Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Faquir Chand Verma (Trap) on 22 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJESH MALIK
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI-14, ROUSE
AVENUE DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI
CBI Vs. Faquir Chand Verma
CNR No. DLCT11-001288-2019
CBI Case No. 237/2019
FIR No. : RC No. DAI-2015/A/0016/ACB/CBI/N. DELHI
U/Sections : Sec. 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of PC Act, 1988
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Versus
Faquir Chand Verma
Assistant Sanitary Inspector
Health Department, NDMC, New Delhi
Date of institution of the case : 31.12.2015
Arguments concluded : 05.12.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 22.12.2025
CBI Case No. 237/2019 CBI vs. Faquir Chand Verma Page 1 of 33
JUDGEMENT
Complaint of demand of bribe dated 15.07.2015:-
1. Ved Prakash was working as the Safai Karamchari in the New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC), New Delhi.
On 15.07.2015, he approached the office of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and submitted a written complaint, stating that he had already exhausted his entitlement of ten casual leaves and had availed additional leave during the month of July. As he required further leave, his Assistant Sanitary Inspector, Faquir Chand Verma who was responsible for maintaining attendance records, had threatened to mark his earned leave as "without pay"
unless he would pay a bribe of ₹2,400/-.
1st (First) Verification Conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation:-
2. Upon receipt of the complaint, the matter was entrusted to Sub-Inspector namely Vipul Sharma of the CBI for verification. An independent witness, Gagan Kaushik, was summoned to the CBI office. The complainant was instructed to make a call from his mobile phone to the mobile phone of the accused, Faquir Chand Verma. The conversation was recorded simultaneously in a Digital Voice Recorder (DVR) in the presence of the independent witness.CBI Case No. 237/2019 CBI vs. Faquir Chand Verma Page 2 of 33
3. During the conversation, the complainant offered to pay ₹1,500/- to the accused instead of the originally demanded ₹2,400/-. This conversation is relevant for appreciation of the facts of the case, and accordingly, the transcription of the recorded conversation is placed hereinunder:-CBI Case No. 237/2019 CBI vs. Faquir Chand Verma Page 3 of 33
4. Thereafter, the memory card used for recording the conversation was removed from the DVR, sealed and marked as Q-1. The seal was handed over to the independent witness for safe custody. Further discrete verification was required to ascertain the posting and duties of the accused. Accordingly, the complainant and the independent witness were directed to revisit the CBI office on the following day.
Second Verification:-
5. Upon discrete inquiry, it was established that the accused Faquir Chand Verma was posted as the Assistant Sanitary Inspector in NDMC, Sarojini Nagar, and that the complainant Ved Prakash was working under his supervision.
The complainant was again instructed to contact the accused to fix the time and place for the bribe transaction. The call was made and simultaneously recorded on a memory card.
6. The transcript of this second verification conversation was prepared and is placed on record as Ex. Q-2. The memory card used on 16.07.2015 was sealed and marked as Ex. Q-2. Thereafter, an FIR under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered.
Proceedings:-
7. A trap team was constituted at the CBI office under CBI Case No. 237/2019 CBI vs. Faquir Chand Verma Page 4 of 33 the supervision of Inspector Praveen Kumar, the Trap Laying Officer (TLO). The team consisted of two Inspectors, one Sub- Inspector Vipul Sharma, and two independent witnesses--Gagan Kaushik (LDC, DDA) and Brij Pal Singh (Assistant, Ministry of Labour & Employment). The team members were briefed regarding the complaint and verification proceedings conducted on 15.07.2015 and 16.07.2015. The complainant produced ₹1,500/- in three ₹500/- denomination notes. The serial numbers of the notes were recorded in the handing-over memo (Ex. D-4). The notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder.
8. A demonstration was conducted to explain the chemical reaction of phenolphthalein powder with sodium carbonate solution, during which the carbonate solution turned pink upon contact. The personal search of the complainant was conducted by the independent witness Brijpal Singh. The treated bribe amount was placed in the right side pant pocket of the complainant's trousers. The complainant was instructed to hand over the bribe only upon specific demand by the accused.
9. The shadow witness Brijpal Singh was directed to remain close to the complainant and observe the transaction. The complainant was instructed to give a pre-decided signal by rubbing his face with his both hands or by making a missed call to the TLO after completion of the transaction. The sealed memory cards Q-1 and Q-2 were taken into custody by the TLO. The trap team then proceeded towards the spot.
CBI Case No. 237/2019 CBI vs. Faquir Chand Verma Page 5 of 33Recovery of Bribe Amount:-
10. As per the recovery memo dated 16.07.2015, the complainant and shadow witness approached the accused at Sarojini Nagar Market, where the accused was playing cards with others. The complainant handed over the bribe amount to the accused upon demand. The transaction was witnessed by the independent witness Brij Pal Singh.
