on the askance of Ram Niwas
Yadav @ Pawalia, the complainant had met him in Hotel
Crown Plaza, Gurgaon on 17.11.2014. In the said meeting,
on the request of complainant, accused Ram Niwas Yadav @
Pawalia reduced the bribe amount from Rs. 5 lacs to Rs. 3
lacs and asked the complainant to deliver the bribe amount
on 21.11.2014. It is further alleged that the accused told that
he will inform the complainant over mobile phone about the
time and place where the bribe amount was to be delivered.
The complainant did not want to pay the bribe, therefore,
lodged the complaint with CBI for taking necessary action in
the matter.
Investigation has revealed that in order to verify
the version of the complainant, the matter was marked to Sh.
CC No. 02/15 Page No. 2 of 63
CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016
S.P. Singh, Inspector, CBI, ACB, New Delhi for verification. Sh.
S.P. Singh, Inspector, in the presence of independent witness
Sh. Tikkam Singh, Assistant in MMTC Ltd., Scope Complex,
New Delhi conducted the verification. During the said
process, Sh. Rao Stavir Singh @ Satvir Yadav was asked to
contact Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia, Addl. SHO PS Chhawla
on his mobile phone no.8750871092 from his mobile
no.9899755555 by keeping the mobile on speaker mode to
record likely conversation. On doing so, the complainant
discussed the matter with the accused. The said conversation
was simultaneously recorded in the memory card through
DVR and also heard by all present. The DVR was again
replayed in the presence of independent witness and
complainant which revealed that on the request of
complainant, the demand of bribe was further reduced by the
accused from Rs. 3 lacs to Rs. 2 lacs. The accused asked the
complainant to hand over the bribe money on next day i.e. on
22.11.2014.
The relevant portion of the recorded conversation
during verification is as under:
- Ram Niwas Pawalia - Inspector - PS Chhawla
B. Rao Satbari Singh shikayatkarta
B. Sir wo cheque na usme payment nahi aai aaj jo aur mere ko ek
CC No. 02/15 Page No. 3 of 63
CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016
baar Jaipur jana padega, laane ke liye to ek bar kal tak ki aap
mere ko mohalat de do
A. Accha kal sham ke time
B. Kal mai aapko ya to aap mere ko 1111:30 baje phone kar lena,
nahi to mai aapko kar lunga jo hai
A. Aap hi kar diyo phir
B. Ek request hai sir ek meri haath jodkar na
A. Bolo
B. Thode se kam kar diyo sir kyonki paise ho nahi pa rahe cheque me
payment hi hani hoi, jo aapne batai hai na usme se thode kam kar
do sir
A. Bhai pehle hi kam to kar diye the ab dekh lo, pachas kam kar do
phir
B. Pachas kam kar do sir, dekh lo sir thoda sa aur riyayat kar do
A. Aur, phir to bahut zyada ho jayega
B. Aaap mere ko last bata do kitne de du mai aapko
A. Mai wahi jo hai na bataya na ki pachas kam kar lo aur bas
B. Mai sir utne hi le aaunga na, aap mere to bata doge to thoda sa ye
suvidha raheghi phir, mai sachmuch pareshan ho raha bilkul jo
hai. Zindagi, ab dekho na jhoote case me phans gaya hun sir
A. Haan wo to hai, haan wo baat to theek hai
B. Ab aapko to pata hai, jhoote case me phansa diya aap logon ne kya
karu batao
A. Ab bhai ji sab cheej jaanu main, kya bataun main bhi
B. To mere ko thoda sa last baa do taaki main karke le aaun kyonki
mere ko lag raha hai ki Jaipur jana padega mere ko sir wo cheque,
jis dost ne diya tha wo clear ho ke aaya nahi aur matlab tension ho
rahi hai
A. Delhi lo na phir main to aur kya hai
B. Nahi thoda sa last bata do na taaki main phir usi hisab se karke le
aaun
A. Yaar teen bataye the, do are lena bas kya
Investigation further revealed that the memory
card containing the introductory voice of the independent
witness and the said recorded conversation was taken out of
CC No. 02/15 Page No. 4 of 63
CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016
the DVR, kept in an envelope and sealed with CBI seal and
marked as Q1.
Investigation further revealed that Verification
Memo was prepared and signed by Sh. S.P. Singh, Inspector,
CBI, ACB, in CBI office, the complainant and independent
witness also signed on this memo. As the verification has
revealed that accused has made the demand of bribe,
therefore, he recommended a case to be registered against
Ram Niwas Yadav, Addl. SHO PS Chhawla. Accordingly, a
case RC 38(A)/2014 was registered against Ram Niwas
Yadav, Addl. SHO PS Chhawla and was entrusted to Sh.
Kailash Sahu, Inspector, CBI, ACB, New Delhi for
investigation.
Investigation further revealed that on 22112014,
a trap team consisting of Sh. Kailash Sahu, TLO, Pearson
Shadang, S.P. Singh, Anand Sarup, Bijender Singh, all
Inspectors, CBI, ACB, New Delhi and Raman Kumar Shukla,
SI and independent witnesses Vijay Kant Sharma (from Vijaya
Bank, Defence Colony Branch, New Delhi) and Tikam Singh,
aforesaid was constituted.
CC No. 02/15 Page No. 5 of 63
CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016
Investigation further revealed that the
complainant could arrange only Rs. 1 lac, therefore, he
produced a sum of Rs.1,00,000/, GC Notes of different
denominations. The said GC notes were treated by Sh.
Bijender Singh, Inspector, CBI, ACB, New Delhi with
phenolphthalein powder and a demonstration in this regard
was given. The said amount of Rs.1,00,000/ was put in the
right side pant pocket of the complainant by Sh. Vijay Kant
Sharma, independent witness after ensuring that nothing
incriminating was left in the said pocket. Sh. Vijay Kant
Sharma, independent witness, was directed to act as a
shadow witness and the other witness Sh. Tikkam Singh was
directed to remain with the trap team. The pretrap
proceedings held were recorded in the handing over memo.
Investigation further revealed that on 22.11.2014
after completion of pre trap proceedings and completion of
Handing Over Memo, all the trap team members including
both independent witnesses and the complainant left for the
spot at about 1145 hrs.
Investigation further revealed that on the way it
was decided to make a call to the accused between Moti Bagh
CC No. 02/15 Page No. 6 of 63
CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016
area to NH8 near CNG Station & Subroto Park, so that the
team could reach at the spot of bribe transaction as soon as
possible. On the way formal voice of both the independent
witnesses were also recorded in the Memory Card through
DVR.
Investigation further revealed that at about 1230
hours, the team reached at Motibagh. The complainant made
a call to the accused on his mobile number 8750871092 from
his mobile no. 9899755555 at about 1232 hours and the call
was received by the accused. The accused informed the
complainant that he would make a return call to him. The
conversation was simultaneously recorded in the Memory
Card through DVR.
Investigation further revealed that the team
reached at Shokeen Petrol Pump Bharat Petroleum Village
Chhawla near BSF Camp at about 02.55 pm. Soon after
reaching the said place, the complainant received call from
the accused who enquired about his location. The
complainant informed him that he has reached the Chhawla
Petrol Pump, on which the accused informed him that he
would be coming in a motorcycle. The conversation was
CC No. 02/15 Page No. 7 of 63
CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016
simultaneously recorded in the Memory Card through DVR.
Investigation further revealed that Sh. Kailash
Sahu, Inspr. directed Sh. Vijay Kant Sharma, independent
witness and the complainant to remain in the car of the
complainant which was being driven by the complainant
himself. Whereas other team members were directed to take
suitable positions nearby in safe manner. The DVR was given
to the complainant in switched on mode which was kept in
left side front shirt pocket of the complainant by Raman
Kumar Shukla, S.I. The said DVR was given with a view to
record the conversation to be held between him and the
accused. The complainant was instructed to hand over the
bribe money to the accused on his specific demand. The
complainant was further directed to give signal by way of
giving miss call or scratching his head or moving his hands
after transaction of the bribe.
Investigation further revealed that at about 03.10
pm, accused Shri Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Inspector
came on a motorcycle Passion Pro model bearing registration
No.DL9S AH 6450. He parked his motorcycle near the car of
the complainant and entered into the car and sat on the back
CC No. 02/15 Page No. 8 of 63
CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016
seat of the car. The complainant was sitting on the driver's
seat and whereas Shri Vijay Kant Sharma was sitting on the
left side of Driver's seat in the front.
