Delhi District Court
29 While Referring To State vs . Nalini (1999) 5 on 20 May, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. M.R. SETHI:
SPECIAL JUDGE-IV, (PC ACT) CBI: DELHI.
CC No. 12/1999 (Old No.)
CC No. 75/2008 (New No.)
ID No. 02401R0080951999
CBI
Versus
1 Ranjit Dadlani,
S/o Shri Tek Chand,
R/o H.No.4, CPWD service Centre,
Kushak Road, New Delhi.
2 Shri Arun Kumar Singh,
S/o Shri Daya Shanker Singh,
R/o H.No.101-A, Pocket-F,
Mayur Vihar Phase-II,
Delhi.
Case arising out of: FIR No. RC-17(A)/96
Case is more than 15 years old.
Date of FIR : 11.03.1996
Date of Institution : 06.08.1997
Date of Final Arguments : 14.05.2013
Date of Judgment : 24.05.2013
CC No. 75/2008 Page1 of 59
JUDGMENT:
1 On 11.03.1996, the complainant Shri Mohd. Ali Jamir moved a complaint before S.P., CBI claiming that he was one of the partners of M/s. Jamiruddin & Sons. It was further claimed in the complaint that a work of CPWD had been awarded to the firm on 03.08.1995 and was completed in November, 1995. The work was claimed to be worth Rs. 6,77,449/- out of which, the Department had reportedly made payment of Rs.3.00 lacs while balance Rs.3,77,449/- was pending. It was further mentioned in the complaint that J.E. Shri Ranjit Dadlani was looking after the work on behalf of CPWD and payment was to be made to the firm only after bill was prepared by him. It was further claimed that the complainant approached Shri Dadlani in his Office in respect of bill of the balance payment on Saturday i.e. 09.03.1996 when Shri Dadlani demanded Rs.20,000/- as commission for preparing the bill and reportedly claimed that otherwise he would raise objection on the bill and would not permit the payment to be made. It was further mentioned in the complaint that Shri Dadlani had asked the complainant to come alone to his Office after 2.00 P.M. on 11.03.1996 for making the payment. As the complainant did not want to pay any bribe, he reportedly approached the CBI and filed the complaint on basis of which FIR was registered and proceedings initiated.
CC No. 75/2008 Page2 of 59
2 During course of proceedings, pre-trap
demonstration was reportedly done after two independent witnesses were joined in the trap team which constituted of the complainant and other CBI Officers. A trap was reportedly laid and the two accused persons viz. the main accused Ranjit Dadlani and his accomplice A-2 Shri A.K. Singh were apprehended. After completion of investigation, Charge Sheet was filed in Court.
3 Vide order dated 19.08.1998, my Ld. Predecessor Shri Ajit Bharihoke, ld. Special Judge (as His Lordship then was) was pleased to order framing of charges against both the accused persons for having committed offences punishable U/s. 120 B r/w 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act and specific charge against accused Ranjit Dadlani for offences U/s. 7 & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act. In pursuance thereto, charges were framed against the accused persons on 24.08.2000 by my Ld. Predecessor Shri V.B. Gupta, Special Judge (as His Lordship then was).
4 During course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses in order to prove its allegations against the accused persons. Thereafter, statements of accused persons were recorded U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. and then statements of 7 defence witnesses were also recorded.
5 PW-1 examined in the case was the complainant Shri Mohd. Ali Jamir. During course of his CC No. 75/2008 Page3 of 59 examination-in-chief, he stated about allotment of a Contract work to his firm by CPWD and about completion of the same. He further stated that Rs.3.00 lacs as part payment was made by the Department while the balance was yet to be paid. He further claimed about his having met accused Ranjit Dadlani on 08.03.1996 when the accused allegedly demanded Rs. 20,000/- as bribe for finalizing his bill and also asked him (complainant) to meet him on 11.03.1996 during after lunch. Witness claimed that he then lodged complaint with CBI. The complaint was proved as Ex.PW-1/A and witness identified his signature on the same. He claimed that the complaint was entrusted to Dy. S.P. Shri R.K. Chadda and he was brought to Chamber of Shri Chadda. Two panch witnesses were also reportedly summoned there. Witness claimed having produced GC notes of Rs.20,000/- in denomination of Rs. 100/- each and claimed that their numbers were noted in Annexure Ex.PW-1/B. A chemical powder was reportedly applied on the currency notes and thereafter, one of the members of the raiding party touched those notes and then his fingers were dipped in a solution which turned pink. The demonstrated solution was reportedly thrown away and the powder treated notes given back to him with direction to give the same to the suspect on specific demand within sight and hearing of the shadow witness. He claimed that all the members then washed their hands with soap and water, investigation bag was prepared and all the proceedings were CC No. 75/2008 Page4 of 59 noted down in Handing Over Memo Ex.PW-1/C. He claimed that after completing all the said formalities, they all went to Office of accused Ranjit Dadlani at Curson Road and reached there at 2.30 P.M. Witness claimed that on reaching the Office, he had a talk with the accused Ranjit Dadlani and asked if the bills were ready to which accused replied "Have you brought the money and the bills are ready". He claimed that it was already decided in CBI Office that he would complete the transaction with the accused near Juice Shop situated outside Office of the accused, but this suggestion was not accepted by the accused when he was asked to come outside the Office. He claimed that then accused Ranjit spoke to A.K. Singh but he (PW-1) could not hear the conversation. Both the accused persons reportedly agreed to accompany him and then they took their own scooter while he took his own scooter and signaled the CBI team to follow him. He further claimed that they crossed Curzon Road, came to Man Singh Road and then on the road leading to Shastri Bhawan where Ranjit Dadlani stopped his scooter and he himself also stopped by their side. He claimed that thereafter Ranjit made demand of money, took it from him and put it in Dicky of the scooter on which they had come. The CBI team reportedly came and apprehended the accused Ranjit and seized the scooter. Both the accused were claimed to have been arrested and made to wash their hands. Witness claimed that handwash of Ranjit became pink in color while CC No. 75/2008 Page5 of 59 color of washes of A.K. Singh remained unchanged. The pink washes were reportedly sealed in bottles with Wax and labels pasted on the bottles. Witness claimed that he was permitted to go only after visiting the CBI office and was asked to come again on the next day. He also identified both the accused persons.
After seeking permission from the court witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his cross examination he admitted that his statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C. was recorded by CBI on 12.3.1996. He admitted that names of the two independent witnesses were A.C. Guglani and Ranjit Singh and that he was introduced to the witnesses and his complaint shown to them. Letter dated 3.8.1995 vide which work was awarded to his firm was proved as Ex. PW-1/D. He admitted that the currency notes had been treated with phenolphthalein powder and that it was Ranjit Singh who touched the same. He further admitted that members of the raiding party had mutually searched each other and none was allowed to carry anything except ID card. He further claimed that the panch witness had been directed to act as shadow witness. He claimed that he did not remember if accused Ranjit had called A.K. Singh from his room and told him to take him (witness) outside and take money from him (witness). He also could not recollect if thereafter he asked accused Ranjit to accompany him to take money as matter was settled with him.
CC No. 75/2008 Page6 of 59 He denied the suggestion that thereafter accused Ranjit told him that he and A.K. Singh would accompany him outside for the purpose. He claimed that the scooter was being driven by A.K. Singh while Ranjit was sitting on the pillion. He did not remember by which hand accused Ranjit accepted the money or with which hand he kept it in dicky of the scooter. He also did not remember if after locking the dicky accused Dadlani returned back the key to A.K. Singh. He also did not remember if on direction of the raid officer the panch witness was directed to recover the money from dicky of the scooter or if after taking the key from accused Dadlani the panch witness was asked to open the dicky. He however admitted that money was recovered from dicky of the scooter and numbers of the GC notes were compared and tallied with the numbers recorded in the handing over memo. He admitted that both hands of accused Ranjit were washed in separate solutions of sodium carbonate which turned pink. He further admitted that labels were pasted on the bottles and signed by witnesses. He also identified his signatures on the recovery memo Ex. PW-1/F which he claimed to have been prepared at the spot. He also identified the currency notes Ex. P-1 to P-200.
