Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Jahan Singh on 22 November, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRADEEP CHADDAH: SPECIAL JUDGE:
CBI01, CENTRAL DISTRICT. DELHI
CC No.206/07 RC No. 55(A)/03
PS: CBI/ACB/ND
CBI Vs. Jahan Singh
S/o. Sh. Dalpat Singh
R/o. 36, Mandavli Fazalpur,
Near Old Shiv Mandir, Delhi.
Date of Institution : 23.10.2004
Judgment Reserved : 02.11.2012
Judgment Delivered : 22.11.2012
J U D G M E N T
1. CBI filed the present chargesheet against accused Jahan Singh u/s 7 & 15 of the P.C. Act.
2. The law was set in motion after Dr. Salim Basha Managing Partner of South Indian Shipping & Export Co. (SISECO) made a complaint to CBI. The complaint was to the effect that SISECO was dealing with clearing and forwarding work and had contract with M/s. Tribal CoOperative Marketing Federation of India (TRIFED). SISECO got custom clearance for TRIFED CC No.206/07 CBI Vs. Jahan Singh and raised bills from time to time and also received payment in installments. For custom clearances Rs.46 Lacs were payable by TRIFED to SISECO. Rs. 15 Lacs had been received about three years before making the complaint leaving balance amount of Rs.31 Lacs. Managing Director of the TRIFED had informed that payment would be made only after receipt of sanction order from Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. Sanction order was issued by the Ministry of Social Justice to TRIFED. Accused Jahan Singh wanted bribe of Rs.4,35,000/ for early processing of the file. He (Complainant Dr. Salim Basha) recorded the conversation. Accused then agreed to accept Rs. 2 Lacs in advance for processing the file and Rs. 2 Lacs after final approval from the M.D.
3. RC 55(A)/03 was registered. Trap team was constituted. Complainant produced micro cassette containing conversation between him and the accused. Accused had informed the complainant that he would be coming to his hotel room on 17.10.03 at 4 p.m. In room No. 309, South Indian Hotel, Karol Bagh, a video camera was installed and audio recording instrument was provided to the complainant for recording the entire act of demand of bribe. CBI officials were positioned inside the bathroom of the hotel room of the complainant and some officers took position outside. At about 3.40 CC No.206/07 CBI Vs. Jahan Singh p.m., accused came to the hotel room and had detailed discussion with complainant in presence of Dr. Shaukatullah Executive Director of SISECO. He agreed to accept Rs. 2 Lacs in advance and Rs. 2 Lacs at the time of handing over of draft/cheque of the outstanding amount. The conversation was recorded and heard by independent witness with help of earphones. The video cassette was also played which confirmed the demand of bribe. Investigation indicated that accused had also visited Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment without being authorized to visit and collected copy of sanction letter for release of payment to SISECO. Accused had also made a false entry in the register maintained by TRIFED at S.No. 80 dt. 17.10.03 wherein he had shown the official purpose as visit to LIC Office whereas at 3.40 p.m. he was at South Indian Hotel, Karol Bagh with the complainant. It was prayed that he be summoned and tried for the offences.
4. After the accused appeared, he was provided with copies. My Ld. Predecessor framed the following charge:
"That you while being employed as Accountant in Tribal CoOperative Marketing Development Federation of India Ltd. on 16.10.03 at South Indian CC No.206/07 CBI Vs. Jahan Singh Hotel, Karol Bagh, New Delhi demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 4 Lacs from the complainant Dr. T. Salim Basha for processing his company's i.e. SISECO file for realisation of payment of Rs.31 Lacs and again on 17.10.03 in room No. 309 of the above said hotel you again demanded Rs. 4 Lacs from the above named complainant for the above said purpose, and thereby you committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within my cognizance.
Secondly, that on the aforesaid dates, time and place you made an attempt to obtain illegal gratification from the above named complainant and thereby you also committed an offence punishable under section 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within my cognizance."
5. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined fifteen witnesses in support of its case while accused did not examine any witness in his defence.
6. PW1 was Mr. Shiv Pal. He deposed that on 17.10.03 he was working as Jr. Commercial Assistant in TRIFED. Intercom No. 296 was installed in the CC No.206/07 CBI Vs. Jahan Singh office. It had an additional parallel line. He received a call on his intercom to the effect that a person wanted to talk to Jahan Singh. He asked him to wait and called out to Jahan Singh to attend the phone call. Jahan Singh attended the call. On 21.10.03, he (PW1 Shiv Pal) was called by Inspector Bhardwaj of CBI who played an audio cassette. In the cassette he identified his voice, "please hold on, Jahan Singh phone hai". Upon being cross examined witness claimed that his cabin was opposite to cabin of Jahan Singh and there was a gallery in between. He admitted that he had not asked name of the caller who had asked for Jahan Singh. He denied the suggestion that he had not attended the said telephone call.
