Delhi District Court
State vs . Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 1 Of 39 on 3 December, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAROTTAM KAUSHAL,
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC Act)05, (ACB), (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Date of Institution : 04.03.2013
Date of reserving the Judgment : 22.11.2014
Date of pronouncing the Judgment : 03.12.2014
Corruption Case No. : 06/2013
FIR No. : 45/2008
Case Identification No. : 02401R0107222013
Police Station : Anti Corruption Branch
Under Section : 7, 8 & 13(i)(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act & 120 IPC
STATE
Versus
1 VIJENDER PAL SINGH
S/o Late Sh.Tika Ram
R/o H.No.106, DBlock,
Gali No.6, Khajuri Khas, Delhi
2 HARI KISHAN
s/o Late Sh.Chhuttan Lal,
r/o 31/30, Block A1, Sant Nagar,
Burari, Delhi
State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 1 of 39
2
3 RAM KISHORE
S/o Ghotu Ram,
V&PO Ladli ka Baas,
PSNagal Rajaotaan,
District Dosa, Rajasthan
4 RAVINDER
s/o Sh.Yaad Ram Singh
r/o V & POSunehra, PSKhegra,
DistBaghpat, Uttar Pradesh
5 MOHD. RASHID
S/o Mohd. Yunus,
R/o H.NO.301, Block D2, Nehru Vihar, Delhi94
JUDGMENT
1.1 Karnail Singh S/o Nannu Singh R/o E5/1, Dayalpur, Main Road, E Block, Rajiv Gali, Delhi94 lodged a complaint dated 20.12.2008 addressed to Additional C.P., PS ACB, Delhi. As per his complaint he was a TSR driver since 2003. He was plying four vehicles; two of which were registered in Delhi bearing registration number DL1RJ3596 and DL1R K2385, third TSR registered in UP bearing registration No. UP16J9423 and fourth vehicle was 'Appe' bearing registration No. DL1RL2245. He plied the vehicles in the area of Bhajanpura, Khajuri, Karawal Nagar, Gokalpuri, Seelampur and nearby areas. He possessed all the necessary documents for each of the four vehicles. Despite this, traffic police officials namely ZO/ASI Hari Kishan, Ct. Ravinder and Ct. Ram Kishore, who were stationed at Bhajanpura Chowk and SI Vijender Pal Singh of PS State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 2 of 39 3 Seelampur had been unnecessarily harassing him. They had been threatening to challan or impound his vehicle. He had met Traffic Police officials aforenamed and asked them, as to why he was being threatened; where as 80 to 90 TSRs registered in UP were plying in the area and the same were not being challaned. He also confronted them that they had been taking 'entry fee' from UP registered vehicles at the rate of Rs. 3400/ per vehicle. The amount was shared by Chauhan, Mullaji and Rashid in the shares of Rs. 1600/, Rs. 700/ and Rs. 1100/ respectively. At this they told him that other TSRs, Appe, etc were plying with their 'co operation' and that complainant should also seek their cooperation . Complainant asked him as to how he could get their cooperation. They told him that the only way to get their cooperation was to pay them on monthly basis, otherwise his vehicles would be challaned. Aforenamed Traffic Officials demanded Rs. 500/ per vehicle for Delhi registered vehicles and Rs. 1600/ per vehicle for UP registered vehicles. He then met SI Vijender pal Singh of PS Seelampur and asked him as to why his vehicles were being threatened to be impounded. At this SI Vijender Pal Singh told him that for parking his vehicles under the Seelampur flyover and for picking up passengers from that point he would have to pay Rs. 150/ p.m., like other vehicle owners were paying him. Police officials also started harassing the drivers of his vehicles. To expose the aforesaid police officials and their nexus, complainant went to PSACB, where he was advised to fix time and place for paying illegal gratification to those State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 3 of 39 4 officials. Complainant explained that the Traffic Police officials usually collected the monthly protection money through their touts and no time or date could be settled with the said touts. At this the officials of PSACB sent SI Ramesh Kumar with him for recording audio/video footage regarding the transaction of demand & acceptance, so as to expose the racket. Complainant then with help of his friend Raj Kumar conducted video recording of traffic officials namely ZO/ASI Hari Kishan, Ct. Ravinder and Ram Kishore of Traffic Police and SI Vijender Pal Singh of PS Seelampur and also their tout Rashid for the dates of 12.11.2008, 21.11.2008, 24.11.2008, 25.11.2008, 27.11.2008 and 28.11.2008. In the aforesaid sting operation Rashid had been recorded demanding Rs. 2,200/ per month for two vehicles registered in UP, footage of 21.11.2008 covered Ct. Ravinder demanding Rs. 400/ p.m. from him for Delhi registered vehicle, in the presence of ZO/ASI Hari Kishan. ASI Hari Kishan is also covered in the footage indicating Ct. Ravinder to accept Rs. 400/. In the footage of 25.11.2008 SI Vijender has been recorded accepting Rs. 100/ for Delhi registered vehicles. In the footage of 27.11.2008 Ct. Ram Kishore has been covered demanding Rs. 500/ per month per vehicle in the name of Traffic Inspector. In the footage of 28.11.2008 SI Vijender is covered accepting Rs. 50/ as balance amount from driver Daroga.
State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 4 of 39 5 1.2 On the complaint aforesaid, present FIR was registered. During investigation IO/Inspector M.C. Meena collected unedited CDs of the recording, and its transcript. He recorded the statements of witnesses. Accused persons were arrested. Their disclosure statements were recorded. Their posting details were collected. From the search of the accused Ravinder & Rashid one pocket diary each and some papers were recovered which were seized. The recovered diaries, documents and CDs were got analysed from FSL, Rohini. Sanction for prosecution of the public servants was sought. Finding sufficient material against the accused persons, challan was filed in the court for offences punishable u/s 7, 8 and 13 of PC Act r/w section 120B IPC.