Investigation further revealed that after about 78
minutes, the complainant gave predecided signal conveying
transaction of bribe is over. Immediately, the CBI team rushed
towards the complainant's vehicle and surrounded the car of
the complainant. The DVR was taken back from the
complainant and given to the witness Sh. Tikkam Singh for
safe custody.
Investigation further revealed that Shri Kailash
Sahu, TLO after introducing himself and other team
members, challenged the accused Ram Niwas Yadav @
Pawalia that he demanded and has accepted bribe amount of
Rs.1,00,000/ as part of demanded bribe amount of Rs. 2 lacs
from complainant Shri Rao Satvir Singh. On this, the accused
Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia kept mum and did not say
anything. It was ensured that the hands of the accused
remain untampered.
CC No. 02/15 Page No. 9 of 63
CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016
Investigation further revealed that the
complainant informed that at the spot, accused demanded
bribe by hand's gesture, upon which he took out the bribe
amount of Rs.1,00,000/ from his pant pocket and handed
over the same to the accused Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia.
The said bribe amount was accepted by the accused by his
left hand and after counting the same by his both hands, he
kept the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/ in his right side pant
pocket. The witness Shri Vijay Kant Sharma has also
corroborated the version of the complainant.
Investigation further revealed that left hand and
right hand washes of the accused were separately taken in
the clean water with sodium carbonate. On doing so, the
colour turned pink and the said solutions were transferred in
two separate clean empty bottles which were duly sealed and
marked as LHW and RHW.
Investigation further revealed that bribe amount
of Rs. 1 lac was recovered by independent witness Sh.
Tikkam Singh from the right side pant pocket of the accused.
Thereafter witness, Sh. Tikkam Singh and Sh. Vijay Kant
Sharma were asked to tally the said recovered amount with
CC No. 02/15 Page No. 10 of 63
CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016
the numbers and denominations of GC notes mentioned in
the handing over memo. On doing so, the denomination and
the numbers of the GC notes tallied in toto. The recovered
bribe money was kept in a brown colour envelope in the
presence of independent witnesses and the envelope was duly
sealed. The rough sketch/site map of the spot was prepared.
Thereafter, trap team members left for the residence of the
accused at about 04.00 pm in the office vehicle as well as in
complainant's vehicle and reached the residence of the
accused at about 05.00 pm. The accused was asked to change
and hand over the pant which he was wearing, thereafter, the
wash of right side pocket of the pant worn by accused Ram
Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia was taken. On doing so, the colour
of the solution turned pink which was transferred in a clean
empty bottle, duly sealed and marked as 'RSPPW" denoting
right side pant pocket wash. The pant of the accused was also
duly sealed. The DVR was played which confirmed demand
and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused from the
complainant.
The relevant portion of the recorded conversation
during the trapproceedings is as follows (A denotes accused
Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia and B denotes complainant Sh.
CC No. 02/15 Page No. 11 of 63
CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016
Rao Satvir Singh @ Satvir Yadav):
A. Namaskar ji
B. Kya haal chaal hai sir -
A. Bas sab teek hai
B. Ye Sharma Ji hai mere dost, ye sir apna bank me hain aur aage na
thoda bahut wo jo bhi kaam hoga ye dekhenge sir aur sir aapke
pair pakad ke ek nivedan hai ki matlab ab jaan chhod do aur koi
baat nahi, theek hai na sir
B. Ye bhi to dekh raha hai banda dekh raha tha wo, sir ye ek
lakh rupye hain aur main karke deta hun Sir lakh rupye aur theek
hai sir, baaki sir dekh lo matlab jaan chhod do kisi tareeke se
A. FIR me nahi badal sakta
B. Nahi Sir FIR ka ye wo hota hai jo usme jo finding kare jo jaanch
kare usme kam se kam ye to bataye ye nirdosh hai ye kasoorwar
hai
A. Arey bhai meri suno
B. Ji sir,
A. Saaf kah raha hun
B. Ji sir
A. Jab mera court me bayan aayega na
B. Ji sir
A. Usme bahut clear aayea ye jo
B. Ji Sir
A. Ki ye involve nahi hai
B. Nahi Sir main involve tha hi nahi na
A. Main khud kar raha hun ki ye inka koi involvement nahi hai
Investigation further revealed that voice sample of
both independent witnesses were recorded in the said
memory card through DVR which was sealed and marked as
Q2.
Investigation further revealed that the specimen
voice voluntarily given by the accused was taken in separate
CC No. 02/15 Page No. 12 of 63
CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016
memory card through DVR in the presence of both the
independent witnesses and the same was marked as S1 and
sealed. Thereafter the said DVR used for recording the
conversations during the course of verification and trap
proceedings was also duly sealed and marked as "Digital
Voice Recorder make Sony used in RC 38(A)/2014DLI". All
the proceedings held during the trap, were recorded/written
in a recovery memo which was duly signed by trap team
members.
Investigation has established that the accused
Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia demanded and accepted bribe
of Rs.1,00,000/ from the complainant Sh. Rao Satvir Singh
as part of demanded bribe amount of Rs. 2 lacs for
deposing/giving evidence in favour of the complainant in the
court, in the case which was investigated and chargesheeted
by the accused.
Investigation has established that the accused
Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia had met the complainant Sh.
Rao Satbir Singh on 17.11.2014 in the hotel Crown Plaza,
Gurgaon. The video footage provided by Sh. Sarabjit Singh,
Chief Security Officer, Hotel Crown Plaza has been seized
CC No. 02/15 Page No. 13 of 63
CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016
which is duly supported by certificate in terms of section 65B
of Indian Evidence Act.
Investigation has established that the accused
Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia, Additional SHO, PS Chhawla
was investigating the case FIR No. 459/14 U/s 143, 144, 147,
148, 149, 323, 427/307, 353 & 332/34 IPC and 3PDPP Act,
Delhi. This case was registered on 03.08.2014 and the
complainant has been named as an accused. However, the
complainant in the said case has been named as Satbir Yadav.
In the said case, chargesheet has been filed in the court which
is pending trial and the complainant has been shown as
absconder. It is relevant to mention that accused while
investigating the said case, has shown that he contacted the
complainant over his mobile phone but he could not talk as
the same was not reachable. Accused has also shown in the
CD that he also contacted over the mobile phone of Sh.
Sukhbir, the brother of complainant. These facts are
established from the case diary dated 02.08.2014 of the said
case.
Investigation has revealed that mobile no.
8750871091 which was being used by the accused Ram
CC No. 02/15 Page No. 14 of 63
CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016
Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia is registered in the name of Delhi
Police, DCP office, West District, Sector19, Dwarka, New
Delhi and the SIM of this mobile no. was issued to the
accused for official use.
Investigation revealed that for the mobile
no.9899755555, service provider is Bharti Airtel Limited and
and this phone is registered in the name of Sh. Rao Satvir
Singh s/o Sh. Rao Deep Chand r/o 309, Holi Chowk,
Ghumanhera, Delhi73.
Investigation has also revealed that the
complainant Sh. Rao Satvir Singh is also known and called as
Satvir Yadav.
In view of the aforesaid facts, a charge sheet was
filed for the commission of offences punishable u/s 7 & 13(2)
r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the
part of accused Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia, the then Addl.
SHO PS Chhawala, Delhi.
Charge
After complying with the requirements of Section
CC No. 02/15 Page No. 15 of 63
CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016
207 Cr.PC, arguments on the point of charge were heard. A
charge under Section 7 read with Sec. 13(2) r/w Sec. 13(1)
(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed, to
which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence
LIST OF WITNESSES
Sl. No. PWs Name of Witnesses
1. PW1 Sh. Vijay Kant Sharma, Asstt. Manager, Vijaya Bank,
Defence Colony Branch, New Delhi
2. PW2 Sh. Tejender Singh Luthra, joint Commissioner of Police,
South Western Range, PHQ, MSO Building, ITO, New
Delhi
3. PW3 Sh. Tikam Singh, Clerk in MMTC, 6th Floor, Scope
Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
4. PW4 Sh. S. P. Singh, Inspector, CBI/ACB/New Delhi
5. PW5 Sh. Sarabjeet Singh S/o Sh. Swarn Singh, Chief Security
Officer, Hotel Crown Plaza, Sec29, NH8, Gurgaon
6. PW6 Sh. Rao Satbir Singh S/o Sh. Rao Deep Chand,
Complainant
7. PW7 Sh. Pawan Singh S/o Sh. Kishan Singh, Nodal Officer,
IDEA Cellular
8. PW8 Inspector Kailash Sahu, CBI, ACB, ND
9. PW9 Sh. Chander Shekhar S/o Late G. B. Tiwari, Nodal
Officer, Bharti Airtel
10. PW10 Inspector Ram Nivas, No. D760, PS Sarita Vihar, ND
11. PW11 Dr. Subrat Kumar Choudhury, Sr. Scientific Officer,
CFSL, CBI, ND
12. PW12 Inspector Shitanshu Sharma, CBI, ACB
13. PW13 Sh. V. B. Ramteke, Sr.Scientific Officer, GradeI,
(Chemistry) CFSL, CBI, ND
CC No. 02/15 Page No. 16 of 63
CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016
Statement under Section 313 Cr.PC of the accused
Accused denied all the allegations and stated that
complainant bears grudge against him and wanted to save
himself from the case of murder and rioting. Therefore,
complainant in connivance with CBI falsely implicated him in
this case.
