Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Jagmal Singh on 9 March, 2026
DLCT110004692022
IN THE COURT OF MS. JYOTI KLER
SPL. JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI-18
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS : NEW DELHI
Case No. CBI/44/2022
FIR No. : RC/DAI-2022-A-0004
u/Sec. 7 PC Act
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Vs.
Jagmal Singh
S/o Sh. Dayanand Deshwal
R/o H. No. 1850,
Sector-07, Bahadur Garh,
Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana - 124507
Permanent Address:
Village Dulehra, Post Dulehra,
Bahadurgah, Dist. Jhajjar,
Haryana.
.....Accused
Date of Institution : 01.08.2022
Date on which Judgment Reserved : 28.01.2026
Date of Judgment : 09.03.2026
Decision : Convicted
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 1/118
Free legal aid facilities for pursuing higher remedies against this judgment
are available to the accused as per "The Legal Services Authorities Act,
1987". He may approach any of the following offices for seeking
appropriate guidance:
1. Delhi State Legal Services Authority, 3rd Floor, Rouse Avenue District
Court Complex, Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi -
110002. Help Line: 15100 & 1516; Phone No. 9870101337; E-mail: lae-
[email protected]
2. Office of the Secretary - II, Central District Legal Services Authority,
Front Office, Ground Floor, Rouse Avenue Courts Complex, Delhi.
Mobile No. 9810420894; E-mail: [email protected]
3. Office of the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee,
34-38, Lawyers Chamber, Delhi High Court, New Delhi. Phone No. 011-
23383418; E-mail: [email protected] & [email protected]
JUDGMENT
Background:
1. Jagmal Singh (hereinafter 'the accused') is an ex-official of Delhi Police. He was posted as Sub-Inspector & Zonal Officer (ZO), Nangloi Traffic Circle, Delhi on 08.02.2022, the date of registration of the present case.
2. Sandeep Yadav (hereinafter 'the complainant') is a Transporter. 12 trucks registered in the name of his family members were being operated by him. He got this case registered in his capacity as caretaker of the trucks owned by his family members.
3. The instant case was registered on basis of the complaint dated 07.02.2022, which complainant had submitted to the CBI alleging that the CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 2/118 accused was demanding bribe amount of Rs.24,000/- per month for allowing him to operate his trucks.
The Complaint:
4. Allegations are that the 12 trucks owned by the family members of the complainant used to be deloaded at Chanchal Park Stock, Delhi.
After deloading, these trucks used to be taken to Charkhi Dadri, Haryana, for loading, through Mundka (Delhi) & Bahadurgarh (Haryana). Accused was the ZO of Mundka area that fell under Nangloi Traffic Circle. He demanded a sum of Rs.2,000/- per truck from the complainant i.e. total Rs.24,000/-, per month, to allow the trucks to pass through Mundka, and threatened to challan & impound the trucks in case the bribe amount was not paid.
Verification Proceedings:
5. On receipt of complaint, it was marked to SI Pradeep for verification. Verification proceedings were conducted by SI Pradeep on 07.02.2022 itself in presence of SI Pawan Kumar, the complainant and an independent witness, namely, Sh. Jatin Gupta, Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank, Head Office, New Delhi (hereinafter 'IW1').
Preparation
6. The complainant was asked to approach the accused and seek time for payment of the bribe amount, in order to verify the complaint. A DVR make Sony (Black Colour) and a 16 GB new Strontium Micro SD Card were arranged by the CBI in order to record the conversation that would ensue between the complainant and the accused during the verification proceedings. Blankness of the memory card and DVR was ensured in CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 3/118 presence of the complainant and IW1. The CBI team, consisting of Verification Officer SI Pradeep and SI Pawan Kumar, reached Mundka Industrial Area Metro Station along with the complainant and IW1.
Complainant was directed to meet the accused. Memory card was inserted in the DVR and introductory voice of IW1 was recorded in it. The DVR was kept in the left side pocket of the jacket of the complainant in 'switched on & hold' mode.
The Meeting
7. The complainant followed the instructions and met the accused near the red light of Mundka Industrial Area Metro Station. IW1 was also with him. The accused demanded the bribe amount of Rs.24,000/- during this meeting. Complainant requested the accused to reduce the bribe amount but the accused did not agree. The complainant sought time of a day to pay the bribe amount and left the spot.
Post Meeting
8. The incident was seen by IW1 and narrated to the Verification Officer later. Complainant also narrated the incident and handed over the DVR to the Verification Officer. The Verification Officer took out the memory card from the DVR and made a copy of it for investigation using write blocker. The memory card was then put in its original plastic case and the plastic case was put in its original cover. The cover was signed by IW-1, complainant & the Verification Officer and was marked as Q-1. This original cover was then put in a brown colour envelop and sealed with the brass seal of CBI. The brown envelop was also marked as Q-1. The Verification Memo was prepared that was signed by both the CBI officials, complainant and IW1.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 4/118Registration of Case:
9. Since the allegations stood verified, the Verification Officer recommended that a regular case u/Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter 'the PC Act') be registered. Accordingly, the instant FIR was registered by the CBI on 08.02.2022. The FIR was marked to Inspector Jaswinder Singh, CBI, ACB, New Delhi [hereinafter ' Trap Laying Officer' (TLO)] for laying of trap.
Pre-Trap Proceedings:
Constitution of Team
10. The TLO constituted a team of the CBI officials consisting of Insp. Ajay Kumar Singh, Insp. Umesh Kaushik, Insp. Satish Kumar Bana, Insp. Anil Kumar Singh, SI Pradeep, SI Pawan Lamba and SI Jai Prakash to lay the trap. Two independent witnesses were also made to join this team. They are IW1 and Sh. Varun Mittal, JSA, DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi (hereinafter 'IW2'). Complainant too joined the trap team.
Briefing of Team & Preparation for Trap
11. The entire team assembled in the office of CBI. The DVR used in conducting the verification proceedings and the sealed memory card marked as Q-1 were handed over by the Verification Officer to the TLO. The brass seal of CBI was handed over to the TLO by IW1 because it had been given to him for safe custody after completion of the verification proceedings.
12. TLO briefed the team about purpose of the assembly and procedure that shall be followed for laying the trap.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 5/11813. The complainant produced a sum of Rs.24,000/- consisting of total 48 currency notes in the denomination of Rs.500/- each and handed those over to the TLO. The numbers of these currency notes were noted down and these were treated with phenolphthalein powder. A demonstration was thereafter given to the team by Inspector Umesh Kaushik with the help of IW-2 for explaining the purpose & significance of use of phenolphthalein powder. The treated currency notes were then kept in the right side front pocket of the jeans pant of the complainant by IW1 after taking his personal search to ensure that nothing was left with the complainant except his mobile phone. A trap kit for the spot of trap was also prepared. The team members who had touched the phenolphthalein powder or the currency notes laced with it, washed their hands properly.
14. A new memory card was inserted in the DVR after ensuring its blankness and introductory voices of both the independent witnesses were recorded in it. This DVR, along with the trap kit, a file cover consisting of original complaint, verification report, copy of FIR & Stationary material and some cash to meet the incidental expenses, were kept ready for taking to the spot of trap.
15. IW1 was instructed to act as a decoy/shadow witness and remain with the complainant at a safer distance in order to see the transaction of bribe and overhear the conversation, if possible. The complainant and IW1 were asked to give a signal to the TLO either by rubbing their head with both hands or by giving a missed call on the mobile number of the TLO or Insp. Anil Kumar Singh, as soon as the transaction of bribe was over.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 6/11816. A pre-trap memo was prepared with respect to the aforesaid proceedings which was signed by the entire team. The pre-trap memo was also kept in the file cover that was to be taken to the spot.
The Trap Proceedings:
Approaching the Accused
17. On reaching the vicinity of Mundka Industrial Area, complainant was asked to give a call from his mobile No. 9873101900 to the mobile number 9350902268 belonging to the accused by keeping his phone on the speaker mode. The call was made and complainant asked the accused about his location but the accused did not reply.
18. The accused called the complainant back after some time but the said call could not be taken.
19. The complainant thereafter again made a call to the accused by keeping his phone on speaker mode and the said call was recorded in the DVR. During this call the accused asked the complainant to meet him near Mundka Industrial Area. Hence, complainant was sent along with IW1 in his personal car to deliver the tainted money to the accused.
20. The complainant was instructed to hand over the money to the accused on his specific demand only and thereafter give the pre-decided signal immediately. The DVR was put in the inner left side of the jacket worn by the complainant.
21. The CBI team and IW2 placed themselves discreetly at different positions around the spot. The complainant along with IW1 reached the spot where the accused was sitting inside a grey colour Maruti Brezza Car. Complainant entered in the said car and IW1 stood nearby, outside the car.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 7/118Transaction of Bribe & Apprehension
22. The complainant negotiated the bribe amount with the accused inside the Brezza Car. The accused agreed to reduce the bribe amount to Rs.22,000/-. Complainant handed over the said amount to the accused which he accepted with his right hand and kept it in the storage space near gear lever of the Car. The entire conversation between the complainant and the accused was recorded in the DVR. The complainant came out of the Car after transaction of bribe was complete and a missed call was then given on the mobile number 9953109195 belonging to Insp. Anil Kumar Singh, by IW1 from his mobile number 8888801428. The entire trap team was alerted and they ran towards the Maruti Brezza Car.
23. The accused was asked to come out of the Car by the TLO and other team members after disclosing their identity. The accused however did not follow the instructions and instead accelerated the Brezza Car during which he hit Insp. Anil Kumar Singh and caused injuries to him. One CBI vehicle chased the Brezza Car and apprehended the accused near Metro pillar No. 674 at Rohtak Road. In the meanwhile, DVR was also taken back from the complainant and was switched off.
Recovery of the Bribe Money
24. The remaining team of CBI was informed on apprehension of accused and they reached near Metro pillar no. 674 at Rohtak Road. The TLO challenged the accused regarding demand and acceptance of bribe. The accused got perplexed and did not answer any question. When the CBI team asked about the bribe amount, the accused pointed towards the storage space of the gear lever of the Brezza car. The bribe amount was recovered from that place by IW2 on the directions of TLO.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 8/11825. A sodium carbonate solution with water was prepared in a clean glass tumbler on recovery of bribe amount and the accused was asked to dip his right hand in that solution in order to detect presence of phenolphthalein. On dipping of the right hand of the accused, the solution turned pink. This solution was transferred in a clean glass bottle which was capped, covered with a white piece of cloth and tied with a tag. This tag was sealed with the brass seal of CBI. A white paper label was pasted on the bottle and marked as "RHW".
26. The storage space from where currency notes were recovered was also wiped with a cloth and this cloth too was dipped in a clean glass tumbler containing sodium carbonate solution. The solution again turned pink and was transferred in another glass bottle which was sealed in the similar manner as RHW. This second solution was marked as "SPW".
27. The bribe money in the sum of Rs.22,000/- recovered from the gear lever of the Brezza Car was counted. The numbers of 44 currency notes were tallied with the numbers mentioned in the pre-trap memo, all the matching numbers were single ticked and signed by IW1 & IW2. The recovered trap money was kept in an envelop which was sealed and marked as "Trap Money of Rs.22,000/- recovered from the accused ".
28. The remaining sum of Rs.2,000/- was recovered from the right side front jeans pocket of the complainant by IW2 on the directions of TLO. The numbers of these four currency notes were also tallied with the numbers mentioned in the pre-trap memo and were found matching. These numbers were double ticked and signed by IW1 & IW2. The sum of Rs.2,000/- was thereafter sealed in an envelop marked as "Amount of Rs.2,000/- recovered from the complainant".
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 9/11829. The Brezza Car used by the accused was searched and a separate search memo was prepared.
Post-Trap Proceedings:
House Search
30. An authorization u/Sec. 165 Cr.P.C. was given to Insp. Sanjay Malhotra through special messenger by the TLO asking him to search the house of the accused. Search was conducted and a list prepared.
Site Plan
31. Two rough site plans, one of the spot where transaction of bribe took place, and another of the spot from where the accused was apprehended, were prepared by Insp. Satish Kumar Bana. Respective position of all members of the trap team were depicted in these site plans. The site plans were signed by the TLO, complainant, both the independent witnesses and the maker Insp. Satish Kumar Bana.
Seizure of Memory Card
32. The memory card was taken out from the DVR. An investigation copy was prepared using write blocker and memory card was put back in its original paper cover marked as Q-2. The original cover was signed by the TLO, IW1 & IW2 and was then put in a brown envelop. This envelop was also marked as Q-2, was signed by the TLO, IW1 & IW2 and thereafter was sealed.
Lodging of Complaint regarding the Accident
33. The entire team thereafter went to the Police Station Mundka where a complaint was lodged about conduct of the accused regarding hitting of Insp. Anil Kumar with Brezza Car. A FIR bearing No. 339/2022 dated 08.02.2022 was registered against the accused on the basis of the said CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 10/118 complaint. Inspector Anil Kumar was taken for medical examination and his right hand was got plastered due to injuries.
Arrest & Personal Search
34. The CBI team was given a room in PS Mundka for carrying out the further proceedings. During these proceedings, the accused was arrested and his personal search was carried out. Intimation of arrest of the accused was given to his wife through Insp. Sanjay Malhotra who had gone to the residence of the accused for conducting house search.
35. A mobile phone make One Plus Model KB2001 having EMEI-1- 864721053471872 and IMEI-2-864721053471864 carrying SIM card of Vodafone & Jio, was recovered during the personal search of the accused which was seized by the TLO. Few vehicle challans were also recovered which were handed over to the local police.
Recording of Specimen Voice
36. Accused and complainant were asked to give their specimen voice to which they voluntarily agreed.
37. A new memory card was opened and using the DVR its blankness was ensured. Introductory voices of IW1 and IW2 were recorded in this memory card first. Thereafter, specimen voice of the accused was recorded. This followed the recording of concluding voices of IW1 and IW2. The memory card was then taken out and kept in its original cover. It was marked as S-1 and was sealed in a brown colour envelop, which was signed by IW1, IW2, accused and the TLO.
38. The specimen voice of complainant was then recorded in another new 16 GB memory card in the similar fashion and the said memory card was sealed and marked as S-2.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 11/11839. The DVR used in the proceedings was then sealed in a brown colour envelop and marked as DVR.
Documentation
40. A recovery memo (detailing the trap & post trap proceedings) was prepared and signed by the entire trap team. Specimen of brass seal were taken in ink and lak.
Investigation:
41. After completion of trap proceedings, investigation was handed over to Insp. Sanjay Malhotra.
42. During investigation, the copies of Q-1 and Q-2 related to verification & trap proceedings, which were prepared using the write blocker before sealing the said two memory cards, were played in the official laptop of CBI and Voice Identification-cum-Transcription Memos were prepared qua both Q-1 & Q-2 in presence of IW1, IW2 and the complainant. The complainant had identified his own voice and voice of the accused while the independent witnesses had identified their respective voices.
43. The investigation copies of Q-1 and Q-2 were also played in presence of Sh. Satinder Singh, Inspector, Todapur Traffic Unit, Delhi and one independent witness, namely, Sh. Ramanpal Singh, Manager, Bank of Baroda, Ashok Vihar Branch, New Delhi (hereinafter ' IW3'). Sh. Satinder Singh identified the voice of accused in both Q-1 and Q-2 in presence of IW3 and Voice Identification-cum-Transcription memo was accordingly prepared.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 12/11844. The mobile phone seized from the accused was sent to the FSL for extracting of mobile data. CAF, CDR and the Cell ID Charts of the mobile numbers belonging to the accused i.e. 9350902268 (Vodafone) and 8168984937 (Jio), were also collected by the IO. Similar details were collected qua the mobile number 9873101900 (Airtel) belonging to the complainant. The CDRs of the Vodafone mobile number belonging to the accused and Airtel mobile number belonging to the complainant were analysed and it was found out that on 08.02.2022 there were two telephonic conversations between them.
45. The RHW and SPW, two bottles containing handwash of the accused and spacewash of the Brezza car respectively, collected during the trap proceedings, were also sent to the FSL which confirmed presence of phenolphthalein in both the washes.
46. The investigating officer obtained sanction regarding prosecution of the accused from the competent authority i.e. Additional Commissioner of Police, Traffic (Headquarter), Delhi.
47. The chargesheet was prepared on the basis of aforesaid investigation and IO concluded that the material collected during investigation disclosed commission of a cognizable offence punishable u/Sec. 7 of the PC Act by the accused.
Court Proceedings:
Pre-Trial Stage
48. IO filed the chargesheet in the Court and also sought some time for carrying out further investigation on the ground that the Voice Examination Report qua the accused and copy of data & report with respect to the mobile phone seized from him, were still awaited.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 13/11849. Court took cognizance of the offence on basis of the first chargesheet & summoned the accused.
50. The Voice Examination Report was filed in the Court on 08.02.2023 after filing of the first chargesheet. It was opined in the Voice Examination Report that the sample voice marked as S-1 and the questioned voices Q-1 and Q-2 marked as Q-1(2)(J) & Q-2(4)(J) to Q-2(6)(J) were the probable voices of speaker Jagmal Singh i.e. the accused. It was also opined that the specimen voice S-2 and questioned voices marked as Q-1(2)(S) & Q-2(4)(S) to Q-2(6)(S) were the probable voices of speaker Sandeep Yadav i.e. the complainant.
51. The supplementary chargesheet was filed by the IO later in the year 2023. It was revealed in the supplementary chargesheet that a spiral note book that was seized from the house of the accused during search proceedings, had been sent to the FSL for examination of handwriting. However, the expert opined that the said diary contained handwriting of multiple persons and it was not possible to express any opinion about the writers on basis of the specimen handwritings of various persons that were collected by the CBI during investigation. The report received from Computer Forensic Science Division of CFSL also revealed that no incriminating material was found from the mobile phone of the accused.
52. On basis of the aforesaid two reports, IO concluded in the supplementary chargesheet that there was no material on record to suggest that any other official of Nangloi Traffic Circle was involved with the accused in demand and acceptance of bribe.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 14/11853. Complete copy of the chargesheet, supplementary chargesheet and documents were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. (now Sec. 230 BNSS).
54. The accused was heard on the point of charge.
55. Vide Order dated 13.04.2023, it was held that a prima facie case for the offence punishable u/Sec. 7 of the PC Act was made out against the accused.
56. The charge was accordingly framed against the accused on 24.04.2023 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The Trial: Evidence of Prosecution
57. The prosecution examined total 27 witnesses in support of its case.
58. These consist of material witnesses who were part of the trap proceedings and IO as well as formal witnesses like, the expert witnesses, nodal officers, witnesses from the transport department of various States, witnesses from the traffic police, the sanctioning authority and some public witnesses.
