Delhi District Court
Heard On The Point Of Sentence And ... vs V. Giri Air 1971 Sc 1162; R. M on 10 July, 2012
State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHARMESH SHARMA
SPECIAL JUDGE03, CBI
NEW DELHI,DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
CC No. 06/2011
Case ID No. 02403R0560692008
RC No. 5 (A)/2008/CBI/ACB/ND
In re:
STATE (CBI)
VS
(1). GURCHARAN SINGH
S/O LATE SH. GANGA RAM
R/O CD/3A, DDA FLAT,
HARI NAGAR,
NEW DELHI110054
(2) JANKI BALLAB JOSHI
S/O LATE SH. PUNA NAND JOSHI
B130, NEHRU VIHAR,
DAYAL PUR, DEHI 110094
Date on which charge sheet was filed 13.06.2008
Date on which charges were framed 27.02.2009
Date on which judgment was reserved 02.07.2012
Date on which judgment was pronounced 07.07.2012
APPEARANCES:
Mr. S. C. Sharma, Ld. PP for the State (CBI).
Mr. H. K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the accused Gurcharan Singh
Mr. Hamid Ahmad Advocate during the trial for the accused J. B.
Joshi while Shri Sidharth Joshi advocate at final stage
Page No.1/34
State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
07.07.2012
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Gurcharan Singh S/o Late Sh. Ganga Singh working as Assistant Director, MIG (Housing), DDA Vikas Sadan, New Delhi and accused Janki Ballab Joshi S/o Late Sh. Puna Nand Joshi as Peon in the same department have been arraigned for trial by the State (CBI) on the allegations that they in the month of December 2007 to January 2008 entered into a criminal conspiracy to demand a bribe of Rs.2000/ from complainant Dalsher Singh Kataria for executing conveyance deed in respect of DDA Flat no. 223, Second Floor, GRII, PocketII, Sector A10, Narela, Delhi that was allotted to him and accordingly demand was made from the complainant on 27.12.2007 and on 04.01.2008 Rs.2,000/ was accepted from the complainant and in addition thereto accused J. B. Joshi demanded Rs.100/ and accordingly the accused persons faced trial u/s 120B IPC r/w Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and substantive offences. FACTS
2. The case was registered by the CBI on a written complaint Ex.PW 4/A in Hindi dated 04.01.2008 by the complainant Dalsher Singh Kataria wherein he alleged that "he had been allotted a DDA Flat and conveyance deed of the flat was required to be executed for which he had filed necessary application along with the relevant Page No.2/34 State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
documents with the DDA; and that for executing the sale deed, a date was supposed to be fixed by the DDA; that he met the accused Gurcharan Singh, Assistant Director on 27.12.2007 who told him to come on 01.01.2008 with bribe of Rs.2,000/ for getting an early date i.e 02.01.2008 for execution of conveyance deed and accused told him that early date would not be given unless bribe is paid to him".
3. The case of the CBI is that complaint Ex.PW4/A was marked to PW14 Inspector Alok Kumar for investigation who for the purposes of verification of the contents of the complaint secured presence of two independent witnesses namely Mr. Tej Narain Singh (PW12) and Mr. Raghubir Singh (PW8) both UDC from MCD, Vigilance Department, Delhi; that the independent witnesses were apprised about the contents of the complaint Ex.PW 4/A and in the presence of the witnesses the complainant spoke to accused Gurcharan Singh (A1) from his mobile no. 9868987640 to office landline no. 01124690431 and the conversation confirmed the demand of bribe by A1; that the conversation between the two was got recorded in a digital voice recorder and the conversation was transferred into audio cassette mark Q1 and sealed with the seal of CBI witnesses signing on the slip pasted on the clothe wrapper and in this regard preverification memo Ex.PW 4/D & Ex.PW 4/E were Page No.3/34 State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
prepared.