During course of cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused he claimed that there were four partners in his firm and he was one of the authorized signatory on behalf of the firm. He denied the suggestion to CC No. 75/2008 Page7 of 59 the contrary. He did not recollect the date, month or year when the work in question was completed and claimed that without seeing the record he could not say as to when the certificate regarding completion of work was recorded in the measurement book. He denied the suggestion that no completion certificate pertaining to the work had been recorded in the measurement book which had been taken away by CBI. He denied the suggestion that the work was not completed in the month of November, 1995 or that he had wrongly mentioned this fact in his complaint Ex. PW-1/A. He claimed ignorance regarding any official letters addressed to his firm regarding defects in respect of the work done by the firm. He denied the suggestion that he was suppressing truth in this regard. He claimed that he did not remember if he had told the police about having withdrawn Rs.20,000/- from PNB on 8.3.1996. (When his supplementary statement was shown to him he admitted having so stated therein, but claimed that he could not make the payment.) He admitted having stated in his statement dated 23.4.1996 to the IO that the quality control division of the Department had pointed out the facts in his executed work which he had removed on their asking. He claimed that he did not remember if he had intimated the Department regarding removal of the defects. He also did not remember if the complaint Ex. PW-1/A was written in CBI office or somewhere else. He denied the suggestion of having written the complaint Ex. PW-1/A in office of CBI on CC No. 75/2008 Page8 of 59 direction of some CBI officer. He did not remember at what time he had handed over the complaint to CBI on 11.3.1996 but claimed that he had not visited CBI before 11.3.1996. He could not say for how much time he remained with SP, CBI or the time when he met DSP R.K. Chadha. He could not say if he met Chadha at 3.00 PM. He also did not remember whether he had any talk with DSP Chadha on 11.3.1996 in his office. He did not remember names of the two witnesses or from which office they had been called. Witness claimed having produced Rs.20,000/- on direction of the person to whom he handed over his complaint. He did not remember as to whom he had handed over his complaint dated 11.3.1996. He did not remember as to who had treated the GC notes with powder or how much time was consumed in treating those notes with powder or in preparation of the solution and giving demonstration. He also did not remember as to how much time was consumed in writing down the numbers of the GC notes. It was claimed that they left CBI office for Curzon Road at about 2.30 PM on 11.3.1996. He claimed that he did not remember if they were maintaining any store cum office at Tuglak Road Servant Quarter or if their labour was residing at 15, Tuglak Road, Servant Quarter. He also did not remember if his work was going on at 6, Raisaina Road or if 5-10 labours were working there. He claimed that he had been instructed in the CBI office to give signal but he did not remember as to what the signal was. He admitted that there were two Juice CC No. 75/2008 Page9 of 59 Shops i.e. one adjacent to gate of office of accused and the other across the road just opposite the gate, but he did not remember at which shop the raiding party was standing. He denied the suggestion of having requested Shri Dadlani to accompany to witness payment to be made to the labourers or that accused persons had accompanied him to witness the payment. He claimed that he did not know if it was stipulated in the contract agreement that payment to labours should be made by 7th or 10th of every month or if payment was to be witnessed by JE concerned. He claimed that he did not remember if 10.3.1996 was Sunday. He claimed having stopped by scooter adjacent to Rajender Prasad Road and did not remember the Bungalow number on the right side where he stopped. He admitted that there was a round circle for going to Rajender Prasad Road and he took the turn as he was following the scooter of A.K. Singh. He could not say if the spot of incident was at a distance of about 240 meters from the round circle. He denied the suggestion that the CBI Jeep was parked at a distance of 225 meter from the place of occurrence. He could not tell the distance between the spot of incident and Curzon Road Office of CPWD. He could not tell as to how much time it took them to reach the spot from the office. He denied the suggestion that Shri Dadlani had flatly refused to accept two bundles of notes or that he himself forcibly kept the bundles of Rs.20,000/- in the basket fitted on the upper portion of the scooter. He denied the suggestion CC No. 75/2008 Page10 of 59 that Shri Dadlani had claimed that he would not made payment to labour or would only witness the payment. He claimed that Shri Dadlani did not demand payment of Rs. 20,000/- in his office and had simply asked if he (witness) had brought the money. He denied the suggestion that Shri Dadlani had not demanded money at the spot or that no recovery was bribe money was effected from dicky of the scooter or that the money was recovered from basket of the scooter. He admitted that there was no place of sitting where writing work was to be done. He admitted that the work awarded to their firm was being supervised by the two accused persons. He admitted that payment of the bills used to be made from the Divisional Office situated at a distance of 4-5 KM from office of accused. He admitted that in the Site Order Book / Register for Site, instructions are recorded by the J.E. in respect of the work which is being carried out by the Contractor and that those instructions are noted by the Contractor who used to sign the Book in token of having noted the instructions. He claimed that he did not remember if he had signed the Site Order Book in respect of the work in question. Upon seeing the Site Book Ex.PW-1/DX, witness admitted that at page Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7 & 9 his brother Firoz Ahmed had signed in token of having received materials. He further admitted that at page Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20 his brother had signed in token of having noted the instructions of the J.E. He claimed that he did not remember if he got the CC No. 75/2008 Page11 of 59 material issued for his firm in respect of the work in question even in December, 1995. Upon seeing Ex.PW-1/DX, witness admitted that material had been issued on 01.12.1995, 02.12.1995 & 04.12.1995. He claimed having told the CBI I.O. about having met Shri Dadlani on 08.03.1996 and about Dadlani having demanded Rs.20,000/- as bribe on 08.03.1996. He was duly confronted with his statement Ex.PW-1/E where it was not so recorded. He further admitted that he had not mentioned in his complaint Ex.PW-1/A about his having met Shri Dadlani on 08.03.1996. He could not say in whose handwriting documents Ex.PW-1/B, C & G were prepared. He denied the suggestion that Shri Dadlani was made to count the GC notes before his hand washes were taken. He claimed that he could not say if Shri Dadlani had submitted his M.B. after recording of the measurements, to the Sub Divisional Office, on 04.03.1996. He claimed that he knew that amount in respect of the work done was between Rs.5,50,000/- to Rs.6,00,000/-. He further claimed that the work regarding measurement of work done was being dealt with by his brother viz. Shri Firoz while he himself was looking after marketing, etc. He further admitted that one Shri R.P. Mukherjee of Airport Authority of India had been got trapped by their firm through CBI in 2001. He admitted that they also had made a complaint against one Shri Balbir Singh regarding his demanding bribe. He denied the suggestion that it was modest oparandi of his firm and himself that they used to CC No. 75/2008 Page12 of 59 falsely implicate Officers of the Department where work was awarded to them got the Officer trapped and thereafter used to blackmail them i.e. Officers of the Department. He denied the suggestion that it was with this Modest Oparandi that he got accused Shri Ranjit Dadlani falsely implicated in this case. After seeing the Measurement Books, he claimed that no work had been left as unmeasured by the accused persons. He denied the suggestion that accused Ranjit Dadlani had never demanded any illegal gratification at any time. He could neither admit nor deny if it was mandatory to make payment to labour in presence of J.E. He denied the suggestion that he got annoyed on seeing the MBs submitted by Shri Dadlani. He denied the suggestion that on the day of trap, he had gone to Shri G.N. Shukla and requested him to send J.Es. Dadlani and A.K Singh to the Site to supervise payment to the labours. He further denied the suggestion that thereafter both the accused persons had gone with him to supervise the payment or that at the Site, he tried to give money to Shri Dadlani for making payment to the labour or that Shri Dadlani refused to take money. He denied the suggestion that he was harbouring enemity towards accused No. 1 who pressing him to cure the defects in the work done by his firm. He denied the suggestion that accused No. 1 was falsely implicated in this case or that he was deposing falsely.
During cross-examination by ld. Counsel for A-2, witness admitted that the money was not demanded CC No. 75/2008 Page13 of 59 in presence of Shri A.K. Singh at any stage. He further admitted that accused A.K. Singh was addressing his co- accused as 'Sir' again and again. He further admitted that on being challenged, accused A.K. Singh showed ignorance about the demand or acceptance of money.
6 PW-2 Shri Vijay Motwani was the Sanctioning Officer who proved sanction order in respect of accused A.K. Singh as Ex. PW-2/A and that in respect of Ranjit Dadlani as Ex. PW-2/B. He also identified his signatures on the same and also on the cuttings in the sanction order Ex. PW-2/A. Witness claimed having perused CBI report and document relating to charges alleged against the accuseds before granting sanction. He also claimed having perused the statements of witnesses and claimed having accorded the sanction after applying his mind.
During course of cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, witness admitted that a draft sanction order was received by him from the CBI in this case. However, he volunteered that he did not strictly go by the draft but applied his own mind. He also claimed to have gone through the CBI report, statement of accuseds made to CBI, legal provisions and the Central Services Rules. Witness admitted that he did not have any prior personal knowledge about facts of the case and had derived opinion from the records sent to him. He also claimed having spoken to both the accused and their controlling officers. He admitted that he CC No. 75/2008 Page14 of 59 had not recorded what he had spoken to the accused. Witness claimed that payment of bill was not in hand of one person but JE was initiating authority in preparation of the bill. He denied the suggestion that JE has got nothing to do with preparation of the bill. Witness admitted that the accused Ranjit did not have any financial power to affect the release of payment of bill and that once the bills are prepared and passed on to the Department, he is not in a position to stop payment of the bill. He further admitted that nothing came to his notice regarding previous antecedents of the accused and there was no earlier complaint regarding the two accused persons. He denied the suggestion that the sanction orders had been sent by CBI or that it was at instance of CBI that he had made the correction in Ex. PW-2/A. He denied the suggestion that there was non application of mind on his part or that he granted sanction in a mechanical manner under pressure of CBI. He admitted that he had not examined the measurement books in relation to the contract in question. He further denied the suggestion that the sanction order was verbatim reproduction of the draft sanction order. 7 PW-3 Shri K.S. Chabra proved the CFSL report Ex. PW-3/A regarding the hand-wash.