11. Upon receipt of the pre-arranged signal, the CBI team apprehended the accused. The accused failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the possession of ₹1,500/-. The bribe amount was recovered from the left side chest pocket of the accused's shirt, and the serial numbers tallied with those recorded earlier.
12. The right-hand wash of the accused turned pink when dipped in sodium carbonate solution (marked RHW). The left-hand wash turned muddy (marked LHW). The wash of the left side chest pocket of the shirt also turned pink (marked LSSPW). All exhibits were sealed, signed and taken into custody.
13. The specimen voice of the accused was recorded and sealed as S-1. The DVR, memory cards, shirt, bribe money, and wash samples were seized as per the procedure. The seal was handed over to the independent witness for safe custody.
CBI Case No. 237/2019 CBI vs. Faquir Chand Verma Page 6 of 33Trial Proceedings:-
14. Upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. Charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were framed. The prosecution examined 22 witnesses. The statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC was recorded, wherein he claimed false implication and denied any demand or acceptance of bribe. The accused did not lead any evidence.
Court's Observations:-
Categorization of evidence of Testimony of the complainant:-
15. The prosecution evidence can be conveniently categorised in the following categories:-
i) Testimony of the complainant;
ii) Testimony of independent witnesses;
iii) Testimony of Nodal Officers of mobile phone service providers;
iv) Testimony of witnesses from NDMC, New Delhi Municipal Corporation;
v) Testimony of scientific officers; and
vi) Testimony of CBI officers.
Ingredients of the offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act:-
16. The following are the ingredients of Section 7 of the Act:
CBI Case No. 237/2019 CBI vs. Faquir Chand Verma Page 7 of 33(i) the accused must be a public servant or expecting to be a public servant;
(ii) he should accept or obtain or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person;
(iii) for himself or for any other person;
(iv) any gratification other than legal remuneration; and
(v) as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or to show any favour or disfavour.
Ingredients of the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988:-
17. Section 13(1)(d) of the Act has the following ingredients which have to be proved before bringing home the guilt of a public servant, namely:
(i) The accused must be a public servant.
(ii) By corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or by abusing his position as public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or while holding office as public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest.
(iii) To make out an offence under Section 13(1)(d), there is no requirement that the valuable thing or pecuniary advantage CBI Case No. 237/2019 CBI vs. Faquir Chand Verma Page 8 of 33 should have been received as a motive or reward.
(iv) An agreement to accept or an attempt to obtain does not fall within Section 13(1)(d).
(v) Therefore, to make out an offence under this provision, there has to be actual obtainment.
18. In Subash Parbat Sonvane v. State of Gujarat (2002) 5 SCC 86, it was observed that mere acceptance of money without there being any other evidence would not be sufficient for convicting the accused under Section 13(1)( d). In Sections 7 and 13(1)(a) and (b) of the Act, the legislature has specifically used the words "accepts" or "obtains". As against this, there is departure in the language used in sub-section (1)( d) of Section 13 and it has omitted the word "accepts" and has emphasised on the word "obtains". In sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 13(1)
(d), the emphasis is on the word "obtains". Therefore, there must be evidence on record that the accused "obtains" for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by either corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant or that he obtained for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest.
Thus, since in order to attract the rigors of Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the prosecution was under a legal obligation to prove the twin requirements of "demand and acceptance of bribe money by the accused", the proving of one alone but not the other was not sufficient.
CBI Case No. 237/2019 CBI vs. Faquir Chand Verma Page 9 of 33Analysis of the facts:
19. At this juncture, this court will examine whether the facts of the prosecution cases fits in the frame of ingredients of the offence under section 7 and section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Demand of Bribe:-
20. While analyzing the merits of the case of the prosecution, rather than writing the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses in a strictly sequential order, it is more effective and convenient to refer to each witness's testimony at the relevant point during the discussion of the facts in issue of the alleged offense. It will allow for a clearer examination of how each piece of evidence relates to specific aspects of the case, ensuring that the significance of each witness's statement is considered in the appropriate context of the alleged charge.
21. To establish the initial offer made by the complainant to the accused, the prosecution has examined three witnesses i.e. the complainant, an independent witness namely Gagan Kaushik and the CBI officer namely Vipul Sharma (PW-
7). The complainant (PW-6) deposed that he was working as the Safai Karamchari in the NDMC since 19.09.1983. He was posted at Sarojini Nagar Circle of NDMC since 1983. In the year 2015 also, he was working in the Sarojini Nagar Circle as Safai Karamchari. In the year 2015, the accused was working there as Assistant Sanitary Inspector. The accused was his supervisor, and CBI Case No. 237/2019 CBI vs. Faquir Chand Verma Page 10 of 33 he used to mark his attendance. He deposed that he was authorized for 10 casual leaves in a year and he had already availed all his 10 casual leaves till May 2015. After the month of June, he needed some leave due to some urgent work, so he had applied for grant of earned leaves.