7. PW4 was Mr. Kush Verma. He deposed that in 2004 he was Executive Director TRIFED. He had granted sanction for prosecution of the accused vide sanction order Ex.PW4/A. He was competent authority to remove the accused from service. Upon being crossexamined, he claimed that he went through all documents, statement of witnesses and video before according sanction. He denied the suggestion that he had simply signed a draft sanction order.
8. PW5 was Mr. D.K. Tanwar from CFSL. He claimed that his office had CC No.206/07 CBI Vs. Jahan Singh received five sealed parcels containing micro audio cassette and normal sized audio cassettes. The parcels were opened and they were found to contain recorded conversation of different durations. Auditory examination of the questioned voices and the specimen voice of Jahan Singh indicated that they were similar in linguistic and phonetic features. The audio cassettes were also checked for continuity. He prepared report Ex.PW5/A which was correct. In his crossexamination he admitted that mimicry could be done by a skilled person but voice could be identified in case of mimicry. He also denied the suggestion that there was no voice of the accused in the conversation.
9. The next witness was Mr. D.K. Bhai. He deposed that in January 2003, he was posted as Under Secretary (NI1), Ministry of Social Justice Empowerment, Shastri Bhawan. Ministry appointed TRIFED as clearing and forwarding agent. TRIFED appoints their own forwarding and clearing agents on contractual basis. Ministry pays fixed rates to TRIFED, which further out of this amount pays to the clearing and forwarding agent as per contract. SISECO Chennai was clearing and forwarding agent appointed by TRIFED. When the contract between TRIFED and SISECO ended, there was some amount payable to SISECO by TRIFED. Number of meetings had CC No.206/07 CBI Vs. Jahan Singh been held between TRIFED and officers of the Ministry. Ministry agreed to pay amount to TRIFED for further payment to SISECO. Ex. PW6/A was attested copy of order no. 2215/2000NI1 dt. 30.9.03 regarding reimbursement of handling charges of Rs. 2871299/ to TRIFED. Witness further deposed that accused Jahan Singh was working as Accountant in TRIFED. He used to visit the Ministry alongwith officers of TRIFED. After about 7 or 8 days of the release of above order, accused had visited the Ministry and told them that he had not received the orders. A copy was then provided to him by hand. Letter PW6/B contained his signatures. Vide the said letter Ex. PW6/B he had forwarded few documents to TRIFED. Upon being cross examined, he deposed that he was not aware of any written contract between Ministry and TRIFED. About Rs. 22 Lacs was scrutinized by him as outstanding amount. He denied the suggestion that accused had not met him on 10.10.03 and had asked for copy of the sanction order.
10. The next witness to be examined was Mr. Ram Sahay Meena Executive Director, TRIFED. He deposed that Mr. N. Sathyanarayan was working as Dy. General Manager, Finance & Account and he could identify his signatures. Ex. PW6/A had been certified by Mr. Sathyanarayan. It was copy of order no. 2215/2000NI1 dt. 30.9.03 issued by Sh. D.K. Bhai. This order CC No.206/07 CBI Vs. Jahan Singh had been given to him by accused Jahan Singh on 15.10.03 as the same was marked to Executive Director, TRIFED. Upon being cross examined, he denied the suggestion that Jahan Singh had obtained the order Ex. PW6/A from the Ministry on his direction.
11. The eighth witness to be examined by the CBI was Mr. Anthony Xavier from Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. He deposed that he was attached to Mr. D.K. Bhai Under Secreatry, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. He also knew accused Jahan Singh since he used to visit their office. Sanction order no. 2215/2000NI1 dt. 30.9.03 had been sent to TRIFED in October 2003. A week thereafter accused came to their office and told D.K. Bhai that sanction order had not reached them. On directions of D.K. Bhai he gave a photocopy of the order to accused. In his cross examination, he claimed that when copy was given to the accused, no entry was made in any register nor acknowledgment obtained.