During course of cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused witness produced worksheet Ex. PW-3/DA. He admitted that CFSL is a part of CBI administratively. He denied the suggestion that he himself did CC No. 75/2008 Page15 of 59 not analyse contents of the bottles or his report was biased. 8 PW-4 Shri A.C. Guglani was one of the independent witnesses joined in this case. During course of examination in chief he reiterated allegations of prosecution regardinig pre-trap demonstration and preparation of handing over memo. He claimed that they all left the CBI office at about 2.15 PM through official vehicles while complainant left on his two wheeler. He claimed that upon reaching CPWD office, Curzon Road at about 2.30/3.00 PM he was made to stand at the juice shop while other trap team members took suitable positions at scattered places. He claimed that at about 3.00 PM two persons i.e. Dadlani and Arun Kumar came out with complainant and from there the complainant proceeded towards Canning Road, Jaswant Singh Road and then towards Rajender Prasad Road while the two accused followed him on two wheeler scooter. He claimed that they all were following the complainant on his signaling them to follow. He claimed that both the scooters stopped at Rajender Prasad Road in front of Bungalow No. 28 but he could not hear the conversation. He claimed having seen the complainant giving money to accused Dadlani in presence of Arun Kumar. It was claimed that the raiding party reached there and caught hold of Dadlani. Money was claimed to have been recovered from dicky of the scooter where it was kept by Dadlani. Witness then stated about hand-wash of the accused having been taken, proceedings conducted CC No. 75/2008 Page16 of 59 thereafter and identified his signatures on the diocuments prepared. He also stated about office search of the two accused persons. He identified the case property as well as the accused.
During course of cross examination by Ld. Counsel for A-1 witness could not tell names of CBI officers who prepared various documents. He could not tell if the official vehicle used was Ambassador car or a Gypsy. He admitted that the complainant remained in CPWD office for about 1 ½ hours while they were present outside the office. He further admitted that the complainant entered the office on his scooter while they all waited outside. He stated that the moment complainant gave the pre-appointed signal, they all immediately sat in the vehicle and followed him. He admitted that the signal was to be given only after completion of transaction of bribe was over. He could not give any reason as to why the accused persons were chased and not immediately apprehended when they came out. He claimed that the vehicle in which they were chasing did not stop anywhere on way till they caught the accused persons. He denied the suggestion that he had not seen anything or was stating on basis of what had been told by the complainant. He further stated that after apprehension of accused persons and completion of proceedings, they were brought to CBI office. He further claimed that prior to this case, he had joined CBI raid in two cases out of which one was of trap case and CC No. 75/2008 Page17 of 59 the other matter in relation to witnessing some signatures. He denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected in his presence or that no proceedings were conducted at the spot in his presence.
During course of examination by Ld counsel for A-2 he claimed that he could only say that he was at a safe distance from the place of transaction but could not describe the distance as 10 paces/20 paces/100/200 or 1000 meters. He admitted that A.K Singh was driving the scooter while others were following. He denied the suggestion A.K. Singh was still on the driving seat on the scooter when accused Ranjit was apprehended. He claimed that hand wash of A.K. Singh had not been taken. He denied the suggestion that no post raid proceedings were conducted at the spot or that his signatures were subsequently obtained on the recovery memo. He denied having named Ranjit Singh at instance of CBI.
9 PW-5 Shri G.N. Shukla claimed that in 1995 he was posted as AE in Curzon Road, New Delhi. He further stated that as per record contract of the work mentioned therein was allotted to M/s Jamiruddin & Sons and Ranjit Dadlani and A.K. Singh were supervising the said work. He further stated that as per measurement book, the first bill of Rs.2,18,535/- was passed and an amount of Rs.1,89,600/- was paid to the firm. Measurement book was proved by him as Ex. PW-5/A. He claimed that after verifying the CC No. 75/2008 Page18 of 59 measurement book he used to get the bill prepared and thereafter used to send the same to Division Office i.e. Executive Engineer office. He claimed that Ranjit Dadlani had submitted the measurement book in respect of the complainant's work after giving measurement of the work done in his office on 4.3.1996 and it was thereafter that he (witness) was to cross check the measurement and processed the same for preparation of bill. He claimed that the second bill paid was for Rs.1,00,858/- and thetotal amount paid was Rs.2,90,000/-.
During course of cross examination by Ld. Counsel for A-2 witness admitted that bill is prepared by Bill Clerk on baiss of measurement in the MB book and that after cross checking the entries, he himself forwarded the bill to Executive Engineer who was competent authority to pass the bill. It was claimed that thereafter cheque was prepared in the Accounts Branch which was signed by Executive Engineer and then delivered to the Contractor in the Accounts Branch of Division Office.
During course of cross examination by Ld. Counsel for A-1 witness reiterated that Dadlani had submitted his MBs on 4.3.1996 to the Sub Divisional Clerk V.P. Solanki and thereafter he could not have added or deleted anything in the MBs. He further admitted that it was not job of Dadlani to prepare the bills which were to be prepared by V.P. Solanki. Witness admitted that as per CPWD Rules and Agreement, CC No. 75/2008 Page19 of 59 payment to labour was to be made on 7 th and 10th of each month and in case any of these days is holiday, the payment was to be made on the next day. He further admitted that as per Rules and Agreement, the Contractor is required to make payment to the labour in presence of JE supervising the work and JE was required to certify about payment to the labour in his presence. He further admitted that both the accused were supervising work of the complainant. He further claimed that the quality control team had pointed out defects in the work executed by firm of the complainant and he himself had written letter and had told the Contractor several times to rectify the defects. He further stated having told the JEs to get the defects rectified from the contractor and claimed that the contractor was annoyed with the JEs and others in this regard. He proved the relevant documents in that regard as Ex. PW-5/DA, DB, DC & DD. Witness admitted that despite his asking, M/s Jamiruddin & Sons could not pin point any work which was left unmeasured by the JEs. He further admitted that contractor or their representatives used to come to him for getting the presence of JEs to supervise the payment to labour as payments were to be made in their presence. He admitted that on 11.3.1996 he was approached at 2.30 PM by Mohd Ali Jamir to send JEs who were supervising the work to go with him and supervise payments to the labours personally. He claimed that he told Mohd. Ali to take JEs with him and make payment to labours in their CC No. 75/2008 Page20 of 59 presence. Witness further stated that Ranjit Dadlani and AK. Singh were the JEs in question. He further claimed that after submitting the MBs to the Sub Division Office, Shri Dadlani had no role to play and could not have stopped the preparation of bill or payment or even delay preparation of bill or payments.
10 PW-6 V.P. Solanki during course of his examination in chief claimed that it was his duty to prepare bill on submission of MB books by AEs & JEs. He claimed that MB book Ex. PW-5/A was issued to Ranjit Dadlani and Ex. PW-6/A & B were issued to A.K. Singh who were looking after the work allotted to M/s Jamiruddin & Sons. MB book PW-6/C & D was claimed to have been issued to Ranjit Dadlani in which work done by M/s Jamiruddin & Sons was measured by him.
During course of cross examination by Ld. Counsel for A-2, witness claimed that the entries are made by the JE concerned who looks after work and to whom the books are issued.
During course of cross examination by Ld. Counsel for A-1, witness admitted that after the entries are submitted by JE, he could not make any change in the entries or the MB book and that it was not job of accused No.1 to prepare bills of the contractor for payment. He claimed that rather it was his own duty to process and prepare the bills and to send the same to Executive Engineer for payment and A-1 CC No. 75/2008 Page21 of 59 had no role in this process. He further admitted that contractors used to make payment to their labour on 7 th and 10th of every month and in case these days happen to be holiday, payment was made on the following day. He stated that as 10.3.1996 was Sunday, payment was to be made by the contractor to labours on 11.3.1996 and it was duty of the JE s that payment to labour is made in their presence and certified by them. Witness claimed that on 11.3.1996, contractor came to room of Shri Shukla in his presence at 2.30 PM and talked about payment to be made whereupon Shri Shukla replied that he should take the JE s and make the payment. He claimed that he too was asked by Shri Shukla to convey the same to the accused persons and he himself accompanied the contractor and conveyed the message to A-1. He claimed that A-1 asked the complainant whether he has brought the money for payment to labour whereupon contractor took out wads of GC notes of Rs.100/- denomination and asked accused No.1 to make the payment. He admitted that in that process A-1 touched the GC notes with both his hands while keeping the money towards the contractor and thereafter A-1 called A-2 to acompany him for supervising making of payment and then they left. Witness admittd that they all left on scooter from inside the office. He claimed that the contractor had told the accused in his presence that his labour was present outside House No. 28 where payment was to be made. Witness further claimed that CC No. 75/2008 Page22 of 59 about one or two days after 4.3.1996 contractor came to him as he wanted to see MBs submitted by A-1 and when he (witness) asked the contractor to sign, he refused saying MB was not according to his desire. He claimed that the contractor used abusive language for A-1 saying "Mai isko naukari karna sikhaunga". Witness claimed having informed about this incident to Shri Shukla also.