22. He deposed that the accused Faquir Chand Verma refused to forward his earned leave applications and threw his application for earned leave. Thereafter, one daily wager Safai Karamchari told him that he should pay some bribe to Faquir Chand Verma and got his earned leave application forwarded for sanction to the higher authority. He did not agree to the same, and then Ravinder asked him that he should pay the amount of bribe to him for accused Faquir Chand Verma. He refused to the said suggestion and went to the office of the CBI, where he met Bade Sahab. The witness deposed that he had told his grievances regarding demand of bribe made by Ravinder to get his earned leave sanctioned from the accused Faquir Chand Verma. Bade Sahab of CBI had asked him to give complaint in writing. He had given his complaint in his handwriting on 15.07.2015 and the same is exhibited as Ex. PW-6/A (D-1) bearing his signature at Point A. Thereafter, he was asked to make a telephone call on the mobile phone of the accused Faquir Chand Verma. He made the call to the accused Faquir Chand Verma and in the said call, the accused Faquir Chand Verma had agreed to receive Rs. 1500/- for sanction of his earned leave. Thereafter, he was asked by the CBI officer to attend the CBI office on the next day i.e. 16.07.2015. The witness identified his signatures on the CBI Case No. 237/2019 CBI vs. Faquir Chand Verma Page 11 of 33 verification memo i.e. Ex. PW-6/B (D-2).
23. Before giving further details of the PW-6 (complainant) deposition before the court, it is essential to consider and analyze this portion of the complainant's testimony.
24. In his testimony before the court, the complainant did not directly state that the accused, Faquir Chand Verma, had personally demanded the bribe from him. Instead, he introduced an individual named Ravinder, alleging that Ravinder made the demand for a bribe on behalf of Faquir Chand Verma. Notably, the name Ravinder was not mentioned in the initial complaint submitted to the CBI. Nor, such person was interrogated by the CBI during investigation.
25. The complaint, written by the complainant Ved Prakash in his own handwriting, is admitted as Exhibit PW-6/A. It specifically states that Faquir Chand Verma demanded a sum of Rs. 2400/- to forward his earned leave application without the endorsement of 'Without Pay'. Despite this, during his evidence in the court, he contradicted his written complaint and did not support the prosecution's case concerning the demand made by the accused. Consequently, with respect to the question of acceptance of the offer by the accused Faquir Chand Verma, the complainant's testimony has to be considered hostile (not supporting the case of the prosecution).
CBI Case No. 237/2019 CBI vs. Faquir Chand Verma Page 12 of 3326. At this stage, it is necessary to consider the law regarding the evaluation of hostile witnesses, particularly in relation to cases under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The law in this respect has been settled by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) , (2023) 4 SCC 731, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
"88. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under:
88.1. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
88.2. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
88.3. (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.
88.4. (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe-
giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
CBI Case No. 237/2019 CBI vs. Faquir Chand Verma Page 13 of 33(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe-giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe-giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and
(ii), respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe-giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe-giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
88.5. (e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
88.6. (f) In the event the complainant turns "hostile", or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the CBI Case No. 237/2019 CBI vs. Faquir Chand Verma Page 14 of 33 prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant."
27. It is thus evident from the settled law, as laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that proof of demand for illegal gratification does not solely depend on the direct testimony of the complainant or a single piece of evidence. Instead, the court is empowered to examine all other relevant evidence and the circumstances that surround the facts in issue. This means that even if the complainant does not support the prosecution's case in respect of the demand, the court can still rely on corroborative material, such as independent witness testimony, documentary evidence, transcripts of recorded conversations, and other circumstantial evidence, to determine whether a demand for illegal gratification was made.
28. Further, there is no law that in case the witness has turned hostile, his whole testimony needs to be discarded. To support this view, the reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of K. P. TAMILMARAN versus THE STATE BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, 2025 Live Law (SC) 493, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"26. As a general rule, the testimony of a witness who has been cross-examined by the party which produced him/her will not stand totally discredited, and it is for the Court to consider what value should be attached to this testimony. After referring to a series of judgments on this point, the Court in Sat Paul held as follows:CBI Case No. 237/2019 CBI vs. Faquir Chand Verma Page 15 of 33
"52. From the above conspectus, it emerges clear that even in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the court, by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for the Judge to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross- examination and contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. If the Judge finds that in the process, the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, he may, after reading and considering the evidence of the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of the other evidence on the record, that part of his testimony which he finds to be creditworthy and act upon it. If in a given case, the whole of the testimony of the witness is impugned, and in the process, the witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the Judge should, as matter of prudence, discard his evidence in toto.