2. Charge sheet was filed in the court on 4.3.2013. This court vide order dated 13.03.2013 took cognizance of offence punishable u/sec.7/8/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PC Act'). r/w section 120B IPC. Accused persons were summoned and provisions of section 207 Cr. P.C. were complied with. Vide order dated 16.07.2013, charge for offences punishable u/sec. 120B IPC, Sec. 7 PC Act r/w section 120B IPC, 13(i)(d) punishable u/s 13(2) PC Act r/w section 120B IPC and section 8 of PC Act r/w section 120B IPC was framed against all the accused persons. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 5 of 39 6 3.1 Prosecution in support of its case examined 22 witnesses. SI K.L. Meena (PW2) was the Duty Officer at PS ACB on 20.12.2008 from 8.00 AM to 8.00 PM. He recorded FIR No. 45/08 on receipt of a rukka from Inspector M.C. Meena. He proved the copy of FIR as Ex. PW2/A and his endorsement on the rukka as Ex. PW2/B. HC Jatinder Singh (PW6) was MHC(M) at PS Civil Line on 20.12.2008. Inspector M.C. Meena had deposited one sealed parcel with him on 20.12.2008. Jama Talashi articles of accused Mohd. Rashid were deposited on 5.1.2009. Inspector M.C. Meena deposited another sealed parcel on 16.6.2009. Two sealed parcels were handed over by the MHC(M) to HC Suraj Pal on 29.07.2009 for being carried to FSL, Rohini. HC Suraj Pal (PW5) deposed that he collected two parcels from MHC(M) on 29.7.2009 and deposited the same at FSL. Both the witnesses deposed that parcels were not tampered with, during the period the same remained in their custody. 3.2 Qazi AtaurRehman (PW17) was a panch witness to recording of voice sample of of complainant and accused persons namely SI Vijender Pal Singh, Ct. Ravinder, Ct. Ram Kishore and Mohd. Rashd. He has deposed that all the four persons were taken to FSL, Rohini by the IO M.C. Meena, where their voice samples were recorded on different cassettes. Dr. C.P. Singh (PW1) analysed the voice samples of the accused persons and the complainant with CDs containing the sting operation. He submitted his report opining that sample voice of State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 6 of 39 7 complainant and accused Mohd. Rashid matched with their indicated voices in the CD of sting operation; whereas voices of remaining accused persons were opined by him to be 'possibly/ probably' matching with their sample voices. He, however, opined that there was no indication of any alteration in the audio recordings. Inspector Rattan Pal Singh (PW15) identified accused Hari Kishan, Ravinder and Ram Kishore in CD Ex. P1 and also identified their voices in the CD. He deposed that all the three had remained posted under his control, when he was Inspector, Traffic Circle Seelampur.
3.3 Naresh Chand (PW9) was a panch witness to arrest of accused Mohd. Rashid on 5.1.2009. Vinod Kumar (PW20) was a panch witness to arrest and disclosure statement of accused SI Vijender Pal Singh and accused Ct. Ram Kishore.
3.4 Naresh Chand (PW9) was a witness to the recovery of pocket diary and certain documents from the possession of accused Mohd. Rashid, which were seized vide seizure memos Ex. PW9/C and Ex.PW8/H. Complainant Karnail Singh (PW8) is a witness to arrest of Ct. Ravinder, his disclosure statement, recovery of pocket diary and certain documents from his possession which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/C. Ct. Ravinder Singh (PW10) collected these documents from MHC(M) on 19.8.2009 and deposited the same at FSL, State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 7 of 39 8 Rohini for analysis. Deepak Verma (PW14) Assistant Director, FSL, Rohini examined the documents and submitted his report Ex. PW14/A, opining that hand writing of questioned documents Q5 to Q9 matched with the specimen hand writing of accused Mohd. Rashid. 3.5 Ct. Sheikh Sattar (PW3) was posted as Munshi at Traffic Circle Seelampur. He handed over Duty Roaster of traffic staff namely ASI Hari Kishan, Ct. Ravinder and Ct. Ram Kishore to the IO, for the dates of 12.11.2008, 21.11.2008, 24.11.2008, 25.11.2008, 27.11.2008 and 28.11.2008. All the aforesaid were posted at Bhajanpura Chowk on the dates above noted. Ct. Ram Kishore was, however, on chitha arrangement on 12.11.2008. Ct. Jai Kishan (PW11) is a witness to seizure of Duty Roaster produced by Ct. Sheikh Sattar.
3.6. Umesh Kumar (PW12) was Additional DCP, PCR, General Administration. He proved sanction u/s 19 PC Act for prosecution of accused ASI Hari Kishan, Ct. Ram Kishore and Ct. Ravinder. Surender Singh Yadav (PW13) was DCP (North East ). He proved sanction u/s 19 of the PC Act for prosecution of accused SI Vijender Pal Singh. 3.7 Complainant Karnail Singh (PW8) has deposed that he along with SI Ramesh (PW4) filmed the accused persons demanding and accepting bribe from him at Bhajanpura chowk and under the State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 8 of 39 9 Seelampur fly over on the dates 12.11.2008, 21.11.2008, 24.11.2008, 25.11.2008, 27.11.2008 and 28.11.2008. He had identified the audio/video recordings Ex. P1 and P2. He has also deposed about recovery of pocket diary Ex. P3 and two sheets of paper Ex. P4 from accused Ct. Ravinder. He has also proved pocket diary Ex. P5, visiting card Ex. P6, paper slip Ex. P7 and paper sheet Ex. P8 to have been recovered from the possession of accused Rashid. In addition to identifying the accused persons in the CDs demanding and accepting bribe from him. He has also deposed that he was having four TSRs. He used to drive one of them and other three were driven by his drivers. His vehicles plied between Bhajanpura to Karawal Nagar via Gokalpuri, Seelampur and Yamuna Vihar etc. Accused Rashid demanded bribe from him for permitting to ply the TSRs on the aforesaid route. The demanded amount was Rs. 3400/ per month for vehicle registered in UP and Rs. 600/ per month per vehicle in Delhi. The amount was demanded for police officials. Complainant offered Rs. 400/ to him for the police officials, which he declined to accept as the amount was less than the demand. Accused Mohd. Rashid asked him to pay the amount directly to the traffic police officials. Witness has then deposed that he paid Rs. 400/ to accused Ct. Ravinder. He paid Rs. 100/ to accused SI Vijender on his demand, who promised that his drivers will not be beaten any more for parking vehicles on the Seelampur crossing. The witness paid the amount through his driver Daroga. He has further deposed that he met State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 9 of 39 10 accused Mohd. Rashid and sought his consent for permitting him to ply the vehicles on Bhajanpura to Karawal Nagar route and also asked him the amount to be paid to the police. He demanded Rs. 3400/ per vehicle and settled at Rs. 2200/ per vehicle. On being cross examined by Ld. PP he stated that ASI Hari Kishan, Ct. Ravinder and Ct. Ram Kishore ( all the accused persons) were deputed at PS Bhajanpura Chowk and accused SI Vijender Pal Singh at PS Seelampur. All used to harras him without any cause and used to threaten him of issuance of challans or to impound his vehicles. They had demanded to pay monthly protection money to them, failing which challan would be issued against his vehicles. He also stated that ASI Hari Kishan, Ct. Ravinder and Ct. Ram Kishore demanded from him Rs. 500/ per month in respect of Delhi registered vehicles and Rs. 1600/ per month in respect of UP registered vehicles, as protection money for permission to ply them. He also deposed that accused SI Vijender Pal Singh of PS Seelampur had threatened to impound his vehicle and had demanded Rs. 100/ per month per vehicle as protection money for permitting him to park the vehicle under Seelampur fly over and to pick up passengers, from there. Witness has further proved the CDs Ex. P1 and Ex. P2 and their contents.