After seeking permission from the court, witness was re-examined by Ld PP for CBI and during course of his such re-examination witness stated that whatever was stated by him during course of cross examination was also narrated by him before CBI officials. He claimed that his statement was not read over to him by the CBI officer. He denied having deposed these facts at instance of accused persons. He further denied the suggestion that facts stated by him in his cross examination were incorrect. 11 PW-7 Inspector Yashvir Singh during course of his examination-in-chief claimed that further investigation of the case was transferred to him whereafter, he recorded statements of some witnesses, seized documents vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-7/A, collected CFSL Report, obtained sanction for prosecution and filed the Charge Sheet after conducting fair investigation.
During course of cross-examination, witness claimed that he had not recorded statement of S.P., CBI who had ordered registration of FIR nor of the Crime CC No. 75/2008 Page23 of 59 Clerk who recorded formal FIR nor of the Mohrar Mallkhana. He claimed that he did not take into possession extract of entries of the Mallkhana Register. He could not say as to who had written the Recovery Memo Ex.PW-1/F. He denied the suggestion that the case property was not properly deposited in the Mallkhana or had been tampered with. He also denied the suggestion that complete facts were not put up before the Sanctioning Authority or that he had falsely implicated the accused persons. He also claimed having recorded supplementary statement of the complainant. He claimed that he did not further question the complainant on pending bill as work was not measured. He claimed that he had only seized the Measurement Book and examined Shri V.P. Solanki in that regard. He further denied the suggestion that the accused persons had informed him about their having gone to supervise the payment by Contractor to the labour. He further stated that he did not seize the Log Book of official vehicles nor of any other vehicle used by CBI. He claimed that no entry regarding taking of Phenolphthalein Powder is made in the Mallkhana and that entry only regarding the case property is made.
The witness was re-summoned for further cross-examination under Court order and at that stage, he claimed that the List of documents filed with the Charge Sheet was prepared by him and the tainted money was not mentioned therein. He admitted that there was no mention of CC No. 75/2008 Page24 of 59 Arrest Memo in the said list. He further admitted that the said list did not mention House Search Memo and claimed that it was so as the said Memo did not concern the trap case. He further denied the suggestion that Scooter DL-7SB-9230 was not taken into custody in this case. He further denied the suggestion that certain documents not filed with the Charge Sheet had been subsequently inserted by him without permission from the Court. He claimed that as he was not a member of the trap team, he could not say whether or not Motor Cycle No. DL-2SF-2781 had been used at the time of trap proceedings. (Under orders of the Court, certain documents including Log Books, etc. were produced in Court by the CBI). On seeing those Log Books, witness claimed that the same were not maintained by him. He claimed that the Recovery Memo Ex.PW-1/G bore signature of Shri Ajit Singh as his name appeared thereunder. Witness claimed that otherwise, he could not identify signatures of the said Shri Ajit Singh. He claimed that he had not seized any Scooter and could not say whether or not complainant's Scooter had been seized by TLO. He denied the suggestion that neither the complainant nor the panch witness had visited CBI Office on 11.03.1996 in the forenoon or that no pre-trap proceedings were conducted there. He denied the suggestion that Charge Sheet in this case had been filed by him without application of mind and at instance of TLO or that the Visitors Register was intentionally not produced. He claimed that he did not CC No. 75/2008 Page25 of 59 remember whether or not demand at the spot had been recorded in the Tape Recorder.
12 PW-8 Dy. S.P. Shri Rajiv Kumar Chadda was the Trap Laying Officer who during course of his examination-in-chief reiterated allegations of prosecution against the accused and identified his signatures on the documents.
During course of cross-examination, he admitted that name of accused Arun Kumar Singh was not mentioned in the complaint and that the trap was not arranged for him. He further stated that the transaction of giving and taking money had taken place when A-1 had got down from Scooter and A-2 was on the driving seat who after parking the Scooter also got down. He denied the suggestion that the complainant had not told him that money was demanded in presence of Shri A.K. Singh or was also accepted in his presence. He claimed that he had no knowledge if the complainant had visited CBI Office two or three times prior to 11.03.1996. He claimed having questioned the complainant to satisfy himself about the complaint but claimed that he did not remember the details thereof. He denied having directed ASI Ajit Singh to procure independent witness from ITPO so as to procure witness of choice. He denied any knowledge to the effect that the two panch witnesses were stock witnesses. He denied the suggestion that it was pre-decided to call A-1 near the Tea Stall or Juice Shop outside his Office and to CC No. 75/2008 Page26 of 59 apprehend him from there. He further denied the suggestion that on the day of trap, neither the complainant nor the panch witnesses had come to CBI Office or that is why there was no entry in the Visitor Register about their visit to CBI Office or that the Visitor Register had been deliberately withheld by CBI. He claimed that Gypsy DL-3CG-0356 had been used in the trap and the vehicle had remained with him. As per the witness, from the CBI Office, they reached near Office of the accused and then to the spot outside House No. 28, Rajender Prasad Road and then Office of the accused to complete post-trap proceedings. He claimed that subsequently some other vehicle was also requisitioned as house search of A-1 was to be conducted and in the requisitioned vehicle, he alongwith A-2 and staff came back to CBI Office while vehicle No. 0356 was sent for house search of A-1 alongwith Inspector D.D. Negi, one independent witness and staff. He claimed that the said team returned back to CBI Office after performing their job. He claimed having mentioned in his statement that one vehicle was requisitioned by him at the spot. He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW-8/DX where this fact is not mentioned. He denied the suggestion that Vehicle No. DL-3CG-0356 had gone to Patel Nagar, Connaught Place with him during the trap. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot. Witness specifically claimed that he was not disputing entries in Log Book on the day of trap in respect of Vehicle No. 0356, but CC No. 75/2008 Page27 of 59 claimed that when a vehicle is detailed for trap, it takes long time and sometime, vehicle is to be sent for dropping the witnesses, bringing food and other related trap work. He claimed that the distance between Curzon Road i.e. Office of A-1 to Dr. Rajender Prasad Road i.e. the spot was around 1 Km. He claimed that the first Site Plan was prepared at Office of the accused before their apprehension while second was prepared after their apprehension. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons were not apprehended from the spot or were subsequently falsely implicated in CBI Office. He claimed that water for hand-wash was obtained from a Mandir near the spot. He further denied the suggestion that A-1 was not sent to his house for house search in Vehicle No. 0356. He further admitted that on both the Site Plans, the key notes regarding various positions were not separately mentioned. He denied that firstly A-1 was taken to CBI Office and then sent to join House search.
13 PW-9 Shri S.M. Kohli claimed that both the accused persons were working in Sub Division-5B under Incharge A.E. and he himself was over-all supervising the Division. The work in question was claimed to have been awarded to M/s. Jamiruddin & Sons. He claimed that the basic measurements in the M.B. are recorded by J.E. out of which 50% test check is conducted by A.E. and 10% by EE.
During course of his cross-examination, he admitted that once J.E. submits his MBs to Sub Divisional CC No. 75/2008 Page28 of 59 Clerk (SDC) after recording his measurement about any particular work, it is job of SDC to further process the bill and put up the same to A.E. He admitted that the Contractor is required to make payment to labour in presence of JEs supervising the work and J.E. certifies the payment. He admitted that there is a check of quality control and the defect pointed out during such check has to be got rectified by the J.Es. and A.Es. He admitted that the defects are mentioned in the Site Order Book and J.Es. get the same signed from the Contractor. On seeing the Quality Control Report Ex.PW-9/DA, witness identified signature of Shri G.S. Shukla, the then A.E. on the same. He also identified signature of Shri Shukla on the letters Ex.PW-9/DB-1 to 3. He claimed that he did not remember if the complainant Zamiruddin had ever informed him about some of his work having been left unmeasured by A-1.
14 No other witness was examined on behalf of the prosecution and accordingly on basis of statement dated 31.10.2005 made by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI, prosecution evidence was closed.
15 In his statement recorded U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. accused Ranjit Dadlani denied allegations of prosecution against him. He claimed that he had never demanded any bribe from the complainant and had never received the bribe amount. As per the accused, complainant came to his Office alongwith PW-6 after taking permission from PW-5 for CC No. 75/2008 Page29 of 59 supervising work of disbursement of payment to his labour and he (accused) accepted the same as it was his duty. He claimed that he alongwith A-2 had gone to supervise work of disbursement of payment to labour and also followed the complainant for the same. He however denied the suggestion about the TLO having reached the spot at Rajender Prasad Road or having apprehended him in the manner alleged by the prosecution. He denied any post-trap proceeding having taken place at the spot. As per the accused, he had been falsely implicated by CBI at instance of the complainant who was annoyed as he (accused) had pointed out defects to be removed in the Site Order Book and had refused to add bogus entries for enhancement of payment due to the complainant. He further claimed that the M.B. had already been submitted by him in the Office on 04.03.1996 and with it his duty was over. He claimed that the complainant brought him out of his Office with determination to get him apprehended outside the Office and when he came out alongwith A-2, they were nabbed by CBI Officers on way to Dr. Rajender Prasad Road and were taken to CBI Office. He claimed that thereafter they were falsely implicated in this case.