12. PW9 was Dr. N. Hangloo. He deposed that he joined CBI in search operation of office of the accused Jahan Singh accountant, as he was posted as Senior Assistant (Vigilance) in TRIFED. Ex. PW9/A was office search cumseizure memo dt. 17.10.03 which also contained his signatures. In his CC No.206/07 CBI Vs. Jahan Singh cross examination he claimed that some of the documents were lying on the table of the accused, while others were in his drawer. He had also not gone through any file or document which had been recovered.
13. PW10 was Mr. N. Sathyanarain. He deposed that in 2003 he was working as DGM Finance in TRIFED. On 15.10.03 Mr. Shaukatullah of SISECO met him and informed him about the pending bills being not cleared by the accused and unnecessary harassment. On the same day, there was a meeting in which Executive Director confirmed that sanction order had been issued by the Ministry for handling charges. A Committee was formed to examine pending bills of SISECO. The witness then gave details of the procedure followed in their office. In the first instance, sanction order comes by post from Ministry. MD receives it and marks it to Executive Director, who is incharge of Finance Personnel and Administration. He examines and further forwards it to Dy. General Manager. Dy. General Manager then forwards it to the Accountant. The accountant puts up the file to Assistant Manager. He also puts it up before Dy. General Manager, who then examines the file. If the matter is not complex, he clears it otherwise he forms a committee to examine the matter. Sanction order Ex. PW6/A had come to him from Executive Director. He marked it to the accused. Ex.
CC No.206/07 CBI Vs. Jahan Singh PW9/A which was searchcumseizure memo also contained his signatures, as in his presence the office of accused was searched. The witness was cross examined by Ld. PP wherein he admitted that his statement Ex. PW10/A was recorded by CBI and he had stated portion A to A to CBI, but had not stated portion B to B. In his crossexamination he claimed that mode of payment was not mentioned in the written agreement between SISECO and TRIFED and there was some dispute between the two regarding reconciliation of the payment and matter had been referred to arbitrator. He further claimed that he was not aware if R.S. Meena Incharge of the accounts had sent the accused to South Indian Hotel, Karol Bagh.
14. The eleventh witness to be examined was Mr. Sandeep Pehalwan. He deposed that vide letter PW11/A he had sent photocopy of relevant page of attendance register for October 2003, to CBI.
15. The next witness to be examined was Mr. S.K. Gullaiya. He deposed that as per attendance sheet Ex.PW12/A, entry No. 40, accused Jahan Singh was absent on 21.10.03. He denied the suggestion in his crossexamination that he had prepared Ex.PW12/A at the instance of CBI.
CC No.206/07 CBI Vs. Jahan Singh
16. CBI had also examined complainant Dr. Salim Basha. He deposed that he was clearing and forwarding agent for TRIFED from 1988 to 1996. Name of his company was South Indian Shipping and Export Co. His company used to get goods cleared which used to come from abroad. They used to raise bills on TRIFED for their loading, unloading and other charges. In 1996 approximately Rs. 4645000/ was outstanding. He received Rs. 15 lacs. Balance of Rs. 3145000/ remained to be paid by TRIFED. He spoke to Executive Director, TRIFED and also wrote many letters for the balance sum. TRIFED appointed an Audit firm Tasky Associates to reconcile the accounts. According to Tasky Associates, Rs. 2877299/ was payable by TRIFED to them. Ministry released the payment and sanction order was received by TRIFED. Accused Jahan Singh was working in the accounts at TRIFED office. He demanded Rs. 5 Lacs and then reduced the amount to Rs. 4 lacs. He (PW Salim Basha) met Managing Director and made an oral complaint to him. Managing Director then called vigilance Officer of TRIFED and told him to make a complaint to CBI. On 16.10.03 he went to CBI office and met the officers. They told him to record the demand made by the accused. On his way back to the hotel, he bought a micro tape recorder. Accused demanded Rs. 435000/. On 17.10.03 he again went to CBI office and handed over the written complaint Ex. PW13/A and the CC No.206/07 CBI Vs. Jahan Singh cassette containing recordings. RC Ex. PW13/B was registered. From CBI office he called Jahan Singh from his mobile phone. He invited accused to his room. The conversation was recorded. He told CBI officers that he was unable to arrange money since his money was already blocked. Documents were prepared. Ex. PW2/A contained his signatures. Accompanied by Dr. Shaukatulla Executive Director of SISECO and CBI team, he came to his hotel. Video Camera and micro tape recorder was installed in the room. One recorder was affixed inside his shirt. Two CBI officers went inside the bathroom. Around 6.307.00 pm Jahan Singh came to his room. Accused demanded Rs. 4 