3.8 Virender Kumar @ Daroga ( PW19) was cited and examined as witness by the prosecution to prove demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused persons from him, in his capacity as driver on the State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 10 of 39 11 vehicles of Karnail Singh (PW8). The witness has not supported the prosecution case in finer details. Nevertheless, he has deposed that accused SI Vijender Pal Singh objected to parking of vehicles under Seelampur flyover. Accused had given him beatings and wind shield of his TSR. He had brought this fact to the knowledge of complainant Karnail Singh, who went and spoke to the accused and on his return told him that he had paid some money to accused Vijender Pal Singh. Raj Kumar (PW16) is another witness, who has not fully supported the prosecution case. However, from his testimony it can be discerned that he went with the complainant to PS ACB in the context of harassment and demand of bribe by officials of Traffic Police posted at Bhajanpura chowk. He has also deposed that complainant was plying four vehicles.
4. ACP M.C. Meena (PW21), Inspector V.K. Singh (PW18) and Inspector Manoj (PW22) have remained as Investigating Officers of the present case. They have proved among themselves preparation of rukka, registration of FIR, arrest of accused persons, recording of their disclosure statements, recovery of pocket diary and documents and seeking grant of sanction for prosecution etc.
5. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons and statements of accused persons u/s 313 Cr. P.C. were recorded. Accused persons stated the FIR to be false and illegal. They denied audio/video State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 11 of 39 12 recordings by complainant Karnail Singh at Bhajanpura traffic signal and Seelampur traffic signal on 12.11.2008, 21.11.2008, 24.11.2008, 25.11.2008, 27.11.2008 and 28.11.2008. Preparation of CDs of the audio/video recordings and transcript was stated to be incorrect. Safe custody of case property and transmission to FSL was denied for want of knowledge. Sanction for prosecution was stated to be invalid. Demand of bribe in conspiracy with each other was denied. It was disputed that Karnail singh plied four TSRs on the route from Bhajanpura to Karawal Nagar. Ct. Ram Kishore claimed to be on Haj Yatra arrangement duty from 1.11.2008 to 20.11.2008. Supplementary statement of accused persons were recorded on 3.11.2014. They denied having entered into criminal conspiracy with each other to demand and accept bribe from drivers/owners of commercial vehicles for permitting them to ply in the area under their jurisdiction and for permitting them to pick up passengers from under the Seelampur flyover. They denied having demanded or accepted any bribe from Karnail Singh or from his drivers in furtherance of aforesaid criminal conspiracy. Recovery of diaries, papers slips, etc. Ex. P3 to Ex. P8 from accused Ct. Ravinder, and Mohd. Rashid were disputed. Comparison and matching of hand writing in Ex. P5 to Ex. P8 with admitted hand writing of accused Mohd. Rashid was disputed. Accused Ct. Ravinder and Mohd. Rashid sought opportunity to lead defence evidence, but vide subsequent statements dated 19.8.2014 declined to lead any defence evidence. State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 12 of 39 13 6.1 Shri B.B.Bhasin, Ld. Additional PP has very fairly not disputed the law laid down in Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K.Basheer reported as Manu/SC/0834/2014's case, with respect to admissibility of CDs Ex. P1 and Ex. P2. Nonavailability of original recordings and certification u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act of the copy is not disputed. He has, however, submitted that from the oral testimony of complainant Karnail Singh (PW8), Raj Kumar (PW16) and Virender Kumar @ Daroga (PW19), there is ample evidence of conspiracy between the accused persons for demand and acceptance of protection money from complainant, for permitting him to ply his vehicles unauthorisedly and for letting him park his vehicles under the Seelampur flyover. Ld. Additional P.P. has heavily rested upon the contents of the recovered pocket diaries and papers from the possession of accused Ct. Ravinder and Mohd. Rashid. It is argued that the recovered documents and their contents shall be read in evidence, against each of the accused persons. Referring to Duty Roaster Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B, it is argued that accused Hari Kishan, Ravinder and Ram Kishore were posted at the same traffic signal and had ample opportunity to speak to each other and form conspiracy. 6.2 Explaining the delay in registering the FIR, it is argued by Sh.Bhasin that in conspiracy cases, preliminary & informal enquiries are necessary to be conducted before formal investigation on registration of FIR . Reliance has been placed upon law laid down in M.Rangarajulu State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 13 of 39 14 Naidu & Ors. Vs. State reported as AIR 1958 MAD 368. Referring to sec.10 of the Indian Evidence Act, it has been argued that pocket diaries and documents recovered from Mohd. Rashid and accused Ct. Ravinder shall be read against all the accused persons. Reliance has been placed upon law laid down in Bhagwandas Keshwani & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan reported as AIR 1974 SC 898 and Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported as AIR 1965 SC 682. 7.1 Sh.R.S.Singhal, Sh.Yogesh Verma & Sh.M.S.Khan, ld. defence counsels have strongly refuted the case of the prosecution. It is argued that there is no admissible evidence against the accused persons. Electronic evidence in the shape of CD containing the alleged sting operation can not be read in evidence. Two of the material witnesses cited by the prosecution in support of the complainant's testimony namely Rajkumar (PW16) and Virender Kumar (PW19) have not supported the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. Complainant Karnail Singh (PW8) himself has not made any statement regarding demand of bribe by the accused persons. He has merely identified them in CD Ex.P1. Complaint Ex.PW8/A does not mention the date, month or year of demand. Statement of complainant without corroboration can not be read. Reliance has been placed upon, Panna Lal Damodar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported as AIR 1979 SC 1191. Sh.R.S.Singhal has, further, argued that for establishing charge of State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 14 of 39 15 conspiracy, all incriminating circumstances have to be established beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances ought to form a complete chain and prosecution is required to prove that there is no hypothesis indicating the innocence of accused persons. Reliance has been placed upon P.K. Narayanan Vs. State of Kerela reported as (1995) 1 Supreme Court Cases 142.