59. Details of the witnesses of the prosecution are as below:-
S.No. Name of Examined If cross- Role Description Witness as examined Material Witnesses 59.1. Sandeep PW-2 Yes. He is the complainant. He Yadav proved his complaint, verification proceedings related to the complaint, pre-
trap proceedings, the trap proceedings and post-trap proceedings. He also identified the specimen and CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 15/118 questioned voices of himself and the accused.
59.2. Jatin PW-4 Yes. He is IW1. He had acted as
Gupta shadow witness during the
verification and the trap
proceedings. Hence, he
proved the aforesaid
proceedings as well as pre-
trap & post-trap proceedings.
He also identified the
specimen voices of accused
and the complainant.
59.3. Varun PW-6 Yes. He is IW2. He was part of
Mittal the trap team and has proved
the pre-trap proceeding, trap
proceedings and post- trap
proceedings. He also
identified the specimen
voices of accused and the
complainant.
59.4. Insp. PW-11 Yes. He is the verification officer
Pradeep who had verified contents of
(the then the complaint filed by PW-2.
SI) He was also part of the trap
team and has proved the pre-
trap, trap and post-trap
proceedings.
59.5. Insp. PW-15 Yes. He is the TLO, who headed
Jaswinder the trap team. He also has
Singh proved the pre-trap, trap and
post-trap proceedings.
59.6. Insp. PW-24 Yes. He deposed about the
Sanjay investigation undertaken by
Malhotra him.
Expert Witnesses
59.7. V. B. PW-8 Yes. He is the Deputy Director
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 16/118
Ramteke and Scientist (Chemistry)
from CFSL Delhi. He
examined the bottles
containing right hand wash
of the accused and storage
space wash of the Brezza
car. Both these exhibits
tested positive for
phenolphthalein as per his
report.
59.8. Mahesh PW-16 Yes. He is the Scientist from
Kumar CFSL, Chandigarh, working
Jain in the field of Forensic Voice
Examination and Forensic
Physical Examination of
crime exhibits. He had
compared the voices in Q-1
& Q-2 with the voices in S-1
& S-2. He opined that both
Q-1 & Q-2 contained the
voices of speakers in S-1 and
S-2, wherein S-1 is the
specimen voice of the
accused & S-2 is the
specimen voice of the
complainant.
Nodal Officers
59.9. Pawan PW-1 Yes. He is the Nodal Officer from
Vodafone Idea Ltd. who
Singh
produced the record
pertaining to mobile No.
9350902268 belonging to the
accused.
59.10. Rajiv PW-5 Yes. He is the Nodal Officer from
Bharti Airtel Ltd. who
Vashist
proved the record pertaining
to mobile No. 9873101900
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 17/118
belonging to the
complainant.
59.11. Prakash PW-7 Yes. He is the Nodal Officer from
Saxena Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd.
who proved the record
pertaining to mobile No.
8168984937 belonging to the
accused.
Witnesses from the Transport Department 59.12. Sanjeev PW-19 Yes. He was summoned to prove Kumar the data related to registration of vehicles No. HR55W3222 & HR55S0345.
59.13. Vikas PW-21 Yes. He was summoned to prove Jain the Notification bearing No. F.19 (183)/Tpt./Sectt./2017/70257 dated 03.08.2021.
59.14. Moatula PW-22 Yes. She was summoned to prove
the data related to
registration of vehicle No.
NL01L8103; NL01AB0248;
NL01AB0247;
NL01AB1284;
NL01AB1280; &
NL01AB1279.
59.15. Sukhbir PW-25 Yes. He was summoned to prove
Singh the data related to
registration of vehicles No.
HR63C5021; HR63D6201;
& HR63C2051.
59.16. Amit PW-26 Nil. He was summoned to prove
Kumar the data related to
registration of vehicle No.
HR31S1450.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 18/118
Witnesses from the Traffic Police 59.17. ASI Amit PW-3 Nil. He was summoned to prove Kumar the service record pertaining to the accused that included details related to his joining in Delhi Police, his promotions, salary drawn by him and his dismissal from the service.
59.18. Insp. PW-9 Yes. He was summoned to prove Kuldeep the record related to transfer Kumar of the accused to Nangloi Tiwari Traffic Circle, his duty roster & timings on 07.02.22 & 08.02.22 and his dismissal.
59.19. Pankaj PW-10 Nil. He proved the DD entries Kumar related to joining of the accused in Nangloi Traffic Circle, departure & arrival of the staff of Nangloi Traffic Circle on 07.02.22 & 08.02.22, laying of trap and dismissal of the accused.
59.20. HC PW-13 Yes. He was on duty in the Manoj Nangloi Traffic Circle on Kumar 08.02.22 and as per duty roster was performing his duty at Mundka Red Light point. Accused was his Zonal Officer on that day. PW-13 deposed about the said facts and also about the officials who were performing duty on Mundka Red Light point along with him on 08.02.22.
59.21. HC Sumit PW-14 Yes. The Maruti Brezza car bearing registration No. CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 19/118 (also re- HR-31S-1450 from the examined by storage space of which the the bribe amount was recovered prosecution) at the instance of the accused, belonged to this witness. He deposed that his Brezza car was borrowed by the accused on 08.02.22 at around 2:00/2:30 PM for taking rest.
59.22. Insp. Ram PW-17 Yes. He was summoned to prove Niwas the DD entries dated 22.10.21, 07.02.22 & 08.02.22 related to the Nangloi Traffic Circle. He also deposed that no entry time of heavy goods vehicle in Mundka Metro & surrounding areas was 07:00 AM to 11:00 AM & 05:00 PM to 11:00 PM.
59.23. Insp. PW-18 Yes. He is the official of Delhi Satinder Police, posted in the Traffic Singh Department. During his tenure in Nangloi Traffic Circle, accused was posted there as Sub-Inspector. This witness had identified the voice of the accused during investigation, from the audio recordings in memory cards Q-1 & Q-2, & he deposed about this in the Court.
Sanctioning Authority 59.24. Shibesh PW-23 Yes. He had granted sanction for Singh prosecution of the accused while serving as Additional CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 20/118 Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Head Quarters, Delhi.
Other Public Witnesses 59.25. Ravi PW-12 Yes. He is elder brother of the Yadav complainant. He deposed that out of total 12 trucks, 5 trucks bearing No. NL01AB1279; HR63C2051;
NL01AB1280; HR55S0345;
& HR63D6201 were registered in his name and 02 bearing no. HR55W3222 & NL01AB1284 were registered in the name of his wife but operation of these trucks was being managed by his brother i.e. the complainant.
59.26. Akash PW-18 Yes. He was summoned to prove Sinha the information related to (Since two entry and exit of commercial witnesses vehicles into Delhi from were Haryana.
numbered as PW-18 due to inadvertent error, he will be referred as PW-18A henceforth) 59.27. Ravi Goel PW-20 Nil. He is an official of MCD who was summoned to prove the information related to entry & exit of commercial CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 21/118 vehicles that was provided by M/s Tecsidel to the MCD through PW18A.
60. The following documents were proved by the prosecution through the aforesaid witnesses:
S.No. Description of Doc. Exhibit No. Proved Relevant the Doc. No. by Deposition 60.1. FIR D-1 Ex.PW15/1 PW-15 Signature of SP Akhilesh Kumar Singh at point 'A' identified.
60.2. Complaint D-2 Ex.PW2/A PW-2 PW-2
dated 07.02.22 & identified the
filed by the PW-11 complaint &
complainant. his signature at
point 'A'.
PW-11
identified
endorsement
of the then SP,
marking the
complaint to
him for
verification, at
point 'B'.
60.3. Verification D-3 Ex.PW2/B PW-2 Their own
Memo dated PW-4 signatures
07.02.2022 & identified by
PW-11 PW-2, 4 & 11
at points A, B
& C
respectively.
60.4. Pre-Trap D-4 Ex.PW2/C PW-2 Their own
Memo dated PW-4 signatures
08.02.2022 PW-6 identified by
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 22/118
PW-11 PW-2, 4, 6, 11
& & 15 at points
PW-15 A to E
respectively.
PW-15 also
identified
signatures of
other team
members at
points F to K.
60.5. Recovery D-5 Ex.PW2/D PW-2 Their own
Memo dated PW-4 signatures
08/09.02.2022 PW-6 identified by
PW-11 PW-2, 4, 6, 11
& & 15 at points
PW-15 A to E
respectively.
60.6. Two Site plans, D-6 Ex.PW2/E PW-2 Their own
one of the spot (Colly) PW-4 signatures
where bribe PW-6 identified by
was transacted & PW-2, 4, 6 &
and another of PW-15 15 at points A
the spot where to D
accused was respectively.
apprehended,
dated
08.02.2022.
60.7. Arrest-cum- D-7 Ex.PW4/H PW-4 Their own
Personal PW-6 signatures
Search Memo & identified by
qua the PW-15 PW-4, 6 & 15
accused. at points A-C
respectively.
PW-15 also
identified
signature of
accused at
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 23/118
point 'D'.
60.8. Handing/Taken D-8 Ex.PW15/3 PW-15 PW-15
Over Memo identified his
dated signature at
09.02.2022 point 'A'.
with respect to
the Challans This document
recovered is regarding
during personal handing over
search of the of traffic
accused. challans
recovered
from the
accused to the
Nangloi Circle
Office of
Traffic Police,
Delhi.
60.9. Car Search D-9 Ex.PW4/I PW-4 This document
Memo dated PW-6 lists down the
08.02.2022 & articles
regarding PW-15 recovered
search of grey from the Car.
colour Maruti PW-4, 6 & 15
Brezza Car identified their
from which the signatures at
bribe money point A to C
was recovered. respectively,
on this Memo.
60.10. Letter dated D-11 Ex.PW9/2 PW-9 PW-9
03.03.2022 identified
addressed to signature of
CBI by ACP Smt. Urmila
(Traffic) (HQ), Sharma,
Delhi Inspector
forwarding (Admn.),
transfer Order Traffic at point
& other related A.
documents in
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 24/118
respect of the
accused.
60.11. Transfer / D-11 Ex.PW9/3 PW-9 Signature of
Posting Order (Colly) Sh. Ved
dated Prakash, ACP
12.09.2019 & (Traffic), HQ-I
08.10.2021 and identified at
computer point A on all
generated the pages by
details of PW-9;
different
postings in PW-10
Traffic Unit identified his
pertaining to signature &
the accused; stamp at point
'B' on page
Duty chart of 48, 72 & 73.
Feb-March,
2022;
Staff statement
at a glance;
DD No. 17
dated
22.10.2021
(joining of
accused in
Nangloi Traffic
Circle);
DD No. 4
dated 07.02.22
(regarding
assigning of
duty to the
accused at
Mundka point);
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 25/118
DD No. 25
dated 07.02.22
(regarding
releasing of
accused from
duty);
DD No. 3
dated 08.02.22
(departure of
accused to
Mundka point
with HC Sonu,
Ct. Amit & Ct.
Gagan);
DD No. 22
dated 08.02.22
(regarding
information of
trap of accused
received at
Tikri Border);
DD No. 23
dated 08.02.22
(regarding
recording of
information of
trap of
accused);
DD No. 24
dated 08.02.22
(regarding
receipt of FIR
No. 339/22
from PS
Mundka);
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 26/118
DD No. 21
dated 12.02.22
(regarding
receipt of
dismissal Order
of the accused).
60.12. Letter dated D-12 Ex.PW9/1 PW-9 Signature of
07.03.2022 & Smt. Urmila
sent to the CBI PW-10 Sharma,
by the Inspector
Additional (Admin.),
Commissioner Traffic, HQ,
of Police New Delhi,
(Traffic), HQ, identified at
Delhi, point 'A'.
forwarding
requisite
documents in
respect of
accused.
60.13. Service Roll of D-12 Ex.PW3/A PW-3 Signature of
the accused. Sh. Ved
Prakash, ACP
(Traffic), HQ
at point 'B' &
of PW-3 at
point 'A'
identified.
Date of joining
of accused in
Delhi Police
was stated to
be 01.05.1982
as per roll.
60.14. Record D-12 Ex.PW3/B PW-3 Signature of
pertaining to Sh. Ved
promotion of Prakash, ACP
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 27/118
accused to the (Traffic), HQ
post of Head at point 'B' &
Constable. of PW-3 at
point 'A'
identified.
Date of
promotion of
accused to the
post of Head
Constable was
stated to be
07.03.1996.
60.15. Record D-12 Ex.PW3/C PW-3 Signature of
pertaining to Sh. Ved
promotion of Prakash, ACP
accused to the (Traffic), HQ
post of ASI. at point 'B' &
of PW-3 at
point 'A'
identified.
Date of
promotion of
accused to the
post of ASI
was stated to
be 21.02.2014.
60.16. Record D-12 Ex.PW3/D PW-3 Signature of
pertaining to Sh. Ved
promotion of Prakash, ACP
accused to the (Traffic), HQ
post of SI (ad at point 'B' &
hoc) & his pay of PW-3 at
level. point 'A'
identified.
Date of
promotion of
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 28/118
accused to the
post of SI (ad
hoc) was
stated to be
26.07.2019
and his pay
scale w.e.f.
01.07.2021
was stated to
be level 6 with
basic pay of
55200.
60.17. Details of D-12 Ex.PW3/E PW-3 Signature of
salary drawn (Page Sh. Ved
by the accused 15) Prakash, ACP
during the (Traffic), HQ
financial year at point A
2021-22 identified.
60.18. Dismissal D-12 Ex.PW3/F PW-3 Signature of
Order bearing (Page (Colly) Sh. Ved
no. 16-19) Prakash, ACP,
720-765/HAP- Traffic (HQ) at
T (P-I/HQ), point B on
pertaining to each page and
the accused, of Sh. Dinesh
dated Kumar, HC
11.02.2022. (Ministerial) at
point 'A' on
the last page
identified.
60.19. DD No. 03, 04, D-13 Ex.PW10/1 PW-10 His own
05, 10, 18, 23, (Colly) signature &
25, 26 & 28 all stamp
dated regarding
07.02.2022 (the verification of
date of entries
verification of identified at
the complaint) point A by
reflecting the PW-10
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 29/118
duty point
(Mundka) of
accused and
other traffic
police officials
in Nangloi
Traffic Circle.
60.20. DD No. 3, 13 D-14 Ex.PW10/2 PW-10 His signature
& 19, all dated (Colly) & stamp
08.02.2022 (the regarding
date of laying verification of
of trap) entries
reflecting the identified at
duty point point A by
(Mundka) of PW-10.
accused and
other traffic
police officials
of Nangloi
Traffic Circle.
60.21. Transcription D-15 Ex.PW2/F PW-2 PW-2, 4, 6 &
of Audio (Page PW-4 15 identified
Recording 3 - 6) PW-6 their
marked as Q-1. & signatures at
PW-24 point A to D
respectively.
60.22. Voice D-15 Ex.PW2/G PW-2 PW-2, 4, 6 &
Identification - (Page PW-4 15 identified
cum - 1-2) PW-6 their
Transcription & signatures at
Memo related PW24 point A to D
to to Q-1 & respectively.
Q-2 dated
24.02.2022.
60.23. Transcription D-15 Ex.PW2/H PW-2 PW-2, 4, 6 &
of Audio (Page PW-4 15 identified
Recording 7-11) PW-6 their
marked as Q-2. & signatures at
PW24. point A to D
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 30/118
respectively.
60.24. Voice D-16 Ex.PW18/1 PW-18 PW-18 & 24
Identification - & identified their
cum - PW24 signatures at
Transcription point A & B.
Memo dated
28.02.2022.
60.25. Transcription D-16 Ex.PW18/2 PW-18 PW-18 & 24
of Audio & identified their
Recording PW-24 signatures at
marked as Q-1. point A & B.
60.26. The transcript D-16 Ex.PW18/3 PW-18 PW-18 & 24
of Q-1. & identified their
PW-24 signatures at
point A & B.
60.27. Forwarding D-17 Ex.PW24/1 PW-24 Signature of
letter dated the then SP Sh.
21.02.2022 K. S. Lochab
vide which the identified at
washes exhibits point A, on the
related to this letter & the
case were certificate.
forwarded by
CBI to the
CFSL for
chemical
examination to
detect presence
of
phenolphthalei
n powder,
alongwith the
authorization
certificate.
60.28. Chemical D-18 Ex.PW8/1 PW-8 Both washes
Examination as marked as
Report dated RHW & SPW
24.02.2022 gave positive
bearing no. test for
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 31/118
CFSL - phenolphthalei
2022/C-149. n as per report
on which
PW-8
identified his
signature and
stamp at point
A & B
respectively.
60.29. Forwarding D-19 Ex.PW24/2 PW-24 Signature of
Letter dated the then SP Sh.
07.03.2022 K. S. Lochab
vide which the identified at
Memory Cards point A, on the
marked as Q-1; letter & the
Q-2; S-1; S-2 certificate.
and the DVR
were forwarded
by the CBI to
the CFSL for
voice
comparison,
alongwith the
authorization
certificate by
the then SP Sh.
K. S. Lochab.
60.30. Letter dated D-20 Ex.PW7/1 PW-7 The mobile no.
08.03.2022 (Colly) 8168984937 is
alongwith registered in
CDR, CAF and the name of
Cell ID chart accused while
with respect to mobile no.
mobile No. 9350902268
8168984937 does not
certificate belong to
u/Sec. 65B of Reliance Jio.
the Indian PW-7
Evidence Act, identified his
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 32/118
1872, received signature and
by the CBI stamp on the
from the Nodal documents at
Officer of point 'A'. The
Reliance Jio CDR suggest
Infocomm Ltd. that on
07.02.2022 the
accused had
called on
mobile no.
8708484894 at
around
09:07:24 and
spoke till
09:10:29. His
location at that
time was near
Khasra no.
33/4, Village
Tikri Kalan,
Delhi-110041.
This call is
unconnected to
the present
case.
60.31. The letter dated D-21 Ex.PW1/A PW-1 PW-1
09.03.2022 identified his
vide which signature at
CAF & CDR point 'A'.
of mobile no.
9350902268
were forwarded
to the CBI by
Vodafone Idea
Ltd.
60.32. Application D-21 Ex.PW1/B PW-1 The mobile no.
form for (Colly) 9350902268
mobile No. was registered
9350902268. in the name of
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 33/118
accused.