53. It was in the context of such a case, where, as a result of the cross-examination by the Public, Prosecutor, the prosecution witness concerned stood discredited altogether, that this Court in Jagir Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) with the aforesaid rule of caution -- which is not to be treated as a rule of law -- in mind, said that the evidence of such a witness is to be rejected en bloc."
27. An examination of the cases referred above shows that there can be no doubt about the fact that the evidence of a witness, who has been cross- examined by the side which produced him/her, cannot be totally discarded [Also see: Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731].
28.It may also be worthwhile to mention here that by the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 2005, sub- section 2 was added to section 154 of the Evidence Act. The amended section 154 of the Evidence Act now reads as under:
154. Question by party to his own witness. -- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him CBI Case No. 237/2019 CBI vs. Faquir Chand Verma Page 16 of 33 which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.
(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.
29. By way of the above amendment, the position which had been reiterated by this Court has now come in the statute itself.
30. The word 'hostile' or 'hostile witness' has not been used anywhere in the Evidence Act. The logic behind this exclusion seems to be that the declaration of witness as 'hostile witness' carries a specific significance under the English law, from where this term has been derived, where liberty is only granted to a side to cross-examine its own witness when such declaration of 'hostility' is made. The position in India is different and here it is left to the discretion of the Court to allow a party to cross-examine its own witness, regardless of a declaration of 'hostility'. This has been explained by this Court in Sat Paul:
"38. To steer clear of the controversy over the meaning of the terms "hostile" witness, "adverse"
witness, "unfavourable" witness which had given rise to considerable difficulty and conflict of opinion in England, the authors of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 seem to have advisedly avoided the use of any of those terms so that, in India, the grant of permission to cross-examine his own witness by a party is not conditional on the witness being declared "adverse" or "hostile". Whether it be the grant of permission under Section 142 to put leading questions, or the leave under Section 154 to ask questions which might be put in cross-
examination by the adverse party, the Indian Evidence Act leaves the matter entirely to the discretion of the court (see the observations of Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Baikuntha Nath v.
Prasannamoyi [AIR 1922 PC 409: 72IC 286]). The discretion conferred by Section 154 on the court is unqualified and untrammelled and is apart from any question of "hostility". It is to be liberally exercised whenever the court from the witnesses demeanour, temper, attitude, bearing, or the tenor and tendency CBI Case No. 237/2019 CBI vs. Faquir Chand Verma Page 17 of 33 of his answers, or from a perusal of his previous inconsistent statement, or otherwise, thinks that the grant of such permission is expedient to extract the truth and to do justice. The grant of such permission does not amount to an adjudication by the court as to the veracity of the witness. Therefore, in the order granting such permission, it is preferable to avoid the use of such expressions, such as "declared hostile", "declared unfavourable", the significance of which is still not free from the historical cobwebs which, in their wake bring a misleading legacy of confusion, and conflict that had so long vexed the English Courts."
31. The phrase 'hostile witness' is commonly used in criminal jurisprudence and court proceedings. We too cannot escape the blame of using the term 'hostile witness' in our judgment. We do it for pragmatic reasons. Some words like 'hostile witness' in this case are now a part of our legal vocabulary. There is no point in inventing or substituting new words or phrases, at least in the present case, and we leave that for the future. But what is necessary, however, is to explain the meaning of the term as it is now to be understood. The phrase 'hostile witness' has come to be used for a witness who gives a statement contrary to the story of the side for which he/she is a witness. All the same, because a witness has supported some, though not all, aspects of a case, it would not automatically mean that this witness has to be declared 'hostile'. A party can cross-examine its own witness under Section 154 Evidence Act, even without getting a declaration of 'hostility'. The only restriction to cross-examination under Section 154 Evidence Act is that the party, who seeks to cross- examine its own witness, must obtain the leave of the Court. Whether there is a declaration of 'hostility' or not, one thing is clear that evidence of witness, who has been cross-examined under Section 154 Evidence Act by the party who called such witness, cannot be washed off entirely and it is for the Court to see what can be retrieved from such evidence."
29. This court shall now proceed to analyze the evidence available in the record, with particular focus on the complainant's CBI Case No. 237/2019 CBI vs. Faquir Chand Verma Page 18 of 33 testimony and the testimonies of independent witnesses concerning the alleged acceptance of the offer by the accused. During the complainant's evidence, the memory card containing the recorded voices of the complainant, the independent witness, and the accused was produced before the complainant. Although the complainant was unable to identify the voice of the independent witness, he did successfully recognize his own voice as well as that of the accused, Faquir Chand Verma. Furthermore, the complainant affirmed that the transcript of the conversation, marked as Exhibit PW-6/J, accurately reflected the recording of his conversation with the accused on July 15.07.2015. He specifically acknowledged the transcript, noting that he was referred to as "VP" and the accused as "FC" within the transcript.