7.2 Sh. Yogesh Verma, ld. counsel for accused Ram Kishore Meena & Ravinder Singh has argued that there is no evidence of recovery of GC notes from the possession of any of the accused. There is no explanation as to why FIR was not registered for a period of more than one month from the date of recording of first sting operation. Pocket diary & documents allegedly recovered from accused Ravinder Singh have not been proved to be in his hand writing and, therefore, can not be read against him or any other accused. Moreover, there is no investigation on the contents of diary, which allegedly record some Registration numbers and some names. None of such persons was associated in investigation, which establishes that the IO has not conducted fair investigation. The registration number of the vehicles mentioned in those documents could have led to the owners of the vehicles. There is no evidence of any demand made by accused Ct. Ram Kishore.
State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 15 of 39 16 7.3 Sh.Khan has argued that there is no evidence of Mohd. Rashid meeting any of the other accused persons. There was no occasion for him to have conspired with the others. There is also no evidence that accused had demanded bribe on behalf of the police officials. 8 Sh.B.B.Bhasin, Ld. Addl. PP for the State in rebuttal arguments has submitted that failure of the IO to investigate contents of diary, recovered from the accused persons, can not be said to be fatal to prosecution case. It is at the most an irregularity by the IO. Relying upon the law laid down in Leela Ram Vs. State of Haryana reported as AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3717, it is argued that irregularity by the IO can not be treated as a ground to reject the prosecution case. Referring to the recovery of diary from accused Ct. Ravinder, it is argued that accused has not given any explanation for recovery of the diary & documents and the contents thereof. There is no suggestion during the examination of witnesses, or even in the statement u/sec.313 Cr.P.C. that the diary & documents were planted upon him. The fact of hand writing not matching with the hand writing of accused would not absolve him of the consequences of recovery.
9.1 I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the State & Ld. Defence Counsels and with their assistance perused the evidence on record & the judgments relied upon.
State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 16 of 39 17 9.2.1 Before adverting to the evidence in detail, it shall be appropriate to discuss the evidentiary value of sting operation contained in CD Ex.P1 & Ex.P2. Complaint Karnail Singh (PW8) has deposed that he had been provided recording devices by the Officials of PSACB. On each day, after recording, he had handed over the device to SI Ramesh Kumar. SI Ramesh Kumar (PW4) has deposed that he got issued the audio & video recording devices from SO Branch on each of the six dates and on return, he had deposited the same in SO Branch. SI Karnail Singh (PW7), on being crossexamined by Sh.R.S.Singhal, Adv., deposed that video recordings contained in devices were played on each day in the office computer. Similarly, audio recordings were also played on each day. Computer containing the recordings was operated by him. In his examination in chief, he deposed that CDs were prepared on 20.12.2008 in the presence of complainant in the office computer. Complainant, in his crossexamination by Sh.R.S.Singhal, Adv., deposed that CDs were not played on 20.12.2008. None of the IOs, examined by the prosecution, has made any statement with respect to number of recording devices, their safe custody, their seizure or the fact of transferring data from recording devices to the computer and preparation of CDs of the said data. 9.2.2 From the evidence as noticed above; there is a complete vacuum, as regards the evidence of contents of recording devices being transferred to the computer and their sanctity. Infact, none of the State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 17 of 39 18 witnesses has deposed about the transfer of the data from the recording devices to the computer. SI Karnail Singh (PW7) has only deposed about playing contents on computer operated by him. He has further deposed that CDs were made from the contents of the computer on 20.12.2008, in the presence of complainant. Complainant has not made any such statement. There is, also, no evidence, as to what were the technical configuration of the recording devices and whether the same could be manipulated to add or delete some portions. There is no evidence that the entire recorded contents, without tampering, were transferred to the computer. There is also no evidence that from 12.11.208 to 20.12.2008, no other person operated the computer. There is no evidence that SI Karnail Singh was in exclusive use and possession of the said computer. There is also no evidence whether the contents of recordings had remained in the recording devices or whether the same were erased. Admittedly, the recording devices were neither seized and analysed by FSL nor produced before the Court. There is neither any oral testimony, nor a formal certificate as envisaged u/sec.65/B of Indian Evidence Act. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the CDs Ex.P1 & Ex.P2 allegedly containing the sting operation are hit by the law laid down in Anvar P.V.'s case (Supra), wherein it was held as under: "Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and 65A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 18 of 39 19 prescribed under Section 65B. Section 65B deals with the admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these provisions is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a computer. It may be noted that the Section starts with a non obstante clause. Thus, notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer shall be deemed to be a document only if the conditions mentioned under subsection (2) are satisfied, without further proof or production of the original. The very admissibility of such a document i.e. electronic record which is called as computer output, depends on the satisfaction of the four conditions under Section 65B(2). Following are the specified conditions u/sec.65B(2) of the Indian Evidence Act:
(i) The electronic record containing the information should have been produced by the computer, during the period over, which the same was regularly used to store or process information for the purpose of any activity regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of that computer;
(ii) The information of the kind contained in electronic record or of the kind from, which the information is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity;
(iii) During the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly and that even if it was not operating properly for some time, the break or breaks had not affected either the record or the accuracy of its contents; and State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 19 of 39 20
(iv) The information contained in the record should be a reproduction or derivation from the information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity. U/sec.65 (4) of the Indian Evidence Act, if it is desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an electronic record, it is permissible provided the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) There must be a certificate, which identifies the electronic record containing the statement;
(b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced;
(c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device involved in the production of that record;
(d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned u/sec.65 B(2) of the Indian Evidence Act; and
(e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device."