4. It is then the case of the CBI that a trap team consisting PW14 Alok Kumar TLO, Inspector C. K. Sharma, SI Manoj Kumar, SI Pankaj Vats, complainant PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria besides two independent witnesses Mr. Raghubir Singh (PW8) and Mr. Tej Narain Singh (PW12) were constituted. During the pretrap proceedings PW4 produced Rs.2,000/ in the denomination of three notes of Rs.500/ and five notes of Rs. 100/ and the distinctive numbers were recorded in the handing over memo and a demo was conducted wherein the currency notes were applied with phenolphthalein powder and its reaction with the solution of sodium carbonate was explained, and the tainted currency notes were given to PW4 complainant who kept the same in the left side pant pocket; that PW12 Tej Narain Singh was directed to remain as a shadow witness along with complainant (PW4) to oversee the entire transaction and complainant (PW4) was instructed to hand over the tainted money to accused Gurcharan Singh (A1) on his specific demand. Needless to state that the entire proceedings were recorded in the handing over memo Ex.PW 4/F.
5. It is then the case of the CBI that trap team reached the office of DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi and visitor pass Ex.PW 4/B was procured by the complainant (PW4) who was given a digital voice Page No.4/34 State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
recorder with instruction to start the same as soon as conversation is struck with accused A1 and as instructed PW12 Tej Narain Singh along with complainant (PW4) proceeded towards the office of the accused Gurcharan Singh at 4:50p.m.
6. It is then the case of the prosecution that when complainant PW4 accompanied with Tej Narain Singh (PW12) entered the MIG Section, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi, accused A1 was not available on his seat and A1 came after few minutes who inquired about Tej Narain Singh (A12) and told him to wait outside; that thereafter accused asked the complainant about the date required and inquired whether he had brought the bribe amount; that the complainant requested A1 to fix the following Wednesday i.e 09.01.2008 for execution of the conveyance deed and he confirmed to A1 that he had brought the bribe amount. It is alleged that A1 called for the concerned file and told PW4 to hand over the bribe amount to A2 ; that the complainant PW4 as instructed handed over the tainted amount to A2 who counted the same and kept the same inside the front pant pocket and in between he also demanded Rs.100 for the purpose of dispatching necessary call letter and A1 changed 26.03.2008 to 09.01.2008 and authenticated the call letter.
7. It is the case of the prosecution that as soon as A2 made an Page No.5/34 State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
entry in the dispatch register, the preappointed signal was given by the complainant PW4 by giving missed call and scratching his head with both hands and soon the trap team converged at the spot and apprehended both the accused persons who were confronted with the fact that they had demanded and accepted the bribe but they kept mum and got nervous. The case of the prosecution then goes further that the hand wash of the A2 besides wash of his pant pocket was taken at the spot with the colourless solution of sodium carbonate which turned pink and the wash were transferred to three separate clean glasses 'RHW' 'LHW' and 'RSPPW' and the tainted amount of Rs. 2000/ was recovered from 'RSPP' of accused J. B.Joshi and the numbers were tallied with handing over memo Ex.PW 4/G and found to be identical; that digital voice recorder had been taken from the complainant and conversation was heard in presence of all which confirmed demand and acceptance of bribe; that the recorded conversation was transferred into two blank audio cassette and one of it marked Q2 and sealed at the spot while the specimen voice of accused Gurcharan Singh was taken on a digital voice recorded and transferred on to blank audio cassette which was marked S1 and similarly it was done in case of accused J. B. Joshi that cassette was marked S2; and the entire facts were recorded in the recovery memo Ex.PW 4/F signed by the witnesses. Page No.6/34
State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
8. Needless to state that during the investigation, the relevant record about the allotment of flat no. 223 as referred above and the concerned file were examined and seized; expert reports in regard to hand wash and voice recording were obtained besides call record of mobile of the complainant and after sanction for prosecution from the competent authority, the present charge sheet was filed against the accused persons.
CHARGE
9. It would bear repetition that both the accused persons were charged for committing an offences u/s 120B IPC r/w Section 7 r/w Section 13 (1) (d) r/w section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act besides substantive offences to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
10. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined 15 witnesses:
The main witnesses for the prosecution were of course complainant Dalsher Singh Kataria (PW4) besides Mr. Raghubir Singh (PW8) and Mr. Tej Narain Singh (PW12). I shall dwell on their evidence later on in this judgment.
11. In the category of expert witness were examined PW1 Mr. D. K. Tanwar, Sr. Scientific Officer cum Assistant Chemical Examiner, Page No.7/34 State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
CFSL, CBI, New Delhi who testified that he received questioned documents Q1 and Q2 besides S1 and S2 on 10.01.2008 and proved his report Ex.PW 1/A. He brought out that the questioned voices in Q1 and Q2 belonged to accused persons as per specimen voice contained S1 and S2;
12. PW2 was Dr. N. M. Hasmi, Sr. Scientific Officer, CFSL, New Delhi who examined hand wash and pant Ex.P21 to P23 and proved his report Ex.PW 2/A that gave positive test for the presence of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate.