30. Therefore, this court shall now look into verification memo, voice transcription and the testimony of independent witnesses. The independent witness Gagan Kaushik, who was stated to be present there, was examined as the PW-14. This court shall refer to the part of his testimony to discuss the issue of acceptance of offer as he is the witness of the same only. He deposed that he was working in the DDA as the Senior Assistant since 2013. He received a letter from his personal department whereby, he was directed to report at CBI office for official duty on that day. Accordingly, he went to the CBI office. He reported duty officer of CBI on that day. Thereafter, he met SI Vipul Sharma. SI Vipul Sharma had shown him the complaint made by Sh. Ved Prakash (complainant), who was posted as the Safai Karamchari in NDMC.
CBI Case No. 237/2019 CBI vs. Faquir Chand Verma Page 19 of 3331. He further deposed that the complaint was regarding demand of bribe for sanction of leave. The complainant Ved Prakash was also present in the CBI office. He identified the complaint i.e. Ex. PW-6/A. The witness deposed that to verify the complaint, a DVR and a memory card was arranged by SI Vipul Sharma. Memory card was inserted in the DVR and his sample voice was recorded. The complainant was asked to make a call to the accused Faquir Chand Verma and it was kept on loudspeaker mode. The complainant told the accused that he was unable to arrange Rs. 2400/- and could give only Rs. 1500/-, to which the accused agreed and asked him to come. Thereafter, the call was disconnected, and the memory card was taken out. The memory card was played before the witness. The file of the memory card bearing No. 090721/001 was played and the witness identified his voice in the said file. Thereafter, the second file bearing No. 090721/002 was played which contained the conversation between the complainant and the accused Faquir Chand. He identified the said voice. He further deposed that the memory card was taken out from the DVR, and he signed the same. He also identified signatures on the verification memo dated 15.07.2015.
32. At this stage, this court would like to refer to the testimony of SI Vipul Sharma regarding the initial demand. SI Vipul Sharma has been examined as the PW-7. He deposed that in the year 2015, he was posted in Anti-Corruption Branch (CBI) as the Sub Inspector. On 15.07.2015, he was called by then SP Mr. Anish Prasad in his chamber. His SP told him that Ved CBI Case No. 237/2019 CBI vs. Faquir Chand Verma Page 20 of 33 Prakash had made a complaint and directed him to verify the same. His Superintendent of Police handed over him the written complaint of Ved Prakash which is already Ex. PW-6/A. He identified the endorsement of SP Anish Prasad on the complaint. Thereafter, he returned to his chamber cabin alongwith the complainant. He perused the complaint and enquired about it from the complainant Ved Prakash who told him that he was Safai Karamchari and that his supervisor Faquir Chand Verma had demanded money for regularizing his leave. Then, he requested Duty officer of branch to arrange some independent witness for verification process. After some time, the witness Gagan Kaushik, an employee of DDA came to his chamber. He introduced the complainant Ved Prakash and the witness to each other. He also apprised the witness Gagan Kaushik about the complaint of the complainant and showed him the complaint. He arranged the DVR and a new micro SD card in a sealed pack through care taker of the branch. He showed the DVR to the complainant Ved Prakash and the witness Gagan Kaushik for ensuring that it was blank. Thereafter, he took out the new micro- SD card in their presence from the sealed pack and inserted in the DVR.
He further deposed that the introductory voice of the witness Gagan Kaushik was recorded in the micro-SD card through DVR which was then played in the presence of the complainant Ved Prakash and the witness to show them its functions. Thereafter, he asked the complainant Ved Prakash to make a phone call to his supervisor accused Faquir Chand Verma keeping his phone in loudspeaker mode so that the conversation CBI Case No. 237/2019 CBI vs. Faquir Chand Verma Page 21 of 33 can be recorded in the micro-SD card inserted in the DVR. Following the instructions, the complainant Ved Prakash made phone call to the accused Faquir Chand Verma keeping his mobile phone in loudspeaker mode and simultaneously the DVR was switched on by him for recording. The conversation was recorded and thereafter, he switched off the DVR. He deposed that the complainant told the accused that he was able to arrange only Rs. 1500/-, to which the accused Faquir Chand Verma told him to bring what he had arranged. He also identified the verification memo. He also identified the micro-SD card as P-1.
Ld. counsel or the accused submits that the recording in the micro-SD card has been tampered as the files in the memory card contained modification dated 22.07.2009, whereas the recording was allegedly done on 15.07.2015. It is further argued that the seal of the memory card was opened after seizure and before sending the same for the forensic examination. This court does not find any merits of the submissions inasmuch as the oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses have categorically proved that the complainant made the phone call to the accused. The complainant has himself deposed that on 15.07.2015, he made the phone call to the accused. So far as modification date is concerned, the same could have caused for number of technical reasons such as date in the DVR, date in the analytical tools of the Forensic Science Laboratory. In view of the oral testimony, this techinical lapse may be completely ignored. Further, there is nothing on record to suggest that the sealed memory cards were opened by the C.B.I. CBI Case No. 237/2019 CBI vs. Faquir Chand Verma Page 22 of 33
33. Thus, by looking at the other evidence, the following facts are proved:-
a) That the complainant made the complaint in his handwriting;
b) That he made the call to the accused from the CBI office; and
c) That the transcript of the call contains the conversation held between him and the accused.