16 To similar extent were the replies given by accused No. 2 Shri A.K. Singh in his statement recorded U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. He claimed that there was no incriminating evidence against him and that there were material CC No. 75/2008 Page30 of 59 contradictions in statements of witnesses and that he had been falsely implicated.
17 Only accused Ranjit Dadlani chose to lead defence evidence and infact examined seven witnesses in defence.
18 DW-1 Shri C.L. Suresh produced on record the Contract Agreement Ex.DW-1/1, CPWD Works Manual Ex.DW-1/2 and some communications made by way of letters which were proved as Ex.DW-1/3 to 12.
During course of cross-examination by ld.
PP, witness claimed that he was not the custodian of the record produced by him. He claimed that he had never dealt with Ex.DW-1/3 & 10 and that the letters Ex.DW-1/4 to 9 and 12 were neither signed nor prepared in his presence nor had he ever worked with signatories of those letters and could not identify writings and signatures on the same. 19 DW-2 Smt. Sushma Sharma identified her signatures on documents which had been furnished to Shri Rajender Singhvi in pursuance to his application under RTI Act. The record was collectively proved as Ex.DW-2/DA. She claimed that the same had been furnished under order dated 12.01.2010 issued by Shri Vineet Aggarwal, HOB / CBI /ACB. The order was proved as Ex.DW-2/DB. She also proved some pages of the records produced by her as Ex.J-1/D-2 ; Ex.J-2/D-2 & Ex.J-3/D-2.
CC No. 75/2008 Page31 of 59 During course of cross-examination by ld.
PP, witness claimed that copies of the available record had been supplied in pursuance to order Ex.DW-2/DB.
Subsequently, the witness was recalled in pursuance to order dated 20.03.2012 when she claimed that some copies of records had also been furnished to Shri Rajender Singhvi in pursuance to order dated 31.07.2009 passed by the Office Superintendent. The said record was proved as Ex.DW-2/DC (74 pages) and Ex.DW-2/DD (94 pages). Witness identified her signature on each page thereof. Internal page No. 35 of Ex.DW-2/DC was individually proved as Ex.J-4/D-2. Witness claimed having affixed her signature on the pages after comparing the same from the original.
19 DW-3 Shri Harshpati Gairola proved on record his report dated 02.11.2004 sent to SP-II as Ex.DW-3/A. He claimed that alongwith the same, he had also sent copies of list of Visitor Registers which were found and destroyed. The list was collectively Mark DW-3/X. He could not say if the report and list had been filed in Court by Shri R.S. Bedi alongwith his reply/ report dated 28.01.2005. He could not identify signature of Shri R.S. Bedi on the document Mark DW-3/Y. Witness identified his signatures at points X & Y on page No. 30 of Ex.DW-2/DA.
20 DW-4 Shri Narender Kumar posted as Ahlmad in Ld. Court of Shri V.K. Maheshwari, Special Judge, CC No. 75/2008 Page32 of 59 CBI produced the RC / FIR Register in respect of 1992-97. He claimed that there was no entry in respect of RC No. 17(A)/1996 in the said Register and the only entry in respect thereof was at page No. 70 regarding Challan being received in respect of the said RC. The entry was proved as Ex.DW-4/A. He also produced the Challan Institution Register and claimed that entry regarding institution of Challan in respect of RC No. 17(A)/1996 was at page No. 52. He claimed that it was registered as CC No. 56/1997 dated 06.08.1997 and produced copy of said entry as Ex.DW-4/B. During course of cross-examination by ld.
PP, witness admitted that whenever copy of FIR / RC is received, it is put up before the Ld. Presiding Officer who puts his initial on the same alongwith date & time. Similarly, he claimed, whenever Challan is filed in Court, the same is put up before the Ld. Presiding Officer mostly on the same date and further proceedings are conducted as per directions of the P.O. 21 DW-8 Shri S.K. Roy produced on record the record pertaining to transfer & posting of Ranjit Dadlani as Ex.DW-5/A. During course of cross-examination by ld.
PP, witness claimed that as per recordRanjit Dadlani was posted in Sub Division V B of B Division, CPWD w.e.f. 12.6.1995 (FN) and was placed under suspension w.e.f. 11.3.1996 (AN) vide order dated 26.3.1996. He claimed that CC No. 75/2008 Page33 of 59 as per his knowledge JE records measurement of work done by Contractor and thereafter on basis thereof bill is prepared by AE.
22 DW-6 Shri Rajinder Singhavi claimed that he was a practicing Advocate. He claimed having moved an application dated 16.4.2009 to PIO, Office of Ld. District & Sessions, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. Copy of receipt thereof was proved as Ex. DW-6/A. Application dated 31.8.2009 seeking information under RTI Act was proved as Ex. DW-6/B. Further communications in that regard were proved as Ex. DW-6/A1, A-2, A-3, B-1, B-2. He claimed that in pursuance to order passed by Appellate Authority, he received the required records Ex. DW-2/DA in envelope Ex. JX.
During course of cross examination by Ld. PP witness admitted that he was not an accused in this case. He volunteered that perhaps his vakalatnama on behalf of accused was on record. He admitted that he was neither an aggrieved nor an affected person in this case. He admitted that the information sought by him was in respect of the trap team which laid trap against the accused in this case. He volunteered that he had also sought information regarding visit of complainant to CBI office, movement of vehicles used by Trap Team and sending of FIR/complaint to court concerned but the same had been with-held by CBI. He denied the suggestion that the information sought by him CC No. 75/2008 Page34 of 59 under RTI Act were solely related to defence of the accused or was not related to any public cause. He claimed that he was not working under instructions of the accused when he moved the respective applications seeking the information. As per the witness, accused Ranjit Dadlani used to discuss his case with him and other advocate friends and on basis of facts disclosed by Shri Ranjit, it appeared to him that complete and true facts and record had not been brought before the court by CBI and hence he moved the applications under RTI Act. He denied the suggestion of having moved the applications in collusion with or in league with the accused. He admitted that he had not advised the accused to summon or obtain the information sought by him under RTI Act. He denied the suggestion that he was instrumental in the accused illegally collecting the information through him unauthorizedly.
In pursuance to order dated 20.3.2012 passed by this court the witness was resummoned by the accused and during course of his testimony so recorded on 11.4.2012 witness proved his application dated 13.6.2009 under RTI Act as Ex. DW-6/C. He claimed that documents Ex. DW-2/DC (74 pages) and Ex. DW-2/DD (94 pages) had been received in pursuance to letter dated 31.7.2009 (Mark DW-6/C2). He claimed that photocopies of documents mentioned in Para b and c of his application Ex. DW-6/C were never supplied to him. He claimed that he was informed that CC No. 75/2008 Page35 of 59 the same had been destroyed after prescribed period of retention.
During course of cross examination by Ld. PP witness denied the suggestion that the information had been sought by him without any lawful purpose. Witness claimed that he knew that under Cr. P.C an accused has a right to summon any relevant document required by him to be produced in court in defence. He stated that he had no knowledge whether or not accused had been denied right to summon these documents by the trial court. He denied the suggestion of having obtained monetary benefit from the accused for securing information for being placed before the court or that he had facilitated the accused to delay the trial. 23 DW-7 Shri Prem Lal proved on record letter dated 31.7.2009 (Mark DW-6/C2) as Ex. DW-7/A and identified his signature on the same. He claimed that Ex. DW-2/DD (94 pages) were copies of the complaint register. He claimed that there was no corresponding entry to complaint Ex. PW-1/A in Ex. DW-2/DD.
During course of cross examination by Ld. PP witness claimed that all the complaints received in the Complaint Section are entered in the complaint register even if the complaint is unsigned or anonymous. He claimed that in case of a complaint directly produced before the SP, wherein trap has to be laid, an entry is made in the complaint register only if so directed by the SP and in case SP directs for CC No. 75/2008 Page36 of 59 registration of FIR or initiation of proceedings on the complaint, no entry is made on the complaint register. He claimed that entries in respect of complaints directed for registration of FIR was made in the Crime Register. Witness claimed that corresponding entry to the complaint Ex. PW-1/A was Ex. J-4/D2 which was part of Ex. DW-2/DC. On perusal of Ex. PW-1/A witness claimed that there was no order of SP for registration of this complaint in the complaint register.
After seeking permission from the court witness was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused and during course of his such cross examination he claimed that as far as he knew, there was no rule or written guideline in respect of procedure to be followed regarding entries made in the complaint register. He claimed that as a matter of practice and procedure, only complaints ordered by the SP to be recorded in the complaint register find mention therein. Noting at point B on Ex. PW-1/A was claimed by the witness to be in handwriting of the then SP Shri V.S.K. Kaumudi. 24 As no other witness was examined on behalf of the accused, defence evidence was closed. Thereafter, arguments were advanced by Ld. PP for CBI and also by Ld. Counsels for accused persons.