13. The following witnesses were examined from the office of the DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi.
PW 5 Manohar Lal who was working as Assistant, and posted at MIG Cell, Vikas Sadan, DDA Office, Delhi during the relevant time who deposed that it was the duty of the Assistant Director to fix a date for execution of the conveyance deed and he produced the concerned file of the complainant Dalsher Singh Kataria the photocopies of which were marked as Ex.PW 5/A. He deposed that possession of the flat was handed over on 29.11.2007 and a request was received on 27.12.2007 by the allottee PW4 Ex.PW 4/J for execution of the conveyance deed and he deposed that he prepared a call letter Ex.PW 5/A1 on which the date for execution of conveyance deed had been written by accused A1 at point A, B Page No.8/34 State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
putting signatures at point C.
14. Another witness was PW6 Mr. Ram Kanwar, LDC posted in MIG Section during the relevant time, who deposed that vide seizure memo Ex. PW 6/A, the file / documents Ex.PW 5/A as well as Ex.PW 5/A1 had been seized besides TR movement register Ex.PW 6/B and dispatch register Ex.PW 6/C . He also deposed about seizure of execution deed register Ex.PW 6/D and he attributed certain entries to A1 on which I would dwell later on in this judgment.
15. PW11 was Mr. Hari Prasad Sharma who was posted as UDC in MIG Section, DDA, Vikas Sadan, Delhi who deposed about the entries in the register Ex.PW 6/D made by accused A1 that were mark Ex.PW 11/A.
16. PW13 was Mr. Balwant Singh Juneja, Dy. Director, DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi who described the procedure that was being followed for execution of conveyance deed of DDA flats to its allottees who deposed without challenge that the execution of deed was fixed to be Assistant Director on which I would dwell later on in this judgment.
17. The sanction for prosecution as against accused Gurcharan Singh was proved by PW3 Mr. Nand Lal, Member (Finance) DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi accorded on 12.06.2008 which is Ex.PW 3/A Page No.9/34 State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
and sanction as against the accused J. B. Joshi was deposed about by PW7 Ms. Promila Bhargava, Commissioner (Personnel), DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi on 11.06.2008 which is Ex.PW 7/A.
18. The call record of mobile of the complainant no. 9868987640 was proved by PW9 Rakesh Soni, Junior Telecom Officer from MTNL , Tis Hazari Exchange, Delhi which is Ex.PW 9/B.
19. Lastly, the Trap Laying Officer Inspector Alok Kumar was examined as PW14 and Inspector A. S. Sandhu was examiend as PW15 who took over the investigation and after concluding the same filed the charge sheet in the present case. STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED
20. On the close of the prosecution evidence, both the accused persons were separately examined as per Section 313 Cr.P.C and all the incriminating facts and circumstances were put to both the accused who denied the case of the prosecution and refuted that they accepted any bribe from the complainant. Suffice to state that accused Gurcharan Singh denied the prosecution case and stated that the complaint was holding grudges against him and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Although, he stated that he wanted to lead evidence in his defence, no witnesses were examined by him and instead he filed written statement/submissions in terms of Section 313 (5) of Cr.P.C. Page No.10/34
State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
Similarly, accused J. B. Joshi denied the prosecution case and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case and he also filed written submissions in terms of Section 313 (5) but he did not lead any evidence in his defence.
ARGUMENTS
21. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by Ld.PP for the State (CBI) and Ld.Defence Counsel for both the accused persons . I have also perused the record carefully and minutely besides going through the written submission filed by the defence.
SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION.
22. At the cost of repetition, sanction for prosecution against the accused A1 Gurcharan Singh was accorded by PW3 Nand Lal vide order dated 12.06.2008 Ex.PW3/A and it is also brought on record that sanction for prosecution against accused A2 JB Joshi was granted by PW7 Ms. Promila Bhargava dated 11.06.2008 vide Ex.PW7/A. The competency of the said authorities to accord sanction for prosecution against the accused persons has not been assailed in any manner. Nothing is brought out in the evidence of PW3 Nand Lal or for that matter in the cross examination of PW7 Ms. Promila Bhargava to find that there was a case of non application of mind. The relevant sanction order are speaking Page No.11/34 State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
orders bare reading of which reflect that all the material were considered by the sanctioning authorities before according sanction for prosecution against the accused persons. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
23. As to how evidence of a witness has to be appreciated, the Supreme Court observed as follows in State of U. P. v. M. K. Anthony , AIR 1985 SC 48 : (1985 Cri LJ 493):
"While appreciating oral evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in evidence as a whole, and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief."