60.33. Certificate D-21 Ex.PW1/C PW-1 It certifies
u/Sec. 65B of genuinity of
the Indian the application
Evidence Act form
in support of Ex.PW1/B
Ex.PW1/B (Colly). PW-7
(Colly) identified his
signature at
point 'A'.
60.34. CDR of mobile D-21 Ex.PW1/D PW-1 It reflects that
No. (Colly) on 08.02.2022
9350902268 at 14:56:56
for the period and 15:32:11
from two incoming
07.02.2022 to calls from
08.02.2022. mobile no.
9873101900
were received
on mobile no.
9350902268
and location of
the latter
mobile number
was Village
Mundka (near
Government
School,
Mundka) at
that time.
PW-1
identified his
signature &
stamp on this
document at
point 'A'.
60.35. Certificate D-21 Ex.PW1/E PW-1 It certifies
u/Sec. 65B of genuinity of
the Indian the CDR
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 34/118
Evidence Act. Ex.PW1/D.
PW-1
identified his
signature at
point 'A'.
60.36. Forwarding D-22 Ex.PW5/A PW-5 Signature and
Letter dated (Colly) stamp of
07.03.2022 Bharti Airtel at
received by point 'A' on
CBI from every
Bharti Airtel document
Limited identified by
alongwith PW-5.
Customer Documents
Application reflect that the
Form, 2 copies mobile no.
of Aadhar Card 9873101900
of the was registered
complainant, 2 in the name of
Certificates complainant.
u/Sec. 65-B of Two calls were
the Indian made from this
Evidence Act, number on
CDR, and Cell 08.02.2022 at
ID Chart, 14:56:57 &
pertaining to 15:32:12 to
mobile number mobile no.
9873101900 9350902268.
(showing tower Location of
address of the this phone
respective during first
location and call was at
certificate Mundka, near
u/Sec. 65-B of Amar Colony,
the Indian Delhi and
Evidence Act during second
relating to the call it was at
CDR). Mundka, near
Khasra no. 614
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 35/118
and gate no. 2
of Mundka
Metro Station,
Delhi.
60.37. Letter dated D-24 Ex.PW22/1 PW-22 Signature of
21.04.2022 RTO at point A
sent to the CBI identified by
by RTO, PW-22.
Kohima,
Nagaland vide
which details
of 06 vehicles
operated by the
complainant,
which were
registered in
Nagaland, were
forwarded.
60.38. Particulars of D-24 Ex.PW22/2 PW-22 Signature &
06 Vehicles (Colly) stamp of RTO
registered in identified by
Nagaland. PW-22 at point
A on each
page. These
documents
reflect that
vehicles no.
NL01L8103,
NL01AB0248
&
NL01AB0247
were
registered in
the name of
Nisha w/o
complainant;
vehicle no.
NL01AB1284
was registered
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 36/118
in the name of
Pooja Yadav
and vehicles
no.
NL01AB1280
&
NL01AB1279
were
registered in
the name of
Ravi Yadav.
60.39. Letter dated D-25 Ex.PW25/1 PW-24 Endorsement
12.04.2022 & of Incharge
sent to the CBI [also PW-25 Malkhanna at
by the DTO- Ex.PW24/9 point 'A' &
cum-Secretary, (Colly)] signature of
RTO, RTO &
Bahadurgarh dealing clerk
forwarding at point 'B' &
information 'C' identified
with respect to by PW-24 &
vehicle no. PW-25
HR63C5021; respectively.
HR63D6201;
and
HR63C2051.
60.40. Registration D-25 Ex.PW25/2 PW-24 Signature &
details of & stamp at point
vehicle no. [also PW-25 'A' identified
HR-63C-5021. Ex.PW24/9 by PW-25.
(colly)] Vehicle is
registered in
the name of
Nisha w/o
complainant.
60.41. Registration D-25 Ex.PW25/3 PW-24 Signature &
details of & stamp at point
vehicle no. [also PW-25 'A' identified
HR-63D-6201 Ex.PW24/9 by PW-25.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 37/118
(colly)] Vehicle is
registered in
the name of
Ravi Yadav,
brother of
complainant.
60.42. Registration D-25 Ex.PW25/4 PW-24 Signature &
details of & stamp at point
vehicle no. [also PW-25 'A' identified
HR-63C-2051 Ex.PW24/9 by PW-25.
(colly)] Vehicle is
registered in
the name of
Ravi Yadav,
brother of
complainant.
60.43. Letter dated D-26 Ex.PW19/1 PW-19 Signature of
27.04.2022 RTO at point A
sent to the CBI identified by
by RTO, PW-19.
Gurugram
forwarding
details of
vehicle no.
HR-55W-3222
&
HR-55S-0345
60.44. Particulars of D-26 Ex.PW19/2 PW-19 Signature of
vehicles RTO at point A
bearing No. identified by
HR-55W-3222 PW-19.
& Vehicle no.
HR-55S-0345. HR55W3222
is registered in
the name of
Pooja Yadav
(sister-in-law
of the
complainant)
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 38/118
& vehicle no.
HR55S0345 is
registered in
the name of
Ravi Yadav,
brother of the
complainant.
60.45. Certificate D-26 Ex.PW19/3 PW-19 Signature of
u/Sec. 65B of RTO at point A
Indian by PW-19.
Evidence Act
in respect of
registration
certificate of
vehicle No.
HR55W3222
60.46. Certificate D-26 Ex.PW19/4 PW-19 Signature of
u/Sec. 65B of RTO at point A
Indian identified by
Evidence Act PW-19.
in respect of
vehicle No.
HR-55S-0345.
60.47. Letter dated D-27 Ex.PW26/1 PW-24 Endorsement
27.04.2022 & of Incharge
received by the [also PW-26 Malkhana at
CBI from RTO, Ex.PW24/10 point A &
Jind. (Colly)] signature of
RTA at point B
identified by
PW-24 & 26
respectively.
60.48. Registration D-27 Ex.PW26/2 PW-24 Signature &
details of & stamp at point
vehicle No. [also PW-26 'A' identified
HR-31S-1450 Ex.PW24/10 by PW-26.
(Maruti (Colly)] Vehicle is
Brezza) registered in
the name of
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 39/118
Sumit
(PW-14).
60.49. Certificate D-27 Ex.PW26/3 PW-24 Signature &
u/Sec. 65B of & stamp at point
the Indian [also PW-26 A identified by
Evidence Act Ex.PW24/10 PW-26.
with respect to (Colly)]
the registration
certificate of
vehicle no.
HR-31S-1450.
60.50. Forwarding D-28 Ex.PW24/11 PW-24 Documents
letter dated (Colly) reflect that the
11.03.2022 Disciplinary &
alongwith Appointing
certified copy Authority as
of personal well as
bio-data of the authority
accused competent to
received by remove the
PW-24 from accused from
Inspector/Adm service was
n./Traffic. DCP/HQ/Traff
ic. Accused
held the
designation of
SI (Executive).
60.51. Seizure memo D-29 Ex.PW24/3 PW-24 PW-24
dated identified his
07.03.2022. signature at
point 'A'.
Service record
of accused was
seized vide
this memo.
60.52. Seizure memo D-29 Ex.PW24/4 PW-24 PW-24
dated identified his
03.03.2022. signature at
point 'A'.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 40/118
Some DD
entries were
seized vide
this memo.
60.53. Seizure memo D-29 Ex.PW24/5 PW-24 PW-24
dated identified his
09.03.2022. signature at
point 'A'.
Documents
received from
Vodafone Idea
Ltd. were
seized vide
this memo.
60.54. Seizure memo D-29 Ex.PW24/6 PW-24 PW-24
dated identified his
11.03.2022. signature at
point 'A'.
Documents
received from
Bharti Airtel
Limited were
seized vide
this memo.
60.55. Seizure memo D-29 Ex.PW24/7 PW-24 PW-24
dated identified his
09.03.2022. signature at
point 'A'.
Copies of RCs
of 12 Trucks
operated by
complainant
were seized
vide this
memo.
60.56. Letter dated D-30 Ex.PW20/1 PW-20 Signature of
26.05.2022 Admin.
written to the Officer (Toll
CBI by MCD Tax) at point A
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 41/118
(Toll Tax identified by
Department). PW-20.
Information
about entry &
exit of some
vehicles from
Delhi & route
Mundka and
nearby areas
for the year
2021-22 was
sent to CBI
vide this letter,
after
requisitioning
the same from
SDMC's
contractor M/s
Tecsidel India
Pvt. Ltd.,
GHV (India)
Pvt. Ltd. &
Sahakar
Global Ltd.
60.57. E-mail dated D-30 Ex.PW18/1 PW-18A Signature of
09.02.2022 AR at point A
vide which on each page
information of the data
related to the identified by
entry and exit PW-18A.
of 12 vehicles Record does
bearing No. not reflect any
HR55W3222; movement of
HR55S0345; the vehicles
NL01LB8103; from Tikri
NL01AB0249; around
NL01AB0248; Jan./Feb. 2022.
NL01AB0247; The movement
NL01AB1284; has been made
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 42/118
NL01AB1280; through Tikri
NL01AB1279; after the date
HR63C5021; of registration
HR63D6201; of this case.
& HR63C5051 Movements
was provided before that are
by M/s from
Tecsidel to the Bakarghad,
MCD (Toll Tax Darola and
Department) Dhansa Border
which fall in
the South West
area near
Najafgarh,
Delhi.
60.58 Certificate D-31 Ex.PW18/2 PW18A His signature
u/Sec. 65B of and stamp at
the Indian point A
Evidence Act identified by
with respect to PW18A.
the data
provided to the
MCD (Toll Tax
Department) by
M/s Tecsidel.
60.59. Letter dated D-31 Ex.PW18/3 PW18A His
09.06.2022 handwriting on
sent by the letter at
Tecsidel to the point A and
CBI, signature at
forwarding a point B
certificate identified by
u/Sec. 65B of PW18A.
the Indian
Evidence Act,
1872.
60.60. Letter dated D-33 Ex.PW21/3 PW-21 Signature of
20.05.2022 Deputy
sent to the CBI Commissioner
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 43/118
by the (Sectt.)
Transport identified by
Department of PW-21 at point
GNCT Delhi A.
forwarding
notification.
60.61. Notification D-33 Ex.PW21/1 PW-21 Signature &
No. F.19 stamp of
(183)/Tpt./Sect certifying
t./2017/70257 officer
dated identified at
03.08.2021 point A. It
pertaining to reflects that
the Transport entry of HGV,
Department. MGV & LGV
was prohibited
on Rohtak
Road from
Tikri Border to
Peeragarhi
between 7:00
AM to 11:00
AM and 5:00
PM to 11:00
PM.
60.62. Certificate D-33 Ex.PW21/2 PW-21 His signature
u/Sec. 65-B of as PCO (Sect.)
Indian identified by
Evidence Act, PW-21 at point
1872 with 'A'.
respect to the
notification
dated
03.08.2021
60.63. Forwarding D-34 Ex.PW24/8 PW-24 The letter
letter dated reflects that
07.07.2022 Insp. Anil first
vide which went for
CBI had consultation in
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 44/118
received the Orthopaedic
medical on 09.02.22.
documents He was later
pertaining to admitted on
the treatment 14.02.22 &
given to Insp. underwent
Anil Kumar at medical
the Max procedure for
Hospital, Triceps
Vaishali, Tendon Repair
Ghaziabad with Bone
after he had Chip Fixation.
been hit by the
Brezza car.
60.64. Certificate D-35 Ex.PW25/5 PW-24 Certificate is
u/Sec. 65B of & with respect to
the Indian [also PW-25 registration
Evidence Act, Ex.PW24/9 details of
1872, received (Colly)] vehicle no.
by CBI from HR63D6201.
the Transport
Authority, Signature and
Bahadurgarh, stamp of
Haryana. Secretary /
RTA, Jhajjar at
point A & of
dealing hand at
point B
identified by
PW-25.
60.65. Certificate D-35 Ex.PW25/6 PW-24 Certificate is
u/Sec. 65B of & with respect to
the Indian [also PW-25 registration
Evidence Act, Ex.PW24/9 details of
1872, received (Colly)] vehicle no.
by CBI from HR63C5021.
the Transport Signature and
Authority, stamp of
Bahadurgarh, Secretary /
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 45/118
Haryana. RTA, Jhajjar at
point A & of
dealing hand at
point B
identified by
PW-25.
60.66. Certificate D-35 Ex.PW25/7 PW-24 Certificate is
u/Sec. 65B of & with respect to
the Indian [also PW-25 registration
Evidence Act, Ex.PW24/9 details of
1872, received (Colly)] vehicle no.
by CBI from HR63C2051.
the Transport
Authority, Signature and
Bahadurgarh, stamp of
Haryana. Secretary /
RTA, Jhajjar at
point 'A' & of
dealing hand at
point 'B'
identified by
PW-25.
60.67. Order dated D-36 Ex.PW23/1 PW-23 His signature
12.05.2022 identified by
whereby PW-23 at point
sanction to A on each
prosecute the page.
accused was
granted.
60.68. Forensic Voice D-37 Ex.PW16/1 PW-16 His signature,
Examination stamp &
Report dated initials
18.01.2023. identified by
PW-16 at point
A, B & C
respectively.
Report opined
that Q-1 &
Q-2 contained
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 46/118
probable
voices of the
accused & the
complainant.
60.69. Letter dated - Ex.PW22/3 PW-22 Signature of
08.10.2024 RTO, Kohima
addressed to at point A
the Court by identified by
RTO Kohima, PW-22;
Nagaland Information
pertaining to
vehicle no.
NL01AB0249
at point 'B'
also identified,
which states
that details of
this vehicle
could not be
extracted as a
NOC for its
transfer to
RTO, Dausa,
Rajasthan was
issued on
17.03.2022.
60.70. Certificate - Ex.PW22/5 PW-22 Signature of
u/Sec. 65B of (Objected to RTO Kohima,
Indian during Nagaland at
Evidence Act recording of point A,
with respect to testimony identified by
the data but PW-22.
provided by objection
RTO, Kohima, not pressed
Nagaland. at the stage
of final
arguments).
60.71. Ownership - Ex.PW22/4 PW-22 NL01L8103
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 47/118
details of (Colly) registered in
trucks bearing the name of
No. Nisha &
NL01L8103; transferred to
NL01AB1284; Ravinder
NL01AB1280; Kumar on
& 16.08.2023;
NL01AB1279. NL01AB1284
registered in
the name of
Pooja Yadav;
and
NL01AB1280
&
NL01AB1279
registered in
the name of
Ravi Yadav.
60.72. Final report -- Ex.PW24/12 PW-24 Signature of
(chargesheet) IO and SP,
dated ACB, CBI,
26.07.2022 identified by
filed in the PW-24 at
Court by points A & B
PW-24. respectively.
61. The following material objects/articles have been relied upon by the prosecution in support of their case:-
S.No. Exhibit No. Description of the Article Proved by
61.1 Ex.P-3 Memory card marked as PW-2, PW-4 & PW-6.
S-1 containing specimen voice of the accused.
61.2 Ex.P-4 Memory card marked as PW-2, PW-4, PW-6 & (also S-2 containing specimen PW-15.
Ex.PW15/2) voice of the complainant.
61.3 Ex.P-7 Memory card marked as PW-2, PW-4, PW-16 Q-1. (signature identified at point D) & PW-18 CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 48/118 (identified voice of accused).
61.4 Ex.P-8 Four currency notes PW-2, PW-4 & PW-6
(Colly) marked with double tick
[also in Ex.PW2/C, recovered
Ex.PW4/D from the complainant.
(Colly)]
61.5 Ex.P-9 44 currency notes PW-2, PW-4, PW-6 &
(Colly) recovered from the PW-11.
[also accused bearing numbers
Ex.PW4/B which were single ticked
(Colly)] in Ex.PW2/C.
61.6. Ex. P-10 Glass bottle containing PW-2, PW4 (signature
right hand wash of the identified at point A),
accused and marked as PW-6 (signature
RHW. identified at point B),
PW-8 (signature
identified at point C)
& PW-11 (signature
identified at point D).
61.7. Ex.P-11 Glass bottle containing PW-2, PW-4 (signature
storage space wash of the identified at point A), Maruti Brezza Car PW-6 (signature marked as SPW. identified at point B), PW-8 (signature identified at point C) & PW-15 (signature identified at point D) 61.8. Ex.P-12 DVR make Sony used to PW-2, PW-4 (signature record voices during pre- identified at point A), trap & trap proceedings PW-6 (signature as well as specimen identified at point B), voices marked as Ex. PW-15 (signature DVR. identified at point C) & PW-16 (signature identified at point D).
61.9. Ex.P-15 Memory card marked as PW-2, PW-4, PW-6,
Q-2 containing PW-15, PW-16
conversation between (signature identified at
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 49/118
complainant and the point D) & PW-18
accused during the trap (identified voice of the
proceedings. accused).
61.10. Mark X Brass seal of the CBI PW-4.
used in pre-trap & trap
proceedings & handed
over to PW-4 post-trap.
61.11. Ex.PW8/3 The 2 cloth wrappers PW-8 who identified
(Colly) taken out from Ex.PW8/2 his signature at point
(envelope yellow in 'A' on both the cloth
colour). wrappers.
62. The following envelopes and packing material used for putting/storing aforesaid articles were also referred by the prosecution in support of their case:-
S.No. Exhibit No. Description Proved by 62.1. Ex.P-1 Envelope marked as PW-2, PW-4 & PW-11, who Q-1 in CO-07/2022 in identified their signature at which memory card point A, B & C respectively. Q-1 was kept.
62.2. Ex.P-2 Original cover PW-2, PW-4, PW-11 & marked as Q-1 in PW-16, who identified their CO-07/2022 signature at points A to D. 62.3. Ex.P-5 envelope in which PW-2, PW-4, PW-6 & memory card marked PW-15, who identified their as S-2 (Ex.P-4) was signature at points A to D kept. respectively.
62.4. Ex.P-6 Packing cover of thePW-2, PW-4, PW-6, PW-15 memory card marked & PW-16 who identified their as S-2 (Ex.P-4) signature at points 'A' to 'E' respectively.
62.5. Ex.P-13 Packing material of PW-2, PW-4, PW-6, PW-15 the memory card & PW-16, wherein last four marked as Q-2 identified their signatures from points A to D. CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 50/118 62.6. Ex.P-14 Envelope in which PW-2, PW-4 (signature memory card marked identified at point A), PW-6, as Q-2 (Ex.P-15) was (signature identified at point kept. B), PW-15 (signature identified at point C) & PW-16 (signature identified at point D).