This court, is therefore, of the firm opinion that CDs Ex.P1 & Ex.P2 have no evidenciary value and can not be read. I shall, therefore, avoid any discussion of the contents of CDs.
10 Having discarded the prime piece of evidence relied upon by the prosecution, the case now rests upon the oral testimony of Karnail Singh (PW8), Raj Kumar (PW16), Virender Kumar (PW19) and other circumstantial evidence viz recovery of pocket diaries and other State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 20 of 39 21 documents from accused Mohd. Rashid & accused Ct. Ravinder. 11.1 To appriciate the evidence, I shall split the case in two parts. I shall first deal with the evidence that has come up for offences under POC Act and subsequently discuss the evidence that has come up for offences punishable u/sec.120B of IPC. Complainant Karnail Singh (PW8) has deposed that he was plying three TSRs & one Appe in the area of Bhajanpura, Seelampur, Yamuna Vihar, etc. Accused Mohd. Rashid used to demand bribe money from him for permitting to ply the vehicles on those routes. He demanded the amount for being paid to Police Officials. He went to hand over the amount demanded by him for Police officials and offered Rs. 400/ to him. Accused Mohd. Rashid declined to accept the same as the amount was less than the demand and asked him to pay the amount directly to officials of Traffic Police. He, then, met accused SI Vijender Pal, who demanded Rs.100/ as bribe and promised that his drivers will not be beaten for parking the vehicle on the Seelampur Crossing. Complainant was not carrying the money, therefore, his driver Daroga paid Rs.50/ to him. He has deposed that Mohd. Rashid demanded Rs.3,400/ per vehicle for permitting him to operate on the route of BhajanpuraKarawal Nagar and had settled at Rs.2,200/ per vehicle. On being crossexamined by Ld. Chief Prosecutor, he had deposed that he was possessing complete documents of his vehicles but accused persons namely ASI Hari Kishan, Ct. Ravinder and Ct. Ram State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 21 of 39 22 Kishore, who were posted as officials of Traffic Police at Bhajanpura Chowk used to harass and threaten him of issuance of challan and impounding of his vehicle. He also stated that they told him that he shall have to pay monthly protection money to them otherwise challans will be issue against his vehicle. ASI Hari Kishan, Ct. Ravinder & Ct. Ram Kishore demanded Rs.500/ per month in respect of Delhi registered vehicle and Rs. 1,600/ per month in respect of UP registered vehicle, as protection money for permission to ply in their area. Accused Vijender had also demanded Rs.100/ per month per vehicle. The witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsels. His testimony was sought to be challenged on the ground that he did not possess ownership proof of the vehicles and that he did not possess the details of drivers engaged by him. He explained that the vehicles were registered in the names of financers, who resumed the same on his inability to replay the loans. He denied that he was not possessing four vehicles. He denied that bribe was not demanded from him by the Police officials.
11.2 Other Prosecution witness cited by the prosecution to corroborate complainant's version namely Rajkumar (PW16) and Virender (PW19) have not deposed even a single word regarding demand and acceptance of bribe by any of the accused persons. They were both crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP but did not support the prosecution case, as regards the material aspect of demand and acceptance of bribe. State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 22 of 39 23 11.3 The oral testimony of complainant Karnail Singh, as discussed above, regarding demand & acceptance of bribe by the accused persons has, thus, remained uncorroborated. Two witnesses, who as per prosecution case, were present at the time of such demands and acceptance have not supported the prosecution on this count. Electronic evidence in the shape of sting operation contained in CD Ex.P1 & Ex.P2 has already been discarded by this court as discussed in para no.9.2 above. It is, ofcource, not the case of the prosecution that the GC notes handed over to accused persons were applied phenolphthalein powder or that their serial numbers had been noted. It is also not the case of the prosecution that those GC notes were recovered from the possession of accused persons. It is, thus, only the words of complainant, which is the sole evidence against the accused persons. Uncorroborated testimony of complainant is ofcourse not sufficient to hold the accused persons guilty. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Panna Lal Damodar's case (Supra) relied upon by the Ld. Defence Counsels. I, therefore, hold that prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charge of demand & acceptance of bribe or abetment thereof. Thus, the charges for offences punishable u/sec.7, 8 & 13 of the PC Act has failed. All accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt and they are acquitted of the charge for offences punishable u/sec.7, 8 & 13 of the PC Act.
State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 23 of 39 24 12.1 I shall now discuss the evidence as regards the charge for offence punishable u/sec. 120B of IPC against accused Mohd. Rashid and the three accused persons i.e. officials of Traffic Police namely Ct. Ram Kishore, Ct. Ravinder & ASI Hari Kishan.