24. In Sardul Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2002 SC 3462, it is observed as under :
"There cannot be a prosecution case with a castiron perfection in all respects and it is obligatory for the Courts to analyse, sift and assess the evidence on record, with particular reference to its trustworthiness and truthfulness, by a process of dispassionate judicial scrutiny adopting an objective and reasonable appreciation of the same, without being obsessed by an air of total suspicion of the case of the prosecution. What is to be insisted upon is not implicit proof. It has often been said that evidence of interested witnesses should be scrutinized more carefully to find out whether it has a ring of truth and if found acceptable and seems to inspire confidence, too, in the mind of the Court, the same cannot be discarded totally merely on account of certain variations or infirmities pointed or even additions and embellishments noticed, unless they are of such nature as to undermine the substratum of the evidence and found to be tainted to the core. Courts Page No.12/34 State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
have a duty to undertake a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all vital features of the case and the entire evidence with reference to the broad and reasonable probabilities of the case also in their attempt to find out proof beyond reasonable doubt."
25. With the said proposition of law at the back of our mind, let us examine the evidence brought on the record.
(i) Nature of duties of A1 Gurcharan Singh
26. Admittedly A1 Gurcharan Singh was working as Assistant Director in the MIG (H) Section of DDA during the relevant time. PW5 Manohar Lal besides PW13 Balwant Singh categorically deposed that A1 being the Assistant Director was competent to fix a date for execution of the conveyance Deed. The evidence brought on the record clearly brings out that complainant PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria had been allotted DDA Flat vide allotment letter dated 19.01.2007 Ex.PW4/W and he had taken over the physical possession of the flat on 19.11.2007 and written request was received from him on 27.12.2007 Ex.PW4/J for fixing a date for the execution of the conveyance deed, which form part of the file proved as Ex.PW5/A. It is then in the evidence of PW5 Manohar Lal that A1 fixed the date for execution by putting the date on the execution call letter Ex.PW5/A1 at pointA i.e. 26.03.2008 and later A1 wrote another date at pointB i.e. 09.01.2008 and he identified the signatures/initials of A1 at pointD. It is in evidence that Page No.13/34 State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
during the course of investigation, the Transfer Movement Register Ex.PW6/B was seized and at serial no.24 at page 53 the date for execution of the sale deed in respect of complainant was re scheduled for 09.01.2008. The dispatch register Ex.PW6/C at page 260 entry no.4 would show that on 04.01.2008 execution call letter was issued to PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria to appear on 09.01.2008. The perusal of the execution date register Ex.PW6/D would show that initially the execution date was scheduled for 26.03.2008 and later it was preponed to 09.01.2008.
27. The inference that is drawn from the said registers visavis the evidence of PW5 Manohar Lal, PW6 Ram Kanwar, PW11 Hari Prasad Sharma and PW13 Balwant Singh is that it was A1 Gurcharan Singh, who was competent alone to fix the date for execution of the conveyance deed and initially the date 26.03.2008 was given, which was later on changed to 09.01.2008 on 04.01.2008. Thus, it was A1 who was in a position to favour the complainant by giving him a shorter date for execution of the conveyance deed. DEMAND AND ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBE
(ii) pre trap proceedings
28. In order to appreciate the evidence brought on record, it would be expedient to go through the testimony of PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria in ex tenso . At the cost of repetition, the evidence Page No.14/34 State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
that PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria had been allotted a DDA flat and its possession had been taken over by him and that he had complied with all the necessary formalities to get a date for execution of conveyance deed is not disputed. Pw4 deposed that he had met PW5 Manohar Lal, dealing hand in the MIG (H) Section couple of times and when he met Manohar Lal on 27.12.2007 and requested him to give a date in the next week, he told him to bring Rs.2000/ for getting the date of 02.01.2008 as the said amount was being demanded by the Assistant Director viz. A1). PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria categorically deposed that when he refused to pay the amount, the execution call letter with the date of 02.01.2008 although prepared was torn apart by PW5 Manohar Lal, who went to the office of Assistant Director and told him to come on 26.03.2008. PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria deposed that seeing no option, he agreed to pay Rs.2000/ for getting a date 02.01.2008, on which he was asked to come back on 01.01.2008 but instead he lodged the complaint with the CBI on 04.01.2008 Ex.PW4/A.