62.7. Ex.PW4/A Envelope containing PW-4 (signature identified at
44 currency notes point A), PW-6 (signature
[Ex.P-9 (Colly) / identified at point B) &
Ex.PW4/B (Colly)] PW-11 (signature identified
recovered from the at point C).
accused.
62.8. Ex.PW4/C Envelope containing PW-4 (Signature identified at
4 currency notes point A), PW-6 (signature
[Ex.P-8 identified at point B) &
(Colly)/Ex.PW4/D PW-15 (signature identified
(Colly)] recovered at point C).
from the complainant.
62.9. Ex.PW4/E Envelope containing PW-4 (signature identified at
memory card marked point A), PW-6 (signature
as S-1 (Ex.P-3) identified at point B), PW-15
(His own signature identified
at point C & signature of
accused identified at point D)
& PW-16 (signature
identified at point E).
62.10. Ex.PW4/F Packing material of PW-4 (signature identified at
(Colly) memory card marked point A), PW-6 (signature
as S-1 (Ex.P-3). identified at point B), PW-15
(His own signature identified
at point C & signature of
accused identified at point D)
& PW-16 (signature
identified at point E).
62.11. Ex.PW4/G Envelope in which PW-4 (signature identified at
DVR (Ex.P-12) was point A), PW-6 (signature
put. identified at point B), PW-15
(signature identified at point CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 51/118 C) & PW-16 (signature identified at point D).
62.12. Mark X Brass seal used to PW-4 seal the exhibits collected from the spot.
62.13. Ex.PW8/2 One yellow colour PW-8 who identified his envelope sealed with signature on envelope at the seal of 'PSO point 'A'.
Chemistry CFSL
NEW DELHI,
containing 2 cloth
wrappers which were
removed from the
glass bottles during
chemical
examination.
62.14. Ex.PW16/2 One yellow colour PW-16 sealed envelope from which the brown colour envelope (Ex.P-1) containing Ex.P-2 (original packing cover) and Ex.P-7 (Memory Card Q-1) were taken out.
62.15. Ex.PW16/3 One yellow colour PW-16 sealed envelope from which the brown colour envelope (Ex.P-14) along with Ex.P-13 (packing cover) and Ex.P-15 (Memory Card Q-2) were taken out.
62.16. Ex.PW16/4 One yellow colour PW-16 sealed envelope from which brown colour CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 52/118 envelope (Ex.PW4/E) containing Ex.PW4/F (Packing) and Ex.P-3 (Memory Card S-1) were taken out.
62.17 Ex.PW16/5 One yellow colour PW-16 sealed envelope from which brown colour envelope (Ex.P-5) containing Ex.P-6 (Packing Cover) and Ex.P-4/Ex.PW15/2 (Memory Card S-2) were taken out.
62.18. Ex.PW16/6 One yellow colour PW-16 sealed envelope from which brown colour envelope (Ex.PW4/G) containing Ex.P-12 (DVR) was taken out.
63. The following documents were put to the aforesaid material witnesses by the prosecution but were not admitted in evidence:-
S.No. Description of the Doc. Mark No. Referred in the Doc. No. Deposition of 63.1 The copies of D-23 Mark X PW-2.
registration {The 12 trucks are certificates of 12 bearing No. trucks.
HR-63C-5021;
NL-01L-8103;
NL-01AB-0249;
NL-01AB-0248;
NL-01AB-0247 (all in the name of Nisha w/o complainant);
HR-55W-3222;
NL-01AB-1284 [all in
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 53/118
the name of Pooja
Yadav (sister-in-law of
the complainant)];
HR-63D-6201;
HR-55S-02345;
NL-01AB-1280;
NL-01AB-1279; &
HR-63C-2051 (all in
the name of brother of
the complainant)}.
These were being
operated by the
complainant.
63.2. FIR bearing No. D-10 Mark PW-15
339/2022 dated PW15/A
[This FIR is with
08.02.2022
respect to the injuries
registered at PS
allegedly caused to
Mundka.
Insp. Anil Kumar
(member of the trap
team) by the accused by
accelerating the Brezza
Car].
63.3. The Complaint filed D-10 Mark PW-15
by PW-15 at PS PW15/B
(On the basis of this
Mundka.
complaint, FIR Mark
PW15/A was
registered).
63.4. Statement of PW-12 -- Mark PW-12
recorded u/Sec. 161 PW12/D
(PW-12 was confronted
Cr.P.C. A
with Mark PW12/DA to
prove omission of the
fact that the
complainant had
purchased 5 trucks in
his name & 2 trucks in
the name of his wife,
which he stated during
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 54/118
his examination-in-
chief, but it was not part
of his statement
recorded u/Sec. 161
Cr.P.C.)
63.5. Order No. -- Mark DX PW-4
73/12/2005 dated
(Witness denied that
15.12.2005 issued
this circular was shown
by the Central
to him by the
Vigilance
prosecution before
Commission, Govt.
coming in the witness
of India regarding
box).
'Action against
public servants,
serving as witness,
but turning hostile
in trap and other
cases of CBI'.
63.6. Medical documents D-34 Mark PW-24
received from Max PW24/A
(These documents
Hospital, Vaishali, (Colly)
reflect about injuries on
Ghaziabad
the person of Inspector
Anil Kumar &
treatment given to him).
64. The following documents were put to the witnesses by the accused during their cross-examination:-
S.No. Description of Doc. Exhibit No. Proved Relevancy the Doc. No. by 64.1 The forwarding -- Ex.PW8/D1 PW-8 Name of the letter dated (OSR) official of ACB, 21.02.22 CBI who brought received from exhibits to CFSL the CBI by the is not mentioned CFSL along in this document.
with (PW-8
authorization volunteered to
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 55/118
certificate vide state that the
which RHW & exhibits were
SPW were brought by
forwarded for Suresh Chand
examination. Jat, PC, CBI,
which fact was
noted in his
report Ex.
PW8/1 from the
chain of custody
sheet which was
part of his office
file that he was
carrying along).
Ld. Defence
counsel did not
propose to check
the file or make
custody sheet a
part of the
Court's record.
64.2 Worksheet -- Ex.PW8/D-2 PW-8 The worksheet
prepared by (OSR) gives detailed
PW-8 during analysis of the
examination of samples
RHW & SPW examined in
in the CFSL, alongwith
Laboratory. Spectrum Peak
Pick Report /
Spectrum Point
Pick Report of
RHW, SPW &
standard
solution.
64.3 Copy of the -- Ex. PW-16 This document
forwarding PW16/DA reflects
letter dated (Colly) endorsement of
07.03.22 (OSR) CFSL at the first
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 56/118
received by the page showing
CFSL from that the sealed
CBI alongwith parcels were
authorization received in
certificate vide physics division
which Q-1, on 08.03.22.
Q-2, S-1, S-2
and DVR were
sent for
forensic
examination.
64.4. Authorization -- Ex. PW22 Signature of
letter dated PW22/D1 RTO Kohima
06.02.2025 by identified by
RTO, Kohima, PW-22 at point
Nagaland, in A.
favour of Smt.
Moatula, AO,
to represent
RTO in the
Court.
64.5. Search list -- Ex. PW24 PW-24 had
containing PW24/DA carried out this
details of search &
properties identified his
seized by the signature at point
CBI during 'A'. None of the
search articles seized
proceedings vide this list are
carried out in relevant for this
the house of judgment.
accused.
Statement of Accused:
65. All the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused u/Sec.
313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. He was also given liberty to file written statement as per Section 313 (5) Cr.P.C. however accused did not avail this opportunity.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 57/11866. Accused denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him during recording of his statement u/Sec. 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. He stated that the trap money & handwash were planted upon him and he was falsely implicated in this case. Accused also pleaded that the documents and evidence used against him had been fabricated. He defended himself stating that whenever he booked commercial vehicles for traffic violations, he was threatened by various leaders of Transport Unions. The vehicles of complainant having been registered outside Delhi, were not permitted to ply on the roads of Delhi. The complainant was apprehensive that his vehicles shall be booked for traffic violation. Hence, he implicated him falsely in the present case. The accused also stated that the expert reports relied upon by the prosecution were false. It is the case of the accused that the sanction for prosecution was granted against him by an incompetent authority because it is the Commissioner of Police who was authorized to grant sanction against him and not the Additional Commissioner of Police. The accused stated that he was promoted to the post of SI by the Commissioner of Police and not by the Additional Commissioner of Police, hence, the sanction for prosecution granted against him by the Addl. CP was invalid.
Defence Evidence
67. The accused summoned and examined five witnesses in order to prove his defence. Details of these witnesses are as below:-
S.No. Name of Witness Examined If cross- Role Description as examined 67.1. Rishikant Gaur DW-1 Yes He was summoned for proving the RTI reply dated 12.10.2023 CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 58/118 bearing No. TPT/AS/STA/2023/RT I/93746 sent to him by the Transport Department : STA Branch, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
67.2. WHC Sangita DW-2 Yes She was summoned to
prove the RTI reply
dated 12.10.2023
bearing No.
607/2023/6011/RTI
Cell/Traffic (Head
Quarter), New Delhi,
sent to the accused
from the office of
PIO : (Traffic) : Head
Quarter, Delhi.
67.3. SI Sunil Kumar DW-3 Yes He had produced the original DD register from Nangloi Traffic Circle and Burari Traffic Circle and proved various DD entries.
67.4. Er. DW-4 Yes He was examined
Chumbenthung through Video
Odyuo Conference to prove
the RTI reply dated
22.07.2024 sent to the
accused vide letter
bearing No.
RTO-K/Estt.-5/Part-I/2
017/965-67 by the
office of RTO,
Kohima, Nagaland.
67.5. Amit Saharan DW-5 Yes He was summoned to
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 59/118
prove the RTI reply
bearing No. 269/RTA
dated 10.06.2024 sent
to the accused by RTA,
Jhajjar at Bahadurgarh,
Haryana.
68. The following documents were proved by the witnesses of defence during the recording of their testimonies:
S.No. Description Doc. Exhibit No. Prove Relevant of the Doc. No. d by Deposition
68.1. RTI reply -- Ex.DW1/A DW-1 Transport dated Department 12.10.2023 disclosed vide this bearing No. reply that other TPT/AS/ST states registered A/2023/RTI/ vehicles were not 93746 allowed to be operated locally in Delhi. Signature of PIO identified at point A & B. 68.2. RTI reply -- Ex.DW2/A DW-2 Copy of promotion dated (3 sheets) Order dated 12.10.2023 06.08.2019, vide bearing No. which the accused 607/2023/60 was promoted to 11/RTI the rank of SI (Ex.) Cell/Traffic w.e.f. 26.07.2019, (Head was sent through Quarter), this reply.
New Delhi.
68.3. DD No. 27 -- Ex.DW3/A DW-3 Accused records
dated (OSR) about threats given
31.01.2020 to him by one
pertaining to Deepak claiming to
Nangloi be owner of vehicle
Traffic no. RJ-40GA-3078
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 60/118
Circle. that had Om
Motors mark and
had been challaned
by the accused for
traffic violation.
68.4. DD No.24 -- Ex.DW3/B DW-3 Accused records
dated (Colly) about threats given
01.02.2020 (2 sheets) to him by one
pertaining to (OSR) Deepak claiming to
Nangloi be owner of vehicle
Traffic no. DL-1LX-0715
Circle. that had Om
Motors mark and
had been challaned
by the accused for
traffic violation.
68.5. DD No.37 -- Ex.DW3/C DW-3 Accused records
dated (Colly) about threats given
03.02.2020 (2 sheets) to him by one
pertaining to Fauzi claiming to
Nangloi be owner of vehicle
Traffic no. DL-1M-8190
Circle. that had been
challaned & having
membership of
Transport
Association.
68.6. DD No.36 -- Ex.DW3/D DW-3 Accused records
dated (Colly) about threats given
10.02.2020 (2 sheets) to him by one
pertaining to (OSR) Deepak claiming to
Nangloi be owner of vehicle
Traffic no. RJ-40GA-1550
Circle. that had Om
Motors mark and
had been challaned
by the accused for
traffic violation.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 61/118
68.7. DD No.34 -- Ex.DW3/E DW-3 Accused records
dated (Colly) about threats given
11.02.2020 (2 sheets) to him by one
pertaining to (OSR) Pradeep claiming
Nangloi to be owner of
Traffic vehicle no.
Circle. HR-55Q-2586 that
had been challaned
by the accused for
traffic violation.
68.8. DD No.35 -- Ex.DW3/F DW-3 Accused record
dated (Colly) that he was
20.12.2019 (2 sheets) threatened by
pertaining to (OSR) occupant of vehicle
Nangloi no. DL-1LY-3639
Traffic when he had
Circle. booked it for traffic
violation.
68.9. DD No.31 -- Ex.DW3/G DW-3 Accused records
dated (Colly) about threats given
23.12.2019 (2 sheets) to him by one Brij
pertaining to (OSR) Mohan claiming to
Nangloi be owner of vehicle
Traffic no. RJ-404A-3078
Circle. that had Brijmohan
mark and had been
challaned by the
accused for traffic
violation.
68.10. DD No.24 -- Ex.DW3/H DW-3 Accused records
dated (Colly) about threats given
05.01.2020 (2 sheets) to him by one
pertaining to (OSR) Deepak claiming to
Nangloi be owner of vehicle
Traffic no. DL-1LR-5696
Circle. that had Om
Motors mark and
had been challaned
by the accused for
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 62/118
traffic violation.
68.11. DD No. 32 -- Ex.DW3/I DW-3 Accused records
dated (OSR) about threats given
06.01.2020 to him by one
pertaining to Pradeep claiming
Nangloi to be owner of
Traffic vehicle no.
Circle. RJ-02GB-2958 that
had been challaned
by the accused for
traffic violation.
68.12. DD No. 27 -- Ex.DW3/J DW-3 Accused records
dated (Colly) about threats given
07.01.2020 (2 sheets) to him by one
pertaining to (OSR) Deepak claiming to
Nangloi be owner of vehicle
Traffic no. UP-14HT-1120
Circle. that had Om
Motors mark and
had been challaned
by the accused for
traffic violation.
68.13. DD No.31 -- Ex.DW3/K DW-3 Accused records
dated (Colly) that he was
11.01.2020 (2 sheets) threatened by one
pertaining to (OSR) Yadav when he
Nangloi challaned vehicle
Traffic no. HP-12M-4081
Circle. for traffic violation.
68.14. DD No.15 -- Ex.DW3/L DW-3 Accused records
dated (OSR) that he was
13.01.2020 threatened &
pertaining to manhandled by one
Nangloi Ajay & Aman
Traffic when he challaned
Circle. vehicle no.
HP-9CAQ-7097
for traffic violation.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 63/118
68.15. DD No.34 -- Ex.DW3/M DW-3 Accused records
dated (OSR) about threats given
21.11.2020 to him by one
pertaining Harish Gupta
Burari claiming to be
Traffic owner of vehicles
Circle. no. UP-84T-7238;
DL-1M-1070; &
UP-25DT-2227
that had been
challaned by the
accused for traffic
violation.
68.16. DD No.38 -- Ex.DW3/N DW-3 Accused records
dated (OSR) that he was
25.02.2020 threatened by Taj
pertaining to Mohammad for
Nangloi booking vehicle
Traffic no. UP-25DT-2227
Circle. for traffic
violations.
68.17. DD No.36 -- Ex.DW3/O DW-3 Accused records
dated (Colly) about threats given
27.02.2020 (3 sheets) to him by one
pertaining to (OSR) Deepak & Nain
Nangloi Singh claiming to
Traffic be owners of
Circle. vehicle no.
DLIMA0405 that
had Om Motors
mark and had been
challaned by the
accused for traffic
violation.
68.18. DD No.29 -- Ex.DW3/P DW-3 Accused records
dated (Colly) about threats given
03.03.2020 (2 sheets) to him by one
pertaining to (OSR) Deepak claiming to
Nangloi be owner of vehicle
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 64/118
Traffic no. UP-17AT-3031
Circle. that had Om
Motors mark and
had been challaned
by the accused for
traffic violation.
68.19. DD No.21 & -- Ex.DW3/Q DW-3 Accused records
24 dated (Colly) about threats given
17.03.2020 (3 sheets) to him by one Brij
pertaining to (OSR) Mohan claiming to
Nangloi be owner of vehicle
Traffic no. UP-23T-9870
Circle. that had Brijmohan
mark and had been
challaned by the
accused for traffic
violation. He also
records about
threats by one
Hawa Singh for
booking vehicle
no. DL-1LX-6804
for violations.
68.20. DD No.41 -- Ex.DW3/R DW-3 Accused records
dated (OSR) that he was
17.03.2020 threatened by the
pertaining to occupants of
Nangloi vehicle bearing No.
Traffic DL-4ER-5044
Circle. when it was
booked for traffic
violation.
68.21. DD No.24 -- Ex.DW3/S DW-3 Accused records
dated (OSR) that he was
04.09.2019 threatened by the
pertaining to driver of vehicle
Nangloi no. DL-8CA-6845
Traffic when it was
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 65/118
Circle. booked for traffic
violation.
68.22. DD No. 16 -- Ex.DW3/T DW-3 Accused records
dated (OSR) about threats given
13.09.2019 to him by one Nain
pertaining to Singh claiming to
Nangloi be owner of vehicle
Traffic no.
Circle. HR-55AB-8815
that had Om
Motors mark and
had been challaned
by the accused for
traffic violation.
68.23. DD No. 24 -- Ex.DW3/U DW-3 Accused records
dated (Colly) that he was
15.09.2019 (5 sheets) threatened by a
pertaining to (OSR) mob of 200 people
Nangloi when vehicle no.
Traffic TN-37-DW-0682
Circle. was booked for
traffic violations.
68.24. DD No. 31 -- Ex.DW3/V DW-3 Accused records
dated (Colly) about threats given
27.11.2019 (3 sheets) to him by one Brij
pertaining to Mohan claiming to
Nangloi be owner of vehicle
Traffic no. UP-21BN-6426
Circle. that had Brijmohan
mark and had been
challaned by the
accused for traffic
violations.
68.25. DD No. 30 -- Ex.DW3/W DW-3 Accused records
dated (Colly) about threats given
30.11.2019 (2 sheets) to him by one Brij
(inadverently (OSR) Mohan claiming to
noted as be owner of vehicle
11.09.2019 no. HR-73A-5841
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 66/118
in the & HR-63C-8587
testimony) that had Brijmohan
pertaining to mark and had been
Nangloi challaned by the
Traffic accused for traffic
Circle. violation.