12.2 Evidence to prove conspiracy is usually not direct. It has to be gathered from circumstances and the conduct of parties. However, in the present case, there is oral testimony of complainant Karnail Singh, who has testified that there was a conspiracy among the accused persons for demand of bribe. He has deposed that accused Mohd. Rashid demanded bribe from him on behalf of officials of Traffic Police. He has, subsequently, also named ASI Hari Kishan, Ram Kishore and Ravinder to be those Traffic Police officials for whom Mohd. Rashid was demanding bribe and they were posted at Bhajanpura Chowk. Posting of the aforesaid three Traffic Police officials at Bhajanpura Chowk was corroborated by their duty roaster Ex.PW3/B. Inspector Ratan Pal (PW15) has also deposed that the three aforesaid accused persons were under his control and were posted at Bhajanpura Chowk. Ct. Ram Kishore's case that he was on Haj Duty from 01.11.2008 to 20.11.2008 was not put to any witness. This was a stand taken in statement u/sec.313 Cr.P.C. but no evidence was lead to prove this. Ct. Shaik Sattar (PW3) has discounted his presence for only one day i.e. 12.11.2008. Thus, there is sufficient evidence to indicate that they had ample opportunity to State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 24 of 39 25 physically meet each other and discuss issues. Complainant Karnail Singh (PW8), on being crossexamined by Ld. Chief Prosecutor, deposed that aforesaid three accused persons posted at Bhajanpura Chowk used to threaten to impound his vehicles. He also deposed that they told him that he could ply the vehicles only with their 'cooperation'. He has, however, deposed that no time, date & place could be fixed to hand over bribe to them as they collected the monthly protection money through their touts. This witness has, in the initial part of his testimony, deposed that Mohd. Rashid had demanded money from him on behalf of the Traffic Police Officials. He has also deposed that he offered amount lesser than demand to Mohd. Rashid, who refused to accept the same and prompted him to pay directly to the officials of Traffic Police. This part of his testimony is corroborated by the later conduct of the complainant, who personally went for handing over money to officials of Traffic Police. Witness was crossexamined at length by ld. defence counsels, who challenged his testimony on the ground that he was not possessing the number of vehicles claimed by him and that he was himself not driving any vehicle. In the crossexamination conducted by Sh.R.S.Singhal, Adv., it was suggested to him that he had offered his services as tout to accused Hari Kishan, which accused had declined. It was also suggested to him that he was a tout for the previous Zonal Officer Meena Naidu. From this line of crossexamination, it can be gathered that role of & presence touts in Traffic Circles is not disputed. It was also suggested to him by State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 25 of 39 26 Sh.M.S.Khan, Adv. that he was deposing falsely because of rivalry in the business of plying Autos. None of the Ld. Defence Counsels has even remotely suggested that there was no nexus between the accused Traffic Officials and accused Mohd. Rashid. There, in fact, is no cross examination as regards the charge of criminal conspiracy. 12.3 Raj Kumar (PW16) might not have supported the prosecution case on material aspects; however, he has deposed that complainant Karnail Singh was plying five vehicles and he was facing problem with officials of Traffic Police at Bhajanpura. He along with complainant went to PSACB on 20.11.2008, 21.11.2008, 24.11.2008 & 25.11.2008, as Karnail Singh wanted to make complaint as regards the demand of bribe by officials of Traffic Police for plying Auto Rickshaws. He has further deposed that Karnail Singh had advised him to make Audio Video Recordings of demand of bribe by officials of Traffic Police and he had made such audio video recordings. As a consequence of the aforesaid audio video recordings, accused persons were arrested. The above noticed part of testimony of this witness was not shaken in the crossexamination. The evidence of this witness is extremely relevant to establish the conduct of complainant. The witness, therefore, corroborates the testimony of complainant to the extent that he was plying some vehicles in the area of Bhajanpura Chowk and he made a complaint at PSACB against Traffic Police officials regarding demand of State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 26 of 39 27 bribe by them. Further, he audio video recorded the transaction between such Police Officials, as a result whereof, accused persons were arrested. I am conscious of the fact the vide recording is inadmissible evidence, but the fact of recording having been done is admissible. 13.1 In addition to the two aforesaid oral testimonies, the circumstances of recovery of diaries and documents from the possession of accused Mohd. Rashid & Ct. Ravinder is a material piece of evidence. Diary Ex.P5 recovered from the possession of accused Mohd. Rashid, which is in his own handwriting records at page no.2, some 4 digits numbers & some amounts against each number. Paper slip Ex.P7 also contains similar 4 digit numbers written on it and amount written against them. Ex.P8 seems to to be a statement of account. The amounts mentioned i.e. Rs.1,600/, Rs.500/ match with amounts. Karnail Singh (PW8) has deposed to have been demanded from by him for UP registered vehicles & Delhi registered vehicles, respectively. No explanation has been tendered by the accused as regards the contents of these documents. Apparently, this is a record of registration number of vehicles and amounts collected from them. Private person can have no reason to make a record of registration number of vehicles and also indicate the amount; unless, he is making a record of the amount collected by him from the owners of vehicles whose registration number has been written. This circumstance of recovery of diary & proper slips State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 27 of 39 28 containing registration number & amounts, when read with the oral testimony of complainant Karnail Singh (PW8) completes the chain of circumstances against the accused persons. I draw support from the law laid down in Bhagwandas Keshwani & Anr.'s case (Supra) that these documents, which have been recovered from the possession of one of the accused persons shall be read against all the conspirators. Similarly, the paper sheet Ex.P4 recovered from accused Ravinder bears details of registration numbers, time and make/ model of the vehicles. It also records the traffic rule violated. It is, thus, established that this was a paper slip maintained by a Traffic Police official. The second sheet of Ex.P4 records certain names & amount indicated against it. It also indicates at some places the make/ model of vehicles as TSR, RTV, SKV, LGV, UP TSR, etc. There is also no explanation tendered by this witness, as regards the purpose of maintaining such record. He has also not explained as to how the documents, which are not in his own hand writing, were found in his possession. In my opinion, this is also a piece of evidence, which forms an important link in the chain of circumstances to be read against the accused persons.
