Delhi District Court
State vs . D.N. Sharma on 15 February, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI B.R. KEDIA, SPECIAL JUDGE07
(CENTRAL), (PC ACT CASES OF ACB, GNCTD), DELHI
C.C.NO. : 10/12
Unique Case ID : 02401R0051072001
STATE VS. D.N. Sharma
S/o Sh. Balwant Singh
R/o E27, Palika Milan,
Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi.
FIR NO. : 55/1993
U/S : 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988
P.S. : ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH,
DELHI
Date of Institution 27.03.2001
Judgment reserved on 14.02.2012
Judgment delivered on 15.02.2012
JUDGMENT
1. The precise case of the prosecution is that the accused D.N.Sharma while being posted as a Director in Horticulture CC No. 10/12 Page No. 1/46 Department of New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) had obtained bribe of Rs.10,000/ each from several unemployed persons namely Sua Lal, Mohar Singh, Ram Khiladi, Babu Lal, Sodon Singh, Bharat Lal, Dhan Singh, Gopal Lal and Chuttan Lal in consideration for getting them job in Horticulture Department, NDMC during the period 198990.
2. The precise case of the prosecution is that in the year 1993 when PW18 Sh. Ramesh Singh was posted as Inspector in Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi, he received several documents i.e. Letter No. F45(5)/90DOV2872 dated 8.8.90 from Deputy Secretary (Vigilance), Delhi Administration, Delhi (Ex.PW18/A) accompanied with Letter No.2398/Vig./I.mp/90/IOVV dated 13.7.1990 of Sh.R.L.Srivastav, Director, Vigilance, NDMC (Ex.PW5/A) with regard to the subject "Investigation of complaints regarding corrupt practices in Horticulture Department of NDMC", and one Letter dated 23.1.1990 from Sh.Madan Lal Khurana, the then M.P. and President of Bhartiya Janta Party (Delhi Pradesh) (Ex.PW18/D) besides several complaints Ex.PW18/E1 to E4 with the allegation of bribe as against this accused. It was alleged in the said complaints that this accused on being posted as Director in Horticulture Department, NDMC had CC No. 10/12 Page No. 2/46 got enrolled the labourers on Muster Roll after receiving Rs.10,000/ as bribe from each person on the pretext that they would be regularised in the NDMC. On the basis of said complaints, Inspector Ramesh Singh (PW18) conducted the enquiry and checked the Muster Rolls Ex.PW2/A1 to A13 and found addition of names in 8 Muster Rolls. During enquiry he called this accused many times for explanation but he did not appear before him. On the conclusion of enquiry, said Inspector Ramesh Singh prepared the Enquiry Report Ex.PW18/F and submitted the same before ACP, Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi who got the present case registered bearing FIR No. 55/93, U/S 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and U/S 420/468/471 IPC on dated 9.12.93, copy of which is Ex.PW20/A.
3. After the registration of the case, Investigation was taken up by the IO. During the course of the Investigation, statement of several persons namely 1. Chuttan Lal S/o Ram Partap, 2. Gopal Lal S/o Narian, 3. Dhan Singh S/o Bane Singh, 4. Bharat Lal S/o Pappi Ram,
5. Babu Lal S/o Narain, 6. Ram Khiladi S/o Narsu @ Nalhya, 7. Mohan Singh S/o Ram Deva, 8. Sua Lal S/o Nathu, 9. Saudan Singh S/o Devpal were recorded in which they were stated to have paid Rs.10,000/ each to the accused D.N.Sharma, Director (Horticulture), CC No. 10/12 Page No. 3/46 NDMC in order to get employment in NDMC and later on they were removed from the service. During the course of the Investigation, several Slips (Ex.PW14/A1 to A16 and Ex.PW14/B1 to B23) purportedly written and issued by the accused were recovered. IO had also seized 9 Muster Rolls and 8 Muster Rolls Requisition Slips from Sh. P.R. Goel, Superintendent, Vigilance, NDMC vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW15/A. During the course of the Investigation, IO also obtained service documents relating to the accused i.e. Office Order dated 8.11.85 Ex.PW3/B1, Biodata of the accused Ex.PW3/B2, Office Order dated 27.9.95 Ex.PW3/B3, Address of the accused as per pension record Ex.PW3/B4. IO also seized various complaints Ex.PW19/A1 to A4 from NDMC, Vigilance Department. During the course of the Investigation, since the original Muster Rolls Requisition Forms were not made available by the concerned authority of NDMC to the IO on the plea that the same had been lost during the course of their enquiries and therefore, Section 420/468/471 IPC could not be included in the chargesheet. IO on recording the statement of the witnesses and after completion of the Investigation, prepared the chargesheet and filed in the court.
4. After compliance with the provision U/S 207 of Cr.P.C and CC No. 10/12 Page No. 4/46 after hearing both sides on the point of charge, charge for offence punishable U/S 7 and 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed against accused on 26.10.2004 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Thereafter, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined 21 prosecution witnesses namely Sh. Sua Lal, one of the victim/material witness as PW1, Sh.R.D.Pandey, the then Deputy Director in Horticulture Department of NDMC, a formal witness as PW2, Sh.J.P.Singh, Head Assistant in Horticulture Department of NDMC, a formal witness as PW3, Naseem Ahmad, the then Director, Horticulture Department of NDMC, a formal witness as PW4, Sh. R.L. Srivastav, the then Director, Vigilance, NDMC, a formal witness as PW5, Chuttan Lal, one of the victim as PW6, Sh.Jai Singh, the then Garden Supervisor in Horticulture Department of NDMC, a formal witness as PW7, Sh.Babu Lal, one of the victim/material witness as PW8, Saudan Singh, one of the victim/material witness as PW9, Ram Khiladi, one of the victim/material witness as PW10, Mohar Singh, one of the victim/material witness as PW11, Dhan Singh, one of the victim/material witness, as PW12, Bharat Lal, one of the CC No. 10/12 Page No. 5/46 victim/material witness as PW13, the then Inspector Prem Chand/Part IO as PW14, Sh.P.R.Goel, the then Superintendent, Vigilance Department of NDMC, a formal witness as PW15, Chattar Singh, the then Section Officer, Horticulture Department of NDMC as PW16, the then Inspector R.S.Manku/Part IO as PW17, the then Inspector Ramesh Singh who has conducted the enquiry of the various complaints and submitted Enquiry Report thereon forming basis of the FIR, a formal witness as PW18, the then Inspector Ranbir Singh, part IO as PW19, ASI Harbhajan the then duty official, a formal witness as PW20 and Sh.Gopal Lal, one of the victim/material witness as PW21.