68.26. DD No. 34 -- Ex.DW3/X DW-3 Accused records
dated (Colly) about threats given
03.12.2019 (2 sheets) to him by one Brij
pertaining to (OSR) Mohan claiming to
Nangloi be owner of vehicle
Traffic no. UP-22AT-1469
Circle. that had Brijmohan
mark and had been
challaned by the
accused for traffic
violation.
68.27. DD No.32 -- Ex.DW3/Y DW-3 Accused records
dated (OSR) that he was
19.12.2019 threatened by
pertaining to driver Mohd. Wazir
Nangloi when vehicle no.
Traffic DL-1LT-3891 was
Circle. challaned for
traffic violation.
68.28. DD No.31 -- Ex.DW3/Z DW-3 Accused records
dated (OSR) about threats given
05.11.2019 (2 Sheets) to him by one
pertaining to Deepak claiming to
Nangloi be owner of vehicle
Traffic no. RJ-40GA-1096
Circle. that had Om
Motors mark and
had been challaned
by the accused for
traffic violation.
68.29. DD No.34 -- Ex. DW-3 Accused records
dated DW3/AA that he was
13.08.2019 (OSR) threatened by the
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 67/118
pertaining to driver when
Nangloi vehicle no.
Traffic DL-8CP-0997 was
Circle. challaned for
traffic violation.
68.30. DD No.9 -- Ex. DW-3 Accused records
dated DW3/AB that he was
17.08.2019 (OSR) threatened by
pertaining to driver when
Nangloi vehicle no.
Traffic DL-1LY-7219 was
Circle. challaned for
traffic violation.
68.31. DD No.18 -- Ex. DW-3 Accused records
dated DW3/AC that he was
04.06.2019 (OSR) threatened by a
pertaining to person who was
Nangloi following vehicle
Traffic no. HR55U114 in a
Circle. Brezza Car when
the said vehicle
was challaned for
traffic violation.
68.32. DD No.17 -- Ex. DW-3 Accused records
dated DW3/AD that he was
10.03.2019 (OSR) threatened by the
pertaining to driver when
Nangloi vehicle no.
Traffic HR-2OW-5577
Circle. was challaned for
traffic violation.
68.33. DD No.25 -- Ex. DW-3 Accused records
dated DW3/AE that he was
27.09.2019 (OSR) threatened by the
pertaining to occupants when
Nangloi vehicle no.
Traffic HR-12AJ-3404
Circle. was challaned for
traffic violation.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 68/118
68.34. DD No.23 -- Ex. DW-3 Accused records
dated DW3/AF that he was
28.09.2019 (Colly) threatened by
pertaining to (3 sheets) driver when
Nangloi (OSR) vehicle no.
Traffic HR-55Q-0527 was
Circle. challaned for
traffic violation.
68.35. DD No.28 -- Ex. DW-3 Accused records
dated DW3/AG that he was
30.09.2019 (OSR) threatened on
pertaining to mobile phone again
Nangloi for booking vehicle
Traffic no. HR-55Q-0527
Circle. for traffic violation.
68.36. DD No.33 -- Ex. DW-3 Accused records
dated DW3/AH that he was
07.10.2019 (Colly) threatened by the
pertaining to (3 sheets) driver of vehicle
Nangloi (OSR) no. HR-56A-7038
Traffic challaned for
Circle. traffic violation.
68.37. DD No.33 -- Ex. DW-3 Accused records
dated DW3/AI that the driver
14.10.2019 (Colly) threatened him in
pertaining to (3 sheets) the name of
Nangloi (OSR) Mundka Transport
Traffic Association when
Circle. vehicle no.
UP-32HN-1836
was challaned for
traffic violation.
68.38. RTI reply -- Ex.DW4/1 DW-4 RTO, Kohima,
dated replied that a
22.07.2024 vehicle must be
bearing No. produced before
RTO-K/Estt. Registering
-5/Part-1/201 Authority for
7/965-67. inspection, to be
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 69/118
issued with a
fitness certificate at
the time of
registration as well
as during
subsequent
renewals as per
Sec. 56 of the
Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988.
Signature of RTO
identified at point
A.
68.39. RTI reply -- Ex.DW5/1 DW-5 Same reply, as in
bearing No. Ex.DW4/1, given
269/RTA by RTO,
dated Bahadurgah.
10.06.2024 Signature of RTO
identifed at point
A.
Final arguments
69. On completion of trial, final arguments were advanced by the prosecution and defence.
70. The detailed arguments of each side shall be discussed in the latter part of this judgment, while appreciating the evidence and discussing reasons.
71. Briefly stating, Sh. Ashutosh Tripathi, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI, contented that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He argued that the accused was charged for the offence punishable u/Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter the 'PC Act') for which the prosecution was required to prove 'obtainment / acceptance' of bribe. It was contended that by proving the demand & CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 70/118 acceptance of bribe, prosecution has been able to prove 'obtainment' and thus the accused is liable to be convicted. Ld. Sr. PP relied upon the testimony of PW-2, PW-4, PW-6, PW-11 & PW-15 in support of his contentions and stated that these eye witnesses had corroborated each other in material particulars. He also referred to Section 20 of the PC Act and contended that once demand and acceptance was proved, the intention will have to be presumed by the Court and it was for the accused to rebut the said presumption which he had failed to do. Ld. Sr. PP reiterated that the accused was liable to be convicted for the offence charged.
72. Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Ld. Defence Counsel opposed contentions of the prosecution vehemently. Defence argued that the allegtion of demand was bereft of material particulars as no date & time of first demand was mentioned in the complaint. There were material contradictions in the testimonies of PW-2, PW-4, PW-6, PW-11 & PW-15. The documents relied upon by the prosecution were ante-dated and ante-time. Those documents were not proved as per law. Site plan was hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. No videography of the so called verification or trap proceedings were conducted by the CBI which was in violation of Rule No. 14.16 of CBI (Crime) Manual-2005. Mere recovery of money was not sufficient. The handwash of the complainant was not obtained by the trap team in order to show that he had handled the tainted money during the trap proceedings. No such document was brought on record which could suggest that the complainant had been authorized by his family members to operate and manage the trucks owned by them. In support of these contentions, Ld. Defence Counsel relied upon various judgments which are noted as below:-
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 71/118(i) Joginder Singh Malik v. CBI 1;
(ii) Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi v. The State of A.P.2;
(iii) M. Sambasiva Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh3;
(iv) Om Prakash v. State NCT of Delhi 4;
(v) Ram Avtar v. State5;
(vi) Subodh Anand v. C.B.I.6;
(vii) S. K. Bhatia v. Central Bureau of Investigation7;
(viii) Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab8;
(ix) Sumit Kumar Verma v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)9;
(x) Savita Alias Babbal v. State of Delhi10;
(xi) Raosaheb v. State of Maharashtra11;
(xii) Nepal Singh Rawal v. CBI12;
(xiii) Abdul Rashid Ansari v. State of U.P.13
(xiv) C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala14;
(xv) Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Administration)15.
73. Ld. Defence counsel also contended that the investigation in this case was not carried out properly by the IO. The investigation was biased and defective, benefit of which the accused was entitled to have. Ld. Counsel contended that the arrest procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal 16 was not followed that raised a doubt on the story of prosecution.
74. Ld. Defence counsels further contended that the prosecution had failed to prove foundational facts related to the present case, hence, the 1 2022/DHC/005401.
2 2024 (3) RCR (Criminal) 562.
3 2025 INSC 868.
4 2014 (1) C.C. Cases (HC) 161.
5 1994(1) C.C. Cases 105 (HC).
6 2024: DHC : 4395.
7 2019 [4] JCC 3423.
8 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 403.
9 2014 (3) LRC 377 (Del).
10 2011 [3] JCC 1687.
11 1994 CRI. L. J. 3792.
12 185 (2011) DLT 479 (Delhi).
13 1994 Crl. L.J. NOC 37 (ALL.).
14 (2009) 3 SCC 779.
15 1980 SCC (Cri) 159.
16 1996 (4) Crimes 233 (SC).
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 72/118presumption u/Sec. 20 of the PC Act was not available to their benefit. It was contended that the prosecution was bound to prove foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt and for rebuttal of presumption, the accused was required to prove his defence only on the balance of probability. Ld. Counsel referred to the various DD entries proved on record by DW3 and contended that there was sufficient material to show that the complainant had good reasons to implicate the accused falsely. It was vehemently argued by the Ld. Defence counsel that the accused was able to prove his defence on the balance of probability. Ld. Defence counsel relied upon the following judgments in support of the aforesaid contentions:-
(i) Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra17;
(ii) State of Maharashtra v. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede18;
(iii) P. Somaraju v. The State of Andhra Pradesh19;
(iv) Pyare Lal v. State20;
(v) V. Kannan v. State Represented by the Inspector of
Police21;
(vi) State of Lokayuktha Police, Davanagere v. C. B. Nagaraj22;
75. Ld. Defence counsel questioned the sanction for prosecution granted by the Additional Commissioner of Police against the accused for two reasons, firstly, that the authority which granted the sanction was incompetent and secondly, that the authority did not apply its mind before granting sanction. It was contended that the sanction for prosecution was bad in the eyes of law for the aforesaid reasons and the accused was entitled
17 JT 2001 (5) SC 532.
18 2009 (4) RCR (Criminal) 217.
19 2025 (4) RCR (Criminal) 822.
20 I (2008) DMC 806.
21 2009 (4) RCR (Criminal) 212.
22 2025 (3) RCR (Criminal) 249.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 73/118to be acquitted. Ld. Defence Counsel relied upon the following judgments in support of the aforesaid contentions:-
(i) Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat23;
(ii) State of T.N. v. M.M. Rajendran24
(iii) Joginder Singh Malik v. CBI25
(iv) Ram Krishan Prajapati v. State of U.P.26
(v) Davinder Singh v. State27
76. The reports of experts i.e. PW-8 and PW-16 were challenged by the Ld. Defence Counsel on the grounds that - there was no proof that the custody of the exhibits was proper because chain of custody was not proved by the prosecution; the reports of experts were unreasoned; the experts were not competent to furnish the reports because they were lacking requisite qualification; and that the voice report was based on mere probability. It was contended that the expert reports given by PW-8 and PW-16 were not reliable and the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt on that account as well. Ld. Defence counsel relied upon the following judgments in support of aforesaid contentions:-
(i) Jahan Singh v. CBI-The State28;
(ii) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hansraj @ Hansu29;
(iii) State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram30;
(iv) Ram Singh and Others v. Col. Ram Singh31;
(v) Ajay Gupta v. State Thr. CBI 32
(vi) Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh33;
23 JT 1997 (7) S.C. 695.
24 1998 SCC (Cri) 1000.
25 2022/DHC/005401 26 2000 SCC (Cri) 687.
27 MANU/PE/0265/1974.
28 2020 (2) RCR (Criminal) 795.
29 2018 (4) RCR (Criminal) 813.
30 1980 SCC (Cri) 683.
31 AIR 1986 SC 3.
32 295 (2022) DLT 182.
33 2025 (3) RCR (Criminal) 706.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 74/118(vii) P. C. Mishra v. Central Bureau of Investigation34;
(viii) Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar v. State of Maharashtra35;
(ix) Sudhir Chaudhary Etc. v. State (NCT of Delhi)36;
(x) Mahabir Prasad Verma v. Dr. Surinder Kaur37;
77. The call detail records relied upon by the prosecution were also challenged by the Ld. Defence counsel stating that the same were not proved as per law because the certificates u/Sec. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act provided alongwith the call detail records were defective. Ld. Defence Counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ashwani v. State38 in support of the said contention.
78. The written arguments on similar lines, as above, were also filed on behalf of the accused which have been perused.
79. Rebuttal arguments were advanced by Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI stating that the contentions raised by Ld. Defence counsel were baseless and without merits. It was reiterated that all the witnesses to the verification and trap proceedings were reliable and they had corroborated each other on material particulars. Ld. Sr. PP contended that the sanction for prosecution was proper. The investigation was conducted thoroughly and reports of the expert witnesses were reliable. Prosecution vehemently argued that the foundational facts i.e. demand and acceptance of the bribe amount had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, prosecution was entitled to avail benefit of Section 20 PC Act which provides for presumption on the point of mens rea. Prosecution urged that the authority which had granted sanction for prosecution was competent. Provisions of the Delhi Police Act, 34 277 (2021) DLT 282.
35 (2011) 4 SCC 143.
36 AIR 2016 SC 3772.
37 AIR 1982 SC 1043.
38 Crl. A. No. 323/2018 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 08.10.2018.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 75/1181978 as well as the rules framed thereunder were referred to in order to show competency. The objection on validity of sanction was opposed on the ground that it should have been raised by the accused at the initial stage itself and he should not be allowed to raise it at the stage of final determination. Ld. Sr. PP relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:-
(i) State of U.P. v. Zakaullah 39;
(ii) State of Gujarat v. Raghunath Vamanrao Baxi40;
(iii) Sohrab and Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh41;
(iv) Mukut Bihari and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan42;
(v) L. Laxmikanta v. State by Superintendent of Police43;
(vi) C. S. Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka44;
(vii) Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat45;
(viii) Appabhai and Ors. v. State of Gujarat46;
(ix) Phula Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh47;
(x) State of Andhra Pradesh v. C. Uma Maheswara Rao and Anr.48;
(xi) Raj Kumar v. State of Delhi 49;
(xii) Nanji Govindbhai Sonagara v. State of Gujarat 50;
(xiii) Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State of Maharashtra 51;
(xiv) K. C. Ramesh v. State of Karnataka 52;
(xv) Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Dr. Manmohan Singh and Anr.53;
(xvi) C. Chandrasekaraiah v. State of Karnataka54
39 AIR 1998 SC 1474.
40 AIR 1985 SC 1092.
41 AIR 1972 SC 2020.
42 MANU/SC/0480/2012.
43 MANU/SC/0104/2015 44 AIR 2005 SC 2790.
45 AIR 1983 SC 753.
46 AIR 1988 SC 696.
47 AIR 2014 SC 1256.
48 AIR 2004 SC 2042.
49 MANU/DE/0941/2015 50 2012 CriLJ 1451.
51 AIR 2001 SC 147.
52 MANU/KA/2916/2014.
53 AIR 2012 SC 1185.
54 2015 CriLJ 3403.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 76/11880. In response to the contention regarding the stage at which sanction for prosecution could have been challenged, Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the accused was within his rights to challenge the sanction for prosecution at any stage. The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police v. S. Subbegowda55 was relied upon in support of the said contention.
Analysis and Reasons for Decision:
81. I have considered the rival contentions. Record has been perused.
Legal Provisions
82. The accused in this case has been charged for the offence punishable u/Sec. 7 of the PC Act. The said section reads as below:-
"7. Offence relating to public servant being bribed --
Any public servant who, --
(a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such duty either by himself or by another public servant; or
(b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage from any person as a reward for the improper or dishonest performance of a public duty or for forbearing to perform such duty either by himself or another public servant; or
(c) perform or induces another public servant to perform improperly or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear performance of such duty in anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an undue advantage from any person, 55 2023 INSC 669.CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 77/118
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."
83. It is clear on the reading of Section 7 of the PC Act that in order to bring home the guilt for the said offence, the prosecution is required to prove 'obtainment' or 'acceptance' of 'undue advantage' by a 'public servant'. Such obtainment / acceptance should be 'with intention' to 'perform' or 'cause performance' of 'public duty' 'improperly' or 'dishonestly' or to 'forbear' or 'cause forbearance' to perform such duty.
84. Section 20 of the PC Act provides for presumption and reads as below:-
"20. Presumption where public servant accepts any undue advantage --
Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under section 7 or under section 11, it is proved that a public servant accused of an offence has accepted or obtained or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any undue advantage from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or attempted to obtain that undue advantage, as a motive or reward under section 7 for performing or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly either by himself or by another public servant or, as the case may be, any undue advantage without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate under section 11."
85. The reading of Section 20 above makes it clear that once 'obtainment' is proved by the prosecution, it shall be presumed that the said obtainment of undue advantage was as a motive or reward for performance or forbearance to perform public duty.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 78/11886. The term 'obtainment' has been explained by the Hon'ble higher courts in several cases including in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)56. It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case that 'obtainment' constituted 'demand' and 'acceptance' of bribe. It is thus required to be seen if the prosecution has been able to prove 'demand' and 'acceptance' of bribe by the accused beyond reasonable doubts.
Demand of Bribe Proved Facts: Unflinching Testimony & Corroboration
87. It is the case of prosecution that the accused had demanded a sum of Rs.24,000/- from the complainant in order to allow the 12 trucks operated by him to pass through Mundka during no entry timings.
88. The complainant himself had appeared in the witness box to prove the said demand. He was examined by the prosecution as PW-2. He proved the complaint Ex.PW2/A in his examination-in-chief, wherein he had specifically alleged about the aforesaid demand. The CBI had verified this complaint and the verification proceedings were proved by PW-2 as well as by PW-4/IW-1. The complainant specifically deposed that during verification proceedings he had requested the accused to reduce the bribe amount which was not acceded. Complainant has also deposed that he had requested the accused to allow him to send the bribe amount through his driver the next day, but this request too was rejected by the accused, who directed the complainant to come and deliver the bribe amount personally. This version of PW-2 is corroborated from the version of PW-4/IW-1, who is the decoy witness/shadow witness. He had accompanied PW-2 to the spot on the day of verification. IW-1/PW-4 deposed that he had heard the 56 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1724 CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 79/118 conversation that had taken place between the complainant and the accused. PW-11, the verification officer, deposed that both PW-2 & PW-4 had narrated about the aforesaid to him soon after the demand had been made and they both had corroborated each other. These facts are also recorded in the verification memo Ex.PW2/B which is a contemporaneous document.