13.2 Moreover, the diary Ex.P3 recovered from the accused Ct. Ravinder, on one of its pages specifically records the name of complainant Karnail Singh & registration number of his Appe Vehicle bearing no.2245 and also the area of operation i.e. Bhajanpura. There is, State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 28 of 39 29 thus, apparent connection in the diary recovered from accused Ravinder, qua the complainant; for which no explanation has been tendered. This diary has a record of several numbers in 34 digits, bearing codewords as Paper, Mawa, Doodh, Bread, etc.. Elsewhere, in the diary, it is written as UP Auto350, Delhi Auto20. There are amounts/ numbers mentioned against vehicles or names of persons. All this information recorded in documents recovered from the possession of a traffic police official indicates it to be record of transactions with the owners of vehicles whose numbers or name are mentioned. Sheets of paper Ex.P4 records certain names, description of vehicles and figure, which is apparently amount. As observed above, failure of the accused to explain this record is a strong piece of evidence against him & his coaccused persons. 13.3 Argument of ld. defence counsels that IO has misconducted by not examining the owners of vehicles whose registration numbers are indicated in these documents can not be said to be fatal to the case of prosecution. As noticed above, name of Karnail Singh and registration number of one of his vehicles is mentioned in the diary Ex.P3. He is, thus, one of those persons and has explained as to why his name figures in diary. Further, the irregularity or poor investigation by the IO can not open escape route for the persons against whom, he has collected sufficient evidence. Reliance has been righly placed by Ld. Addl. PP on Leela Ram's case (supra). Similar view was also taken by the Hon'ble State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 29 of 39 30 Supreme Court in Visvesran Vs. State reported as 2003 Rajdhani Law Reporter 350 (SC). It may not be out of place to mention here that recovery of pocket diaries and paper sheets from the possession of accused persons have not been disputed by the defence, as there is no crossexamination on the point of recovery. I, thus, hold from the evidence as noticed above that the oral testimony of Karnail Singh (PW8), statement of Raj Kumar (PW16) and the factum of recovery of pocket diaries and documents complete the chain of evidence against officials of Traffic Police and Mohd. Rashid, regarding conspiracy between them to charge protection money from the owners of commercial vehicles plying in their area, which is an offence under various provisions of PC Act.
13.4 The direct evidence in the shape of testimony of Karnail Singh (PW8), supported by the oral testimony of Raj Kumar (PW16) and the circumstances as noticed above establish beyond reasonable doubt that all the four above named accused persons had formed a criminal conspiracy. There is no hypothesis of innocence of the accused persons, which may disprove the conspiracy. Reliance upon P.K. Narayanan's case (supra) by the defence is misplaced. I, therefore, hold that all the aforesaid accused persons namely ASI Hari Kishan, Ct. Ravinder, Ct. Ram Kishore Meena and Mohd. Rashid are guilty of the offence punishable u/s 120B IPC, for demanding and accepting State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 30 of 39 31 bribe/protection money from complainant Karnail Singh, who was plying commercial vehicles in the area of Bhajanpura etc. 14.1 Another argument raised by Ld. Defence counsels is that there were certain other officials also posted in the same circle, who have not been named by the complainant. I do not find any merit in this argument. The fact that they have not been named by the complainant indicates that they were probably not a part of the conspiracy. The accused persons have chosen not to crossexamine the complainant, as regards the deployment of such other persons at Bhajanpura Crossing or of their involvement in the present case. The argument is, thus, not borne out from the facts on record. Alternatively, it can be read to establish the honesty of complaint, who has not named the other officials, as there was no such demand by them.
14.2 It has also been argued by ld. defence counsels that complainant has not proved his ownership rights qua 4 vehicles. This argument also does not cut ice with this court. During crossexamination by Sh.Yogesh Verma, Adv. complainant stated that accused Hari Kishan had once challaned one of his vehicles. The fact of accused plying commercial vehicles in the area of Bhajanpura has also been deposed by Rajkumar (PW16). He was not given any suggestion that accused did not own or ply commercial vehicles. Similarly, Virender Kumar @ Daroga State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 31 of 39 32 (PW19) also deposed that he was driving one of the TSRs of the complainant Karnail Singh. He denied the suggestion that complainant Karnail Singh did not own any TSR. Dairy Ex.P3 recovered from the possession of accused, Ct. Ravinder records the name of complainant & registration number of one his vehicles. Sh.M.S.Khan, Adv. has suggested to Karnail Singh (PW8) that case is a consequence of rivalry in auto rickshaw driver. I, therefore, reject the argument of ld. defence counsels that for want of documentary proof of ownership of vehicle, he is not a competent witness to depose about demand of bribe made by Police Officials or conspiracy with a tout. Even if, this argument was to be accepted, the defence has itself suggested to Karnail Singh (PW8) that he was a tout to Smt. Meena Naidu previous Zonal Officer (Traffic) and that he had offered his services as a tout to accused ASI Hari Kishan, who was the then ZO.
14.3 Ld. defence counsels have also challenged the case of the prosecution on the fundamental principles of criminal law. It is argued that there is delay of more than one month in lodging of FIR, from the date of first complaint made by the complainant. Complainant had gone to PS ACB for the first time prior to 12.11.2013 and his formal complaint was lodged on 20.12.2008 which culminated into FIR No. 45/2008. The argument does seem impressive at the first cut. However, the argument of Ld. Additional PP withers down the doubt created. It has been State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 32 of 39 33 explained that complaint was against public servants and that to regarding a conspiracy among them and a private person. The allegations of conspiracy, as well, as the allegations of corruption against public servants require preliminary enquiry and satisfaction of the Investigating Agency before lodging of the FIR. It is in this context that complainant was advised to record the transactions and then after analysing the recordings, the FIR was registered. Dealing with this aspect the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in M Rangarajulu Naidu's case (supra) held as under: In other words, in conspiracy cases a policeman passes through three stages: hears some tilling of interest affecting the public security and which puts him on the alert; makes discreet enquiries, takes soundings and sets up informants and is in the second stage of qui vive or lookout; and finally gathers sufficient information enabling him to bite upon something definite and that is the stage when first information is recorded and when investigation starts. Similarly in Lalita Kumari Versus Government of UP and others (Writ petition (Criminal) 68/2008) decided on 12.11.2013 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed that before lodging of FIR for offences punishable under POC Act a preliminary enquiry ought to be conducted. I, therefore, find no reasons to doubt authenticity of FIR as the allegations involved angle of conspiracy as well as charges of State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 33 of 39 34 corruption against public servants. The argument of ld. defence counsels is, therefore, rejected.
15. I shall now deal with the Charge of conspiracy between the accused Mohd. Rashid & SI Vijender Pal Singh. Karnail Singh (PW8) has deposed that SI Vijender Pal Singh had demanded Rs.100/ for permitting him to park his vehicle under the Seelampur FlyOver and pick up passengers from there. He used to break the windshield of the vehicle, which was parked under the Seelampur Flyover. This witness has, however, not deposed that accused Mohd. Rashid acted as a tout for Vijender. Virender Kumar @ Daroga (PW19) has deposed about the incident of accused objecting to parking of vehicle under the FlyOver, breaking of the wind shield and giving beatings to him. However, he has also not deposed about any relation between Mohd. Rashid & Vijender Pal Singh. The alleged action of breaking wind shield can be explained to be towards discouraging unauthorised parking of vehicles. No other circumstance has been pointed out by the prosecution, which can be read with respect to conspiracy between Mohd. Rashid with respect to conspiracy between Mohd. Rashid & Vijender Pal Singh. Therefore, the charges for offence punishable u/sec.120B of IPC is not proved against the accused SI Vijender Pal Singh. He is, therefore, acquitted of this charge also.