Defence Evidence
LIST OF DEFENCE WITNESSES
Sl. No. PWs Name of Witnesses
1. DW1 Sh. Ombir Singh, Record Moharar, Police Station
Chhawla
2. DW2 Sh. Mukund Mahdav, Assistant Section Officer in Co
ordinationI, Central Vigilance Commission, Satarkata
Bhawan, GPO Complex, INA, New Delhi
3. DW3 Sh. Bhim Singh, SubInspector, Posted in Confidential
Branch, Delhi Police Hqs., ITO, Delhi
4. DW4 Sh. Ajay Dutt, Assistant SubInspector, Establishment
Branch, Delhi Police Hqs., ITO, Delhi
5. DW5 Sh. Sandeep Kumar Sharma, Regional Technical
Incharge(North), M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd.
6. DW6 Sh. Hemant Kumar Yadav, TGT in Govt. Boys Sr.
Secondary School, JJ Colony, Raghubir Nagar, New
Delhi27
7. DW7 Sh. Amit Shokeen, Agriculturist and Social Worker
8. DW8 Sh. Laxmi Narayan Rao, Retd. DCP, Delhi Police
CC No. 02/15 Page No. 17 of 63
CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016
Whether the sanction was accorded by an incompetent
authority?
Ld. Defence counsel has referred to Ashok
Rangshahi Vs. State of MP, 1996 (2) 39 MP, State Inspector
of Police Vs. Surya Sankaram Karri, 2006 (4) RCR
(Criminal) 53 SC and Gopalbhai Mohanbhai Nagoda Vs.
State of Gujrat, IV (1993) CCR 3288 (DB) and has
specifically drawn my attention to Devender Singh Vs. State,
ILR (1974) II 400 (Delhi DB) wherein Delhi High Court held
that where promotion and notification passed by DIG was
signed by SP, such SP does not become the competent
authority to remove the public servant. It was argued that
the Commissioner had appointed the accused as Inspector
and therefore, Joint Commissioner was not competent to
remove him from service. Thus, the sanction by Joint
Commissioner is invalid.
The accused has examined DW3 to prove the
promotion list Ex.DW3/A and the promotion order
Ex.DW3/B.
I would like to produce the relevant portion of the
promotion list Ex.DW3/A, which is as under :
CC No. 02/15 Page No. 18 of 63
CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016
"(FOR PUBLICATION IN DELHI POLICE GAZETTE)
(ORDERS BY THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE :DELHI)
DATED 24/4/2014
No.23771/CBI/PHQ: ADMISSION OF NAMES TO PROMOTION
LIST 'F' (EXECUTIVE): In pursuance of judgement dated 24.12.2013
passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.
2009/2013 - Vijender Singh & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi
& Ors., the names of following SubInspectors (Executive) are
admitted to Promotion List 'F' (executive w.e.f. 15.04.2014 in terms
of rule 17(i) of Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules,
1980 :
Sl.No. NAME RANGE NO. PIS NO. CAT.
... .... .... ... ...
9. Ram Niwas Pawalia D898 16920088
... .... .... ... ...
........
........
.......
This notification is subject to the final outcome of W.P.(C) No. 6309/2007U.O.I (through Commissioner of Police, Delhi) V/s Suman Pushkarna & Ors.
(DEPENDRA PATHAK) JOINT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE:
HEADQUARTERS : DELHI."
Now, I reproduce the relevant portion of Ex.DW3/B, as under :
"(FOR PUBLICATION IN DELHI POLICE GAZETTE) (ORDERS BY THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE :DELHI) DATED 09/05//2014 CC No. 02/15 Page No. 19 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 No. 26767/CBI/PHQ : PROMOTION: The following Sub Inspectors (Executive) whose names stand on Promotion List 'F' (Executive) w.e.f. 15.04.2014 are promotion to officiate as Inspector (Executive) with immediate effect and placed on probation for a period of two years : Sl Name of Sub Range PIS NO. CAT. C.G.No. .N Inspecor No. o.
... .... .... ... ... ....
9. Ram Niwas Pawalia D898 16920088 P0905141430021
... .... .... ... ... ...
......
......
......
This notification is subject to the final outcome of W.P.(C) No.6309/2007 - U.O.I. (through Commissioner of Police, Delhi) V/s Suman Pushkarna & Ors.
(DEPENDRA PATHAK) JOINT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE:
HEADQUARTERS : DELHI."
I may mention that the aforesaid Gazette notifications were published in the Gazette of Delhi Police, which is proved by DW4, Assistant Sub Inspector Ajay Dutt as Ex.DW4/A. I may mention here that Ld. Defence counsel admits that the appointing authority of Inspectors of Delhi Police is Joint Commissioner. However, it is submitted that in CC No. 02/15 Page No. 20 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 the case of the accused, the appointment was made by the Commissioner of Police. Therefore, as per Article 311 of Constitution of India, no person less than the Commissioner of Police can remove the accused from his service. My attention is drawn to Ex.DW3/A and Ex.DW3/B (relevant portion of which have been reproduced as above), in which it is specifically written that the promotion of the accused along with others to the post of Inspector was made by the orders of Commissioners of Police. Ld. Defence counsel submits that it is true that Joint Commissioner of Police has signed the said orders, but, he is only an issuing authority in the present case and had issued the said promotion orders on behalf of the Commissioner of Police and not in his capacity as a Joint Commissioner of Police. Therefore, even if the orders of promotion are signed by Joint Commissioner, the same are actually made by the Commissioner of Police. Ld. Defence counsel argues that since the appointment is made by the Commissioner of Police, the accused is not removable from his office by any authority below the rank of Commissioner of Police. Therefore, pursuant to Section 19(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, only Commissioner of Police could have accorded sanction to prosecute the accused.
CC No. 02/15 Page No. 21 of 63CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 I have considered the submissions and I have perused the orders Ex.DW3/A and Ex.DW3/B. The heading of both the orders mentions "ORDERS BY THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DELHI". However, by this heading, it cannot be presumed that appointing authority is Commissioner of Police. The perusal of the order does not mention anywhere that the said order is being issued by the Commissioner of Police. The language which has been reproduced by me as above clearly shows that the same had been issued by Joint Commissioner of Police himself in his own capacity and not by the Commissioner of Police. Therefore, I disagree with the submissions of Ld. Defence counsel that in case of the accused, Commission of Police was the appointing authority. Rather, as per the orders Ex.DW3/A and Ex.DW3/B, the promotion orders had been issued by Joint Commissioner of Police. The conjoined reading of The Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1980 and Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules 1980 show that appointing authority of Inspector is Additional Commissioner of Police. Therefore, I hold that PW2 Sh. Tejender Singh Luthra, the Joint Commissioner of Police, (which is a rank higher than Additional Commissioner) was competent to accord sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption CC No. 02/15 Page No. 22 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 Act, 1988 for prosecution of the accused.
Whether the sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 suffers from nonapplication of mind?
PW2 Sh. Tejender Singh Luthra has testified that he was working as Joint Commissioner of Police, South Western Range Delhi at the relevant time and after examining the facts and circumstances of the case and going through statements of witnesses, documents, etc., he accorded sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for prosecuting accused Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia, the then Additional SHO, PS Chhawla, Delhi for the offences punishable under Section 7 & 13(2) r/w Sec. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. He proved the sanction order as Ex.PW2/A. In crossexamination, he stated that in a police station, three Inspectors used to be posted, one was SHO, another was Additional SHO and thirdone was Inspector Investigation. He also stated in crossexamination that Additional SHO and Inspector Investigation are frequently interchangeable. He also stated that he had not gone through the Duty Roaster of PS Chhawla to see as to whether accused was Additional SHO or not. He volunteered CC No. 02/15 Page No. 23 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 that the accused was working as Additional SHO and was also Inspector Investigation in PS Chhawla.