6. After closure of the PE, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which the accused denied about any demand and acceptance of the bribe from anyone. Accused claimed to be falsely implicated in this case at the instance of PW Chattar Singh who was placed under suspension on his recommendation.
7. I have heard Final Arguments as addressed by Sh. Kaushal Kaushik, Adv.Ld. Counsel for the accused and Sh.Vinod Kumar Sharma, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and perused the relevant record. CC No. 10/12 Page No. 6/46
8. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that since the IO has not obtained the Sanction for launching prosecution as against the accused, from the concerned Authorities and the same vitiate the entire trial. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused has neither demanded nor accepted any bribe from anyone for providing any job in NDMC and prosecution has failed to prove about the said aspects and hence, accused deserves to be acquitted. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the accused that PWs have deposed falsely at the instance of Chattar Singh and the IO and hence, the same cannot be considered as against the accused. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the accused that since the accused was merely working as Director, Horticulture Department, NDMC and was having no concern with the employment process of labourers/Mali and therefore, there was no reason on part of the accused for raising any demand of bribe from anyone for getting employment in NDMC and hence, accused deserves to be acquitted. It is further added by Ld. Defence Counsel that though as per the case of the prosecution, the accused has demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.10,000/ each from various persons for getting them employment in NDMC through mediator Bhopal Singh but said Bhopal Singh has neither been examined nor cited as PW and therefore, same is fatal for CC No. 10/12 Page No. 7/46 the case of the prosecution. It is further added by Ld. Defence Counsel that the Slips Ex.PW14/A1 to 16 and Ex.PW14/B1 to 23 were not produced earlier and were submitted later on during deposition of PW14/Part IO and same have been fabricated afterwards. It is further added by Ld. Defence Counsel that even otherwise the specimen handwriting of the accused was not taken by the IO to compare the handwriting of the accused with the handwriting as mentioned in the said Slips and therefore, said Slips cannot be read as against the accused. It is further added by Ld. Defence Counsel that as the RO/ IO is an interested witness for the success of the case of the prosecution and therefore, his deposition cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable. Ld. Defence Counsel also pointed out several lapse on the part of the IO i.e. nonrecording of statement of certain witnesses namely Bhopal Singh, Karan Pal Singh etc., nondeposit of the Slips Ex.PW14/A1 to 16 and Ex.PW14/B1 to 23 in the Malkhana at the time of the seizure, non recording statement of the person under whose custody said Slips remained till production in the court, nonobtaining of the specimen handwriting of the accused for comparison of the same with the hand writing as found in said Slips and added that the same are fatal for the case of the prosecution. It is also added by Ld. Defence Counsel that it CC No. 10/12 Page No. 8/46 is PW16 Chattar Singh who was working as Section Officer in Horticulture Department had been maintaining the Muster Roll and it is said Chattar Singh who had manipulated the same and got employed the labourers for which this accused has got no concern and therefore, this accused deserves to be acquitted. it is further added by Ld. Defence Counsel that PW16/Chattar Singh was having enmity as against this accused as he was placed under suspension and Departmental Enquiry was initiated as against him on the basis of the Report Mark PW4/DA as prepared by the accused and since several PWs namely Sua Lal, Babu Lal, Sodan Singh, Ram Khiladi, Bharat Lal and Gopal Lal have deposed falsely regarding payment of bribe of Rs.10,000/ each to the accused through Bhopal Singh, only at the instance of PW16/Chattar Singh and therefore, they cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable. It is further added by Ld. Defence Counsel that the deposition of the alleged victims who were examined as PWs cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable in view of the fact that their permanent address of Rajasthan were not found mentioned in Muster Roll. It is further added by Ld. Defence Counsel that as none of the PWs namely Sua Lal, Babu Lal, Sodan Singh, Ram Khiladi, Mohar Singh, Dhan Singh, Bharat Lal and Gopal Lal who claimed to have paid bribe of Rs.10,000/ each to the accused through CC No. 10/12 Page No. 9/46 Bhopal Singh at the House of the accused, could state as regards the number of storeys of the House of the accused, as regards the colour of the House of the accused, as regards the direction in which main door of the House of the accused open, the date as to when they met accused and these facts clearly established that they had neither met accused at his House nor paid any bribe to him and therefore, the accused deserves to be acquitted. Ld. Counsel for the accused thus urged for acquittal of this accused.
9. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution by examining 21 PWs have clearly established its case as against the accused and therefore, the accused deserves to be convicted for the charged offence U/S 7 and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the facts regarding demand and acceptance of the bribe of Rs.10,000/ each by the accused from several persons for getting them job in NDMC has been successfully proved by the prosecution through the deposition of PW1/Sua Lal, PW8 Babu Lal, PW9 Sodan Singh, PW10 Ram Khiladi, PW11 Mohar Singh, PW12 Dhan Singh, PW13 Bharat Lal and PW21 Gopal Lal and there is no reason to disbelieve them specifically when there is no allegation of prior CC No. 10/12 Page No. 10/46 enmity by them as against the accused. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that since the accused has already retired on 31.7.1995, there was no necessity of obtaining Sanction for launching prosecution as against the accused. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that certain lapse on the part of the IO as pointed out by Ld. Defence Counsel cannot be treated as escape route. Ld. APP for the State has added that the prosecution has been successful in establishing its case as against the accused for the charged offence and hence, the accused deserves to be convicted.