29. Much was argued by ld. Counsel for A1 that demand, if any, had been made by PW5 Manohar Lal and PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria never met A1 and though PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria went to the CBI office on 01.01.2008, he did not lodge any complaint and it was at the instance of CBI that A1 was falsely implicated in the Page No.15/34 State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
complaint Ex.PW4/A. As regards the visit by PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria to the CBI office on 01.01.2008, during cross examination on 10.02.2011, the complainant gave an explanation to the effect that he visited the Vigilance Department of DDA, Office of CVC and then Office of CBI and made informal inquiries from the employees of CBI regarding the procedure for lodging a complaint but he did not meet any official of CBI on that day. To my mind, it was quite natural conduct of PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria as he probably tried to muster courage to lodge a formal complaint against the DDA officials for the manner in which he was being harassed. Not much can be read into why in the complaint Ex.PW4/A the role of Manohar Lal (PW5) was not mentioned since PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria responsed that as the money was being demanded by Assistant Director, he thought to name him in his complaint instead of a low ranking employee like Manohar Lal. The omission in the complaint about role of Manohar Lal is hardly of any jolt to the prosecution case if we consider the conversation between PW4 and A1, to be discussed later in the judgment.
30. The testimony of PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria corroborated by PW8 Raghubir Singh and PW12 Tej Narain Singh besides TLO PW14 Inspector Alok Kumar goes to show that in order to verify the contents of the complaint Ex.PW4/A, PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria Page No.16/34 State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
called A1 and the recorded conversation contained in Q1 Ex.P2 which is lasting for 3 minutes 2 seconds would show that A1 recognised PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria and PW4 asked about PW5 Manohar Lal on which A1 replied that A1 had gone to High Court and was having his file and when PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria apprised him that he had arranged Rs.2000/ and asked if any further demand was there, A1 replied "DEKH LIYO BHAI" reflected in transcript Ex.PW1/DA which raise an inference of A1 a key role in fixing of execution of conveyance deed and there was a demand from his side to give a shorter date for execution of conveyance deed.
31. Let me say as regards the pre trap proceedings, evidence of PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria , PW8 Raghubir Singh and PW12 Tej Narain Singh is one coherent story during which time the recorded conversation was transferred on two blank audio cassettes one of which was marked Q1 (Ex.P2) and pretrap verification memo cumconversation recording memos Ex.PW4/D and Ex.PW4/E were prepared, which were signed by all the witnesses. Further, in the pre trap proceedings, Rs.2000/ were produced by PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria viz. 3 currency notes in the denomination of Rs.500/ and 5 currency notes in the denomination of Rs.100/, the distinctive numbers of which were written in Handing Over Memo Page No.17/34 State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
Ex.PW4/F. The Handing Over Memo Ex.PW4/F further corroborates the testimony of PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria , PW8 Raghubir Singh, PW12 Tej Narain Singh and besides PW14 TLO Inspector Alok Kumar that a demo was given applying Phenolphthalein Powder with currency notes and its reaction with solution of Sodium Carbonate besides the fact that DVR (Digital Voice Recorder) was arranged alongwith blank audio compact cassettes with transfer cords etc. and PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria was instructed to give the tainted money to A1 Gurcharan Singh on his specific demand while shadow witness PW12 Tej Narain Singh was instructed to remain with PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria and overhear and oversee the entire transaction. TRAP PROCEEDINGS
32. PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria deposed that he alongwith independent witnesses and the CBI team members reached the office of DDA; that he took the visitors pass, which is Ex.PW4/B and as instructed went to the office of A1 accompanied with PW12 Tej Narain Singh who did not take the pass since he was accompanying the TLO. It is in the evidence of PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria corroborated by PW12 Tej Narain Singh besides PW8 Raghubir Singh that A1 was not in his office and instead A2 was found and PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria entered into a conversation with him Page No.18/34 State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