89. The demand made by the accused to the complainant during conversation at the time of verification proceedings was recorded in the DVR through memory card marked as Q-1. This memory card was played in the Court at the stage of final arguments. The transcript of this conversation is available on Court record and relevant portion of the same, indicating demand, reads as below:-
"संदीप यादव: - राम राम साहब जगमाल सिंह (Accused): राम राम भई सुनाओ संदीप यादव: बस ठीक है जी जगमाल सिंह: बताओ भई संदीप यादव: के करोगे जगमाल सिंह: 24 है वो 24 ही देने पड़ें गे ईब ते थम अकड गए थम...... (अस्पष्ट) मैं के करू संदीप यादव: मैं न अकड्या मैं आपके अकड़ के किद जायेंगे साहब बालक आपके जगमाल सिंह: अब 12 गाडी है No Entry में चला रहे हो 12 हाईवा ट्रोले है 24 मैंने कह दिए TI मेरे ते मुंह बना रहा है उडे न्यू बोला मेरे बिना न ले बता मैं के करु।
संदीप यादव: बाबूजी जब बालक है आपके हम जगमाल सिंह: तब ...... इतने ते करने पड़ें गे संदीप यादव: और दो पॉइं ट भी तो जगमाल सिंह: अस्पष्ट संदीप यादव: हां जी जगमाल सिंह: अस्पष्ट.... मानता नहीं है. संदीप यादव: आप तो करोगे हांजी अंकल जी आप तो करोगे जगमाल सिंह: इनते करले बेटे, जो भी तेरा ठीक बैठता है 24 का मतलब 24 है मैंने कल बता दी , उनते कि ये बात है।
संदीप यादव: तो कीमें तो गुंजाइश कर दो जगमाल सिंह: है CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 80/118 संदीप यादव: गुंटी में तो गुंजाइश गाड़ी खड़ी है सुबहे वह ते आपते बात बताओ जगमाल सिंह: चला क्यों नहीं लेते मैंने तो कही थी चला लो फ्री में संदीप यादव: नू नू नू कीते चलाइया जो काम करने था उससे डर लगता जगमाल सिंह: भई ये बात तो मैंने तेरे तो पहले कही थी कि चला लो मैं नहीं देखता .....अस्पष्ट कही थी मैने ........
संदीप यादव: सुबह सुबह गाड़ी के हाथ भेजु कै से करू जगमाल सिंह: न आगे तमे आना पड़े गा भाई गाडी गुडी के बात नहीं बनेगी संदीप यादव: क्योंकि गाडी खाली हो के जाए मैं पैसे दे दूं जगमाल सिंह: उन ढोरे नहीं पार परे यार तुमने खुद आना पड़े गा है भई संदीप यादव: बीस बीस....... करवा दूँ जगमाल सिंह: न न बीस तो थोडे रह जाएंगे मेरे धोरे ते चार जाएंगे तमने मेरे बूढे की तनख्वाह बढ़िया न लग रही संदीप यादव: न न न जगमाल सिंह: सही में चार जाएंगे मेरे ढोरे ते ले के जाएगा इतना कं जर है वो तमने बेरा है मैंने भी बेरा है नाम का संदीप यादव: तो सुबह गाड़ी आवगी गाड़िया ने मत रोक दिनो सुबह जगमाल सिंह: नहीं तन्ने गाडी न रोकते हम संदीप यादव: सुबह आवगी गाड़ी में मैं आऊं गा 10-11 बजे से जगमाल सिंह: तेरा जी करे जब आ जाइए गाड़ी न रोका"
90. The aforesaid conversation between complainant and the accused on 07.02.2022 clearly reflects that the accused was demanding a sum of Rs.24,000/- from the complainant in order to allow his 12 vehicles to ply during the no entry timings. The aforesaid conversation also reflects that the accused had insisted that the bribe amount be delivered to him personally by the complainant.
91. The demand of bribe amount is also reflected in the conversation pertaining to the trap proceedings which was recorded in Q-2. The said memory card was played in the Court and transcript of that conversation is part of Ex.PW2/H. The relevant portion reflecting demand from the complainant reads as below:-
"सदीप यादव: राम राम साहब CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 81/118 जगमाल सिंह (Accused): राम राम और सुनाओ संदीप यादव: वो करवा देते क्या बताओ जगमाल सिंह: बैठ के हो गया.... (अस्पष्ट) न्यू बता जगमाल सिंह: के गाड़ी है संदीप यादव: 12 गाड़ी है जी जगमाल सिंह: 24 बताई थी क्लियर संदीप यादव: आप बताओ जगमाल सिंह: तू 24 कह रहा था संदीप यादव: जी Discount कर दो कर दो जगमाल सिंह: नहीं भाई TI धोरे करवा दे सारी छटवा दे संदीप यादव: TI धोरे मेरी पकड़ होती तो मैं TI धोरे न चला जाता आपके धोरे क्यों आता जगमाल सिंह: TI ते...... अस्पष्ट संदीप यादव: न न न आपपे कर कु रा दो ........................................................
संदीप यादव: चलो बताओ साहब इब जगमाल सिंह: हूं बताना बुताना कु छ ना है.... एक तो फोन जेब में डाल ले संदीप यादव: न न गाड़ी नम्बर कै से क्यू फिर जगमाल सिंह: गाड़ी नम्बर संदीप यादव: मैं लिख के दे दूं जगमाल सिंह: .......
संदीप यादव: चार पांच छह सात आठ ठीक है जी बीस है ये जगमाल सिंह: न भाई पूरे दे यू...इतना मत दबावे वो ले जाएगा मेरे धोरे सारे संदीप यादव: चलो हजार और 21 ले लो जगमाल सिंह: 22 करदे फिर तेरे न है जी करता तो एक गाड़ी तू आपणी राख ले संदीप यादव: ठीक है जी जगमाल सिंह: नम्बर दे गाड़ी के संदीप यादव: गाड़िया नम्बर का संदीप यादव: लिख के दे दू आपते जगमाल सिंह: लिखके देवे लिखवा देवे परे ते संदीप यादव: गाड़ी किद खड़ी कर रहे हो तुम जगमाल सिंह: जा लिख ले CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 82/118 संदीप यादव: यहाँ Whatsapp कर दू आप धोरे बताओ जैसे कहूं वैसे लिख के या वैसे करू पर्ची बना के करु या वैसे करू जगमाल सिंह: लिख लिख संदीप यादव: वो तो फिर मैं लिख के दे दूँ आपते पर्ची बनाके संदीप यादव: ठीक है जी ठीक है आजा"
92. Complainant had deposed regarding the demand made during the trap proceedings in his testimony also. His testimony reflects that the complainant had requested the accused to reduce the demanded amount of Rs.24,000/- to Rs.22,000/- which the accused agrered to. The complainant thereafter handed over a sum of Rs.22,000/- to the accused. This amount had already been treated with phenolphthalein powder in order to lay the trap and catch the accused red handed.
93. The conversations recorded in the DVR corroborate the testimony of complainant (PW-2) in material particulars. The version of complainant is supported by the testimony of PW-4/IW-1 too. The call detail records are also consistent with the testimony of the complainant. These call detail records are Ex.PW5/A (Colly) and Ex.PW1/D (Colly). The complainant deposed that on 08.02.2022 (the day of trap), when he went to deliver the bribe amount to the accused alongwith the trap team, in order to catch the accused red handed, he had made two calls to the accused. The accused did not disclose about his location during the first call while during the second call he asked the complainant to meet him at the Mundka Red Light Metro Station. Ex.PW5/A (Colly) and Ex.PW1/D (Colly) clearly show that two calls were actually made by the complainant to the accused on 08.02.2022 at 14:56:56 and 15:32:11. The mobile number of the complainant which was used to make these calls is 9873101900 and mobile number of the accused on which the calls were made is 9350902268. Location of these CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 83/118 two mobile numbers were also found to be near Mundka at the time of calls. The customer application forms with respect to the aforesaid mobile numbers which are Ex.PW5/A (Colly) and Ex.PW1/B (Colly) sufficiently prove that the aforesaid mobile numbers were registered in the name of the complainant and the accused respectively. These two documents thus lend credence to the testimony of the complainant.
94. The testimony of complainant is also corroborated by PW-14 who is owner of the Brezza Car from which the accused was apprehended & the bribe amount recovered. The Complainant (PW-2) had deposed that the demand and transaction of bribe amount on the day of trap i.e. 08.02.2022 had taken place inside the Maruti Brezza Car of Grey Colour. This Car belonged to PW-14. Ownership of the Car was proved by PW-26 who relied upon Ex.PW26/2 in support of his testimony. Ex.PW26/2 consist of the registration details of Brezza car make Maruti bearing No. HR-31S-1450 suggesting that the car was owned by PW-14. He deposed that on 08.02.2022 after 2:00PM/2:30PM he had handed over his Maruti Brezza Car to the accused on his request. Hence, it is clear that on 08.02.2022 after 2:30 PM the accused was having custody of the Maruti Brezza Car belonging to PW-14. Hence, probability that the accused was sitting in that car at the time of demand and transaction of the bribe amount increases and this lends additional credence to the testimony of complainant/PW-2.
95. The testimony of complainant is further supported by the report of PW-16 & testimony of PW-18. PW-16 is the Voice Examination Expert who had examined the conversations recorded in Q-1 and Q-2. PW-18 is the Senior Officer of the accused who had worked with him in Nangloi Traffic Circle and thus was in a position to identify his voice.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 84/11896. PW-16 proved the Voice Examination Report Ex.PW16/A which states that Q-1 and Q-2 contained the probable voice of accused. PW-18 identified the voice of accused in the Court when Q-1 and Q-2 were played in his presence. The complainant had identified the voice of his own & the accused in his testimony since he is the maker of Q-1 & Q-2. It is because the DVR through which Q-1 & Q-2 were recorded was being carried by him during the verification proceedings and the trap proceedings. The testimony of expert witness and senior officer of the accused regarding identification of his voice thus lends further credibility to the testimony of the complainant.
Minor Contradictions: Effect
97. Ld. Prosecutor contended that the unflinching testimony of PW-2 corroborated by the testimony of independent witnesses and the other supporting material, like, the call detail records, expert's report etc. strengthen the case of prosecution and are sufficient to prove demand of bribe amount by the accused.
98. Ld. Defence Counsel however vehemently opposed this contention of Ld. Prosecutor & contended that the testimony of the complainant was full of contradictions. Further, the testimony was not corroborated by independent witnesses and they had rather contradicted each other on material particulars while deposing in the Court. Various contradictions were pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel from the testimony of the complainant & the independent witnesses. These included as follows: (i) the complainant failed to disclose the date & time of first demand & did not show any authority letter to support his case that he was authorized to operate the trucks; (ii) the prosecution did not prove that the CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 85/118 DVR and memory cards allegedly used in voice recordings were issued by the concerned department of CBI; (iii) the CBI did not take official vehicle while going for verification proceedings; (iv) Q-1 and Q-2 as well as the DVR were not deposited in the Malkhana timely; (v) the complainant could not tell registration number of the vehicle in which the team had travelled to the spot; (vi) the verification officer was not empowered to take any other officer to the spot because it is not so reflected in the endorsement of the SP on the complaint Ex.PW2/A at point B; (vii) there are contradictions in the testimony of team members on the point of time at which they had reached Mundka; (viii) there are contradictions regarding recording of introductory voice of the complainant in the memory cards; (ix) presence of PW-4 on the spot is doubtful because there are contradictions in his testimony regarding the calls made by him to the CBI officials; (x) there are contradictions regarding the sealing of DVR; (xi) there are contradictions in the testimony of complainant on the point of signing of the verification memo twice on the last page which shows that the document is ante dated; (xii) there are again contradictions on the point of time spent in preparing the pre-trap memo; (xiii) there are contradictions on instructions given regarding negotiating the reduced amount; (xiv) there are contradictions as to who applied phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes; (xv) the pre-trap memo was signed by the complainant as per his own testimony with malkhana stamp over it, which was possible only if the document was ante- time; (xvi) the complainant deposed that he was supposed to meet the accused at 11:00 AM for delivering the bribe amount but he went in the after noon thereby suggesting that the complainant was deposing falsely regarding delivery of the bribe amount; (xvii) the call detail records were CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 86/118 not proved as per law because the certificate u/Sec. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was not drafted properly and was filed only by putting particulars in the already existing proforma; (xviii) the report of the voice expert was not reliable because he admittedly did not possess requisite qualification regarding voice examination; (xix) the voice sample was not taken as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sudhir Chaudhary (supra); (xx) the spectrograph report was not attached; (xxi) the chain of custody of exhibits was not proved; (xxii) there were contradictions regarding seizure of the Brezza car because PW-2 & PW-4 deposed that the car was seized, PW-14 deposed that he had seen the car in the office of CBI but PW-15 denied these claims completely, stating that the car was never seized in this case; (xxiii) the washes were not taken in the presence of PW-2 and other witnesses because their signature on the samples were not there; (xxiv) signatures on the samples were proved in a leading form by showing the same to PW-4, 6 and 11 first and thereafter putting the question; (xxv) the transcripts of Q-1 and Q-2 as well as voice identification proceedings were not proved as per law.
99. It is the settled law that testimony of witnesses is required to be appreciated as a whole and not in parts. It is also the settled law that the Courts are not to adopt a hair splitting tendency while appreciating the oral testimony of the witnesses. The testimonies cannot be broken down in meals & pieces. Not every contradiction is worth considering. The Courts are required to assess the testimonies keeping broader probabilities in mind and ignore minor improvements and contradictions which do not go to the root of the matter. Only such contradictions, which pertain to material particulars, are to be given due attention. If the contradictions do not pertain CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 87/118 to material particulars, the same should be ignored. It is the known fact that witnesses depose on the basis of their perception of the events that unfolded in front of them. Our memories are not infallible and people are bound to forget minute details with lapse of time. These are the prime reasons why contradictions occur in the testimony of eye-witnesses on events related to the same facts. So long the witnesses have corroborated each other in material particulars, they are to be considered as credible and their testimonies cannot be thrown out merely because of the minor contradictions, like, on the point of exact time taken in conducting the proceedings, time taken to reach at the spot, the number of vehicles in which the team had travelled, signing of various documents etc.
100. The contradictions pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel in the testimony of material witnesses are minor and do not go to the root of the matter. The witnesses who were part of verification/trap team have categorically deposed that the verification proceedings were conducted on 07.02.2022 and trap was carried out on 08.02.2022. They have also broadly corroborated each other on the procedure that was followed for carrying out the verification proceedings, pre-trap proceedings and post-trap proceedings. Their testimonies are in sync and corroborated by the contemporaneous documents, like the verification memo and the recovery memo. In such circumstances, the witnesses cannot be held incredible merely for the reasons that there are minor inconsistencies in their testimonies.
101. Regarding seizure of Brezza car, PW-15 deposed that the car was not seized in this case. PW-2 & PW-4, on the contrary, said that the car was seized. It is not reflected from the testimony of PW-2 & PW-4, if they CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 88/118 understood the legal meaning of seizure. Seizure for them may have meant taking possession of the vehicle which indeed was taken because allegedly the accused had hit Insp. Anil Kumar, one of the members of the trap team, by accelerating the Brezza car and escaping from the spot. A FIR (Mark PW15/A) was registered at PS Mundka in this regard on the basis of complaint (Mark PW15/B) and the Brezza car was given to the police officials of PS Mundka. In such a scenario, this contradiction in the testimonies of PW-2, PW-4 and PW-15 is immaterial & insufficient to shake foundation of the present case.
102. PW-14 deposed that he had seen his Brezza car in the compound of CBI. He was re-examined by Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI on this aspect during which he deposed that no registration number had been issued for his car till 08.02.2022 and therefore it was not possible for him to identify his car with certainty. He deposed that he saw a grey colour Maruti Brezza car standing in the compound of CBI and thought that it was his car. Hence, sufficient explanation was given by PW-14 regarding the contradiction which thus lost significance. Even otherwise, ownership of PW-14 over Brezza car was proved by exhibiting the registration certificate. His testimony, alongwith the testimony of PW-2, PW-4, PW-6, PW-11 and PW-15, proves that the Brezza car was in the custody of accused on the day of trap i.e. 08.02.2022.
103. There is hardly any contradiction on the aspect of timing at which the complainant had gone to deliver the bribe amount to the accused. It is not the case of complainant that he had promised to go at a particular time and had actually gone to deliver the bribe amount at that time only. The complainant accepted that though he had promised to go at 11:00 AM but he went after 03:00 PM. It is understandable because before sending the CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 89/118 complainant to the spot, preparations for laying the trap were made. The transcripts Ex.PW2/F and Ex.PW2/H coroborate the complainant because these reflect that the complainant though had promised to go at 11:00 AM but he went to deliver the bribe amount after 3:00 PM. The time at which complainant went to the spot to deliver the bribe amount is also reflected in the Call Detail Records [Ex.PW5/A (Colly)]. The fact that the complainant had promised to go at 11:00 AM but went after 3:00 PM is hardly of any consequence. The testimony of PW-2 and other witnesses is consistent on this aspect and does not favour the defence in any manner.
104. The plea taken by the defence that the call detail records were not proved as per law because admittedly the certificates u/Sec. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act furnished by PW-1 & PW-5 were filled in already drafted proforma, is also inconsequential. Both PW-1 & PW-5 were cross- examined on this aspect. They deposed that the proformas were available in their office computer because these had been drafted by their legal team. I do not find anything wrong in using proforma in order to draft the certificate as per language required by the law as long as the person drafting it understands the meaning and implications. No such fact was brought out during the cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-5 that would suggest non- understanding of the meaning and context of the language by these witnesses.
105. Ld. Defence Counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ashwani (Supra) to contend that filling up a certificate u/Sec. 65B of the Evidence Act in a proforma would render the electronic evidence inadmissible. I have gone through the said judgment of Hon'ble High Court. In the said case the Hon'ble High Court refused to accept the CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 90/118 certificate u/Sec. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act because the person proving the certificate had deposed that he had no technical knowledge of the master server, its operation or maintenance etc. It was in this background that the Hon'ble High Court had held that the certificate u/Sec. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act furnished by the witness was not admissible. In the present case, no question was put to PW-1 or PW-5 which would suggest lack of knowledge of the master server on their part. PW-1 in fact categorically deposed that he had been provided an exclusive key to obtain data from the master server, thereby reflecting that he was dealing with the server in some capacity. In such a scenario, the certificates furnished u/Sec. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act by PW-1 & PW-5 cannot be discarded. These certificates are proper and hence the CDRs relied upon by the prosecution are admissible in evidence.
106. Coming to the report regarding voice examination, it is a matter of record that PW-16 admitted in his cross-examination that he did not hold any formal qualification in voice examination. However, he deposed that he had a vast experience in this field thereby indicating that he was a skilled person who acquired skills by experience and not by having a formal qualification. PW-16 is Government Examiner and his qualification to conduct voice examination cannot be challenged so lightly. He is working in a Government laboratory and doing voice examination regularly which itself is sufficient to assume that he must be having requisite expertise. I understand that during his cross-examination PW-16 also admitted that his report was not supported by spectrographic examination sheets. It is the settled law that testimony of an expert is of an advisory nature. The Court can decide whether to accept the report furnished by an expert or not, only CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 91/118 on the basis of reasons given by the expert in support of the conclusion drawn by him. In this case, the spectrographic examination sheets on the basis of which conclusion of similarity in the questioned and sample voice was drawn, are not available. Hence, there is hardly any material before this Court to hold if the report Ex.PW16/A furnished by PW-16 is reliable or not. This certainly puts the Court at caution and prompts it to look for corroboration.