34. The evidence of the independent witness, Gagan Kaushik, has corroborated the existence of the complaint and the fact that the complainant made the phone call to the accused. His testimony establishes that he was present during the verification process and observed the complainant making the call to the accused for verification of the demand of bribe.
35. Furthermore, the contents of the conversation recorded in the transcript (marked as Q-1) have been substantiated through the testimonies of all these three witnesses:
the complainant, the independent witness Gagan Kaushik, and SI Vipul Sharma. Each of these witnesses have provided consistent statements regarding the sequence of events, the use of recording devices, and the authenticity of the recorded conversation between the complainant and the accused. Reading their statements together confirms the authenticity of the transcript as a true reflection of the conversation that took place during the verification of demand on 15.07.2015.
36. Now, the stage has been set to see whether the said transcript establishes the acceptance of offer of the bribe on CBI Case No. 237/2019 CBI vs. Faquir Chand Verma Page 23 of 33 behalf of the accused. The transcript contains the conversation between the accused and the complainant. The picture of the transcript has already been pasted in the para no.3 of this judgment. When the complainant told him that he could arrange only 1500/-, the accused responded as 'Jo Hai Thik Hai Jo Bhi Hai'. This expression is shown as the acceptance of the offer of the complainant by the accused Faquir Chand. The perusal of the transcript shows that the complainant himself offered to pay Rs. 1500/- to the accused to adjust his holidays and the response of the accused was 'Jo Hai Thik Hai Jo Bhi Hai'. Ld. Public Prosecutor for CBI has argued that the accused had accepted the complainant's offer by saying "Jo Hai Thik Hai, Jo Bhi Hai". Ld. Public Prosecutor for CBI further submitted that the accused should have turned down that offer by clearly rejecting it, however, the response given by the accused was in confirmity with his intention to accept the bribe amount. On the submissions of Ld. PP for CBI, it is to be noted here that every person shall not respond in a similar manner. Different persons respond differently to a situation. Some may become speechless, some start wailing while some may give the timid reply. When the offer was made, it needs to be accepted unequivocally to term it as acceptance of offer as the oral acceptance of an offer crystallizes into the offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act. The only other overt act remains to be done is the receipt of the amount. Thus, the words used while accepting the offer warrants strict interpretation. Let's this position be understood by way of this flow-chart:-
CBI Case No. 237/2019 CBI vs. Faquir Chand Verma Page 24 of 33 Offer Acceptance
Demand Receipt
Obtain Offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act
Receipt (offence under S. 13(1) (d) of PC Act
37. Since, the response of the accused is not categorically clear that he had accepted the offer of the complainant, therefore, leaving this issue aside for now and to be discussed lateron, let's see the facts at the time of trap proceedings to find out the recceipt of the alleged bribe amount.
38. Thus, this court shall now revert back to the testimony of the complainant to see what he has deposed about the trap proceedings on 16.07.2005. He deposed that on 16.07.2015, he attended the CBI Office, but he can not tell the exact time when he had reached there. In the CBI office, the CBI officers prepared some documents and got his signatures on the same. No call was made by him on 16.07.2015 to the accused Faquir Chand Verma. He had taken Rs. 1500/- with him to the office of CBI. In CBI office, no proceedings were carried out. He identified his signatures on the verification memo dated 16.07.2015 (Ex. PW-6/C) at Point A on both the pages. He also identified his signatures on the handing over memo dated 16.07.2015 Ex. PW-6/D. He stated that dates appended below his CBI Case No. 237/2019 CBI vs. Faquir Chand Verma Page 25 of 33 signatures are in his handwriting. He further deposed that from the CBI office, he alongwith 6-7 CBI officers had left for Sarojini Nagar Market at about 12:00-12:30 PM. Before leaving for Sarojini Nagar Market, CBI officers had put the same currency notes which were brought by him after applying some powder in his left side pants pocket. At Babu Market area, Sarojini Nagar, the accused Faquir Chand Verma was sitting on a chair near his colleagues who were playing cards. He went to accused Faquir Chand Verma and put the powder applied currency notes in the left side pants pocket of the accused Faquir Chand Verma. The accused told him 'Ye Kya Kar Rahe Ho (what were you doing?)', then he replied that Sir, Ravinder had told him to give bribe to you. Ravinder was not there so he thought to give it directly to you. At that time, the CBI officers who had gone with him were present nearby and witnessed the transaction. Thereafter, the CBI officer rushed towards him and caught the accused wrist. Thereafter, the accused Faquir Chand Verma was taken to the CBI office. Thereafter, he was made to sit separate from the accused. He further deposed that after apprehending the accused Faquir Chand Verma, the bribe amount was recovered from his left side shirt pocket by CBI officers. Handwash of the accused Faquir Chand Verma was not taken at the spot after he was apprehended.