Ld. Defence counsel has drawn my attention to the crossexamination of Investigating Officer Shitanshu Sharma (PW12), who stated that he had seized the Duty Roaster, which is Ex.PW10/C. He also admitted that in the column of SHO, name of Inspector Ravinder Singh is mentioned. In the column of Additional SHO, name of Ram Niwas is mentioned. And in the column of Inspector Investigation, the name of Ram Niwas Yadav is mentioned. Ld. Defence counsel argues that PW2 has testified falsely when he volunteered that accused was working as Additional SHO as well as Inspector Investigation. This duty roaster shows that Ram Niwas Yadav was Inspector Investigation and some other Ram Niwas was Additional SHO. Ld. Defence Counsel points out that Sh. Ram Niwas, the Addl. SHO has been examined by CBI as PW10. Therefore, it is argued by Ld. Defence counsel that the sanction has been given by PW2 to prosecute Ram Niwas, the Additional SHO and not the present accused, who was only working as Inspector Investigation. Ld. Defence counsel submits that it is due to nonapplication of mind that the sanctioning authority could CC No. 02/15 Page No. 24 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 not understand as to against whom the sanction was being granted.
I have considered these submissions and I am of the opinion that PW2 might be confusing between the posts of Additional SHO and Inspector Investigation, but he had no confusion about the person against whom the sanction was accorded by him. The perusal of the sanction order Ex.PW2/A (D23) makes a specific mention of Ram Niwas Yadav. The perusal of the Duty Roaster (D16) Ex.PW10/C mentions the name of Inspector Ram Niwas and Inspector Ram Niwas Yadav. Therefore, when the sanction order is being issued in the name of Ram Niwas Yadav, it cannot be said that the sanctioning authority was having some confusion regarding the person against whom the sanction is being issued. Therefore, I disagree with the submissions of Ld. Defence counsel that the sanction order suffers from nonapplication of mind.
Electronic Evidence Ld. Defence counsel has referred to Ram Singh & Ors.. Vs. Col. Ram Singh, AIR 1986 SC 3; Subhash Chand Chauhan Vs. CBI, 2005 (2) RCR (Criminal) 151; PV Anwar CC No. 02/15 Page No. 25 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 Vs. PK Basheer & Anr. 2014 (10) SCC 473; Kundan Singh Vs. State, I (2016) DLT (Criminal) 144 DB and Acchey Lal Yadav Vs. State, 2014 (8) LRC 236 (DHC). It is submitted by Ld. Defence counsel that certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act in support of the CCTV video footage is defective, therefore, it is argued that the CCTV footage should not be taken in consideration. Moreover, it is argued that this CCTV footage Ex.PW5/E was not sent for CFSL for examination.
I have considered the submissions. Although, I do not find any problem with certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act in support of the CCTV footage, however, I deem it necessary to point out that in the present case the CCTV footage were run in this court before my Ld. Predecessor and I had no occasion to see the same. Therefore, before delivering this judgement, I watched the CD Ex.PW5/E containing the CCTV footage on 17.11.2016 and the CCTV footage of CD Ex.PW5/F on 18.11.2016, on a laptop. The complete details of the same have been given by me in the order sheets of the said dates. CD Ex.PW5/E depicts the entry gate from inside the hotel and CD Ex.PW5/F shows the scenario of the porch of the hotel. Although, PW6 has CC No. 02/15 Page No. 26 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 identified the accused in the same during recording of evidence, however, on seeing the same I found that it was not possible to recognize face of the persons entering the hotel. Therefore, I discard the CCTV footage from consideration. Hence, the objections of the defence regarding defects in the certificate U/s 65B would only be academic in nature and would not serve any practical purpose for the determination of fact in issue.
Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the testimony of DW6 Hemant Kumar Yadav, the son of the accused, who testified that on 12.11.2014, when he reached his home, he found that CBI officials had attached a device with laptop and were doing some work. Ld. Defence Counsel argues that this proves that CBI officials had manipulated the electronic evidence in the conversation recorded in the memory cards inserted in the DVR. I disagree with the submission. There is no reason as to why CBI would do any alteration in presence of accused himself. Moreover, when such hectic activity is being carried out, it is not possible to carry out such a delicate work.
CC No. 02/15 Page No. 27 of 63CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 Ld. Defence Counsel argues that DW5 Sandeep Kumar Sharma, the Regional Technical Incharge (North) in M/s Sony Indian Pvt. Ltd., has testified that all the DVRs of Sony company come with a software named sound organizer including the DVR, which is used in the present case. It is argued that DVR itself can be used for editing in the recording. I have perused the testimony of DW5 and he has stated that in a DVR, a recording can be partly deleted and erased. In view of evidence, I would agree with Ld. Defence Counsel that deletion of some part of the conversation recorded in DVR should be possible. But I do not find any reason as to why CBI should do so. I may point out that the recordings are only corroborative evidence in the present case. The substantial evidence in this case is coming through the eye witnesses/independent witnesses namely PW1 Vijay Kant Sharma and PW3 Tikam Singh, apart from the complainant PW6 himself.
CFSL Report PW13 V. B. Ramteke has proved report Ex.PW12/C, which shows that the sealed glass bottles containing pink liquid of left hand wash and right hand wash and right side pocket wash were examined and gave positive CC No. 02/15 Page No. 28 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 test for presence of phenolphthalein.
PW11 Dr. Subrat Kumar Chaudhary, Senior Scientific Officer proved his report Ex.PW11/A and testified that the auditory, waveform and spectographic examination of Q1 and Q2 (which are micro SD cards containing the questioned audio recordings) and S1 an micro SD card containing the specimen voice of Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia revealed that the voice in Q1 and Q2 matched with the specimen voice of accused. I may point out that Inspector Kailash Sahu (PW8), who is the TLO, has testified on 26.8.2015 that during the course of investigation, he had also recorded the specimen voice of Ram Niwas Pawalia in the memory card Ex.PW6/A. Contradictions It is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt regarding the existence or use of DVR in the present case.
Ld. Defence Counsel submits that as per the case of the prosecution only one DVR was used on both days i.e. 21.11.2014 & 22.11.2014 whereas perusal of cross CC No. 02/15 Page No. 29 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 examination of PW8 Inspector Kailash Sahu, he used a new DVR on 22.11.2014 which was sealed in a company packing. I am of the opinion that Ld. Defence Counsel is reading the cross examination out of context. In examination in chief itself PW8 has testified that "Thereafter, a DVR make Sony which was in possession of independent witness Tikam Singh was produced by me, which was handed over to him after carrying out the verification proceedings. Therefore a new memory card was arranged and after breaking its company seal, it was inserted in the DVR." I may point out that PW8 is the leader (Trap Laying Officer) of the trap team and the verification of the complaint of PW6 had already been carried out before the role of PW8 started. The verification of the complaint was done through recording of conversation between accused and PW6 by means of the DVR. PW8 has testified that in this DVR, which was in possession of independent witness Tikam Singh, a new memory card was inserted. Ld. Defence Counsel submits that PW1 Vijay Kant Sharma has not deposed that any recording of conversation between the accused and the complainant was actually done or heard by him. He only testified that one person boarded in Tavera car with DVR and that after the raid, specimen voice of the accused was recorded in the office of CBI. Ld. Defence CC No. 02/15 Page No. 30 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 Counsel submits that PW3 Tikam Singh has also not deposed about carrying or using DVR by the trap team on the second day i.e. 22.11.2014. Ld. Defence Counsel further submits that PW4 Inspector S. P. Singh has also not deposed about carrying or using DVR by the trap team on the second day i.e. 22.11.2014. I have considered these submissions. These appear to be minor lapses in long testimonies of the witnesses. PW6 Rao Satbir Singh has specifically testified that on 21.11.2014, he lodged a complaint and Inspector S. P. Singh was directed to verify the complaint and that CBI arrange a DVR in which a memory card was inserted. PW6 also testified that the call between him and accused was being simultaneously recorded in DVR. PW4 Inspector S. P. Singh also states that he arranged a DVR and inserted a new memory card in which such conversation was recorded. It is correct that PW4 is silent in respect of DVR regarding the event of 22.11.2014 but it must be kept in mind that the leader of the trap team on 22.11.2014 was PW8 Inspector Kailash Sahu, who has specifically testified the use of DVR on 22.11.2014. Therefore, testimony of PW6 in respect of use of DVR on both the dates has to be accepted.
Ld. Defence Counsel submits that evidence on CC No. 02/15 Page No. 31 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 record support the version of the defence that after sitting inside the car of the complainant, the accused directed to take the car towards the police station chhawla and while they were travelling towards the police station, after a distance of 1.5 kilometer, their car was intercepted and accused was falsely apprehended and involved in the present case.