lacs. Rs. 2 lacs before release of payment and Rs. 2 lacs after release of payment. According to instructions he knocked the bathroom door, the officers came out. They disclosed their identity and challenged the accused. Accused was shocked. His personal search revealed Rs. 2/ and a bidi. The camera and voice recorders were rewound and played. A micro cassette Q1 was played in the court and witness identified his own voice and also that of Jahan Singh. Another micro cassette Ex. P7 was played in the Court. Witness claimed that his Executive Director Mr. Shaukatulla was also present in room no. 309, South Indian Hotel, Karol Bagh and had participated in the conversation. A normal sized cassette was produced in a sealed cover in the Court. It was Q2(Ex. P3). Upon hearing the cassette, CC No.206/07 CBI Vs. Jahan Singh witness identified his own voice, voice of Dr. Shaukatulla and of accused Jahan Singh. Witness claimed that at that time, two CBI officers alongwith the witness were present in his bathroom, while others were outside. After conversation was over, door of the bathroom was knocked by him and the CBI officers came out. Another normal sized cassette Ex. P5 was played. It contained some recordings in Tamil language and thereafter the recordings were same as in cassette Q2(Ex. P3). The said cassette was simultaneous recording done in the bathroom.
17. Ex.P1 a video cassette sealed with seal of CFSL was produced and played in the Court by officer of CFSL. It indicated Dr. Salim Basha sitting on a sofa and taking meals. Thereafter it showed accused Jahan Singh entering the room and sitting next to Salim Basha. Dr. Shaukatulla was also visible in the recordings. Witness claimed that initially Rs.435000/ was demanded by the accused which was reduced to Rs.4 lacs. He promised release of payment within a day and accused assured the complainant that he would take care of his MD who was a hard man. The recording also depicted CBI officers entering the room from a door which was inside the hotel room. The witness was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he claimed that he had met Managing Director number of times but he was CC No.206/07 CBI Vs. Jahan Singh unable to recount any specific date, month or year of meeting. He volunteered that those records could be obtained from the reception register of TRIFED. The accused had visited him in the hotel room thrice. Rs. 2 lacs had been demanded to be paid before putting up the file and Rs. 2 lacs after release of the amount. The bills had been submitted to the Chennai Regional Office, TRIFED. He denied the suggestion that he was not to receive any money from TRIFED or there was no occasion for him to pay illegal gratification. The complaint made by him against the accused to MD was oral. He denied the suggestion that as he was unhappy with Meena and MD, and he falsely implicated Jahan Singh. He also admitted that TRIFED had no authority to pass the bill or make payment. Even in the past, release of payment was never smooth. He admitted that he was not present at the time when initial demand was made by the accused. Dr. Shaukatulla had informed about the demand.
18. CBI had also examined Dr. Shaukatulla who had actually jotted down the complaint Ex. PW13/A which was signed by complainant Dr. Salim Basha. He deposed that he was working as Executive Director in SISECO. He used to deal with the parties, effect recoveries and do other import, export jobs. Business was being done with TRIFED since 1993. Some payments were CC No.206/07 CBI Vs. Jahan Singh struck up and he was asked by Dr. Salim Basha to approach TRIFED and get the payments released. He had also approached Ministry. After running around, he got Rs. 31 Lacs sanctioned from the Ministry. The sanction order was passed on 30.9.03. After passing of the sanction order, he went to TRIFED on 16.10.03 and met the accused who was incharge of the release of payment. The witness claimed that he got shocked to hear unexpected demand of Rs. 5 Lacs from mouth of the accused for releasing payment. He then informed Dr. Salim Basha who was scheduled to visit China. Dr. Salim Basha cancelled his trip and came to Delhi and met MD of TRIFED and informed him of the demand made by Jahan Singh. MD also advised Dr. Basha to approach CBI. Thereafter he and Dr. Salim Basha went to CBI office and narrated their woes. As advised, they purchased a tape recorder and went back to the hotel. Accused came to the hotel and had discussion with Salim Basha which was recorded. Next morning, they went to CBI office and handed over the cassette. In presence of CBI officers, Salim Basha was asked to ring up the accused and call him to the hotel. The conversation was recorded. He (PW14 Dr. Shaukatulla) then wrote complaint letter and Dr. Salim Basha signed it. Thereafter witness deposed about their coming back to the hotel alongwith independent witnesses and CBI officers. Cameras were installed. Two persons hid inside the bathroom.