25 During course of his submissions, it was submitted by ld. PP for CBI that PW-1, PW-4 & PW-8 had duly proved case of the prosecution in Court and that the other independent witness Shri Ranjit Singh could not be examined CC No. 75/2008 Page37 of 59 during trial as he had since expired. As per ld. PP, no adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution for non-examination of PW Shri Ranjit Singh. While referring to facts of the case, it was submitted that the work in question was alloted to firm of the complainant on 03.08.1995 and was completed in November, 1995. It was submitted that only part payment had yet been received by the complainant's firm and that when the complainant approached the CPWD Office for his balance payment, accused Ranjit Dadlani (J.E.) demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant on 09.03.1996 for clearing the bills. It was further submitted that the date of '11.03.1996' was fixed for the payment to be made and it was on that day that money was accepted by accused Ranjit Dadlani from the complainant in presence of accused A.K. Singh and both were apprehended red handed at the spot. While referring to facts of the case and the evidence on record, it was submitted by ld. PP that A.K. Singh was very much present in the Office on 11.03.1996 when both the accused persons in furtherance of their conspiracy left the Office for the spot where bribe amount was to be received and was also present at the spot i.e. Rajender Prasad Road at the time of handing over of bribe amount by complainant to accused Ranjit. It was pointed out by ld. PP that facts made it evident that A.K. Singh was in knowledge of the transaction and was hand in glove with accused Ranjit. Ld. PP further submitted that even A.K. Singh was a J.E. who was looking CC No. 75/2008 Page38 of 59 after part of the work in question alongwith co-accused Ranjit. It was submitted that both had acted together in demanding and receiving the bribe amount.
26 Ld. Counsel for accused Ranjit Dadlani pointed out that the complaint itself was a fabricated document and the said fact was apparent on perusal of the evidence recorded in Court. While referring to testimony of PW-1 (complainant) it was submitted that the complainant had claimed in Court that demand was first made by Ranjit in his Office on 08.03.1996 while in the complaint, it was claimed that the demand was made on 09.03.1996. It was pointed out by ld. Counsel that 09.03.1996 was a second Saturday when Office of CPWD is closed and upon coming to know of this fact, the complainant conveniently changed the date to '08.03.1996' while deposing in Court. While referring to the documents on record, it was further submitted that the work in question had not been completed in November, 1995 as had been claimed in the complaint but had continued even thereafter as material was being lifted from CPWD by the complainant's firm for the work in question even thereafter. While referring to the documents, it was further submitted that the original work assigned to the complainant's firm was worth Rs.6,77,449/- but payment was to be made only for the work done which amounted to nearly Rs.6.00 lacs. It was claimed that the complainant wanted the accused to make false entries in the Measurement Book (MB) so as to facilitate the CC No. 75/2008 Page39 of 59 complainant to get more money from CPWD than what he was entitled to. While referring to the MB, it was submitted that the same had already been deposited by the accused in the Office on 04.03.1996 and accused Ranjit was not connected with the same thereafter and it was not his job to prepare the bill. On basis thereof, it was submitted that Ranjit was not in a position to obstruct passing of the bill in favour of the complainant and would not have asked for any illegal gratification in that regard. While referring to the M.B. and the Site Register, it was submitted that various defects therein had been pointed out by Ranjit and other CPWD Officials and the complainant was required to set right the said defects. As per ld. Counsel, as accused Ranjit refused to oblige the complainant by making false entries in M.B., he was falsely implicated. During course of her submissions, it was also submitted by ld. Counsel that many material witnesses like Inspector D.D. Negi, ASI Ajit Singh, etc. had not been examined by the prosecution. It was also submitted that the accused had asked for production of Log Books and Visitor's Register of CBI for the relevant period, but the same were never produced by the Investigating Agency under false excuse of the same being not available. It was submitted that as CBI was required to produce the said records even under orders of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in this case and had failed / neglected to produce the same, adverse inference needs to be drawn against genuineness of case of the CC No. 75/2008 Page40 of 59 Investigating Agency. It was also submitted that the vehicle allegedly used by the trap team to go from CBI Office to the spot at Rajender Prasad Road, infact had never gone there. Reliance in this regard was placed on the Log Books produced in Court in defence. It was also submitted by ld. Counsel that even the genesis of case of the prosecution was based on questionable facts. As per ld. Counsel, if the accused Ranjit had demanded bribe to be paid in his Office on 11.03.1996, there was no occasion for the trap team to have laid a trap outside Office of the CPWD on that day. It was also pointed out that the alleged conversation between the complainant and the accused had never been got recorded nor was the shadow witness directed to accompany the complainant to Office of the accused. As per ld. Counsel, the "pre-appointed signal" was to be given by the complainant after handing over the money near the Juice / Tea Stall whereupon the accused was to be apprehended. It was pointed out that infact the accuseds were never apprehended on receipt of the signal at that spot and rather, as per case of prosecution, the trap team followed the complainant and the accused from that spot till Rajender Prasad Road. Various contradictions in testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were also pointed out by ld. Counsel. It was further submitted by ld. Counsel that infact both the accused persons were made to accompany the complainant to witness payment of money to the labour and that they were lured out of the Office CC No. 75/2008 Page41 of 59 by the complainant under that excuse. It was submitted that once outside the Office, the accused persons were apprehended by CBI on way to Rajender Prasad Road and that the alleged incident never took place. As per ld. Counsel, while the prosecution was duty bound to prove its case to the hilt, accused was only required to probabilise its defence and the same stood probabilised by testimony of PW-5 & 6 who had supported the defence version.
27 Ld. Counsel for A-2 while adopting the submissions already made by ld. Counsel for A-1 submitted that there was no legally admissible cogent evidence on record against A-2 Shri A.K. Singh. It was pointed out that as per evidence on record, A.K. Singh had neither demanded any money from the complainant nor had he received it from him. It was further submitted that nothing was brought on record by the prosecution to show any conspiracy or meeting of minds of A-1 & A-2 in respect of the transaction. It was claimed that A-2 had only accompanied A-1 and was not in knowledge of any previous talk between A-1 & and the complainant.
28 In the reply arguments, it was submitted by ld. PP that the proposed defence being taken by the accused persons and echoed by PW-5 & 6 was not supported from facts of the case. It was submitted that in case the complainant was taking the accused under guise of making payments to the labour, there must have been some Payment CC No. 75/2008 Page42 of 59 Register or Receipt Book with the complainant or the accused to give the required certificate of payment as was being claimed. It was submitted that in absence of any such record, the defence sought to be made out was apparently false. It was also submitted by ld. PP that there never can be any direct evidence in respect of conspiracy as conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and executed in darkness. It was submitted that facts and circumstances of the case had the conspiracy angle writ large. As regards the accused having already submitted the M.B. in Office prior to 09.03.1996, it was submitted that there was nothing on record to show that the complainant was in knowledge of the said fact and that accused infact took advantage of the said ignorance of the complainant to lure him to part with money. It was also submitted that the accused had never made any complaint to any superior authority regarding false implication and even did not examine themselves in defence. As regards A-2, it was submitted that his presence at the spot was sufficient to prove his being in agreement with A-1 as regards the transaction in question.
29 While referring to State Vs. Nalini (1999) 5 SCC page 253, it was submitted by ld. PP that when two or more persons agree to commit a crime of conspiracy, then regardless of making or considering any plans for its commission, and despite the fact that no step is taken by any such person to carry out their common purpose, a crime is CC No. 75/2008 Page43 of 59 committed by each and everyone who joins in the agreement. Reliance was also placed on Kehar Singh & Others Vs. State (AIR 1988 SC 1883) wherein it was observed that an overt act is not essential when conspiracy is to commit any punishable offence. It had also been observed therein that an accused who was party to a criminal conspiracy which lead to commission of an offence by other co-accused could be sentenced for the main offence even if he himself did not participate in actual commission of the offence. Reliance was also placed on Sonelal Vs. State (1998 SCC (Crl.) page
657) when it was contended that the accused had failed to give any probable explanation regarding colour of the hand wash changing to pink when his fingers were dipped in solution of Sodium Carbonate. While relying upon State Vs. Kailash Chandra (2004 SCC (Crl.) Supp page 149) it was submitted by ld. PP that one of the considerations for acquitting the accused by Hon'ble High Court in that case was that the bills in question had already been released prior to payment of bribe amount by complainant to the accused and this reason given by Hon'ble High Court was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to be not substantial to render the prosecution story improbable. While referring to Gopal Singh Vs. CBI (ILR (2005) II Delhi page 35) it was submitted that a public servant could receive illegal gratification even by misleading the complainant and that the presumption U/s. 20 PC Act would arise as soon as money which is not a legal CC No. 75/2008 Page44 of 59 remuneration is received by the public servant. It was submitted that prosecution was not to prove that the public servant demanding bribe was in a position to help person from whom bribe was demanded and rather burden shifted upon the public servant to explain as to why he received the money.