State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 34 of 39 35 16 For the reasons stated in paras nos.9 to 15, I am of the opinion that all accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt and they are acquitted of the charge for offences punishable u/sec.7, 8 & 13 of the PC Act. Accused persons ASI Hari Kishan, Ct. Ravinder, Ct. Ram Kishore and Mohd. Rashid are convicted of the offence punishable u/sec. 120B of IPC r/w/sec.7, 8 & 13 of the PC Act. Accused SI Vijender Pal Singh is, however, acquitted of the offence punishable u/sec.120B of IPC, also. However, in terms of sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C., accused SI Vijender Pal Singh is directed to furnish bail bond for the amount of Rs.25,000/ with one surety in the like amount, along with latest passport size photographs and residential proof, to appear before the revisional/ appellate court, as and when, any such notice is issued in respect of any revision appeal, which may be filed against this order.
Ordered accordingly.
Announced in the open Court (NAROTTAM KAUSHAL)
on 03.12.2014 SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)05
(ACB), TIS HAZARI COURTS
State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 35 of 39
36
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAROTTAM KAUSHAL,
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC Act)05, (ACB), (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Corruption Case No. : 06/2013
FIR No. : 45/2008
Case Identification No. : 02401R0107222013
Police Station : Anti Corruption Branch
Under Section : 7, 8 & 13(i)(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act & 120 IPC
STATE
Versus
1 HARI KISHAN
s/o Late Sh.Chhuttan Lal,
r/o 31/30, Block A1, Sant Nagar,
Burari, Delhi
2 RAM KISHORE
S/o Ghotu Ram,
V&PO Ladli ka Baas,
PSNagal Rajaotaan,
District Dosa, Rajasthan
3 RAVINDER
s/o Sh.Yaad Ram Singh
r/o V & POSunehra, PSKhegra,
DistBaghpat, Uttar Pradesh
4 MOHD. RASHID
S/o Mohd. Yunus,
R/o H.NO.301, Block D2, Nehru Vihar, Delhi94
State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 36 of 39
37
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1 Vide judgment dated 03.12.2014, accused persons ASI Hari
Kishan, Ct. Ravinder, Ct. Ram Kishore and Mohd. Rashid stand convicted for offences punishable u/sec.120B of IPC r/w/sec.7, 8 & 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter called as 'the PC Act'). Vide the present order, I shall sentence them for the aforesaid offence.
2. Sh. B.B. Bhasin, Ld. Addl. PP has prayed for a stringent sentence. It is submitted that the convicts ASI Hari Kishan, Ct. Ravinder & Ct. Ram Kishore, who were working as officials of Traffic Police, alongwith convict Mohd. Rashid, who was a Tout of the aforesaid officials of Traffic Police, had indulged in corrupt activity. It is also submitted that the Corruption in a civilised society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in time is sure to maliganise the polity of country leading to disastrous consequences. It is termed as plague which is not only contagious but if not controlled spreads like a fire in a jungle. Its virus is compared with HIV leading to AIDS, being incurable. It has also been termed as Royal thievery. The sociopolitical system exposed to such a dreaded communicable disease is likely to crumble under its own weight. Corruption is opposed to democracy and social order, being not only anti people, but aimed and targeted against them. It affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage. Unless nipped in the bud at the earliest, it is likely to cause turbulence shaking of socioeconomicpolitical system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society. State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 37 of 39 38 3 Ld. Counsels for the convicts have not appeared, as the Bar has suspended work. However, I have heard the convicts & their proxy counsels. It is submitted on behalf of ASI Hari Kishan that he has two sons & one daughter. His brother had passed away and his family is also dependent upon him. It is submitted on behalf of Ct. Ram Kishore that his two minor sons & his parents are dependent upon him. It is submitted on behalf of Ct. Ravinder that he has three minor children, aged between 12 & 17 years, & his parents, who have medical problems. All are dependent upon him. It is submitted on behalf of Mohd. Rashid that he has 4 minor children and he is the sole bread earner of the family. All the convicts have prayed for lenient approach.
4 I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, convicts as well as ld. proxy counsels appearing on behalf of the convicts. 5.1 Since the convicts have been held guilty for criminal conspiracy to commit offences under the PC Act, for which the sentence can run up to 7 years, they shall be sentenced in terms of sec.120B (1) of IPC. It is provided u/sec.120B (1) of IPC that such offenders shall be punished in the same manner as if they had abetted such offence. Sec.12 of the PC Act provides that a person, who abets offence punishable u/sec.7 of the PC Act shall be punished with imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than 6 months, and which may extend to 5 years State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 38 of 39 39 and shall also be liable to fine. There is no express provision under the PC Act for punishment for abetment of offences punishable u/sec.8 & 13 of the PC Act. Recourse shall, therefore, be made to sec.109 of IPC, which provides for a punishment equal to the punishment provided for the main offence. Sec.8 of the PC Act is punishable with a minimum sentence of 6 months and maximum of 5 years with fine. Sec.13 of the PC Act is punishable with a minimum sentence of 1 year and a maximum of 7 years with fine.
5.2 On an analysis of the punishments noticed above, the convicts are liable to be sentenced for a minimum of 1 year and maximum of 7 years with fine. Taking a lenient view of the socio economic conditions of the convicts, I am of the opinion that interest of justice shall be served by sentencing each of the convicts to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 & ½ years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/ on each of the convicts, for the offence punishable u/sec.120B of IPC r/w/sec.7, 8 & 13 of the PC Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, each. Convicts shall also be entitled to benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C.
Announced in the open Court (NAROTTAM KAUSHAL)
on 13.12.2014 SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)05
(ACB), TIS HAZARI COURTS
State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh & Ors. Page 39 of 39