CC No.206/07 CBI Vs. Jahan Singh While Salim Basha was having his lunch, accused entered the room and they had discussions. Thereafter Salim Basha opened the bathroom and the inmates of the bathroom came out and started questioning the accused. The witness was cross examined by Ld. PP wherein he claimed that he was questioned by CBI officers and they wrote whatever he spoke. He claimed that he was forgetting few facts due to passage of time. He admitted that lateron he and Salim Basha were summoned to CBI office where the recordings were played and they identified the voices. In his cross examination by Ld. Counsel, he claimed that he was not aware as to how many bills were submitted by their company to the Ministry but he was given an abstract of outstanding amount. He also admitted that TRIFED had no authority to clear the bills but they were sanctioned by Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. Accused did not have authority to sanction but it was his duty to put up the file before Senior officers. He denied the suggestion that accused had not demanded bribe and accused had been called on false pretext and got trapped. He denied the suggestion that before the trap proceedings Arbitrator had given any finding of overpayment to the company.
19. CBI also examined the two independent witnesses namely Mr. Kalyan CC No.206/07 CBI Vs. Jahan Singh Singh Rawat and Satbir Singh, both from MCD. Mr. Kalyan Singh claimed that he received directions from his Administrative Officer and he then reported to CBI office and met Inspector Amit Bhardwaj at about 12.00 noon on 17.10.03. He met Salim Basha, Dr. Shaukatulla and other CBI officers. The cassette provided by Dr. Basha was played. It was regarding disposal of pending bills. Copy of the cassette was prepared and it was sealed. One Satbir Singh from MCD was also there. In a cassette his and Satbir Singh's voice was recorded. At instance of Inspector Bhardwaj, Dr. Salim Basha telephoned accused and fixed the time for meeting in hotel South Indian, Karol Bagh. The conversation was recorded and simultaneously heard. Thereafter all of them left for hotel south Indian and on reaching there a video camera was installed in room no. 309. Satbir was directed to hide himself in a bathroom of the hotel room and hear conversation with the help of ear phones which had been provided. He then saw accused knocking the door and entering inside. After about 2025 mins. he (PW Kalyan Singh) and others outside were asked to enter the room. The recordings were played and heard which indicated accused discussing pending bills and demanding Rs. 4 lacs. Accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted. Witness identified the documents pertaining to the case. He claimed that writing work was also done after recovery was CC No.206/07 CBI Vs. Jahan Singh effected from room no. 309, Hotel South Indian, Karol Bagh. The witness was cross examined wherein he admitted that he was not present on 16.10.03 when conversation with the accused of Dr. Basha was recorded. He had seen the accused for the first time in the hotel. He also admitted that accused had not demanded money in his presence. He could not remember the position of CBI officers and the witnesses at the time of raid. He claimed that he had no knowledge if accused had stated to CBI officers that he had been sent by R.S. Meena to meet Mr. Basha.
20. PW Satbir Singh was the other independent witness examined by CBI. His testimony is also on the lines of testimony of Kalyan Singh Rawat. He claimed that he had accompanied Kalyan Singh Rawat to CBI office. He was introduced to complainant. Complainant had produced a cassette containing conversations which he had recorded. It was played. Complainant had called accused from CBI office and requested him to release the payment. The conversation had taken place in his presence and was recorded. They all reached South India hotel at Karol Bagh and went to room no 309. He (PW Satbir Singh) and two CBI officials hid inside bathroom. He heard accused demanding Rs. 4 lacs for releasing the payment. The complainant then knocked the bathroom door and they all came out. Accused was challenged.
CC No.206/07 CBI Vs. Jahan Singh The witness thereafter identified various cassettes recorded in the case. The witness was cross examined wherein he claimed that they were made to hear taped conversation in CBI office. However he could not remember its duration. Upon reaching the hotel they were made to sit in the lounge and photographer fixed his instruments. He had been provided with ear phones by CBI to listen the conversations. He did not remember the exact sentences but it was regarding releasing of payment. The witness was reexamined by Ld. PP wherein he claimed that rough site plan and memos were prepared at the spot which were signed by him.