and in the meanwhile A1 arrived. PW12 Tej Narain Singh deposed that A1 asked about his identity and told him to go outside the cabin. PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria deposed that he asked A1 about Manohar Lal and A1 replied that he had not come yet. PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria further deposed that he told A1 that he had brought the money as told to him by Manohar Lal for giving an early date for execution of conveyance deed and A1 instructed him to give the money to A2 by going on the rear side of the cabin. PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria further deposed that he gave the money to A2, who asked if it was the full amount and he assured that it was full amount that was counted by A2. It is also in the evidence of PW4 that when he told A1 that he had brought the money, A1 gave the date letter i.e. call letter for execution to A2 to put it in the dispatch after writing the date 09.01.2008 falling on the approaching wednesday as was requested by PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria. It is then in the evidence of PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria that he not only placed a missed call on the mobile of TLO but also gave a predecided signal to the TLO by scratching his head and on that the CBI team converged on to the spot and both A1 and A2 were apprehended. It is also in evidence that PW8 Raghubir Singh took out the tainted money from the pant pocket of the accused and the numbers of the currency notes were tallied with the handing over Page No.19/34 State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
memo Ex.PW4/F and were found to be the same that are marked Ex.P28 to P38 and the entire proceedings were recorded in the recovery memo marked as Ex.PW4/G.
33. The testimonies of PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria, PW8 Raghubir Singh and PW12 Tej Narain Singh further corroborated by PW14 Inspector Alok Kumar is another coherent story that hand wash of the A2 besides pant pocket wash were taken with solution of Sodium Carbonate that turned pink and kept in three clean glass bottles marked as Ex.P21 to Ex.P23.
34. To my mind, the version of the incident given by PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria does not suffer from any blemish and it appears to be quite natural, lucid and having a ring of truth around it. Indeed, the shadow witness was not present at the time of actual discussion with A1 as he was sent outside. The very fact that when both the accused on being apprehended by the CBI mum and did not protest as per the testimony of PW12 and PW8 is a relevant fact u/s. 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. It also bears in my mind that nothing has been brought on the record that PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria had any ulterior motive to falsely implicate A1 and A2.
35. It was argued by ld.counsel for A2 that PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria had committed certain irregularities in seeking allotment of his flat but he was unable to establish anything from the testimony Page No.20/34 State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
of PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria or other witnesses or any other documents on the record that such was the fact. A word may also be said about the testimony of TLO. In the case of Girja Prasad v. State of M.P., AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 3106, it was observed that "the presumption that every person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police official as any other person. No infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials merely because they belong to police force". Taking a cue from the said observation, I do not find any blemish in the evidence of PW14 TLO that he had any motive to falsely implicate the accused persons. It was urged that contrary to the contents of recovery memo PW4/G, the pant of A2 was seized not at the spot but in the Tihar Jail as per the evidence of PW10. That hardly cuts much ice since it could be an inadvertant mistake on the part of the TLO as A2 might not have been provided with an alternative pant and it was no rule of prudence to keep A2 half naked.
TAPE RECORDED CONVERSATION
36. Ld. Defence counsel have made a heavy weather of the tape recording in the instant case and have cited several decisions on the issue of tape recording viz., Rup Chand v. Mahavir Prasad, AIR 1956 Punjab 173; Mahender Nath v. Biswas Nath Kundu 1963, 67 Cal. Wn 191; S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1964 SC 72; Page No.21/34
State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
Yusufalli Esmail Nagree v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 147; N. S. Rama Reddy & Os v. Sh. V. V. Giri AIR 1971 SC 1162; R. M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra 1973 (1) SSC 471; Mahavir Prasad Verma v. Surinder Kaur AIR 1982 SC 1043; Ram Singh & Ors. v. Vol. Ram Singh 1985 (Suppl.) SCC 611; Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar v. State of Maharashtra II (2011) DLT (Crl.) 529 SC. I really cannot fathom as to how the ratio laid down in such cases support the defence case. The ratio in each case is based on the peculiar facts of the case. However, in the case of Ram Singh & Ors. v. Col. Ram Singh (supra), the conditions necessary for admissibility for tape recorded statements were laid down as under :
(i) The voice of the speaker must be duly identified by the maker of the record or by others who recognize his voice. In other words, it manifestly follows as a logical corollary that the first condition for the admissibility of such a statement is to identify the voice of the speaker. Where the voice has been denied by the maker it will require very strict proof to determine whether or not it was really the voice of the speaker.