30 Ld. Counsels for the accused persons on the other hand in support of their submissions had placed reliance inter-alia upon the following pronouncements :-
Shanti Lal Vs. State (1976) 1 SCC 577 ; R.K. Dey Vs. State (AIR 1977 Supreme Court 170) ; Surajmal Vs. State (AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1408) ; Kursheed Khan Vs. State (1981 Crl. L.J. NOC 63) ; Banshi Lal Vs. State (AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1235) ; Mohinder Pal Vs. State (1984 (2) Crimes page 850) ; GV Nanjundiah Vs. State (1988 SCC (Cri. ) page 77) ; State Vs. Vishnu Prasad (1991 Crl. L.J. 1983) ; Surya Bhan Vs. State (1995 Crl. L.J. 107) ; M.S. Ramanathan Vs. State (1996 Crl. L.J. 2273) ; M. Selvarajan Vs. State (1996 (1) Crimes 590) ; State Vs. K. Narasimhachary (2005 (8) SCC 364) ; D. Subramanian Vs. State (2006 (1) SCC 401) ; V.V. Subarao Vs. State (2006 (13) SCC 305) ; C.M. Girish Babu Vs. CBI (2009 (3) SCC
779) ; State of Maharashtra Vs. D. Laxman Rao (2010 (2) SCC (Cri.) 385) ; Banarasi Das Vs. State (2010 (4) SCC
450) ; Dev Raj Arora Vs. State (Crl. Appl. No. 301/1999) decided on 04.01.2012 by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Mukta CC No. 75/2008 Page45 of 59 Gupta ; Rakesh Kapoor Vs. State (2013 (1) Crimes 92) & S.K. Singhal Vs. State (Crl. Appl. 577/02) decided on 03.05.2013 by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Mukta Gupta.
31 This Court has given thoughtful consideration to arguments advanced at the bar and has also gone through the evidence recorded, the documents and also the judicial pronouncements relied upon by both sides. 32 Present is one of the few trap cases where the alleged conversation between complainant and the culprit had not been recorded. Not only this, there was no shadow witness who might have accompanied complainant to the spot to witness demand and acceptance. That being the position, testimony of the complainant and other facts and circumstances of the case have to be looked into and appreciated with great care and caution.
33 Let us first briefly deal with some of the contradictions that have appeared in testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. While PW-4 had claimed that the complainant took the scooter inside the CPWD office, as per PW-8 complainant had parked the scooter near tea stall outside the CPWD office. There are contradictions as regards who followed whom from the office till Rajender Prasad Road. While independent witness PW-4 claimed that both the accused had followed the complainant on scooter, PW-8 specifically claimed that it was the complainant who followed the accused. Complainant himself had claimed that after the CC No. 75/2008 Page46 of 59 accused stopped the scooter he stopped his two wheeler scooter. That means as per the complainant he was following the accused persons. Even the recovery memo mentions that accused Ranjit Dadlani signaled the complainant to stop. As regards parking of the scooters at Rajender Prasad Road, PW-1 had claimed that Ranjit Dadlani stopped the scooter and then he also stopped his scooter by their side. The site plan depicts otherwise as scooter of the complainant is shown parked behind scooter of the accused and not by its side. While PW-1 had claimed that Ranjit Dadlani had conversation with him while sitting on the scooter and does not mention about Dadlani having got down from the scooter, other witnesses had claimed that Ranjit Dadlani had got down from the scooter. PW-4 specifically claimed that both the accused and the complainant got down from their scooters while PW-8 claimed that after parking the scooter accused came down and talked to the complainant. As regards apprehension of the accused, PW-4 claimed that the raid officer (TLO Chadha (PW-8)) caught hold of the accused alongwith other members of the trap team, PW-8 claimed that it was Negi and Rajesh who caught hold of the accused. Even the recovery memo mentions about Rajesh and Negi having held the accused from wrist. As regards hand washes, PW-1 claimed that hand washes of both accused were taken while as per PW-4 and as per case of prosecution hand wash of A-2 had not been taken. While PW-1 & 4 had claimed that the powder CC No. 75/2008 Page47 of 59 treated notes had been given to complainant (PW-1), it was claimed by PW-8 and mentioned in the handing over memo that the notes were kept in right side pocket of pant of the complainant. As per recovery memo as well as personal search memo of the accused, bunch of 7 keys had been recovered. The bunch of 7 keys claimed to have been recovered from possession of accused (as mentioned in the personal search memo contained keys of his house). Recovery memo mentions one of those keys to be the key of scooter in question. It is pertinent to mention that personal search of accused Ranjit had been taken prior to preparation of the recovery memo. This contradiction has not been clarified as to how key of scooter of A.K. Singh was found in the bunch of keys containing house keys of accused Ranjit Dadlani. The aforesaid contradictions seen independently appear to be insignificant but taken in totality do shake credibility of the case against the accused persons. It would be pertinent to mention herein that the complaint Ex. PW-1/A mentions about demand having made on 9.3.96 while the complainant when examined as PW-1 claimed the demand to have been made on 8.3.1996.
34 Coming back to facts of the case, it was mentioned in the complaint Ex. PW-1/A that accused Ranjit had asked the complainant to go to his office after lunch at about 2.00 PM on 11.3.1996. As per the handing over memo allegedly prepared in CBI office, the complainant was to make CC No. 75/2008 Page48 of 59 payment of bribe amount to the accused on his specific demand near the juice/tea stall just outside his office gate. It has remained a mystery as to how the spot was shifted by CBI officers from office of accused to the juice stall outside his office and as to how the CBI officers ever came to know about existence of juice/tea stall outside office of accused. None of the CBI officers had claimed having gone to CPWD office to check the topography thereof before conduct of pre-trap proceedings. Interestingly, during course of his cross examination the TLO (PW-8) denied that it was pre-decided to call A-1 near tea stall or the juice shop outside his office and to apprehend him from there. Furthermore, a perusal of the handing over memo Ex. PW-1/C allegedly prepared in CBI office reveals something more than is mentioned therein. The last four lines of page No.2 of the memo appear to have been squeezed in just above the signatures of the witnesses. The last line before the squeezed in lines reads "all members of the trap team including the witnesses have signed this memo". This court is left wondering as to how this fact found mentioned in body of the memo when the witnesses were supposed to have signed the memo after its preparation. 35 While on this, it would be pertinent to point out that the handing over memo had been signed by eight persons out of which only three i.e. complainant, PW-4 Guglani and TLO have been examined in court. Given that PW Ranjit Singh had since expired, there was no justification CC No. 75/2008 Page49 of 59 for the investigating agency to have not cited any other witness. The recovery memo (Ex. PW-1/F) bears signatures of 11 persons out of which only three had been cited and examined. It would be pertinent to mention at this stage that as per case of prosecution the accused was apprehended by Inspector D.D. Negi and Inspector Rajesh Kumar both of whom are signatory to the memo but none had been examined in court. No explanation as come on record regarding their non examination.
36 Let us now deal with the defence sought to be put up by the accused. It had been claimed by the accused persons that the MB had already been submitted in office on 4.3.1996 and thereafter nothing more was to be done by the accused towards preparation of bill regarding payment to be made to the complainant. This plea of the accused finds ample support from testimonies of PW-5 & 6 and also of PW-9 who admitted that contractor was required to make payment to the labour in presence of JE's supervising the work and JE was to survey the payment.
37 It is settled principle of law that while prosecution has to prove its case to the hilt, accused is only required to probablise his defence. It has been observed in R.K. Dey's case (Supra) that the Evidence Act does not contemplate that the accused should prove his case with the same strictness and rigour as the prosecution is required to prove a criminal charge and infact as per cardinal principles of CC No. 75/2008 Page50 of 59 criminal jurisprudence, it is sufficient if the accused is able to prove his case by standard of preponderance of probabilities. It has further been observed that accused can succeed not only when he proves his case to the hilt but even if probability of his version throws doubt on the prosecution case. It had been observed in Mohinder Pal's case (Supra) that when accused is able to probabilise his defence version, benefit of doubt is required to be given to him. In Laxman Rao's case (Supra) it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that where it is possible to have both views, one in favour of the prosecution and the other in favour of the accused, the latter should prevail. Recently Hon'ble Ms. Justice Mukta Gupta had observed in Dev Raj's case (Supra) that onus on the accused is not as heavy as the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
38 The investigating agency, it appears had prepared two site plans in this case. The same came to be proved as Ex. PW-4/F & G. Site plan Ex. PW-4/G apparently is of the spot outside the CPWD office i.e. office of the accused persons. The same bears signatures of TLO, PW Guglani (PW-4) and Ranjit Singh (since deceased). It has nowhere come on record as to at what stage of proceedings this site plan was prepared. Also, details of markings in the site plan are not mentioned as apparently there are no footnotes to the site plan. Same is the situation with the other site plan Ex. PW-4/F which as per the investigating agency is CC No. 75/2008 Page51 of 59 supposed to be site plan of the spot where the handing over of money took place. There are no footnotes in this site plan which could have facilitated this court to ascertain the places or the points where the transaction allegedly took place. No explanation has come on record from the TLO in this regard. It appears that the investigating agency forgot to prepare the footnotes in haste.
39 Yet another point which has baffled this court is shifting of the probable spot of transaction from inside office of accused to the shop outside the office premises. No explanation whatsoever has come on record as to why the complainant was called upon to lure the accused outside the office for handing over of money to him. It was case of the prosecution that the trap team had directed the complainant to give a pre-appointed signal after the transaction was over and thereafter the trap team was supposed to apprehend the accused. Now, the complainant did give the pre-appointed signal at the juice shop after coming out from office of the accused, but for some undisclosed reason, the trap team did not apprehend the accused at that spot and rather followed the complainant and the accused persons in their vehicle. No explanation whatsoever has come on record regarding this conduct of the trap team.