21. CBI also examined Sh. Amit Vikram Bhardwaj. He was CBI Inspector . He deposed that on 17.10.03, a written complaint of Mr. Salim Basha of South Indian Shipping & Export Co. was given to him by the SP to verify, register FIR and investigate. The complaint was Ex.PW13/A. FIR registered was Ex.PW13/B. Pretrap proceedings were conducted in presence of independent witnesses Satbir Singh and Kalyan Singh. The witnesses were shown the complaint of Dr. Basha and they satisfied themselves. Complainant also produced a micro cassette containing recorded conversation between him and Jahan Singh of 16.10.03. The conversation on playing revealed that Jahan Singh had reduced initial CC No.206/07 CBI Vs. Jahan Singh demand of Rs.4.35 Lacs to Rs.4 Lacs and had also agreed to accept the amount in two installments of Rs. 2 Lacs. The second installment was to be paid on receipt of draft. Satbir Singh was to act as shadow witness. He was to be stationed inside bathroom of room No. 309 in occupation of Dr. Shaukatullah. Recording devices were arranged. Complainant was asked to call the accused and the conversation was recorded. Accused said that he would come to the hotel at 4 p.m. on 17.10.03. CBI team reached the hotel at about 3 p.m. and went to room No. 309. Video camera was installed below window opposite the sofa in a concealed manner. KCR recorder with earplug was given to Satbir Singh who was to remain in the bathroom with him (Inspector Amit Vikram) and Prem Nath. Other team members took positions outside the room. Accused came at about 3.40 p.m. The conversation between complainant and the accused was heard by Satbir Singh simultaneously with help of earplug. At 4 p.m. complainant gave pre decided signal by knocking the bathroom door and the bathroom door was opened by him. Accused was seen sitting on a sofa while Dr. Shaukatullah was sitting on a bed. Accused was confronted but he offered no explanation. The recordings indicated discussion about the pending bills and demand of bribe. Rough site plan Ex.PW2/C was prepared and other proceedings were conducted. Accused was arrested and his personal search was carried out.
CC No.206/07 CBI Vs. Jahan Singh He then claimed that he seized copies of the register from the hotel vide memo Ex.PW15/A. The copy was Ex.PW15/B. Office of the accused was also searched. Sanction was obtained from the Government of India. Specimen voice sample of accused was taken in presence of independent witness. The text was prepared from all the conversations recorded by them. Transcription of the conversation was prepared which was Ex.PW15/E. After completing the investigation, he filed the charge sheet which was Ex.PW15/N. In his crossexamination, he admitted that in the site plan, bathroom had not been shown. It was also not indicated in the site plan that camera was concealed by any article. He also admitted that he was not present at the time when recording was done by Dr. Basha when accused had made his demand of bribe on 16.10.03. He could not recollect if there were any flower pots or other articles in the room. He could not recollect the total number of bills but they were to the tune of Rs.31 Lacs. He denied the suggestion that seals on the packet sent to the experts had been tampered with. He denied the suggestion that cassettes had been prepared according to their convenience.
22. After closing of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded wherein he claimed that he was innocent. He admitted that he had CC No.206/07 CBI Vs. Jahan Singh gone to hotel South India, but that was at the behest of R.S. Meena who had deputed him to deliver a file to Dr. Salim Basha. He did not lead any evidence in defence.
23. I have heard Sh. Praneet Sharma, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI and Sh. P.C. Mishra Ld. Counsel for the accused, at length. I have also gone through the file and the documents exhibited therein. I have also gone through written submissions placed on record by Mr. Mishra.
24. Mr. Mishra claimed that PW1 Shiv Pal at the most had identified his own voice when the recording was played to him. I tend to agree with this contention of Ld. Counsel that Mr. Shiv Pal who had attended the telephone call received in their office for the accused. Mr. Shiv Pal had picked up the phone and when the caller wanted to talk to the accused, he called the accused informing him that there was a call for him. His calling to the accused also had got recorded. So, at the most he can be expected to identify his own voice calling the accused and not voice of the caller or caller's identity. Ld. Counsel further claimed that independent witnesses had heard the recording in the CBI office before proceeding for the trap. They could not be expected to identify the voices therein. I again find myself in CC No.206/07 CBI Vs. Jahan Singh agreement with this contention of Ld. Counsel.
25. The next argument of Ld. Counsel was that in the site plan Ex.PW2/C, bathroom had not been depicted. I am afraid, it is not so. If we take a look at the site plan Ex.PW2/C, we find that it was plan of room No. 309 which showed position of accused, complainant and witnesses. On the right hand top corner a box has been made by the official who prepared the plan. It also depicts a door. Though words "bathroom" do not find mention, but certainly it can be treated as a bathroom because when video cassette was played, CBI officials were seen emerging from that door. A hotel room normally has attached bathroom like this. More so, version of various witnesses also corroborate that the said box depicted in the site plan was a bathroom.