(ii) The accuracy of the tape recorded statement has to be proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory evidence - direct or circumstantial.
(iii) Every possibility of tampering with or erasure of a part of a taperecorded statement must be ruled out otherwise it may render the said statement out of context and, therefore, inadmissible.
Page No.22/34
State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
(iv) The statement must be relevant according to the rules of Evidence Act.
(v)The recorded cassette must be carefully sealed and kept in safe or official custody.
(vi) The voice of the speaker should be clearly audible and not lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbances."
37. Now, let us examine whether this conditions have been satisfied in this case. It is also in the evidence of PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria corroborated by PW8 Raghubir Singh, PW12 Tej Narain Singh and the IO that at the spot the DVR was played and the conversation was heard that confirmed the demand and acceptance of bribe and the entire conversation was transferred on to two blank audio cassettes mark Q2 and one of them was sealed with the seal of CFSL and signed by the witnesses and the other was kept for the purpose of investigation that is reflected in the recovery memo Ex.PW4/G.It is then in the evidence of the witnesses i.e. PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria corroborated by PW8 Raghubir Singh and PW12 Tej Narain Singh that on the next day they were called in the office of CBI i.e. on 05.01.2008 and the recorded voice was heard by them and the voices of PW4 Dalsher Singh Kataria and that of A1 and A2 were identified vide memo Ex.PW4/H and the transcripts of the conversation recorded at the time of pre trap vide copy of cassette Q1 (Ex.P2) was prepared i.e. Ex.PW1/DA. Similarly, the Page No.23/34 State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
transcript vide copy of cassette mark Q2 was prepared having conversation at the time of actual trap, which is Ex.PW1/DB and signed by all the witnesses.
38. The recorded conversation at the time of trap containing Q2 the transcript of which is Ex.PW1/DB goes as under : (Conversation in DDA Office) DSK KIDHAR GAYE HAIN AD SAHAB, BULAYA HAI, MAINI PHONE KIYA THAT, MANOHAR KAHAN HAI AAJ.
JBJ MAHILA AAYOG MEIN GAYE HUE HAIN, MAHILA AAYOG MEIN.
DSK SAHAB KAHAN HAIN.
JBJ BATHROOM MEIN GAYE HONGE SAHAB KO
PAHANCHTE TO HO.
DSK HA HA IDHAR UDHAR GAYE HONGE KAHIN.
JBJ HO GAI CD TERI.
DSK USI LIYE TO AYA HUN, EK TAARIKH KO BULAYA THAT,
WOH TO MAINI JAMA KARA DIYA THAT.
JBJ NAMBAR TO AA GAYA HOGA.
DSK NAMBAR TO USI DIN DE DIYA THA.
JBJ KAYA NUMBAR THAFILE NUMBER KITNA HAI
DSK 339 (93)
JBJ 339 (93)
DSK HA HA, DEKHIYO FILE MIL JAYE JO AAPNE
Page No.24/34
State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
(BACKGROUND VOICE)
DSK MANOHAR NAHI AYA COURT SE.
JBJ MANOHAR COURT GAYA HUA HAI PAAR, AYEGA ABHI.
FILE NO.339 (93) HAI NA DHYAN HAI NA AAPKO PACCA. BACKGROUND VOICES JBJ JAB AAP DE GAYE TO BANA DENA CHAHIYE MERE HISAB SE TO DSK US DIN BAAT HUI THI PHIR LE KE AANA THA NA MUJHKO ISLIYE NAHI KARA HOGA.
JBJ PHIR TO AISA HAI NA ABHI AANE DE USKO HATH KE HATH KAAM HO JAYEGA KAUN SI AYEGI ISKE BAAD DATE, KAB KI DATE CHAHIYE, KAB KARANI HAI, CD KAB KARAYEGA ISKE BAAD MANGAL, BUDHWAR AYEGI.
DSK NOUN KI LE LUNGA. JBJ HO JAYEGI AANE DE USKO DSK AGAR FILE NA NIKLE JBJ AYEGA YAAR, AISA HAI NA AISA HAI AGAR NAHI AATA BY
THE WAY. AD SAHAB MAAN GAYE HAIN, PAISE JO HAIN DE JA, NUMBER DE JA, FILE NIKAL KAR SIR MAI GAYA PATA NAHI KAHAN HAIN, MAHILA AAYOG GAYE HAIN SHAYAD MAHILA AAYOG BACKGROUND VOICES.