40 While on this, it would be pertinent to mention that there appear to be 11 members in the trap team of which one i.e. the complainant had gone to the office of CC No. 75/2008 Page52 of 59 CPWD on his scooter. That implies that there were 10 members of the trap team who had travelled in the CBI vehicle from CBI office to office of CPWD. None of these trap team member was claimed to be driving the said vehicle and as such there would have been 11 persons sitting int he said vehicle which reached CPWD office from CBI office for conducting the raid. As per record the vehicle used was Gypsy. In V.V. Subba Rao's case (Supra) the trap team had proceeded to the spot with 8 members of the trap team in one vehicle. It was observed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha who wrote the judgment on behalf of the Bench "the trap party proceeded in an official car. Eight persons travelled in the same car. Why so many persons travelled in one car, is not explained. Why so many persons had travelled together is beyond our comprehension. A trap proceeding envisages secrecy and not a wide publicity". In the present case, the trap team consisted of 11 persons who had traveled in the same car from CBI office to CPWD office and there was no explanation on record regarding the trap team having used one and the same vehicle i.e. official vehicle No. DL-3CG-0356 as mentioned in the recovery memo. 41 As regards the vehicle used during trap proceedings, it has appeared in testimony of the trap laying officer PW-8 R.K. Chadha and was also mentioned in the recovery memo Ex. PW-1/F that the vehicle Gypsy DL-3CG-0356 was used in the trap. It had been claimed by CC No. 75/2008 Page53 of 59 the trap laying officer that during the trap, vehicle had remained with him and that from CBI office they had gone near office of the accused and then to the spot on Rajender Prasad Road and then had returned back to office of accused to complete the post trap proceedings. He had further claimed that subsequently some other vehicle was also requisitioned as house search of accused Ranjit Dadlani was to be conducted and that in the subsequently requisitioned vehicle, he alongwith accused A.K. Singh and subordinate staff returned back to CBI office while Vehicle No. 0356 was sent for house search of accused Ranjit Dadlani alongwith Inspector D.D. Negi, one eye witness and some other subordinate staff. He had further claimed that vehicle No. 0356 and the team returned back to CBI office after house search of the accused. He specifically denied the suggestion that vehicle No. 0356 had gone to Patel Nagar, Connaught Place with him during the trap proceedings and also denied the suggestion that accused Ranjit was not sent to his house for search in vehicle No. 0356. So much for testimony of the trap laying officer. Log books of the two vehicles in question have a different story to tell. Log book in respect of Maruti Gypsy No. DL-3CG-0356 was proved during trial as Ex. PW-7/DC. As per the relevant entry dated 11.3.1996, the said vehicle had been driven for about 65 KM under Officer R.K. Chadha in respect of RC 17(A)/96 (present case) and during the period 2.00 PM to 11.15 PM the vehicle had CC No. 75/2008 Page54 of 59 traveled from office to K.G. Marg area - two trips to Connaught Place to Patel Nagar to CGO to K.G. Marg - to office. The other vehicle in question appears to be Jeep RNL-2359. Log book of the same was proved as Ex. PW-7/DB. As per relevant entry, on 11.3.1996 the vehicle under D.D. Negi had gone from office to Kushak Road and back to CBI office between 19.30 - 2010 on 11.3.1996. Now, what the trap laying officer wants this court to believe is that vehicle No. 0356 had been taken by him from CBI office to Curzon Road and then to Dr. Rajender Prasasd Road and thereafter it was taken from there to Kushak Road (residence of accused Ranjit Dadlani) and from there it was brought back to CBI office while he himself alongwith some other staff had returned back to CBI office from Rajender Prasad Road in vehicle No. 2359. All these claims of the TLO are belied by the two log books. Significantly the TLO during course of his cross examination had stated that he was not disputing entries in the log book on the day of trap. This court is at a loss. As per the log book, vehicle No. 0356 which as per case of the investigating agency had been used by the trap team, had never gone to the spot i.e. Rajender Prasad Road and had never been taken to residence of the accused at Kushak Road as was being claimed by the investigating agency. Significantly, relevant entry in the log book register of vehicle No. 0356 is counter signed by the TLO R.K.Chadha and "Dr. Rajender Prasad Road and Kushak Road" did not CC No. 75/2008 Page55 of 59 find mention in the said entry. It does not take Solomon;s wisdom nor Argus eyes (mythological giant with 100 eyes) scrutiny to fathom falsehood of story put forwarded by Investigating Agency. Needless to reiterate herein that Inspector D.D. Negi who apparently was a material witness having apprehended the accused and having taken him for his house search, was neither cited nor examined in this case. For some unknown reason, the house search memo had not been filed alongwith the charge sheet. A copy of the said memo came on record alongwith reply filed by CBI to application of the accused seeking return of his keys. 42 Perusal of the documents reveals the following timings:
The recovery memo was prepared from 3.15 PM to 5.10 PM, almirah of office of Ranjit Dadlani had been searched from 6.20 PM to 6.45 PM, almirah of A.K. Singh had been searched from 6.50 PM to 7.30 PM, office of Shri Solanki had been searched from 7.40 PM to 9.00 PM and house search of accused Ranjit Dadlani was reportedly conducted from 6.15 PM to 7.30 PM. Now, as per IO it was the vehicle No. 0356 which had been taken for house search of the accused Ranjit Dadlani. The CBI party at the spot returned back to CBI office in Vehicle No. 2359. Significantly, log book of vehicle 2359 shows its movement to Kushak Road (house of accused) from 7.30 PM to 8.10 PM while movement of vehicle No. 0356, as per the log book was from 2.00 PM to CC No. 75/2008 Page56 of 59 11.15 PM in this case. Timings of log book run contrary to timings mentioned in the memos. It would not be out of place to mention that vehicle No. 2359 was not referred to by any of the witnesses (except for it being mentioned to as other vehicle) by the TLO nor it finds mention in any of the documents prepared in this case. Involvement of this vehicle came to light only on perusal of documents summoned by the accused in his defence.
43 Reading of testimony of complainant and PW-4 A.C. Guglani makes interesting reading. It had been admitted by the complainant (PW-1) during course of his cross examination that one R.P. Mukherjee had also been got trapped by their firm through CBI ACB and a case RC 39(A)/01 was registered on basis thereof. He also admitted that they had also made a complaint against one Balbir Singh, Forest Guard for demanding bribe. As regards PW-4 Shri A.C. Guglani, during course of his cross examination he admitted that prior to the present case, he had joined CBI raid in two cases one of which was a trap case and in the other he was to witness some signatures. In case of G.V. Nanjundiah (Supra) it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that where a witness admitted having joined three or four earlier raids organized by the CBI, under the circumstances he could not be an independent witness. In the case before us, neither the complaint is the only complaint lodged by complainant with ACB, CBI, nor the independent witness is a CC No. 75/2008 Page57 of 59 fresh witness who had not joined any other raid. 44 The complainant in his complaint had claimed that demand was made on 9.3.1996 while in court he stated that the demand had been made on 8.3.1996. In Shanti Lal's case (Supra) it had been claimed during course of trial that demand was made on March, 29 & 30, 1967 while in the report made to DSP complainant had claimed the demand having been made on March 31, 1967. It was observed by Hon'le Supreme Court that this cannot be regarded as a trivial or insignificant discrepancy having no relevance to the veracity of the prosecution case. It was further observed that it leaves an indalible infirmity on the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution so far as demand for bribe made by accused is concerned.
45 As regards submission made by Ld PP regarding the accused having not examined himself in defence it would be pertinent to mention that as per Section 21 Proviso (b) of PC Act, no adverse inference can be drawn against accused in case he does not examine himself in defence. As such, even if none of the accused have examined themselves in defence, no adverse inference can be drawn against them in this regard.
46 It is settled principle of law that prosecution has to prove its case on basis of legally admissible evidence and that the distance between "may be true" and "must be true" has to be traveled by the prosecution of its own and it CC No. 75/2008 Page58 of 59 cannot take any benefit from weakness of defence. Similar observations was echoed in R.K. Dey's case (Supra) wherein it was observed that prosecution cannot derive benefit from weakness or falsity of the defence version while proving its case and cannot get support from weaknesses of defence. In view of observations made herein above, it is apparent that due to slip shod investigation conducted in this case, prosecution has failed to prove its case to the hilt while the accused persons, on basis of cross examination of the witnesses and the defence led, have not only probablised but have clearly proved their defence to the hilt thereby throwing out case of the prosecution.
47 Accordingly, due to want of proper investigation in this case and as investigating agency has tried to hide more from the Court than it had revealed in court, this court has no hesitation in throwing out case of CBI and acquit the accused persons.
48 Both accused are accordingly ordered to be acquitted in this case.
Announced in the open court (M.R. SETHI)
on 24.05.2013 SPECIAL JUDGE-IV, CBI (PC ACT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CC No. 75/2008 Page59 of 59