It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that as per the evidence of PW1 Vijay Kant Sharma, PW3 Tikam Singh and PW4 Inspector S. P. Singh, the post raid proceedings were conducted at the distance of 1.5 kilometer away from the Shokeen Petrol Pump whereas as per the evidence of PW6 Rao Satbir Singh and PW8 Inspector Kailash Sahu post raid proceedings were conducted at Shokeen Petrol Pump only. I have perused the statement of PW1, who has stated in examination in chief that in order to avoid the gathering of crowd, CBI officials took the vehicles at some distance where CBI officials got the hands of accused washed in water. PW3 has also testified in cross examination that after apprehension of accused Ram Niwas Yadav, he was taken by CBI officials at about 1½ kilometer away from Shokeen Petrol Pump. PW4 Inspector S. P. Singh also stated in examination in chief that CC No. 02/15 Page No. 32 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 since public had started gathering at the petrol pump, it was decided to go 1½ kilometer away from the petrol pump. I disagree that there is any contradiction between the testimonies of PW4 and PW8 on this point. PW8 in his examination in chief itself testifies that as crowd gathered near the petrol pump, it was decided to leave that place and accordingly the trap team left that place and went ahead. PW8 has further explained in his cross examination dated 1.2.2016 that they had stopped at a place about 1 ½ kilometer away from Shokeen Petrol Pump to check the exhibits. Therefore, I find no contradiction in the testimonies of the witnesses.
It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that as per the prosecution case, on demand of bribe by the accused, complainant took out the tainted GC bribe amount of Rs.100,000/ from his pant pocket and extended the same towards the accused and the accused accepted the same with his left hand and after counting for a while with his both hands, he kept the bribe amount in his right side pant pocket.
It is argued that none of the witness has testified that accused counted the tainted money from his both hands.
CC No. 02/15 Page No. 33 of 63CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 Thus both hands washes turning pink is highly doubtful and points towards the plantation of hand washes on the accused. I have perused the testimony of PW6 Rao Satbir Singh and PW1 Vijay Kant Sharma. PW6 testified that accused has accepted the bribe money in his right hand and kept the same in right side pocket of his pant. Though, none of these witnesses has testified that the accused counted money, but it is natural that accused might have used the other hand to handle the said amount. That is why hand washes of both the hands turned pink.
On the point of acceptances, it is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that there are major contradictions on record. Ld. Defence Counsel has pointed out that PW1 Vijay Kant Sharma has not testified as to in which pant pocket money was kept and from which pant pocket, the tainted money was recovered from the accused. Moreover, PW3 Tikam Singh in his examination in chief deposed that before leaving for trap, the tainted notes were kept in an envelope and sealed. On cross examination by Ld. PP, he admitted the suggestion that the money was not sealed. However, he has not clarified as to why he deposed previously that money was sealed. It I argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that one fact CC No. 02/15 Page No. 34 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 remained unchallenged and that is that money was kept in the envelope before leaving for trap. Ld. Defence Counsel further submits that PW1 Vijay Kant Sharma also deposed in his examination in chief that "then complainant Rao Satbir Singh handed over the packet containing GC notes in the hands of Insp. Ram Niwas." Ld. Defence Counsel further submitted that PW3 Tikam Singh deposed that when Rao Satbir Singh was giving Rs.1 lac to accused, in that moment, when he received the amount, he was immediately apprehended by the CBI officials. Though PW3, cross examination by Ld. PP, has again admitted that the accused kept the bribe in his right side pant pocket but not clarified as to which part of his deposition is correct. I am of the opinion that these are extremely minor contradictions and do not affect the substantial evidence on record.
It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that as per the prosecution case, the pant pocket wash was taken at Gurgaon, at the residence of the accused, but his this fact was also not proved beyond doubt on record by the prosecution rather prosecution has given different versions on record in this regard. Ld. Defence Counsel submits that except PW8 Inspector Kailash Sahu, all other witnesses deposed CC No. 02/15 Page No. 35 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 differently and none of them has testified that pant pocket was of the accused was taken at Gurgaon. I have considered the submissions and I am of the opinion that the wash of pant pocket could be taken only when accused removes it from his body. For this purpose, it is reasonable to believe that the wash of the pant worn by accused was taken at the residence of the accused. Therefore, I find the testimony of PW8 to be reliable when he testifies that at about 5:00 pm, he along with trap team and the accused reached the residence of accused, trouser was arranged and the pant, which was worn by the accused, got changed. PW8 testifies that the wash of the right side pant pocket of accused was taken in freshly prepared solution of sodium carbonate, which turned pink.
Ld. Defence Counsel points out that PW1 Vijay Kant Sharma deposed that pant pocket wash of the accused was taken at the place where hands wash was taken and thereafter they proceeded towards Gurgaon. Ld. Defence Counsel further submits that PW3 Tikam Singh also deposed that pant pocket wash of the accused was taken at the place where hands wash was taken and that thereafter they came back to CBI office and that the factum of going at Gurgaon on 22.11.2014 is missing in the testimony of PW3 Tikam Singh.
CC No. 02/15 Page No. 36 of 63CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 Ld. Defence Counsel has further pointed out that PW4 Inspector S. P. Singh also deposed that pant pocket wash of the accused was taken at the place where hands wash was taken. Ld. Defence Counsel further submits that PW6 Rao Satbir Singh also deposed that pant pocket wash of the accused was taken at the place where hands wash was taken and that thereafter they came back to CBI office. I have already mentioned that testimony of PW8 appears to be trustworthy. The testimonies of remaining witnesses on the point as to at which place the wash of the pant of accused was taken appears from suffering from loss of memory on account of lapse of time. Therefore, there is a contradiction between the testimonies of PW8 and remaining witnesses regarding the place where the wash of pant was taken but the same is required to be ignored because as discussed earlier, the evidence of PW8 appears to be reasonable and understandable. I may point out that all these witnesses are sure about one fact i.e. the wash of the pant was taken.
It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that prosecution case deserves to be discarded on the perusal of the site plan Ex.PW1/D. It is argued that no such point is shown in the site plan where alleged transaction of CC No. 02/15 Page No. 37 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 bribe/crime took place. I have perused the site plan and I find that place of bribe of accused, car of complainant, placement of accused, PW1 and PW6 in car have been clearly shown. Hence I find no defect in the site plan.
In view of the above stated discussion, I find no major contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses, which have an effect of shaking the foundation of the prosecution case.
The antecedents of the complainant Ld. Counsel for complainant has led a scathing attack on the character of the complainant. Ld. Defence counsel has drawn my attention to the statement of Head Constable Ombir Singh (DW1), who is a Record Moharar in Police Station Chhawla. He produced Register No. 9 PartIII, Beat Book Gumanhera, PS Chhawla and testified that as per record Satbir Singh son of Deep Chand , President of Village Gumanhera had involvement in following cases :
(i) FIR No. 6/88, u/Ss 324/326/34 IPC, PS Jafarpur Kala
(ii) FIR No. 97/97, u/Ss 147/148/149/440/452 IPC, PS CC No. 02/15 Page No. 38 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 City Gurgaon, Haryana.
(iii) FIR No. 148/2001, u/Ss 419/170 IPC, PS Khairthal, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
(iv) FIR No. 33/2008, u/Sec 3 West Bengal Act, PS Chhawla.
(v) FIR No. 459/14, u/Ss 302/307/143/147/148/ 149/186/353/332 IPC, PS Chhawla.
The accused had filed along with his written arguments a copy of a newspaper cutting in which it is written that Satbir Singh, son of Deep Chand Yadav, r/o Ghumanhera, Najafgarh, Delhi was arrested for the offence of impersonating SDM. Along with it a copy of an appeal filed by Satbir Singh challenging his conviction under Section 419, 170, 120B IPC has also been filed. Although, the actual certified copies were not proved as per law, however, I have no hesitation in accepting the submissions of Ld. Defence counsel that Satbir Singh had been convicted under the aforesaid provisions of laws.
Ld. Defence counsel has argued that complainant in a bribery case is an accomplice and where the complainant is of poor moral fiber or criminal background, it would be CC No. 02/15 Page No. 39 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 safe to discard his testimony. While referring to Arjun Bajirao Kale Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 (4) Crimes Bombay HC; Sat Paul Vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1976 SC 294 Prem Singh Yadav Vs. CBI, 2011 (2) JCC 1059; Shri Ram Vs. State of Punjab, 1980 CCC (P&H) 169 and Ravinder Mahadeo Kothamkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Bombay High Court vide judgement dated 09.10.2015 in Criminal Appeal No. 1152/2014, it is argued by Ld. Defence counsel that a doubt in the prosecution case can be created if accused is able to show that complainant might have a grudge against the accused. Hence, it is argued that it would not be safe to convict the accused on the testimony of complainant.