107. Corroboration to the report of PW-16 is found in the testimony of PW-18. The said witness is a Senior Officer from Traffic Police who had worked with the accused. This fact is not disputed by the accused at all. PW-18 appeared in the Court and identified the voice of the accused in Q-1 as well as Q-2. He also identified the transcripts of Q-1 and Q-2. He categorically deposed that these trnascripts were made in his presence. These transcripts are Ex.PW18/2 and Ex.PW18/3. These are identical to Ex.PW2/F and Ex.PW2/H. The accused did not challenge PW-18 on the aspect of his capacity to identify the voice of accused and only a few suggestions in this regard were given. The testimony of PW-18 is corroboratory to the testimony of PW-16 and both these testimonies together, along with the testimony of PW-2 who is the maker of Q-1 and Q-2, are sufficient to prove that the questioned voices in Q-1 and Q-2 are that of the accused. The prosecution has proved Q-1 and Q-2 as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Singh (Supra) holding as below:-
"32. Thus, so far as this Court is concerned the conditions for admissibility of a tape-recorded statement may be stated as follows:CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 92/118
1) The voice of the speaker must be duly identified by the maker of the record or by others who recognise his voice.
In other words, it manifestly follows as a logical corollary that the first condition for the admissibility of such a statement is to identify the voice of the speaker. Where the voice has been denied by the maker it will require very strict proof to determine whether or not it was really the voice of the speaker.
2) The accuracy of the tape-recorded statement has to be proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory evidence-direct or circumstantial.
3) Every possibility of tampering with or erasure of a part of a tape-recorded statement must be ruled out otherwise it may render the said statement out of context and, therefore, inadmissible.
4) The statement must be relevant according to the rules of Evidence Act.
5) The recorded cassette must be carefully sealed and kept in safe or official custody.
6) The voice of the speaker should be clearly audible and not lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbances."
108. The Ld. Defence Counsel sought to challenge the credibility of Q-1 and Q-2 by contending that (i) the custody chain was not proved by the prosecution as per law; (ii) the prosecution did not prove the date on which Q-1 and Q-2 along with the samples S-1 and S-2 were received in the laboratory; (iii) the prosecution also did not prove on which date the samples had been handed over to PW-16 and during the interim period with whom the samples were lying; (iv) the date of opening of the samples was not mentioned in the report of the expert either.
109. In order to appreciate these contentions, I have perused the testimony of PW-16 and his report Ex.PW16/1 once again. PW-16 categorically deposed in his testimony that Q-1, Q-2, S-1 and S-2 were CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 93/118 received in the laboratory on 08.03.2022. This fact is reflected from Ex.PW16/DA (Colly) also. He further deposed that he had received the exhibits on 13.01.2023. This deposition was made by him on the basis of chain of custody sheets available in his file which he was carrying on the date of his examination. The witness further deposed that till 13.01.2023 the exhibits remained in the custody of Sh. Jayesh Bhardwaj, SSA Physical Division, CFSL.
110. Ld. Defence Counsel contended that Jayesh Bhardwaj was not examined by the prosecution in order to prove that the samples remained intact while those were in his custody.
111. In my considered opinion, the prosecution has sufficiently covered the issue of safe custody during the examination-in-chief of PW-16. This witness categorically deposed in his examination-in-chief in the second para at page 1 that when he received the parcels those were sealed with the seal of CBI and the seals were tallied with the specimen seal impressions. He also deposed that the seals were found intact. PW-16 was not cross- examined by the accused on this aspect at all. His testimony is sufficient to suggest that the samples were received by him in sealed condition and the seals of CBI were found intact. This suggests that samples remained in safe custody. The chain of custody does not remain an issue in such a scenario in my considered opinion.
112. So far missing signature on DVR, memory cards and other exhibits are concerned, it is a matter of record that these exhibits were identified by all the witnesses. Mere fact that signature of some of the witnesses are not available on the exhibits, is not sufficient to put their testimony under the cloud of doubts. Their testimonies corroborate in CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 94/118 material particulars i.e. identification of the exhibits & the contents thereof. Hence, these cannot be brushed aside lightly.
113. The issue that the DVRs and the memory cards were not deposited in the malkhana timely, is also of no consequence because the brass seal used in sealing these articles was handed over to PW-4 immediately after putting the seal. PW-4 categorically deposed about this in his examination-in-chief and also produced the brass seal which was then taken on court's record. PW-4 is an independent witness. No reason has been shown by the accused why he would falsely implicate him. There is no averment regarding any previous enmity. PW-4 is an independent person in a Government job and totally unconnected to CBI. Ld. Defence Counsel, by showing Mark PW/DX to the independent witnesses, sought to prove that they were threatened with serious consequences to their service by showing this circular and thus were made to depose in favour of CBI. Such an argument is too far fetched. CBI is an independent agency and had no prior interface with the accused. There is no reason why CBI would do the unthinkable by first catching hold of a person and implicating him in a false case of demanding bribe and then threatening independent Govt. Officials by showing them Mark PW/DX in order to coerce them to depose in their favour. The testimony of PW-4 regarding custody of seal being with him is credible and reliable. The contention of defence challenging this credibility is devoid of merits.
114. The contention of Ld. Defence Counsel regarding non proving of authorization certificate in favour of complainant from the registered owners of the trucks is also too technical. It is the case of prosecution that the 12 trucks regarding which bribe was sought by the accused were owned CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 95/118 by the family members of the complainant. This fact was sufficiently proved by the CBI by calling witnesses from the various transport departments where the trucks had been registered and proving that those were registered in the name of brother, sister-in-law and wife of the complainant. These witnesses from the transport department are PW-19, PW-22 and PW-25. PW-12 (brother of the complainant) himself appeared in the witness box and deposed that his brother i.e. the complainant was operating the trucks owned by him and his wife. There thus remains no doubt that the complainant was managing the transport business and operating trucks belonging to his family. PW-12 was questioned regarding genuinity of the fitness certificates related to the trucks. In fact, the accused examined witnesses like D-1, D-4 & D-5 to prove that the fitness certificates held for the trucks operated by the complainant were fake. However, this was not the issue in this trial at all. Even if the fitness certificates were not obtained as per procedure, this would have no bearing on the present trial which relates to demand and acceptance of bribe. This fact can only suggest that the trucks operated by the complainant were not plying on the roads of Delhi as per law. Such a fact would rather give an additional occassion to the accused to demand bribe for forbearance to perform his duty of booking the trucks for traffic violation. The facts aforesaid therefore rather support the prosecution.
115. Non-disclosure of the date of first demand in the complaint is also inconsequential because the demand otherwise also was sufficiently proved through verification & trap proceedings.
116. In my considered view, the contentions raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel to challenge credibility of the witnesses proving demand of bribe CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 96/118 are devoid of merits for reasons aforesaid. The prosecution has been able to prove the first ingredient of the offence u/Sec. 7 of the PC Act, i.e. 'Demand of bribe' by the accused from the complainant, beyond reasonable doubt in view of the discussion made hereinabove.
Acceptance of Bribe
117. The second constituent of 'obtainment' to complete the offence prescribed u/Sec. 7 of the PC Act, is acceptance of the bribe amount by the accused. On this point also the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW-2 and PW-4. PW-2 categorically deposed that inside the Brezza car, after negotiating the bribe amount, he had handed over a sum of Rs.22,000/- to the accused. PW-4 corroborated PW-2 on this aspect by deposing that he was standing at some distance from Brezza car and could see that the complainant had handed over money to the accused inside the car. The cross-examination of PW-2 and PW-4 on this aspect did not yield much to the contrary.
118. Ld. Defence Counsel contended that PW-4 was not reliable and his testimony was not corroborating the testimony of PW-2. He contended so for two reasons. Firstly, because PW-4 was not inside the car but was standing outside. Hence, he could not have heard the conversation & cannot be said to have knowledge of the context in which money, if any, was handed over by the complainant to the accused. Secondly, PW-4 deposed in his testimony that he was standing at a distance of about 50 meters from Brezza car, which was a large distance and it was therefore not possible for PW-4 to see what was happening inside the car.
119. It is own case of prosecution that PW-4 had not heard the conversation that took place between PW-2 & the accused. Hence, PW-4 of CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 97/118 course would not know in what context the money was handed over. PW-4 however categorically deposed that during pre-trap proceedings they were informed about the purpose of laying the trap and he was also made to go through the contents of the complaint Ex.PW2/A. Hence, PW-4 was aware of the reasons why complainant was sent to hand over money to the accused. His unawareness is merely limited to the actual conversation that had taken place inside the Brezza car. On that aspect, the transcript of Q-2 (Ex.PW2/H) is sufficient to corroborate the testimony of PW-2. Voice recording having been duly proved and compared with the transcript, no doubt remains that the money was handed over to the complainant to fulfill the demand of bribe being made by the accused.
120. So far the contention regarding distance is concerned, it is the claim of prosecution that PW-4 was standing at a distance of about 50 feet. The defence did not examine PW-4 to understand what he really meant when he said 50 meters and was he even aware how much distance 50 meter was. In such a scenario, the testimony of a witness cannot be belied merely because he deposed that he was standing 50 meters away. The witness categorically deposed that he was able to see what was happening inside the car and his testimony could not be shaken by the defence on that aspect. Hence, in my considered view, his testimony that PW-2 had handed over money to the accused inside the Brezza car is credible and can be relied upon. This testimony is also in corroboration with the transcript of Q-2 (Ex.PW2/H).
121. The tainted currency in the sum of Rs.22,000/- was recovered from the accused by the trap team consisting of PW-2, PW-4, PW-6, PW-11 and PW-15. These witnesses corroborated each other in material particulars CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 98/118 regarding the recovery. The currency that was recovered from the accused is Ex.P-9 (Colly) / Ex.PW4/B (Colly). It was identified by all the aforesaid witnesses. The witnesses had also identified the pre-trap memo (Ex.PW2/C) in which unique numbers of the currency notes treated with phenolphthalein powder were mentioned. The numbers of currency notes recovered from the possession of the accused matched with the numbers mentioned in the pre- trap memo and those were single ticked. Testimony of none of the witnesses could be shaken by the defence on this aspect of recovery of Rs.22,000/- from the storage space of Brezza car at the pointing of the accused. The testimonies of eye-witnesses are in corroboration on this aspect so far material particulars are concerned.
122. All the aforesaid witnesses also deposed about recovery of Rs.2,000/- from PW-2. The unique numbers of these currency notes also matched with the numbers mentioned in the pre-trap memo and double ticked. PW-2 categorically deposed that Rs.2,000/- remained with him because on his insistence the accused had reduced the bribe amount from Rs.24,000/- to Rs.22,000/-. This fact regarding reduction of the bribe amount is also reflected in the transcript Ex.PW2/H, which reads as below:-
"जगमाल सिंह: 22 करदे फिर तेरे न है जी करता तो एक गाडी तू आपणी राख ले संदीप यादव: ठीक है जी जगमाल सिंह: नम्बर दे गाड़ी के संदीप यादव: गाड़िया नम्बर का संदीप यादव: लिख के दे दूँ आपते जगमाल सिंह: लिखके देवे लिखवा देवे परे ते संदीप यादव: गाड़ी किद खड़ी कर रहे हो तुम जगमाल सिंह: जा लिख ले संदीप यादव: यहाँ Whatsapp कर दू आप धोरे बताओ जैसे कहूं वैसे लिख के या वैसे करू पर्ची बना के करू या वैसे करू जगमाल सिंह: लिख लिख CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 99/118 संदीप यादव: वो तो फिर मैं लिख के दे दूं आपते पर्ची बनाके "
123. The complainant / PW-2 had made a request for reduction of bribe amount on the day of verification also which too is reflected in the transcript of Q-1 (Ex.PW2/F) in the following words:-
"जगमाल सिंह: अब 12 गाड़ी है No Entry में चला रहे हो 12 हाईवा ट्रोले हैं 24 मैंने कह दिए TI मेरे ते मुंह बना रहा है उड़े न्यू बोला मेरे बिना न ले बता में के करू संदीप यादव: बाबूजी जब बालक है आपके हम जगमाल सिंह: तब ..... इतने ते करने पड़ें गे संदीप यादव: और दो पॉइं ट भी तो जगमाल सिंह: अस्पष्ट संदीप यादव: हां जी जगमाल सिंह: अस्पष्ट.... मानता नहीं है संदीप यादव: आप तो करोगे हांजी अंकल जी आप तो करोगे जगमाल सिंह: इनते करले बेटे, जो भी तेरा ठीक बैठता है 24 का मतलब 24 है मैंने कल बता दी उनते कि ये बात है। संदीप यादव: तो कीमें तो गुंजाइश कर दो जगमाल सिंह: है संदीप यादव: गुंटी में तो गुंजाइश गाड़ी खड़ी है सुबह ते आपते बात बताओ जगमाल सिंह: चला क्यों नहीं लेते मैंने तो कही थी चला लो फ्री में संदीप यादव: नू नू नू कीते चलाइया जो काम करने था उससे डर लगता जगमाल सिंह: भई ये बात तो मैंने तेरे तो पहले कही थी कि चला लो मैं नहीं देखता...... अस्पष्ट कही थी मैने संदीप यादव: वो तो ठीक बात है आपकी देख लो अंकलजी कि मैं गुंजाइश कर दो और के जगमाल सिंह: बेटे उसमें गुंजाइश कोए ना होती तो मैं कर देता संदीप यादव: कर दो बालक हैं आपके छोटे बालक है जगमाल सिंह: मैं दूसरे तीसरे न बताता न करता
124. The aforesaid transcripts and testimony of PW2 clearly spell out the reason why Rs.2,000/- was recovered from the complainant. The recovery of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant is in complete consonance CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 100/118 with the case of prosecution also and there is no reason for the Court to disbelieve the prosecution on this aspect.
125. The accused had handled the currency notes used for trapping him. This stands proved from the report of chemical examination of his right hand's wash. The report is Ex.PW8/1. Handwash of the accused was taken as complainant had alleged that he had handled the bribe money using his right hand. The wash was obtained by the CBI on the spot itself and was sent for chemical examination. The storage space from which money was recovered at the instance of the accused was also washed and was sent for chemical examination. The first solution was found to be light pink in colour while the second one was pink. The expert (PW-8) opined that there were traces of phenolphthalein in both the solutions thereby proving sufficiently that the accused had handled the treated currency.
126. The report of chemical examiner has been challenged by the defence on the grounds, that firstly, the custody chain of samples was not proved by the CBI and, secondly, that the process adopted for examining the samples was not elucidated in the report.
127. The aforesaid contentions of Defence are devoid of merits in my considered opinion. PW-8 specifically deposed during his examination that as per chain of custody sheet available in his file, the samples were delivered to him by one Suresh Chand Jat, PCO, CBI. The said custody sheet was available in the file of PW-8 that he carried to the Court but defence did not offer to bring it on record during their cross-examination. PW-8 specifically deposed in his examination-in-chief that the samples received by him were in sealed condition, bearing the seal of CBI and the seals were found to be intact. He was not cross-examined on this aspect by CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 101/118 the defence. Merely because the person who carried the samples to CFSL was not examined is not sufficient to say that the chain of custody was not proved. Once PW-8 has deposed that seal of the sample that he received was found intact and the CBI had proved that the said seal was not available with any other person except PW-4, in my considered opinion, safe custody of the sealed samples stands sufficiently proved. In this regard, testimony of PW-4 can be referred again and is to the similar effect as discussed while discussing the chain of custody of Q-1, Q-2, S-1 and S-2.
128. The chemical examination report (Ex.PW8/1) specifically mentions at point no. 7 about the process (TLC) that was followed in examining the presence of phenolphthalein in RHW and SPW. PW-8 had also placed on record the worksheets related to the procedure carried out by him during his cross-examination in the Court. Worksheets Ex.PW8/D2 reflect that TLC (Thin Layer Chromatography) Examination was used to conduct the process. PW-8 admitted during his cross-examination that standard solution of phenolphthalein was required to be used to carry out TLC examination. The worksheets Ex.PW8/D2 reflect that standard phenolphthalein solution was indeed used to compare the results achieved during examination of RHW and SPW. It was on the basis of comparison with the result obtained with standard solution that the expert (PW-8) had concluded that the solution contained phenolphthalein. The third sheet of Ex.PW8/D2 reflects examination done on standard solution and the first two sheets pertain to RHW and SPW respectively. The results are comparable because these suggest that the peak point in case of standard solution was achieved at 552.60 while in case of RHW and SPW it was CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 102/118 551.80 and 552.20 respectively. A comparison of the three sheets therefore clearly suggests that both RHW and SPW contained phenolphthalein.
129. Ld. Defence counsel contended that as per testimony of PW-8, admittedly, the silica jel plates used for carrying out TLC examination were not preserved and photographs of the examination results were not taken. Preservation of silica jel plates in each case may have financial implications for the laboratory, which thrives on public funds. The infrastructural requirement may also be an hindrance. Hence, preservation in each case may not be practically possible. Absence of photographs is also immaterial because worksheets reflecting the curve achieved by each solution are available on record. It will be too harsh to assume that an independent Government appointed expert will go beyond the ambit of his duties to prepare a report that was completely supportive of the case of prosecution. An expert is a neutral person. These is nothing on record to suggest that he had some direct or indirect interest in success of the case of prosecution. In case defence alleges so, it was for the defence to show reasons for the same which has not been done.
130. Ld. Defence Counsel, on the basis of cross-examination of PW-8, contended that it was an admitted fact that the chemical examination was carried out by one Bharat Bhushan, the Senior Scientific Assistant in the chemistry department, but the said person was not examined in the Court. While PW-8 admits to this effect in his cross-examination he also says that he too had carried out the chemical examination alongwith Bharat Bhushan and had signed the report thereafter. It is sufficient to reflect direct involvement of PW-8 in carrying out the chemical examination and the CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 103/118 mere fact that he was assisted by a colleague who was not examined in the Court, is not sufficient to raise a doubt on his testimony.