26. It was duty of the CBI to establish that some amount was payable by TRIFED to SISECO. It was also its duty to establish that accused who was employed with TRIFED had demanded bribe to release the amount. Though, actual payment of money was not done, but demanding of bribe for an official act is sufficient to bring it within ambit of Section 7 & 15 of the P.C. Act.
CC No.206/07 CBI Vs. Jahan Singh
27. PW6 examined by the prosecution was Sh. D.K. Bhai. He was posted as Under Secretary in Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment at the relevant time. He deposed that at the time when contract between TRIFED and SISECO came to an end, there was outstanding amount payable to SISECO. He had further deposed that there were meetings between Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment and TRIFED to sort out the problem. Finally, Ministry agreed to pay TRIFED, the amount which was payable to SISECO.
28. Now, if we take a look at document Ex.PW6/A, we find that it is written by D.K. Bhai Under Secretary to Govt. of India. It was to convey sanction of the President for payment of Rs.2871299/ to TRIFED.
29. So, it goes to show that indeed money was payable to SISECO by TRIFED.
30. PW R. S. Meena who was incharge Executive Director of TRIFED submitted that he had handed over Ex.PW6/A which was sanction order to the accused Jahan Singh who was working as accountant on 15.10.03. So, it is established that accused did possess sanction letter on the day he made his CC No.206/07 CBI Vs. Jahan Singh illegitimate demand. Conduct of the accused in approaching Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment unauthorizedly to obtain copy of sanction order around 8th October 2003 as per testimony of PW Anthony Xavier, further strengthens case of CBI that accused was keen to possess sanction order. No normal government employee goes to abnormal length for performing a merely routine job. He went out of way to the Ministry and obtained copy of the order from Anthony Xavier who was examined as PW8 in the case. Accused himself in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. admitted that he had gone to Ministry and had also obtained copy of the order. He also admitted that he had gone to the hotel on 17.10.03, though he had claimed that he had gone there on direction of R.S. Meena.
31. The micro cassettes which had been prepared in the case were played in the court. The original video cassette was also played. They were original primary evidence. The voices in the audio cassettes upon being played, were identified by Salim Basha. Expert D.K. Tanwar who was examined by the CBI also gave his report Ex.PW5/A. According to him the cassettes contained voice of Jahan Singh. He had further reported that there was no doubt about their being voices of Jahan Singh.
CC No.206/07 CBI Vs. Jahan Singh
32. Now, if we take a look at the transcript Ex.PW15/E, we are left with no doubt about the activities of the accused. At one place upon being told to reduce the amount, he told complainant that he had already reduced the demanded sum by Rs.35,000/. He made it clear in so many words that he wanted Rs. 4 Lacs in all. Rs. 2 Lacs before putting up of the file and Rs. 2 Lacs after the approval. Video recording done in the hotel room was played in the court. It depicted CBI officers entering inside room No. 309 of the hotel from a door which was already inside the said room. As I had observed earlier, there did exist a bathroom inside room no. 309 where two CBI officers and a public witness hid themselves.
33. After arrest of the accused, his office was searched and CBI team members seized documents vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/A. Among the documents seized was file pertaining to SISECO and its pending dues. It also contained letters written by SISECO to various authorities and correspondence between TRIFED and the Ministry. This would indicate that accused was actively involved in releasing of payment to SISECO. PW10 Mr. N. Satyanarayan who was Dy. General Manager in TRIFED admitted making of statement Ex.PW10/A to CBI. In the said statement, he had told CBI that during course of discussion information was received CC No.206/07 CBI Vs. Jahan Singh about receipt of sanction order from the Ministry for SISECO.
34. Though TRIFED nor accused were in a position to accord sanction for making payment to SISECO, they could certainly sit over them. The amount was sanctioned by the Ministry. It was payable to SISECO and routed through TRIFED. It thus provided accused with an opportunity to sit over or release the amount prescribed in the sanction order. It was for the accused to put up the file and only then process would have started. The draft was also to be delivered by the accused who was an accountant. He could have sat over the file to extract bribe and it was an opportunity for him to make money.