I have considered the aforesaid case laws cited by Ld. Defence counsel.
Question is as to whether the aforesaid criminal background of Satbir Singh (PW6) would disentitle this witness to be considered from being a credible witness. In this regard few facts are required to be considered. First is that, it is not uncommon that a public servant makes demand of bribe from the persons, who are involved in criminal CC No. 02/15 Page No. 40 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 activities. Due to this reason, a good number of criminals are enjoying immunity from criminal prosecution. Some corrupt police officers are also demanding bribes in lieu of obliging the criminals in future in a criminal proceedings. Therefore, if a person of criminal background makes a complaint of corruption against a public servant, testimony of such a complainant cannot be thrown out. However, as a matter of abundant caution, the court would like to seek corroboration of his evidence on material facts.
Mobile phones of the accused and complainant.
PW9 Chander Shekhar, the Nodal Officer of Bharti Airtel Ltd. has proved the Customer Application Form of mobile phone no. 9899755555, which shows that this mobile phone number is in the name of Rao Satbir Singh. The complainant also identified his photograph and signatures on the Customer Application Form, which is Ex.PW6/B. Prosecution has also examined PW7 Pawan Singh, the Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd., who proved the Customer Application Form in the name of Jile Singh, an Officer of Delhi Police, in the Office of DCP Office, South West District, Sector19, Dwarka, Delhi, vide which Delhi CC No. 02/15 Page No. 41 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 Police had obtained 42 mobile numbers/ SIM cards for various officers of Delhi Police. He proved the list of phone numbers and SIM card numbers, which is Ex.PW7/C (D12). I have perused this list and it includes the mobile phone no. 8750871091. PW10 Inspector Ram Niwas, the Additional SHO in PS Chhawla proved a letter by MHC(M) Omkar Singh, Ex.PW10/D to show that the aforesaid mobile phone number was issued to police station Chhawla and was issued to Inspector Ram Niwas on 08.06.2014. Thus, it is proved b y prosecution that this mobile phone number was allotted to the accused officially. The perusal of arrest memo Ex.PW1/C (D6), shows that this mobile phone was recovered from the possession of the accused himself.
Thus, it stands proved that mobile phone no. 9899755555 belongs to PW6, the complainant and mobile phone no. 8750871091 was being used by the accused.
Call Detail Records The prosecution examined PW7 Pawan Singh, the Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd., who proved the Call Detail Records of mobile phone no. 8750871091 of the accused as Ex.PW7/D. This is supported with a certificate under Section CC No. 02/15 Page No. 42 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 65B of Indian Evidence Act, Ex.PW7/E. Prosecution also examined PW9 Chander Shekhar, the Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd., who proved the Call Detail Records of mobile phone no. 9899755555 of PW6 as Ex.PW9/A (D13, pages 05 to 07). This is supported with a certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, Ex.PW9/C (D13, page 10).
Whether testimony of PW6 is worthy of credence?
Complainant Rao Satbir Singh (PW6) was examined by my Ld. Predecessor. PW6 testified that on 15.11.2014, he received a missed call from mobile phone no. 8750871091 on his mobile phone no. 9899755555. He made a call on the said mobile number and the phone was picked by a person, who introduced himself as Inspector Ram Niwas Yadav, Additional SHO, PS Chhawla, New Delhi. The caller on the phone told him that in an incident of 02.08.2014, MCD people were beaten up and one MCD employee died and that his name (i.e. name of PW6) has been put in the said case and that if he wanted to save himself, then he should come and meet him. PW6 testified that on 17.11.2014, he again received a missed call from the same mobile number and accordingly he called back. The person who picked the call asked him to meet in the evening in Hotel Crown Plaza, CC No. 02/15 Page No. 43 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 situated at Sector 29, Gurgaon. PW6, his younger brother Sukhbir Singh and accused reached the said hotel. PW6 testified that accused told him that he had been named in a case and that he can save him from the case, for which he demanded a bribe to the tune of Rs.5 lacs. In statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, accused has denied all these facts.
The call detailed record Ex.PW7/D (duly supported with a certificate Ex.PW7/E under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act) shows that there is a conversation between the aforesaid two mobile phones on 15.11.2014 for about 273 seconds and there is conversation on the two mobile phone numbers on 17.11.2014 also for 214 seconds. This is a corroboration to the aforesaid testimony of PW6.
PW6 testified that accused gave him a missed call on 20.11.2014 and he called him up on the said mobile. He testified that accused Ram Niwas Yadav asked him as to what was thought by him (i.e. by PW6). On this, PW6 told that he is unable to arrange Rs.5 lacs. In statement under Section 313 Cr.PC accused has denied these facts. However, the testimony of PW6 is corroborated by the CDR Ex.PW7/D, which shows the conversation between two mobile phones CC No. 02/15 Page No. 44 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 for 74 seconds.
The aforesaid allegations of demand of Rs.5 lacs by accused is further corroborated from the fact that PW6 testified that on 21.11.2014, he visited the office of CBI, ACB, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi and lodged the complaint Ex.PW6/A against the accused.
Perusal of the complaint Ex.PW6/A (D1) shows that PW6 has clearly mentioned that accused made a demand of bribe of Rs.5 lacs for taking out the name of PW6 from the criminal case involving murder of an MCD employee and the accused met PW6 in Hotel Crown Plaza in Gurgaon, on 17.11.2014, where accused reduced the demand to Rs.3 lacs.
The CBI, as per procedure, carried out verification of the complaint of PW6. PW4 Insp. S. P. Singh testified that on 21.11.2014, SP Sh. Anees Prasad marked this complaint of Rao Satbir Singh to him for verification. PW4 arranged a witness namely Sh. Teekam Singh from NTPC.PW4 decided to record the conversation between complainant and accused Ram Niwas Pawalia and accordingly PW4 arranged a DVR CC No. 02/15 Page No. 45 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 along with a new memory card from Caretaker, CBI. The said memory card was inserted in the DVR and introductory voice of Teekam Singh was recorded in the memory card and complainant was asked to make call to the accused after putting the mobile phone in "speaker on" mode. The DVR was switched on for recording of ongoing conversation between the complainant and the accused. Complainant made a call to the accused and the said conversation was simultaneously recorded in the memory card through DVR. Thereafter, the recording of DVR was heard, which disclosed the demand of Rs.2 lacs on the part of accused Ram Niwas Yadav from the complainant. I may point out that PW4 thereafter became the part of the trap team on 22.11.2014, after verification of the correctness of the complaint.
I have perused the call details Ex.PW7/D, which show conversation between the mobile phones of accused and complainant on 21.11.2014 for 156 seconds.
Now, I have perused the transcript of the recording through DVR. The transcript is Ex.PW3/E. Perusal of this transcript shows that PW6 is imploring that the bribe money should be reduced. On this accused states that he had CC No. 02/15 Page No. 46 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 told "teen" but he will agree to "do" (teen bataye the, do kar lena.....). It is clear that accused is referring to a bribe amount of Rs.3 lacs, which is mentioned by complainant in his complaint Ex.PW6/A and that accused agreed to reduce it for Rs.2 lacs.
Thus, the testimony of PW6 has proved beyond doubt that initial demand of Rs.5 lacs by accused was reduced to Rs.3 lacs and thereafter on 21.11.2014, accused further reduced it to Rs.2 lacs and this testimony is well corroborated by the CDRs as well as the recorded calls.
Now, I take up the testimony of PW6. In respect of demand of bribe, I would like to reproduce relevant portion of his examinationinchief as under :
"On 15.11.2014, in the noon time at about 2 or 3 p.m, I received a missed call from mobile no.8750871092 on my mobile number 9899755555. I called back on the same number. The person who picked up the call introduced me as Insp. Ram Nivas Yadav, Additional SHO, PS Chhawla, New Delhi. He told me that the incident which took place on 02.08.2014 near my village, in which MCD people were beaten and one MCD employee died and your name has been put in that case and if you want to save yourself then you come and meet me. I said that I have no concern in that case for which he replied that I know this fact and stated that he can escape me from that case if I meet him within one or two days.