39. Notably, on the aspect of receipt of the money, the complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution. He deposed that the accused had not voluntarily received the bribe amount. He deposed that he put the notes in the left side pants CBI Case No. 237/2019 CBI vs. Faquir Chand Verma Page 26 of 33 pocket of the accused and the accused told him 'Ye Kya Kar Rahe Ho' (What were you doing?). Obviously, this court is not going to let off the accused merely for the reason that the complainant has seemingly favoured the accused. The court would obviously see the other evidence to find out whether there was voluntarily receipt/acceptance on the part of the accused. For this, the most important evidence to observe is the testimony of Brijpal Singh (independent witness), who was accompanying the complainant to the spot. He deposed that the complainant was given instruction by the TLO (Trap Laying Officer) Mr. Praveen Kumar that the money be handed over to the accused only when the accused demanded the same and he was instructed to be with the complainant and to watch and hear the conversation between the complainant and the accused. Then, the TLO Mr. Praveen Kumar asked the complainant to give them signal by wiping his face after the transaction was completed. Thereafter, the complainant and the accused spoke with each other. Then, the accused Faquir Chand Verma made the gesture to give money to him and also demanded the money orally. Thereafter, the complainant handed over the money to the accused Faquir Chand Verma. After handing over the money, the complainant gave the signal by wiping his face to the TLO Praveen Kumar and also gave the missed call from his mobile phone to the TLO Praveen Kumar.
Demand by Gesture:-
40. Importantly, the independent witness Brij Pal Singh deposed that the accused demanded the money by gesture and CBI Case No. 237/2019 CBI vs. Faquir Chand Verma Page 27 of 33 also demanded the money orally. He deposed that the complainant gave signal to the TLO by wiping his face and also gave the missed call to the TLO.
41. Now, this court shall look into the testimony of the Inspector Praveen in search of the corroboration to the testimony of the independent witness. Mr. Praveen Kumar deposed that the complainant went to the accused Faquir Chand Verma and the shadow witness followed him. The complainant after some conversation with the accused Faquir Chand Verma handed over the treated bribe amount and informed him by giving missed call on his phone number. Immediately, member of the trap team was alerted to reach at the spot of transaction. The DVR given to the complainant was taken by SI Vipul Sharma and was switched off.
42. It would thus be seen that the Inspector Praveen Kumar did not witness the complainant giving bribe to the accused as he had taken the position in a discrete manner and was waiting for signals. His deposition regarding the voluntarily receipt of the bribe amount is inadmissinle by hearsay evidence. Therefore, to corroborate the testimony of the shadow witness, this court has to go to the transcript of the recording done at the spot. The complainant in his deposition has identified the transcript, which accurately contained the conversation held between him and the accused. The part of the deposition that the transcription truly contains the conversation held between him and the accused at the time of trap finds corroboration from the testimony of the shadow witness Brij Pal Singh and the TLO CBI Case No. 237/2019 CBI vs. Faquir Chand Verma Page 28 of 33 Inspector Praveen Kumar. The transcript runs as under:-
"Ved Prakash : VP (Complainant) Faquir Chand: FC (Accused) VP: Verma Ji Sir FC: Sukesh ko de di, mere ko kyu fasa raha hai.
Stranger : Ram Ram.
FC: Aa Baith.
Unknown: Ha Bhai Ji.
FC: Ved Aa Ja.
FC: Mai Tere liye bitha raha hu banda. Tere liye bitha
raha hu banda.
Unknown: 'Gaali'. Teri jo EL gayi thi wo pass nahi ho rahi kya?
VP: Ek mahina ho rahi, teen mahine ho gaye. FC: Kyo? VP: Without pay kar rakhi sari. FC: Nahi, teri nahi hai. Unknown: Kaisi baat kar raha hai yaar? FC: Teri without nahi gayi hai. VP: Sir without hai sari ki sari. FC: Jo tujhe last di thi abhi usko wo kari hai without pay.
Nahi.......mai jo keh raha hu tumhe jo maine behji hai wo to mujhe pata hai na or tere ko to batayi thi na maine...chaar di thi...kya di thi. 3-4 thi. 4-5 thi. Nahi nahi jo lakar jo di thi tune mere ko abhi.
VP: (A-spasht) Unclear.
FC: Jo tune last di thi na mere ko, we thi without pay.
CBI Case No. 237/2019 CBI vs. Faquir Chand Verma Page 29 of 33
Baki sari with pay.