10. I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Defence Counsel to the effect that since the IO has not obtained the Sanction for launching prosecution as against the accused from the concerned authority, it vitiate the entire trial. From the perusal of the Biodata of the accused which is Ex.PW3/B2, it is reflected that the date of the retirement of the accused is 31.7.1995 and further reflected from the Office Order dated 27.9.95 Ex.PW3/B3 that this accused D.N.Sharma due to his retirement ceases to be a public servant w.e.f. 31.7.95. Furthermore, PW19 Inspector Ranbir Singh/IO who has filed the chargesheet on the conclusion of the Investigation, has given the reason for not obtaining the Sanction for prosecution as against the CC No. 10/12 Page No. 11/46 accused as under: "Since, the accused had been retired from his service and ceased to be a public person so I did not obtain the sanction u/s 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After completion of investigation, I prepared the charge sheet u/s 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and filed the same in the court."
Furthermore, it is well settled that no Sanction is required for prosecution of a person under Prevention of Corruption Act, who ceased to be a public servant and my said view is found supported from the judgment as rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported as "S.A. Venkatraman Vs. State AIR 1958 SC 107". Furthermore, in another case reported as "1999 Cr. L.J. 3696 State of Kerala Vs. Padmnabhan Nair", it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "An accused facing trial for offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot claim any immunity on the ground of want of Sanction, if he ceased to be a public servant on the date when the court took cognizance of the offence."
CC No. 10/12 Page No. 12/46
11. In the present case, from the perusal of the record, it is reflected that this accused due to his retirement ceased to be a public servant w.e.f. 31.7.95 and after the conclusion of the Investigation, chargesheet has been filed in the court on 27.3.2001 in pursuance of which cognizance of the offence has been taken by the court on same day i.e. 27.3.2001.
12. In view of the aforesaid material as available on the record, I am of the considered view that this accused cannot claim any immunity due to want of Sanction for launching prosecution as against him and no infirmity can be attributed against prosecution for nonobtaining the Sanction as against the accused for launching prosecution against him.
13. That during the course of argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the prosecution could not prove about the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused from any person for providing any job in NDMC. It is also added by him that the PWs have deposed falsely at the instance of Chattar Singh and the IO and hence, same cannot be considered as against accused. On the other hand, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the facts CC No. 10/12 Page No. 13/46 regarding demand and acceptance of the bribe of Rs.10,000/ by the accused from several persons for getting them job in NDMC has been successfully proved by the prosecution through the deposition of PW1 Sua Lal, PW8 Babu Lal, PW9 Sodan Singh, PW10 Ram Khiladi, PW11 Mohar Singh, PW12 Dhan Singh, PW13 Bharat Lal and PW21 Gopal Lal and there is no reason to disbelieve them specifically when there is no allegation of prior enmity by them as against the accused.
14. In order to prove that the accused had demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/ each from several persons for getting them job in NDMC, the prosecution is found to have examined PW1/Sua Lal, PW8 Babu Lal, PW9 Sodan Singh, PW10 Ram Khiladi, PW11 Mohar Singh, PW12 Dhan Singh, PW13 Bharat Lal and PW21 Gopal Lal. PW1/Sua Lal, one of the victim has deposed that in the year 198990 while he was residing at Khanpur, Delhi, he came to know from his covillager that there was recruitment of Mali on payment of Rs.10,000/ on which his co villager got him introduced with one Bhopal Singh who took him to accused D.N.Sharma in Chankaya Puri and got him introduced with him. He further deposed that said accused D.N.Sharma assured him to get a job and make him permanent on payment of Rs.10,000/, on CC No. 10/12 Page No. 14/46 which said PW1 came back to his village in Rajasthan and after selling his goods collected Rs.10,000/ and came back to Delhi and gave said amount to the accused through said Bhopal Singh. As regards the demand and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs.10,000/ by the accused, said PW1 has deposed in this respect as under: "The said Bhopal Singh took me to accused D.N.Sharma in Chanakiyapuri near Nala and got me introduced to him. D.N.Sharma told me that he would get me a job on payment of Rs.10,000/ to him. He told me that he would also make me permanent in the said job. Thereafter, I visited my Village and after selling my goods I collected Rs.10,000/ and came to Delhi and accompanied Bhopal Singh to the house of accused D.N.Sharma and the said Bhopal Singh in my presence handed over the said amount of Rs.10,000/ to accused D.N.Sharma. Accused D.N.Sharma after taking money gave a Parchi and asked me to bring it and report to Jai Singh Chaudhary who would meet at the Nala in Chanakiya Puri. On the next day I met Jai Singh Chaudhary who kept me as a Labour with him for CC No. 10/12 Page No. 15/46 about one and a half month. I received wages for a month out of that period. I did not receive the salary for the remaining 15 days. After one and a half month of the said service I was removed from work by the said Jai Singh Chaudhary. I, thereafter, kept on meeting accused D.N.Sharma for my job as he had promised me the permanent job and accused D.N.Sharma during that period used to tell me that I should not worry and wait and he would get me a job. It so happens for about six months but D.N.Sharma accused did not provide me any job. He also did not return my money of Rs.10,000/ which I had paid to him."
Said PW1 further deposed that the Parchi/Slip which was given by accused D.N.Sharma to him after taking Rs.10,000/ was given by him to Jai Singh Chaudhary when he reported for work to him on next day. Said PW1 in his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel has denied the specific suggestion that he had never accompanied Bhopal Singh to the accused for his job as Mali in Horticulture Department, NDMC nor D.N.Sharma ever demanded Rs. CC No. 10/12 Page No. 16/46 10,000/ from him or through Bhopal Singh. He also denied the suggestion that he had never given Rs.10,000/ to accused D.N.Sharma or that he was deposing falsely at the instance of Section Officer Chattar Singh.