131. Ld. Defence Counsel sought to challenge the trap proceedings reflecting acceptance of bribe amount by the accused on the strength of Rule 14.16 of the CBI (Crime) Manual-2005. It was contended that the said rule provides for videography and photography of the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings which was not done and hence the case of prosecution is doubtful. The said Rule reads as below:-
"14.16 As far as possible, the crime scene, steps during the course of investigation such as pre-trap and post-trap proceedings, search proceedings should be photographed as well as videographed. In case, the photographs are taken by conventional method, the negatives must be preserved. In the event of digital still photography and videography, the images may be downloaded/transferred, in the presence of witnesses, to a 'write only' compact disk (CD) or 'write only' digital video disk (DVD) for preservation. This would prevent the independent witnesses turning hostile during the course of trial. In all important cases of disproportionate assets/recoveries, search proceedings should also be videographed so that the Court may appreciate the evidence collected by CBI about the luxurious lifestyle of the accused or the circumstances under which a particular recovery was made. A memorandum be prepared to this effect by the I.O. on the spot in the presence of witnesses."
132. Rule 14.16 does not make videography and photography of the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings mandatory. It provides that photography/videography be carried out only so far as it is practicable. On this point, I agree with the submissions of Ld. Prosecutor who contended that it was not possible to videograph or photograph the trap or recovery CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 104/118 proceedings, firstly, because that would have made the accused conscious and chances of failure of the trap proceedings would have increased and secondly, because trap & recovery were carried out at a busy road under hostile circumstances as accused was attempting to escape. These reasons are sufficient to hold that photography/videography was not practicable & its absence therefore is not sufficient to doubt the case of prosecution.
133. The probability of accused being present on the spot on 08.02.2022 was proved by the prosecution through the testimony of PW-9, PW-10 and PW-13. These witnesses deposed that on 07.02.2022 and 08.02.2022 the accused was posted in Nangloi Traffic Circle and on those days he was on duty at the Mundka Red Light point. His availability on the spot at the time of verification proceedings and the trap proceedings was also proved by the said witnesses. They are official witnesses from the Traffic Department of Delhi Police and their testimonies cannot be doubted. Accused also did not throw any serious challenge to the testimony of these witnesses.
134. It is the case of prosecution that when the trap team was signalled by PW-2 regarding transaction of the bribe amount, they went near the Brezza car and asked the accused to come out. However, the accused accelerated the car and escaped. In that process, the accused had hit Inspector Anil Kumar who was part of the trap team and caused injuries in his hand.
135. Ld. Defence Counsel contended that case of the prosecution to this effect stood demolished because the prosecution did not prove accident or injuries by leading cogent and reliable evidence. It was contended that neither the medical report from Max Hospital, Vaishali, Ghaziabad was CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 105/118 proved by examining any witness from the hospital nor the original report was placed on record. Since the report was only a photocopy, it was never admitted in evidence. Defence contended that Insp. Anil Kumar was also not produced in the witness box to prove the injuries caused to him.
136. In my considered view, the facts related to injuries caused to Insp. Anil Kumar are not directly in issue in this case. The medical report was referred by the prosecution to only show the conduct of the accused post- trap. The accused tried to escape when caught red handed and such a conduct of the accused is a relevant fact u/Sec. 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as it points towards his culpability. This conduct was sufficiently proved through the testimony of PW-2, PW-4, PW-6, PW-11 and PW-15, well corroborated by the letter Ex.PW24/1 received by PW-24, the investigating officer, from Max Hospital, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, detailing the injuries caused to Insp. Anil Kumar and the treatment given to him on 09.02.2022, a day immediately after the day of trap.
137. Ld. Defence counsel had also sought to challenge the testimonies of prosecution's witnesses regarding recovery of tainted money (bribe) from the accused by averring, firstly, that before taking out money from the storage space of the Brezza car, the CBI team did not offer to give their personal search and secondly, that handwash of the complainant was not taken to prove that he had handled the tainted money.
138. The bribe money, as per the case of prosecution, was recovered on pointing out of the accused from the storage space inside the car and not from the person of the accused. None of the CBI officer was sitting inside the car before recovery of the bribe amount. Hence, non-offering of personal search by the CBI officers was hardly of any consequence.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 106/118Similarly, handling of bribe amount by the complainant is proved by PW-4, an independent witness, and therefore non-obtaining of his hand wash is also of no consequence. The testimony of PW-2/complainant regarding handling of bribe amount stood sufficiently corroborated from the testimony of PW-4. He has been found to be a reliable witness, because not only his testimony stands corroborated for various reasons already discussed hereinabove, he is an independent witness having no prejudice towards the accused to depose falsely.
139. Recovery of the bribe amount was further challenged by the Ld. Defence Counsel on the ground that the site plans were not proved by the prosecution as per law because maker of the site plans, namely, Inspector Satish Bana was not examined in the Court. Even if that be so, the site plans can only have corroborative value in some circumstances. Hence, despite ignoring the site plans, there is sufficient material on record which corroborates the testimony of complainant (PW-2). Absence of proper proof of site plans is thus of no consequence.
140. For reasons aforesaid, I am of the considered view that 'acceptance' of bribe amount by the accused has also been sufficiently proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts.
Presumption regarding Mens rea
141. The prosecution has proved sufficiently that the accused had demanded an undue advantage, i.e. a sum of Rs.24,000/-, from the complainant and accepted a sum of Rs.22,000/- in lieu of the said demand. 'Demand' and 'acceptance' are two essential constituents to prove 'obtainment' of undue advantage. Once 'obtainment' is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, a presumption arises in favour of the CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 107/118 prosecution u/Sec. 20 of the PC Act. According to this presumption requisite mens rea i.e. obtainment of undue advantage as motive or reward to perform or forbearance to perform public duty shall be presumed.
142. Once such a presumption arises, reverse burden of proof operates and the onus shifts upon the accused to rebut the presumption. It is the settled law that a presumption can be rebutted by the accused on the basis of preponderance of probability and he does not have to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubts.
143. The accused did not lead any evidence to rebut the aforesaid presumption however. He examined 5 witnesses but only to prove that he was falsely implicated because he had been receiving threats from the Transporters' Association. Accused sought to prove that the trucks operated by the complainant did not fulfill the legal parameters regarding fitness certificate or registration.
144. These facts are hardly of any consequence because the accused failed to show any connection of the complainant with any of the Transporters' Association. He also could not connect the complainant with any of the threats that he had received in the year 2019 and 2020, as noted in the DD entries proved on record. It is already observed in the preceding paragraphs that the mere fact that the trucks were non-compliant on legal parameters is not sufficient to discredit the case of the prosecution. Non- compliance rather gave an additional occasion to the accused to demand the bribe in order to forbear performance of his public duty to stop such trucks from plying on the road and book them for violation of traffic rules.
145. The testimony of PW-21 is sufficient to prove that the Rohtak Road between Peeragrahi to Tikri Border (which also consists of Mundka CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 108/118 area) was a no entry zone for heavy goods vehicles from 05:00 AM to 11:00 AM and from 05:00 PM to 7:00 PM. The accused was demanding money to allow the complainant to ply his trucks through Mundka during the prohibited timings. This stands sufficiently confirmed from the transcripts Ex.PW2/F and Ex.PW2/H which have already been quoted in the preceding paragraphs. Hence, not only presumption, rather there is clear evidence to suggest that the accused was demanding bribe as a reward for forbearing performance of his public duty.
146. The testimony of PW-18A and PW-20, who have proved the record regarding entry of trucks operated by the complainant through Tikri Border, also suggest that during the period when bribe amount was demanded, the trucks of complainant were not entering through Tikri border but through Dhasa Border, Darula Border and Bakargarh, all of which lie in south-west zone near Najafgarh. This again lends credence to the story of prosecution that the accused demanded money as a reward for forbearing performance of his public duty by allowing the trucks of the complainant to pass through Mundka and thus from Tikri border. The evidence on record strengthens the presumption in favour of prosecution and lends crredibility to the case of prosecution.
147. The accuse has failed to rebut this presumption by leading cogent and reliable evidence. Rather the evidence led by the prosecution strengthens the presumption. This fulfills the third and last ingredient of the offence punishable u/Sec. 7 of the PC Act.
148. For discussion above, in my considered opinion the case of the prosecution, so far commission of offence punishable u/Sec. 7 PC Act is concerned, stands proved beyond reasonable doubts. The defence of the CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 109/118 accused is lame and baseless. The accused has neither been able to prove false implication nor has been able to rebut the presumption u/Sec. 20 of the PC Act.
Public Servant and Requisite Sanction
149. It is clear from a reading of Section 7 of the PC Act that only a public servant can be convicted of the said offence. Section 19 of the PC Act provides that for prosecuting a public servant for the offence punishable u/Sec. 7, previous sanction of the competent authority is necessary. Section 19 reads as below:-
"19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under sections 7, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction [save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013]-
(a) in the case of a person [who is employed, or as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed] in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that government:
(b) in the case of a person [who is employed, or as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed] in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with sanction of the State Government, of that government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office."CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 110/118
150. The accused never disputed that he was a public servant on the date of commission of offence. Even otherwise, this fact stands sufficiently established from the testimony of PW-3 who had proved the service record of the accused. The accused was serving in the rank of SI when he was arrested in this case. This fact is also proved by PW-3. Even otherwise, there is no dispute on any of these facts either.
151. The dispute is with respect to the sanction, which has been challenged by the defence mainly on two grounds: (i) that the sanction was granted by an incompetent authority; (ii) that the sanction was granted without application of mind.
152. It is the case of defence that the accused was promoted to the rank of SI by the Commissioner of Police. Hence, by virtue of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, it was only the Commissioner of Police who could have removed him from service. Since only the Commissioner of Police was competent to remove the accused, sanction for his prosecution u/Sec. 19 of the PC Act could also have been granted by the Commissioner of Police only and not by the Additional Commissioner of Police.
153. The accused relied upon his promotion order [Ex.DW2/A (Colly)] in support of his contention that he was promoted by the Commissioner of Police. This Order is dated 06.08.2019 and has been signed by the DCP (Establishment) for Commissioner of Police. It is the case of defence that since the Order has been signed by the 'DCP' for 'Commissioner of Police', it is the Commissioner of Police who becomes the appointing authority.
154. The aforesaid contention of the defence can be examined by referring to the provisions of Delhi Police Act, 1978, and the Rules framed thereunder.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 111/118155. Section 6, Section 7, Section 8 and Section 12 of the Delhi Police Act, are relevant in this regard and read as below:-
"6. Commissioner of Police. - For the direction and supervision of the police force in Delhi, the Administrator shall appoint a Commissioner of Police who shall exercise and perform such powers and duties and perform such functions as are specified by or under this Act."
"7. Additional Commissioner of Police. - (1) The Administrator may appoint one or more Additional Commissioner of Police for the purposes of this Act. (2) The Additional Commissioner of Police shall --
(a) assist the Commissioner of Police in the exercise of his powers and the performance of his duties in such manner and to such extent, and
(b) exercise such powers and perform such duties of the Commissioner of Police and within such local limits, as the Administrator may, by general or special order, specify."
"8. Deputy, Additional Deputy and Assistant Commissioner of Police. - (1) The Administrator may appoint one or more Deputy Commissioner of Police or Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police or Assistant Commissioner of Police for the purpose of this Act. (2) Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Act and subject to any general or special orders made by the Administrator in this behalf, every Deputy Commissioner of Police or Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police or Assistant Commissioner of Police shall, under the order of the Commissioner of Police, exercise such of the powers (except the power to make regulations) and perform such of the duties of the Commissioner of Police and within such local limits as may be specified in such orders."
(Emphasis supplied) "12. Appointment of subordinate ranks. - Subject to such CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 112/118 general or special orders in writing as the Administrator may make in this behalf, --
(a) Inspectors of Police may be appointed by the Additional Commissioner of Police; and
(b) Sub-Inspectors of Police and other officers of subordinate rank may be appointed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Additional Deputy Commissioners of Police, Principal of the Police Training College or of the Police Training School, or any other police officer of equivalent rank."
(Emphasis supplied)
156. The rules framed under Section 147(1) of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, are also relevant, specifically, the Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter 'the promotion rules') and the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter ' the appointment rules').
157. The Rules 8 & 9 of the promotion rules read as below:-
"8. Constitution of Departmental Promotion Committee - Fitness of personnel for promotion to various ranks in different grades/cadres shall be judged by departmental promotion committees, which shall be constituted by the Commissioner of Police as under:
(i) For promotion of confirmed Constable to the rank of Head Constable, promotion of confirmed Head Constables to the rank of Asst. Sub-Inspector and promotion of confirmed Asstt. Sub-Inspector to the rank of Sub-Inspector, the promotion panel should be drawn by the Departmental Promotion Committee, consisting of one Joint Commissioner of Police and two Deputy Commissioner of Police to be nominated by the Commissioner of Police.
(ii) For promotion of confirmed Sub-Inspectors to the rank of Inspector. The promotion panel should be drawn by the Departmental Promotion Committee consisting of Special Commissioner of Police (Admn.) and two Joint CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 113/118 Commissioners of Police to be nominated by Commissioner of Police."
"9. Centralized processing and issue of orders - Promotion of all categories in various ranks shall be done centrally by Police Head Quarters. After names have been approved by the concerned Departmental Promotion Committee, orders for promotion, when required shall be issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, (Estt.) in respect of Sub-Inspectors, Assistant Sub-Inspectors, Head Constables and Constables, and for Inspectors by Additional/Joint Commissioner of Police (HQ) as the appointing authorities."
(Emphasis supplied)
158. Rule 3(i) & Rule 4 (i) of the appointment rules are further relevant and read as below:-
"3. Definitions.
(i) "Appointing Authority" in relation to Inspector of Police means the Additional Commissioner of Police and in relation to the subordinate police officers below the rank of Inspector means the Deputy Commissioner of Police including the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Principal/P.T.S. or any other officer or equal rank. (ii) Competent authority means the Commissioner of Police or any other police officer specifically authorised by him under these rules to appoint a police officer of subordinate rank of Delhi Police. (ii-a) "Employees" means non-gazetted employees of the Delhi Police Force. (iii) Probation means of period of trial of a person appointed temporarily or in an officiating capacity against temporary or permanent post of a police of subordinate rank."
"4. General.
(i) Appointing authorities - The following authorities shall be competent to make appointment to various subordinate ranks of Delhi Police -CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 114/118
Class of Authority to The extent Police whom the of Officers power of delegation appointment is delegated
(i) Inspector Addl. C.P. Full powers subject to the rules framed hereunder.
(ii) Sub-Inspr. (i) DCP Do
(ii) Addl. DCP
(iii) Principal/PTS
(iv) Any other
officer of
equivalent
rank.
(iii) ASI Do Do
(iv) H.C. Do Do
(v) Constables Do Do
159. On a combined reading of the aforementioned sections of the Delhi Police Act, the appointment rules and the promotion rules, it is clear that a DCP is appointed by the Administrator of GNCT of Delhi in order to exercise such of the powers and perform such of the duties of the Commissioner of Police as may be specified. This clarity comes from a combined reading of Section 6 & Section 8 of the Delhi Police Act. A DCP exercises the powers and performs the duties of Commissioner of Police by virtue of the aforementioned sections as per Delhi Police Act and the delegated legislation that consist of rules framed under the said Act; the Orders issued thereunder etc. Section 12 provides that a DCP is also the appointing authority for the members of Delhi Police in the rank of Sub-
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 115/118Inspector, Head Constable and Constable. This is reiterated in Rule 3 & 4 of the appointment rules also. The promotion rules specify that the panel for promotion is to be drawn by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) as specified in Rule 8. Once the names are approved by the DPC, Orders for promotion to the rank of SI & HC are required to be issued by the DCP, being the appointing authority.
160. It is clear from above that the Order Ex.DW2/A (Colly) was signed by the DCP in accordance with Rule 9 of the promotion rules, in his own independent capacity as appointing authority. The DCP signed this Order for Commissioner of Police because as per the Delhi Police Act a DCP exercises such powers of Commissioner of Police as may be specified & Rule 9 is one such specific instance where power of Commissioner of Police has been delegated to the DCP. The DCP signed Ex.DW2/A (Colly) under delegated legislation and therefore had acted for Commissioner of Police however the power to sign this Order had been bestowed upon him by the sheer fact that he was the appointing authority as per Section 12 of the Delhi Police Act.
161. The defence did not prove by leading cogent and reliable evidence that the promotions were in fact approved by the Commissioner of Police. The office Notings pertaining to the promotion process adopted by the Police Headquarter was not proved on record either. Rule 8 & 9 of the promotion rules clearly provide that promotion shall be recommended by the DPC (Departmental Promotion Committee) and the promotion orders shall be signed by the DCP. The rules do not provide for any requirement of obtaining approval of the Commissioner of Police. Whether such approval was actually obtained, has not been proved by the defence. The CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 116/118 presumption u/Sec. 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 thus arises in favour of the prosecution that the official work was regularly performed, which means that it was performed as per Rule 8 & 9 of the promotion rules. This being so, DCP was the appointing authority of the accused even when he was promoted to the rank of SI and sanction granted by the Additional Commissioner of Police, who is higher in rank, is thus valid and has been granted by a competent authority.
162. The second contention of the defence that there was non- application of mind in granting sanction is also not substantiated from the record. PW-23 is the sanctioning authority who was cross-examined in detail by the accused. During cross-examination, the sanctioning authority had categorically deposed that he had received relevant documents along with the request for sanction. He was questioned if he had heard the audio recordings which he denied but deposed that transcripts had been received. PW-23 also denied having received the draft order. The transcripts of audio conversations are perfectly in tandem with the recordings which were played in the court also and were compared with the transcripts. Hence, the fact that audio recordings were not sent to the sanctioning authority is hardly of any consequence. No part of cross-examination of PW-23 reflects non-application of mind. The contention of Defence in this regard is therefore baseless and devoid of merits.
163. In my considered opinion the prosecution has been able to prove that the sanction for prosecution, which is Ex.PW23/1, was granted by a competent authority after due application of mind. The sanction is thus valid in the eyes of law.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 117/118Decision
164. For reasons discussed hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove all the necessary ingredients of the offence punishable u/Sec. 7 of the PC Act, beyond reasonable doubts. The accused has been found guilty of the offence punishable u/Sec. 7 of the PC Act and is therefore convicted accordingly.
Digitally
Announced in the Open Court signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI KLER
on 09.03.2026 KLER Date:
2026.03.23
15:36:18
+0530
(Jyoti Kler)
Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-18, Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi Certified that this judgment runs into 118 pages and all the pages have been signed by me. Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI KLER KLER Date:
2026.03.23 15:36:33 +0530 (Jyoti Kler) Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-18, Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 118/118