On 17.11.2014, I again received a missed call from the mobile number 8750871092 on my aforesaid mobile CC No. 02/15 Page No. 47 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 number. I called back him. The person who picked up the call said to me to meet him in the evening hours for which I stated that if I am named in the case, how I can meet you, on which he stated to me that he can arrive in the hotel Crown Plaza situated at Sec.29, Gurgaon where I can meet him. Thereafter,I made a call to my younger brother Sh Sukhbir Singh and informed him about the conversation took place between me and the Additional SHO PS Chhawla. Thereafter, Additional SHO Insp. Ram Nivas Yadav and my younger brother Sukhbir Singh had already gone to Hotel Crown Plaza prior to my reaching there on 17.11.2014. I also reached in the Hotel Crown Plaza. At that time my brother Sh Sukhbir Singh and Insp. Ram Nivas Yadav was present in the coffee shop of hotel Crown Plaza. Accused Inspector Ram Nivas Yadav is present in the court today in JC and correctly identified by the witness. My brother sh. Sukhbir Singh introduced me with the person present with him at that time in the Hotel as Insp. SHO PS Chhawla Insp. Ram Nivas Yadav. My brother left the hotel after introducing me with accused Ram Nivas Yadav. Accused Ram Nivas Yadav stated to me that I have been named in the case and he can save me from the case for which he demanded bribe to the tune of Rs.5.00 lacs from me. I told him that I am innocent for which he stated that if my name is there in the FIR, it is there. We talked to each other in this respect for a long time. During conversation, I stated to accused to give me 23 days time for thinking about the conversation took place between me and him. Accused Ram Nivas Yadav remained in the hotel with me for about one hour."
Now, I would like to reproduce the relevant portion of his testimony in which he explained the circumstances for lodging the complaint. The same is as under :
"Thereafter, he again called gave a missed call to me on 20.11.2014. I called up at his aforesaid mobile. Accused Ram Nivas Yadav asked me as to what I have thought (maine kya socha). I had stated that Rs.5.00 lac is too much amount and it is difficult for me to arrange such a huge amount and requested CC No. 02/15 Page No. 48 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 him to decrease the amount to which he replied to arrange the amount and then he will think about reducing the demanded amount.
On 21.11.2014, I visited the office of CBI ACB, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi and met to Duty Officer present over there at that time. I stated to the duty officer that Additional SHO of Delhi Police is demanding bribe from me for which I want to lodge a complaint against him. He took me to the concerned officer of CBI in his office. I explained the incident to the said officer of CBI. He asked me 'do I want to lodge a complaint?' for which I replied that I came here to lodge a complaint. Accordingly, I lodged a complaint to S.P., CBI, CBI, New Delhi which has been written by me in Hindi. The same bears my signatures at point 'A'. My complaint is now Ex.PW6/A. I would like to reproduce the relevant portion of testimony of PW6 regarding the incident dated 22.11.2014 when PW6 brought Rs.1,00,000/ in the denomination of GC notes of Rs.1,000/ each, on which phenolphthalein powder was applied, which proved as to how the bribe money was accepted.
"After some time, accused Ram Niwas Yadav came on his motorcycle. After parking the motorcycle, accused Ram Niwas Yadav sat down on the rear seat of my car. I introduced Sh. Sharma, who is from the Bank, as my friend and he will take care further of future transaction. Accused Ram Niwas Yadav also gave his mobile number to Sh. Sharma. I further said to the accused he had falsely implicated me, for which he stated that he (accused) will depose in the court that I was not involved in this case. I alongwith Sh. Sharma (independent witness) were talking to the accused Ram Niwas Yadav after bending our necks towards him (accused) from the front seat, as he was sitting in my car on the rear seat. At that time, accused gave the indication from his right hand after touching his fingers CC No. 02/15 Page No. 49 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 with his thumb and demanded the prefixed bribe amount by gesture. On this, I took out the amount from my left pocket with the help of my left hand and same was handed over to the accused Ram Niwas Yadav through my right hand. Accused Ram Niwas Yadav accepted the said bribe amount in his right hand and then he kept the same in the right side pocket of his wearing pants."
The evidence of PW6 about demand of bribe by accused is supported by the verification conducted by S. P. Singh (PW4), who testified that when the complaint was marked to him for ascertaining the allegations made by complainant (i.e. PW6), he arranged an independent witness namely Tikam Singh from MMTC and decided to record conversation between complainant and accused Ram Niwas Pawalia. For doing so, he arranged a DVR along with a new memory card from the Caretaker, CBI, ACB. The said memory card was inserted in the aforesaid DVR and introductory voices of independent witness Sh. Tikam Singh was recorded in memory card through DVR. Thereafter, complainant was asked to make a call to the suspect after making his mobile phone in speaker on mode. The DVR was switched on for recording the ongoing conversation. The original memory card was proved by prosecution as Q1 (Ex.P8) and I played the same in my chamber on 18.11.2016 and compared the CC No. 02/15 Page No. 50 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 transcript Ex.PW3/E, which matched with the same. Perusal of the transcript Ex.PW3/E (relevant part of which has already been reproduced in the chargesheet - para 16.3), in which complainant is requesting to reduce the amount and state the last amount. Accused states that he had told three but you may arrange for two. It clearly means that accused was asking from the complainant (PW6) for Rs.3 lacs but settled for Rs.2 lacs. This conversation was recorded in the DVR on 21.11.2014 after lodging the formal complainant dated 21.11.2014 by PW6. In this complaint, PW6 has specifically mentioned that the accused was asking for Rs.5 lacs from him for removing his name from the list of accused. But in the meeting on 17.11.2014 in Hotel Crown Plaza, accused reduced the bribe amount from Rs.5 lacs to Rs.3 lacs and to deliver the bribe on 21.11.2014. I have already referred to the conversation (transcript Ex.PW3/E) between complainant (PW6) and accused, in which accused admits that he had stated the amount to be Rs.3 lacs but then he further reduced this amount to Rs.2 lacs.
Although, as per complaint Ex.PW6/A, the bribe money was to be paid on 21.11.2014, the conversation (transcript of which is Ex.PW3/E) shows that complainant CC No. 02/15 Page No. 51 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 requested to pay the bribe amount for the next date. Therefore, the actual trap took place on 22.11.2014. PW6 has testified that he could arrange for Rs.One Lakh in the denomination of Rs.1,000/ each, another memory card was inserted in the DVR, in presence of the independent witnesses, phenolphthalein powder was applied to the GC notes and on being contacted on the mobile phone, accused Ram Niwas Yadav reached at the Shokeen petrol pump near BSF Camp at Village Chhawla. PW6 testified that accused Ram Niwas Yadav came on his motorcycle and after parking it, accused sat down on the rear seat of the car of PW6. The shadow witness, namely, Vijay Kant Sharma (PW1), the Assistant Manager, Vijaya Bank, Defence Colony Branch, New Delhi was also sitting in the said car. Sh. Vijay Kant Sharma was examined as PW1, who fully supported the prosecution case and testified that accused came on motorcycle and thereafter he sat on the rear seat of the car of the complainant. PW1 testified that thereafter Insp. Ram Niwas gave signal/ indication to complainant Rao Satbir Singh to hand over the money to him. Complainant handed over the packet containing the currency notes which was kept by Ram Niwas Yadav in the right side pants pocket of his pants. Thereafter, Rao Satbir Singh gave a signal and CBI officials CC No. 02/15 Page No. 52 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 reached near the car. Same is the testimony of Rao Satbir Singh (PW6). Since in the car, accused Ram Niwas demanding the money by giving a signal, that is the reason that specific demand is not coming in the conversation recorded in DVR. The prosecution case finds support from the fact that in the conversation recorded in the car through DVR, the voice of TLO at point F1 is also heard in which TLO states, "What is the position? Haath pakad lo. Where is recorder?". Therefore, on search, the said amount was found in the right side pants pocket of the accused.
This discussion shows that the testimony of PW6 is fully supported from the Call Detail Records, voices of mobile conversations and conversation between accused and complainant in the car recorded in the memory cards inserted in the DVR, testimony of verification witnesses and testimony of the shadow witness (PW1) fully support the prosecution case that accused was making a demand of bribe for taking PW6 out of the murder case registered against him.
Why accused had demanded bribe from PW6?
Ld. Defence counsel has drawn my attention to the FIR No. 459, dated 03.08.2014, PS Chhawla CC No. 02/15 Page No. 53 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 (Ex.PW10/F), in which the name of accused has been mentioned as one of the police officers, who reached the spot where the culprits started fighting with the MCD staff. In this FIR accused told that public that the assembly was unlawful and that they should disperse. However, some of the persons including Satbir Yadav started inciting the crowd. Ld. Defence counsel submits that this is the reason that in the charge sheet (D22) Satbir Yadav has been mentioned as absconder in the list of witnesses, whereas Insp. Ram Niwas has been shown as prosecution witness. Ld. Defence counsel has drawn my attention to the fact that the chargesheet was filed on 30.10.2014, with the signatures of the accused herein. Ld. Defence counsel has also drawn my attention to the certified copy of the ordersheet Ex.PW10/E of Ms. Manika, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate05 (South West), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, in which the present accused had got nonbailable warrants issued against PW6 executable upto 11.11.2014.