15. Similarly, PW8 Babu Lal who is also one of the victim and is a resident of District Karoli, Rajasthan, has deposed that about 18 years back he had come to Delhi in search of job and came to know that one Bhopal Singh was arranging job by acting in connivance with D.N.Sharma by taking Rs.10,000/. He further deposed that thereafter he met said Bhopal Singh who asked him to bring Rs.10,000/ for getting a job of Gardener in NDMC. As regards the demand and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs.10,000/ for getting job, said PW8 has deposed as under: "Around 18 years ago, I had come to Delhi in search of job. I came to know that one Bhopal Singh was arranging job with the connivance of one D.N.Sharma by taking Rs.10,000/. The said Bhopal asked me to bring Rs.10,000/ for arranging a job of Gardner in NDMC. Then I went to my village back and sold my camel cart and came to Delhi with Rs.10,000/. I gave CC No. 10/12 Page No. 17/46 Rs.10,000/ to Bhopal Singh who along with me went to the house of accused D.N.Sharma where Bhopal Singh gave Rs.10,000/ to accused D.N.Sharma, who is present in court today (correctly identified). Accused then asked me "Ghabrao mat aur kaam karo". Then I started working with one Jai Singh Chaudhary and continued till about one and half month and thereafter I was removed from the service. Accused told me not to worry and he would get me continued in service. Then I worked for sometime and finally left Delhi and went to my village."
Said PW8 in his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel denied the suggestion that the accused never took Rs.10,000/ from him for job of a gardener. He also denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely at the instance of Chattar Singh and the I.O.
16. Similarly, PW9 Sodan Singh who is also a resident of District Karoli, Rajasthan and one of the victim, is found to have deposed regarding giving of bribe of Rs.10,000/ for getting job as against the accused D.N.Sharma as under: CC No. 10/12 Page No. 18/46 "Around 1718 years ago, I had come in Delhi for some job. I came to know that there was requirement in NDMC and also learnt that Rs.10,000/ were to be given for that purpose from one Bhopal. I went to my village back. There I sold my buffalo and also sold jewelery and arranged some money from other sources. I came to Delhi along with Rs.10,000/ and met with Bhopal Singh and one Dhan Singh. Then we went to Chankya Puri where Bhopal Singh gave those Rs.10,000/ accused D.N.Sharma, now present in the court (Correctly identified). Then I started working with one Chaudhary Jai Singh where I worked for about two months.
Suddenly, I was removed from my services. I was paid Rs.900/ for working for two months. No job in NDMC was given to me."
Said PW9 in the cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel denied the specific suggestion that he never gave any money to Bhopal Singh and Bhopal Singh never gave Rs.10,000/ to accused D.N.Sharma in his presence for his job. He also denied the specific suggestion that he never met accused D.N.Sharma nor he sent him to CC No. 10/12 Page No. 19/46 Jai Singh Chaudhary for job as gardener. He also denied the specific suggestion that he has deposed falsely against the accused at the instance of Chattar Singh and the I.O.
17. Similarly, PW10 Ram Khiladi who is also a resident of District Karoli, Rajasthan and happens to be victim, has deposed regarding payment of bribe of Rs.10,000/ to accused for getting job in this respect as under: "Around 1718 years ago, I had come to Delhi for working as labourer. One Dhan Singh was already working in Delhi who told me that one Bhopal knew an officer of NDMC who could arrange a job of Gardner and I would have to pay him Rs.10,000/. I went back to my village and sold some jewelery and arranged total Rs.10,000/ through some other sources. I again come to Delhi. I along with Bhopal Singh went to accused D.N.Sharma, accused present in court (Correctly identified) to Chankya Puri and I gave Rs.10,000/ to Bhopal Singh who further gave the same to accused D.N.Sharma in my presence. Thereafter I worked there for about two months with Chaudhary Jai CC No. 10/12 Page No. 20/46 Singh and I was paid for my work some salary. After about two months, I was removed from services from there and I went to accused and requested for job but I was asked to go back from where I had come."
Said PW10 in his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel had denied the specific suggestion that he was never sent to Jai Singh Chaudhary by accused D.N.Sharma or that he had procured temporary job in NDMC on his own. He also denied the suggestion that he has been deposing falsely at the instance of Chattar Singh and the I.O.
18. Similarly, PW11 Mohar Singh who is a resident of District Sawai Madhavpur, Rajasthan and is also a victim has deposed regarding payment of Rs.10,000/ for getting job through the accused as under : "Around 1718 years ago, I had come to Delhi for working as labour. I met with the persons who were already doing job in Delhi and I came to know through my villagers that one D.N. Sharma was giving employment as Gardner in NDMC after receiving Rs. 10,000/. I went back to my village on the asking of one CC No. 10/12 Page No. 21/46 Bhopal Singh to arrange the money. I sold one of my buffalo and one gold coin and arranged Rs.10,000/ and came back to Delhi again. I went to Bhopal Singh who took me to NDMC office Chankya Puri where Bhopal Singh gave Rs.10,000/ to accused D.N. Sharma after taking from me. Accused D.N. Sharma is present in court (Correctly identified). Thereafter I worked for 36 days with one Jai Singh Chaudhary and thereafter I was removed from service after paying one month's salary. I met accused D.N. Sharma and requested him to arrange for a job several times and finally I left for my village."
Said PW11 in his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel has denied the suggestion that he has never given Rs.10,000/ to Bhopal Singh for giving the same to the accused. He also denied the suggestion of Ld. Defence Counsel that the accused never deputed him as gardener with Jai Singh Chaudhary. He also denied the suggestion that he has been deposing falsely at the instance of Chattar Singh and the IO.
19. Similarly, PW12 Dhan Singh who is also a resident from CC No. 10/12 Page No. 22/46 District Sawai Madhavpur, Rajasthan and is also a victim, has deposed that in the year 198990 he had come to Delhi from his village as he had no source of Income in his village. He further deposed that he met his villager Bhopal who was living in Delhi and told him that he has got employed 200 persons and asked him to bring Rs.10,000/ in order to get him employed. Said PW12 as regards the payment of Rs.10,000/ to accused for getting job for him, has deposed in this respect as under: "Thereafter, I went back to my village and mortgaged my land and brought Rs.10,000/ in cash and handed over the same to Bhopal in Delhi. Bhopal had taken me to the office room of D.N.Sharma, who is present in the court today (correctly identified). In my presence, Bhopal had handed over Rs.10,000/ (brought by me) to accused for getting me employed.