VP: To ab mat karna. Mere kehne ka matlab bus yahi hai.
Mai pareshan ho gaya teen mahine se.
FC: Baith na.
FC: (A-spasht)Unclear."
43. This transcript containing the recorded conversation between the complainant and the accused person on the day of trap i.e. 16.07.2015 has been proved by the complainant himself. The Trap Laying Officer (TLO) and the independent witnesses namely Brijpal have categorically deposed that the DVR was put in the pocket of the complainant in switch on mode, and the conversation between the complainant and the accused was recorded in the said DVR. The complainant has also stated that the conversation held between him and the accused was recorded at the time of trap. Therefore, this court can conveniently read the transcript to find out the acceptance. It is reiterated here that the complainant has deposed that the accused did not demand bribe money at the time of the trap and he himself put the money in the pocket of the accused despite his protest.
44. On the other hand, the independent witnesses, who were accompanying the complainant stated that the complainant and the accused spoke with each other and the accused Faqir Chand Verma made the gesture to give money to him and also demanded the money orally. If the money was demanded orally, then it should have been recorded in the memory card. The perusal of the transcript of conversation recorded in the memory CBI Case No. 237/2019 CBI vs. Faquir Chand Verma Page 30 of 33 card shows that there is not a single word from the accused demanding money from the complainant. They were talking about their leaves. They were talking about the arrangement for the work of the complainant. The accused is heard saying "Mai Tere Liye Bitha Raha Hu Banda". It means that a person was being arranged for the complainant. The accused was also heard saying that he had not endorsed his leave application as 'Without Pay' and only the last leave had been forwarded with remarks 'Without Pay'. Nothing was recorded in the DVR regarding any demand or acceptance. If the testimony of the independent witness is to be believed that the demand was made orally as well, then it should have come in the recording.
45. Further, it is argued by the Ld. Public Prosecution (CBI) that due to heavy traffic at the place of the incident, the demand of the accused could not be recorded. This submission of the prosecution can not be accepted as the transcript also contains the other conversation, which were exchanged at the same time and at the same spot. Further, the court can not assume the fact that due to the traffic, some relevant conversation could not be recorded and other irrelevant things were got recorded. Ld. Public Prosecution further argued that the complainant's version that the accused had protested, by saying that 'Ye Kya Kar Rahe Ho', while the complainant was putting the money in his pocket and the same has also not been recorded and therefore, the complainant evidence can not be relied upon. On this submission, it is to suffice to observe that this court is also searching for the other evidence to find out the culpability of the accused.CBI Case No. 237/2019 CBI vs. Faquir Chand Verma Page 31 of 33
46. Thus, there is no recording of any oral demand or acceptance. It makes the testimony of the independent witness namely Brijpal unbelievable as the same is in complete contradiction with the transcript. Further, the independent witnesses stated that the accused demanded money by gesture.
This remains to be the only piece of evidence against the accused person. The independent witness said that the demand was made by gesture as well as through words. Apparently, the words regarding the demand of bribe are missing in the transcript. Thus, the case is hinging upon the uncorroborated statement of the eye witness that the demand was made through gesture. Had it been the case, then the witness should have told this fact to the TLO and the same must have been recorded in the recovery memo (Ex. PW-6/E) (D-3). The recovery memo contains the facts occurred at the time of trap proceedings. The relevant extract of it is reproduced as follows:-
"On inquiry, the complainant informed that on demand of the accused, he handed over the tainted bribe amount of Rs. 1500/- to the accused, who accepted that with right hand and kept the bribe amount of Rs. 1500/- in left side pocket of his shirt. The shadow witness also corroborated the same".
47. There is nothing in the recovery memo that the demand was made through gesture. This court has also perused the statement of the independent witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C, wherein he did not tell anything that the accused demanded the money by way of gesture. The fact that the CBI Case No. 237/2019 CBI vs. Faquir Chand Verma Page 32 of 33 accused demanded money by way of gesture has been introduced for the first time in the court, and it seems that the same was made to cover up the case or to strengthen the prosecution case as the complainant had not supported the case of the prosecution. This is a clear improvement by the witness, and this improvement makes his testimony uncredible and unbelievable. Hence, the prosecution has completely failed to prove the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance under Section 7 of PC Act and the ingredients of obtainment under Section 13(1)
(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988. Accordingly, the present accused is acquitted for the offence under Setion 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
48. File be consigned to Record Room.
49. Let the copy of this judgment be uploaded on the server.
Pronounced and Dictated in Open Court today i.e 22nd December, 2025 Digitally signed RAJESH by RAJESH MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.12.22 17:52:34 +0530 (Rajesh Malik) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-14 Rouse Avenue District Court New Delhi CBI Case No. 237/2019 CBI vs. Faquir Chand Verma Page 33 of 33