Ld. Defence counsel has drawn my attention to the testimony of DW8 Laxmi Narayan Rao, the then DCP. He testified that Rao Satbir Singh requested him to inquire from Ram Niwas Yadav about the nature of case against him. DW8 testified that Ram Niwas Yadav told him that Rao Satbir CC No. 02/15 Page No. 54 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 Singh is named in the FIR, against whom the nonbailable warrants had been issued and that no help can be given to him. DW8 further testified that due to this reason he advised Rao Satbir Singh to surrender before police. DW8 further testified that Rao Satbir Singh requested him that instead of surrendering in the police station, he would like to meet Ram Niwas Yadav somewhere outside the police station. On this DW8 instructed Rao Satbir Singh to directly ask to Ram Niwas Yadav on phone and he refused to help him further.
Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the testimony of DW7 Amit Shokeen, who had testified that he visited police station Chhawla on 22.11.2014 at about 4:45 pm, where accused told him that there was no official vehicle available in the police station. Therefore he requested to take him to Shokeen Petrol Pump and stated that he had to arrested the accused. DW7 testified that accused was in hurry and therefore he took the accused on his motorcycle at Shokeen Petrol Pump. Thereafter, accused boarded one Swift Desire car. Before that accused instructed him to reach police station and that he will be coming there along with the person to be arrested.
CC No. 02/15 Page No. 55 of 63CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 Ld. Defence counsel submits that the entire gamut of evidence shows that Insp. Ram Niwas Yadav under no circumstance could have not arrested PW6. It is submitted by Ld. Defence counsel that if accused was not in a position to give any relief to PW6, what for the accused would demand bribe from PW6 Ld. Defence counsel contended that even if the recorded conversations in the memory cards Q1 and Q2 are considered to be correct and without any interpolation, it appears that any discussion of money is just to lure PW6 to either surrender himself so that accused could arrest him.
I have considered the circumstances and I partly agree with the submissions of Ld. Defence counsel that accused had no option but to arrest PW6. However, if the conversation between the two is carefully perused, it is found that the accused is not giving any relief to the accused from arrest. The conversation recorded in the car of PW6 on 22.11.2014 [transcript Ex.PW1/F (folder 05)] shows that PW 6 is arguing with the accused that he has been implicated in a false case but accused is telling him that FIR cannot be changed. Accused is telling PW6 that when he will testify in the court, it will come clearly that he is not involved. On this PW6 asks him that in the chargesheet he can write that CC No. 02/15 Page No. 56 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 he (PW6) is not involved. On this accused states that unless he (i.e. the accused) interrogates him (i.e. PW6), he cannot write this. This shows that the bribe has been demanded and accepted by accused as a motive or reward for doing an official act in exercise of his official functions. Therefore, the bribe money may not have been accepted by accused for not arresting the PW6 but it was accepted by him for giving him benefit at subsequent stage. Therefore, the testimony of DW5 and DW8 are of no help to the accused.
Survey of the evidence I have already discussed above that testimony of DW6, DW7 and DW8 provide no help to the accused. DW5 has testified that it is possible to delete some portion of the conversation by the DVR. But I have already held that I find no reason as to why the CBI officials would do so. DW1 has proved the criminal antecedents of PW6, which are not in dispute. DW2 proved a copy of the office order of Central Vigilance Commission Ex.DW2/A. In this office order, the CVC has remarked that the public servants, whose services are utilized by CBI, are turning hostile for ulterior reasons and that the educated responsible public servants should not resort to such devious behaviour and therefore CVC desired CC No. 02/15 Page No. 57 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 that whenever such misconduct by public servants is reported by CBI, disciplinary action should be initiated against such public servants. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the independent witnesses namely PW1 and PW3 are testifying falsely under the pressure of CBI on account of the aforesaid circular. I have considered this circular carefully. This circular aims at instilling a sense of responsibility among the public servants. In the present case, PW1 is Assistant Manager, Vijaya Bank whereas PW3 is a Clerk in MMTC. Both are respectable witnesses and their testimonies have to be accepted unless the same are shaken during the trial.
DW3 and DW4 proved the promotion list by which accused was promoted to the post of Inspector. This aspect has already been considered by me while deciding the question of sanction.
Now I take up the prosecution witnesses. PW6 is the star witness. His testimony has already been discussed by me. PW3 Tikam Singh and PW1 Vijay Kant Sharma had participated as independent witnesses. PW3 has corroborated the testimony of PW6 in respect of the verification. PW1 has acted as shadow witness when accused CC No. 02/15 Page No. 58 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 demanded money by making a signal and accepted an amount of Rs.1 lac. PW4 Inspector S. P. Singh is the Verification Officer. He also took part in further proceedings along with PW1 and PW2 during the trap. PW5 Sarabjeet Singh, the Chief Security Officer in Hotel Crown Plazar, Sector29, Gurgaon, Haryana produced two CDs containing video footage dated 17.11.2014 to the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PW5/A. He also gave certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, which is Ex.PW5/B. He also proved the contents of the CDs containing the recordings of the CCTV footage of the lobby, DFMD and of main porch of Hotel Crown Plaza. PW6 Rao Satbir Singh is the complainant. PW7 Pawan Singh is the Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd., who proved that they had provided 42 mobile numbers/SIM cards including mobile no. 8750871091 (used by the accused) to Delhi Police. He also proved the call detailed records of this mobile number from 15.11.2014 to 22.11.2014 along with certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. PW8 Inspector Kailash Sahu is trap laying officer. PW9 Chandershaikhar is a Nodal officer with Bharti Airtel Ltd., who proved that mobile no. 9899755555 was allotted to Rao Satbir Singh and he also proved the call detail records Ex.PW9/A (D13) along with certificate under CC No. 02/15 Page No. 59 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
PW10 Inspector Ram Niwas was posted as Additional SHO, PS Chhawla at the relevant time. He proved the certified copies of case diary of FIR No. 459/2014, duty roster of PS Chhawla dated 22.11.2014, letter of issuance of mobile phone no. 8750871091 to accused, certified copy of order of Ms Manika, Ld. MM Ex.PW10/E and copy of FIR Ex.PW10/F. PW11 Dr. Sharad Kumar Chaudhary, PW13 Sh. V. B. Ramteke are the Scientific Officer, whose evidence I have already discussed. PW12 Sitanshu Sharma is the Investigating Officer.
Conclusion All the aforesaid witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case. Despite PW6 having a shady back background, I find him to be a truthful witness duly corroborated by other respectable independent witnesses and CBI officials. Accordingly, its stand proved that accused demanded a bribe of Rs.5 lacs, which was later on reduced to Rs.3 lacs and thereafter to Rs.2 lacs from PW6 for a motive CC No. 02/15 Page No. 60 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 for doing favour to him in the proceedings later on. Accused was caught red handed accepting an amount of Rs.1 lac from PW6. Therefore, I convict him under Section 7 as well as under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)(i) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
Announced in the open court on this 19th day of November, 2016 (Vinod Kumar) Special Judge03 (PC Act)/ CBI/ PHC / ND CC No. 02/15 Page No. 61 of 63 CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE03 (P. C. ACT) (CBI), PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI Case ID no. 02403R0014472015 CC No.02/15 RC No. DAI/2014/A/0038/ACB/CBI Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia S/o Sh. Bhim Singh R/o 1525/5, Patel Nagar, Gurgaon, Haryana. ..... Convict ORDER ON SENTENCE 19.11.2016 Present: Sh. Manoj Shukla, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI.
Convict on bail with counsel Sh. Sandeep Sharma, adv. and Sh. Dharam Singh, adv.
Arguments on sentence heard.
Considering all the facts and circumstances, I sentence the convict to rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1,000/, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
CC No. 02/15 Page No. 62 of 63CBI Vs. Ram Niwas Yadav @ Pawalia Judgement Dated : 19.11.2016 I further sentence the convict to rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1,000/, under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(d)
(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
Both the sentences shall undergo concurrently.
Benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to the convict.
Bail bond and surety bond are discharged.
Convict is taken into custody to suffer the sentence.
Copy of judgement be supplied free of cost to the convict.
Announced in the open court
on this 19th November, 2016 (Vinod Kumar)
Special Judge03 (PC Act)/
CBI/ PHC / ND
CC No. 02/15 Page No. 63 of 63