Accused had told Bhopal to meet him after four days. After about four days, Bhopal had talked with the accused and thereafter, he had taken me to one official Jai Singh Chowdhary in Chankya Puri and I was put on duty in a park near a nala and I had CC No. 10/12 Page No. 23/46 worked for about three months in that park.
Thereafter, I was not given the work and I met the accused along with other workers who were also removed from the job and accused drove away by stating that now the job is not available for me. I had asked the accused to return the money which he had taken for providing the job to me and accused refused to return any money."
Said PW12 in the cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel has denied the specific suggestion that the accused never assured him any job in the Horticulture Department, NDMC. He also denied the suggestion of Ld. Defence Counsel to the effect that he never made any complaint against the accused. He also denied the suggestion that he has been deposing falsely at the instance of the IO.
20. Similarly, PW13 Bharat Lal who is a also a resident from District Karoli, Rajasthan and is also a victim, deposed that in the year 1990 he had come to Delhi from his village in search of work and he met his distant relative Chuttan and Pappu who have been working in NDMC. They told him that one Bhopal got people employed in CC No. 10/12 Page No. 24/46 Horticulture Wing of NDMC by taking money and therefore, he met Bhopal who told him to bring Rs.10,000/ and he would get him employed. As regards the payment of Rs.10,000/ for getting job through the accused, said PW13 has deposed as under: "Thereafter, I met Bhopal and he told me to bring Rs.10,000/ and he would get me employed. I went back to my village and had sold my buffalow, goat etc., and had brought Rs.10,000/ in cash and had handed over this money to Bhopal and Bhopal had got me introduced to accused D.N.Sharma, accused present in the court today (correctly identified). Accused told me that I should go with Bhopal and he would get me employed in NDMC. Then Bhopal took me a park near nala in chankya Puri and had introduced me Jai Singh chowdhary who deputed me to do the work of Mali in that park. I had worked there for about 4/5 months and then I was removed from the job and then I had met Bhopal and asked him to return my money because I was removed from the job and Bhopal told me that he had given that CC No. 10/12 Page No. 25/46 money to accused D.N.Sharma."
Said PW13 in his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel has denied the specific suggestion that the accused never demanded any money from him and nor assured him any job. He also denied the suggestion of Ld. Defence Counsel that he has been deposing falsely at the instance of Chattar Singh or that he never met accused. He further added that Chattar Singh who was working as Babu in Horticulture Department and said Chattar Singh used to come at the site for inspection. He also added that Chattar Singh inspected the work done by him but he do not know that Chattar Singh was placed under suspension or not.
21. Similarly, PW21 Gopal Lal who is a resident of District Dausa, Rajasthan and is also a victim, has deposed that in the year 1990 he had come to Delhi in search of job and other persons of his village were also working in Delhi in NDMC as gardener. His villagers told him that one Bhopal would arrange permanent job for him in NDMC. Thereafter, he met said Bhopal who demanded Rs.10,000/ from him for arranging a permanent job as gardener in NDMC. As regards payment of Rs.10,000/ to the accused for getting job, said PW21 has deposed in this respect as under: CC No. 10/12 Page No. 26/46 "Bhopal further told me that accused D.N. Sharma would arrange the job and he (Bhopal) would give Rs. 10,000/ to him. One Chuttan Lal and Daya Shankar had also come along with me and I along with them and said Bhopal went to the residence of accused D.N.Sharma. I remained outside the house and Bhopal went inside the residence along with Rs.30,000/ which were given by me, Chuttan Lal and Daya Shankar. Accused D.N. Sharma assured me that my work would be done and I was deployed on duty opposite the house of Sh.Gyani Jail Singh. I worked there for three and a half months and thereafter, I was removed from my service and thereafter, no job was arranged for me by accused.............................................................................. It is correct that Bhopal handed over Rs.30,000/ to accused D.N.Sharma present in the Court in my presence. It is correct that during the deal between me and said Bhopal once I had gone to my village along with Chuttan Lal and Daya Shankar for arranging the money."
CC No. 10/12 Page No. 27/46
Said PW21 in his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel has denied the specific suggestion that he had not made any complaint against the accused D.N.Sharma in writing or that whatever he was stating, it is at the instance of Chattar Singh. He also denied the suggestion that he never visited the residence of D.N.Sharma and had not talked to him. He further deposed that he and the person of his village had not tried to locate Bhopal Singh and volunteered as under: "I did not feel it necessary as I talked the accused face to face regarding getting of the job."
22. In view of the aforesaid deposition of PW1/Sua Lal, PW8/ Babu Lal, PW9/Sodan Singh, PW10/Ram Khiladi, PW11/Mohar Singh, PW12/Dhan Singh, PW13/Bharat Lal, PW21/ Gopal Lal who were the victims at the hands of the accused, it is clearly reflected that the accused had accepted Rs.10,000/ each from them as bribe for getting them job in NDMC and thereafter, the accused had got them temporary job as labourer as per Muster Roll and within 34 months period, they were thrown out and despite their several requests for return of their money, the accused has failed to return them. The factum regarding posting of this accused as Director in the CC No. 10/12 Page No. 28/46 Horticulture Department of NDMC w.e.f. 8.11.85 till his retirement on 31.7.1995 is found corroborated from the Office Order dated 8.11.85 Ex.PW3/B1, Biodata of the accused Ex.PW3/B2 and Office Order dated 27.9.95 concerning the accused Ex.PW3/B3.