35. The accused weakly tried to defend himself by claiming that he had gone to hotel South India at behest of R.S. Meena. It is nothing but a bald statement. He did not examine any witness in support of his defence. He had no business to visit hotel room of complainant to whom his department was to pay lacs of rupees. He certainly had something sinister in his mind. The recordings done by the complainant and also by the CBI clearly show accused bargaining and demanding bribe.
CC No.206/07 CBI Vs. Jahan Singh
36. Testimony of various witnesses including complainant clearly point out to the guilt of the accused. The two independent witnesses had no personal grievance against the accused. They had not axe to grind. Their testimony clearly indicts the accused. There might be few contradictions here and there in the timing, but there is no major contradiction which should lead the court to believe in innocence of the accused. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rammi @ Rameshwar Vs. State of M.P.: AIR 1999 SC 3544, held that no true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Hon'ble court held that probably an untrue witness who is properly tutored can make his testimony non discrepant. There was no major contradiction which would have shaken case of the prosecution.
37. To sum up I hold that prosecution has been successful in making out its case against the accused that he indeed tried to extract bribe while processing the release of outstanding amount to SISECO. He was a public servant and thus he stands convicted u/s. 7 & 15 of the P.C. Act.
Announced in open Court
on November 22 , 2012. ( PRADEEP CHADDAH )
Special Judge:CBI01
Central District. Delhi
CC No.206/07 CBI Vs. Jahan Singh
I N THE COURT OF SH.
PRADEEP CHADDAH:
SPECIAL JUDGE: CBI01, CENTRAL DISTRICT. DELHI
CC No.206/07 RC No. 55(A)/03
PS: CBI/ACB/ND
CBI Vs. Jahan Singh
S/o. Sh. Dalpat Singh
R/o. 36, Mandavli Fazalpur,
Near Old Shiv Mandir, Delhi.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. This Court had vide its judgment dated 22.11.12 found the convict guilty u/s. 7 & 15 of the P.C. Act.
2. I have heard Sh. Praneet Sharma, Ld. PP for CBI and Sh. P.C. Mishra, Ld. Counsel for convict at length.
3. Sh. Praneet Sharma, Ld. PP prayed for taking of strict view of the matter and granting of exemplary punishment to the convict. He further prayed that sentences which should be awarded to the convict should run consecutively. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the convict prayed for CC No.206/07 CBI Vs. Jahan Singh taking of lenient view. He claimed that convict faced agony of trial for more than 7 years.
4. I have given my considered thought to the submissions made.
5. Convict Jahan Singh was working as Accountant in TRIFED. For processing file of complainant and releasing dues to him, convict sought bribe of Rs. 4,35,000/ which was reduced to Rs. 4,00,000/ after bargaining.
6. Complainant instead of complying with the illegal and illegitimate extortion, recorded the conversation and made a complaint to CBI. He got the convict trapped when he had come over to his hotel room for accepting first installment of bribe. The second installment was payable after release of payment.
7. Sh. P.C. Mishra Ld. Counsel for convict prayed for taking of lenient view. He submitted that convict had a aged father to look after. He also had three children. His elder son was selling vegetables on a rehri while younger one was a student of classV. His daughter was of marriageble age.
CC No.206/07 CBI Vs. Jahan Singh
8. Convict is 46 years old. He informed the court that he continues to remain under suspension ever since his arrest. Court must make an effort to strike balance between interest of society and age and related circumstances of the convict. He seems to be man of modest means. He draws suspension allowance of Rs. 7200/ per month as claimed by him in the Court, upon questioning. He shall also be losing his job upon conviction. Keeping in mind his age and back ground, I sentence convict Jahan Singh to undergo one year R.I. U/s 7 of P.C. Act . In addition, he shall be paying fine of Rs. 5,000/ and in default of payment of fine, he shall be undergoing S.I. for one month. I also sentence him to undergo RI for one years U/s 15 of P.C. Act. In addition, he shall be paying fine of Rs. 5,000/ and in default of payment of fine, he shall be undergoing S.I. for one month.
9. The request made by Learned PP to the effect that sentences be ordered to run consecutively is declined. Both the sentences of the convict CC No.206/07 CBI Vs. Jahan Singh shall run concurrently. He shall also be given benefits of period undergone as under trial (if any).
Announced in open Court
on December 03 , 2012 ( PRADEEP CHADDAH )
Special Judge:CBI01
Central District. Delhi
CC No.206/07 CBI Vs. Jahan Singh
CC No.206/07 CBI Vs. Jahan Singh