23. During the course of the arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that since the accused was merely working as Director in Horticulture Department, NDMC and was having no concern with the employment process of labourer/Mali and therefore, there was no reason on the part of the accused for raising any demand of bribe from anyone for getting employed in NDMC and hence, the accused deserves to be acquitted. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that this accused D.N.Sharma was working as Director in Horticulture Department of NDMC during the relevant period i.e. 19891990. Furthermore, PW16/Chattar Singh who was working as Section Officer in Horticulture Department of NDMC and was subordinate to the accused, has clearly deposed as against the accused as under: "Accused ordered me verbally to employ the labourers against the place which was increased in the muster rolls. Thereafter, I employed around 40 CC No. 10/12 Page No. 29/46 persons as labourers on the muster rolls. Some of those labourers had given a complaint in the department against the accused that they had given Rs.10,000/ each to the accused through one mediator for arranging permanent job in NDMC. Those labourer had worked in NDMC department as labourer on muster roll for about two months.
Thereafter, muster roll was closed and it was ordered that labourer who had worked for 240 days be continued on the muster roll."
24. Furthermore, Law is well settled that it does not matter whether the public servant was competent to do the work or not and reference can be placed in the case reported as Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel Vs. State of Gujrat, 1976(3) SCC 46 as referred in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. C. Uma Maheshwar Rao and Anr. 2004, V AD (SC) 176, wherein it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the question whether a person has an authority to do the act for which bribe is accepted, is of no consequence. In the case reported as Gopal Singh Vs. CBI, ILR (2005) II Delhi 35, It CC No. 10/12 Page No. 30/46 was observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Para 22 as under: "It has to be added that in cases under PC Act, the prosecution is under no obligation to prove that a public servant demanding bribe was in a position to help the person from whom the bribe was being demanded. The prosecution succeed the moment it is shown that a public servant had accepted some money from someone which was not legal remuneration. The presumption U/S 20 of the Act comes into play shifting the burden upon the public servant to explain as to why he had received the money. A public servant may misguide, mislead or befool his victim to pay him illegal gratification knowing fully well that he is not in a position to help him and as such it can be no defence for him to say that since he was not in a position to help the complainant/victim the money received by him does not amount to illegal gratification."
25. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that though as per the case of the prosecution the CC No. 10/12 Page No. 31/46 accused had demanded and accepted the bribe money of Rs.10,000/ each from various persons for getting them employed in NDMC, through mediator Bhopal Singh but said mediator Bhopal Singh has neither been examined nor cited as PW and therefore, the same is fatal for the case of the prosecution. No doubt, from the perusal of the deposition of several victims i.e. PW1/Sua Lal, PW8/ Babu Lal, PW9/Sodan Singh, PW10/Ram Khiladi, PW11/Mohar Singh, PW12/Dhan Singh, PW13/Bharat Lal and PW21/ Gopal Lal, it is clearly reflected that this accused had demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/ each from them for getting them employed in NDMC, through Bhopal Singh and they have also deposed that in their presence, said Bhopal Singh delivered the bribe amount to the accused D.N.Sharma who assured them for getting them job. No doubt, said Bhopal Singh could not be examined by the IO during course of Investigation as he was found to have expired earlier as found reflected from the deposition of PW14/ACP Prem Chand, initial IO and therefore, I am of the considered view that non examination of said Bhopal Singh as PW cannot be treated as fatal for the case of the prosecution specifically when it is found corroborated from the deposition of several victims namely PW1/Sua Lal, PW8/ Babu Lal, PW9/Sodan Singh, PW10/Ram Khiladi, PW11/Mohar CC No. 10/12 Page No. 32/46 Singh, PW12/Dhan Singh, PW13/Bharat Lal and PW21/ Gopal Lal.
26. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that the Slips Ex.PW14/A1 to 16 and Ex.PW14/B1 to 23 were not produced earlier and were submitted later on during course of deposition of PW14/Part IO and same have been fabricated afterwards. It is further added by him that even otherwise the specimen handwriting of the accused was not taken by the IO to connect the handwriting of the accused with the handwriting as mentioned in said Slips and therefore, said Slips cannot be read as against the accused. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that PW14/ACP Prem Chand, Part IO who had collected the aforesaid Slips during course of Investigation, has deposed that he had seized the Slips which were purportedly written and issued by the accused and were recovered from officials Jai Singh and Krishan Kumar of Horticulture Department of NDMC. He further added that 23 Slips were seized from one K.P.Singh and 16 Slips were seized from Chattar Singh and said Slips were taken into possession through Seizure Memo. Said PW14 has identified 16 Slips as Ex.PW14/A1 to A16 which were seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW14/A and 23 Slips as Ex.PW14/B1 to B23 were seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW14/B. CC No. 10/12 Page No. 33/46 From the perusal of the said Seizure Memo Ex.PW14/A, it is clearly reflected that said 16 Slips were seized from Chattar Singh S/o Dori Singh (Section Officer, Horticulture, NDMC) by PW14 on dated 11.02.1999. Furthermore, from the perusal of said 16 Slips Ex.PW14/A1 to A16, it is clearly reflected that said Slips have been addressed to Chattar Singh and also found mentioned at the back of the Slips, the date of seizure as 11.02.1999. Similarly, from the perusal of the said Seizure Memo Ex.PW14/B, it is clearly reflected that said 23 Slips were seized from K.P.Singh S/o Veer Sain (Section Officer, Horticulture, NDMC) by PW14 on dated 03.03.1999. Furthermore, from the perusal of said 23 Slips Ex.PW14/B1 to B23, it is clearly reflected that said Slips have been addressed to Krishan Pal Singh and also found mentioned at the back of the Slips, the date of seizure as 03.03.1999. It is also reflected from the record that said PW14/Part IO has deposed in the court that the Investigation of this case was marked to him in October 1997 and remained with him till February 2001. He has also deposed that on his transfer he had handed over the file to Inspector Ranbir Singh as the Investigation was assigned to him. He specifically denied the suggestion of Ld. Defence Counsel that he had not handed over the Slips to the next IO and he himself has fabricated those Slips in collusion with Chattar CC No. 10/12 Page No. 34/46 Singh. In view of the aforesaid material as available on the record, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Defence Counsel to the effect that said Slips Ex.PW14/A1 to A16 and Ex.PW14/B1 to B23 were forged and fabricated by PW14/Part IO later on.
27. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that as the RO/IO is an interested witness for success of case of prosecution and therefore, his deposition cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable. I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused in this respect. Reference is placed on case of Hazari Lal V/s State ( Delhi Admn ) AIR 1980 Supreme Court 873. In that case the allegations against the accused who was a police officer was that he demanded bribe from the complainant for release of his scooter rickshaw which was seized by the police. The trap was laid and the accused was caught red handed. However, during trial complainant turned hostile and deposed that when he went to the police station on first occasion to obtain delivery of his scooter rickshaw it was not the accused that was present but one Hawaldar was present and it was not the accused but that Hawaldar who demanded bribe of Rs. 60/ from him and when he went to the police station along with punch witness he found accused there and CC No. 10/12 Page No. 35/46 asked him to take a sum of Rs. 60/ and return the scooter rickshaw. He stretched his hand with the money towards the pocket of accused 's trouser but accused said the money might be paid to the person for whom it was meant for. He refused to receive the money and jerked complainant's hand with his hand as a result of which the notes came to be flung across the wall into neighboring room. He deposed that accused neither demanded the amount from him nor accepted the amount. The punch witness who went along with the complainant could not be examined as he became insane and other punch witness turned hostile. The conviction was based on the statement of trap officer and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "We are not prepared to accept the submission of Shri Frank Authony that he is the very Police Officer who laid the trap should be sufficient for us to insist upon corroboration. We do wish to say that there is no rule of prudence which has crystallized into a rule of law, nor indeed any rule of prudence, which requires that the evidence of such officers should be treated on the same footing as evidence of accomplices and there should be insistence on corroboration. In facts and circumstances of a particular case a Court may be disinclined to act CC No. 10/12 Page No. 36/46 upon the evidence of such an officer without corroboration, but, equally, in the facts and circumstances of another case, the Court may unhesitatingly agent the evidence of such an officer."
28. Besides that in the case reported as AIR 1998 SC 1474 State of U.P. Vs. Zakullaha it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the evidence of Trap Officer in a bribe case can be acted upon even without the help of any corroboration and similar view was held in the judgment reported as "Prakash Chand vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1979 SC 400".
29. During the course of argument, it is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that it is PW16 Chattar Singh who was working as Section Officer in Horticulture Department had been maintaining the Muster Roll and it is said Chattar Singh who had manipulated the same and got employed the labourers for which this accused has got no concern and therefore, this accused deserves to be acquitted. No doubt, PW16 Chattar Singh in his cross examination had admitted that the Muster Roll Ex.PW14/A1 to A14 are in his hand but said PW16 has also added in his deposition that accused had ordered him verbally CC No. 10/12 Page No. 37/46 to employ labourers against the place which were increased in the Muster Roll and thereafter, he has employed around 40 persons as labourers on the Muster Rolls. As said PW16 Chattar Singh had clearly deposed in this respect as under: "Accused ordered me verbally to employ the labourers against the place which was increased in the muster rolls. Thereafter, I employed around 40 persons as labourers on the muster rolls. Some of those labourers had given a complaint in the department against the accused that they had given Rs.10,000/ each to the accused through one mediator for arranging permanent job in NDMC. Those labourer had worked in NDMC department as labourer on muster roll for about two months.
Thereafter, muster roll was closed and it was ordered that labourer who had worked for 240 days be continued on the muster roll."
Said PW16/Chattar Singh had denied the specific suggestion by Ld. Defence Counsel to the effect that accused never passed any verbal order or direction to him to employ labourers on Muster Roll during the period January 1990 to March 1990 while he CC No. 10/12 Page No. 38/46 was working as Section Officer. In view of the aforesaid material as available on the record, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Defence Counsel in this regard.
30. During the course of argument, it is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that PW16/Chattar Singh was having enmity as against this accused as he was placed under suspension and Departmental Enquiry was initiated as against him on the basis of the Report Mark PW4/DA as prepared by the accused and since several PWs namely Sua Lal, Babu Lal, Sodan Singh, Ram Khiladi, Bharat Lal and Gopal Lal have deposed falsely regarding payment of bribe of Rs.10,000/ each to the accused through Bhopal Singh, only at the instance of PW16/Chattar Singh and therefore, they cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable. No doubt, from the deposition of PW4/Naseem Ahmad who was working as Deputy Director in Horticulture Department, NDMC at the relevant period, has deposed that Section Officer, Chattar Singh was suspended on the basis of the Report dated 23.05.1990 Mark PW4/DA as prepared by the accused and said fact has also been found corroborated from the deposition of PW16/Chattar Singh who had duly admitted the suggestion of Ld. Defence Counsel that he was suspended by the Chairman, NDMC on CC No. 10/12 Page No. 39/46 the recommendation of the accused but he has clearly denied the suggestion that for this very reason that he has been deposing falsely against the accused. Furthermore, from the perusal of the deposition of several victims namely PW1/Sua Lal, PW8/Babu Lal, PW9/Sodan Singh, PW10/Ram Khiladi, PW11/Mohar Singh, PW12/Dhan Singh, PW13/Bharat Lal and PW21/Gopal Lal, it is clearly reflected that all of them have deposed regarding the payment of bribe of Rs.10,000/ each to the accused through Bhopal Singh for getting them employed in NDMC and thereafter, the accused got them employed in NDMC for temporary period of about 2/3 months after which they were thrown out from their job as gardener. It is also revealed from the deposition of all the victims that they have clearly denied the specific suggestion of Ld. Defence Counsel to the effect that they have deposed falsely at the instance of Chattar Singh. Besides this, I do not see any reason as to why all these victims namely PW1/Sua Lal, PW8/Babu Lal, PW9/Sodan Singh, PW10/Ram Khiladi, PW11/Mohar Singh, PW12/Dhan Singh, PW13/Bharat Lal and PW21/Gopal Lal would falsely implicate the accused, in case he had not accepted Rs.10,000/ each towards bribe from them for getting them employment in NDMC, merely at the instance of PW16/Chattar Singh specifically when they had no prior enmity as against this accused. In CC No. 10/12 Page No. 40/46 view of the same, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Defence Counsel in this respect.
31. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that the deposition of the alleged victims who were examined as PWs cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable in view of the fact that their permanent address of Rajasthan were not found mentioned in the Muster Roll. No doubt, from the perusal of the record, it is clearly reflected that the permanent address of Rajasthan concerning the victims were not found mentioned in the Muster Roll. However, name and parentage of various victims are clearly found mentioned on various Muster Rolls as the correct name and parentage of victims namely PW13/Bharat Lal, PW11/Mohar Singh and PW6/Chuttan Lal are clearly found mentioned in Muster Rolls Ex.PW2/A1, Ex.PW2/A4 and Ex.PW2/A14. Similarly, the correct name and parentage of victims namely PW10/Ram Khiladi, PW12/Dhan Singh and PW21/Gopal are found mentioned in Muster Roll Ex.PW2/A5 and name and parentage of victim PW9/Sodan Singh is found mentioned in Muster Roll Ex.PW2/A7. Furthermore, PW19/Inspector Ranbir Singh, Part IO in his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel is found to have deposed that the permanent CC No. 10/12 Page No. 41/46 address of the victims were noted down by the previous Investigating Officer. Besides this, I do not see any reason as to why all these victims namely PW1/Sua Lal, PW8/Babu Lal, PW9/Sodan Singh, PW10/Ram Khiladi, PW11/Mohar Singh, PW12/Dhan Singh, PW13/Bharat Lal and PW21/Gopal Lal would falsely implicate the accused, in case he had not accepted Rs.10,000/ each towards bribe from them for getting them employment in NDMC, specifically when they had no prior enmity as against this accused. In view of the same, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Defence Counsel in this respect.
32. During the course of argument, it is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that as none of the PWs namely Sua Lal, Babu Lal, Sodan Singh, Ram Khiladi, Mohar Singh, Dhan Singh, Bharat Lal and Gopal Lal who claimed to have paid bribe of Rs.10,000/ each to the accused through Bhopal Singh at the House of the accused, could state as regards the number of storeys of the House of the accused, as regards the colour of the House of the accused, as regards the direction in which Main door of the House of the accused open, the date as to when they met accused and these facts clearly established that they had neither met accused at his House nor paid any bribe to CC No. 10/12 Page No. 42/46 him and therefore, the accused deserves to be acquitted. No doubt, from the perusal of the deposition of various victims i.e. PW1/Sua Lal, PW8/Babu Lal, PW9/Sodan Singh, PW10/Ram Khiladi, PW11/Mohar Singh, PW12/Dhan Singh, PW13/Bharat Lal and PW21/Gopal Lal, it is reflected that all of them have deposed regarding the payment of bribe of Rs.10,000/ each to the accused through Bhopal Singh at the House of the accused for getting them employed in NDMC but in their cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, they have failed to state regarding the number of storeys of the House of the accused, the direction in which the House of the accused open, the colour of the House of the accused and the date as to when they had made the payment to the accused but said facts cannot be overemphasized and treated as fatal for the case of the prosecution in view of the fact that said PWs were found deposing in the court after about 17/18 years of the incident and said PWs were found to be illiterate and hailing from rural area of Rajasthan and therefore, they are not supposed to remember regarding these aspects after such considerable period of incident. In view of the same, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Defence Counsel in this respect.
CC No. 10/12 Page No. 43/46
33. During the course of argument, Ld. Defence Counsel also pointed out several lapse on the part of the IO i.e. nonrecording of statement of certain witnesses namely Bhopal Singh, Karan Pal Singh etc., nondeposit of the Slips Ex.PW14/A1 to 16 and Ex.PW14/B1 to 23 in the Malkhana at the time of the seizure, nonrecording statement of the person under whose custody said Slips remained till production in the court, nonobtaining of the specimen handwriting of the accused for comparison of the same with the hand writing as found in said Slips and added that the same are fatal for the case of the prosecution. I do not find any force in the said submission of Ld. Defence Counsel in view of the fact that the aforesaid lapse on the part of the IO appears to be merely formal in nature and I am of considered view that criminal justice should not be made casualty of lapse committed by the IO and my said view is found nourished from the judgment as rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case reported as "2000 (I) A.D. (Delhi) 67 Manoj @ Manu Vs. State of Delhi." In the case reported as "State of Rajasthan Vs. Kishore (1996 SCC (Crl) 646)" it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that mere fact that the investigating officer committed irregularity or illegality during the course of investigation would not and does not cast doubt on the prosecution case nor trustworthy and CC No. 10/12 Page No. 44/46 reliable evidence can be cast aside to record acquittal on that account. Furthermore, in another case reported as "Ram Bihari Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (1998(4) SCC 517)" it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigation, to the omission or lapses by perfunctory investigation or omissions, the faith and confidence of the people would be shaken not only in the Law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice". The view was again reiterated in "Amar Singh Vs. Balwinder Singh and Ors. (2003 (2) SCC 518)."
34. By taking cue from the aforesaid judgments and keeping in mind that the prosecution has brought on record adequate evidence to establish its case as against the accused, I am of considered view that the lapse on the part of the IO as pointed out by Ld. Defence Counsel cannot be treated as fatal for the case of the prosecution.
35. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that the prosecution has been successful in establishing its case as against the CC No. 10/12 Page No. 45/46 accused D.N.Sharma for the charged offence. Hence, accused D.N.Sharma stands convicted for offence punishable U/S 7 and 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Let this accused D.N.Sharma be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open court on this 15th day of February, 2012 (B.R. Kedia) Special Judge07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC, Delhi CC No. 10/12 Page No. 46/46