JBJ JAB WOH AYEGA TABHI BAAT BANEGI, AAPKI BAAT HUI
THI SAHAB SE
DSK HAAN
Page No.25/34
State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
GS AISA HAI SUNO MOBILE NUMBER HAI TUMARE PAAS,
TUMARE PAAS HAI MOBILE
JBJ HA HAI
GS PHONE KARKE DEKH LO SARDAR JI KO USKA REASON
YEH HAI KAHI WOH IDHAR SE UDHAR GHAR CHALA JAYE TO MUSHKIL HAI YEH KHAMKHA MANOHAR TO HIGH COURT GAYA HAI, KE DOUBLE ALLOTMENT HO RAHA HAI.
DSK NAHI AYE GS ARE BHAIYA ABHI TO HIGH COURT GAYA HAI, KAYA FILE NUMBER HAI TERA DSK 339 (93) GS DESPATCH MEIN INKI FILE DEKH TO, WOH NIKALNA DSK TO NOUN DOGE DATE. GS AB TO BUDHWAR NOUN KO HI AAYEGA--AAPKA KAYA
HAI BHAIBAHAR HI RUK JAO WOH AYEGA MANOHAR DSK HAN TO SIR USKE BAAD KOI KAAM TO NAHI RAH JAYEGA JAB NOUN TAARIKH KO D HO JAYEGI, PHIR KABHI BHI BECH SAKTA HUN GS HAIN DSK BANK WALE DAAV LAGA RAHE THE SIR, PAISE JAMA KARAO GS AB KAYA KAHNA HAI BOL, HAIN DSK KUCH BHI DE DO, NOUN KI DE DO GS LAYA HAI KUCH YA Page No.26/34 State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
DSK HAN LAYA HU JAISA AAPNE KAHA THA, PHONE KIYA THA GS DE DE PEECHE JAKE, WAHAN YAAR JBJ KITNE HAIN DSK DO JBJ SOU AUR DE, MAIN NUMBER DESPATCH NUMBER
LAGAUNGA, NUMBER NAHIN LAGAUNGA, ISME NUMBER NAHI LAGA KE DUNGA TERE KOBACKGROUND VOICES/NOISES DSK THIK HAI NAUN KI KAR DIYO JBJ KOI JAYADA DEMAND NAHI KAR RAHA HAI DOU SOU RUPAYE HI INSP. ALOK IS SE KOI PAISE VAISE LIYE HAIN AAPNE MAIN CBI SE INSPECTOR ALOK HUN.
(emphasis be given to words in bold italics) (JBJ indicates accused A2; DSK indicates PW4 and G. S. refers to A1)
39. Ld. Defence counsel for A2 has vehemently assailed the expert report on voice identification Ex.PW 1/A on the ground that though the DVR was sealed at the spot as conceded by PW 14 Inspector Alok Kumar, the same was neither sent to CFSL nor produced before the court. It was urged by both ld counsel that the DVR was having editing facilities and the possibility of tempering could not be ruled out; that the report Ex.PW 1/A is bad in law since spectogram results were not annexed or produced with the report. It was also urged that the transcript was made available to the so Page No.27/34 State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
called expert PW1 D. K. Tanwar who merely gave a report on the asking of the CBI and lastly it was urged that the tape recorded conversation suffered very badly from extreme background disturbance and barely audible and cannot be relied upon in evidence against the accused persons.
40. I do not find merit in any of the submissions made by Ld. Defene counsel for both the accused persons. Undoubtedly, as per Section 62 of the IE Act, the original DVR or its micro chip was the primary document being the original electronic record. However, Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act makes a departure providing that an information or data contained in an electronic record that is printed on a paper, stored or copied on an optical or a magnetic media produced from a computer shall also be deemed to be a document if the conditions laid down in sub section 2 to Section 65B of I.E.Act are satisfied. Indeed there is no certificate u/s. 65B (2) of the I.E.Act. However, that does not mean that the cassettes Q1 and Q2 should be discarded altogether since want of certificate mandates that now further proof is required to be established so as to make them admissible as per section 65B of IE Act in the absence of the original. We have to take care and caution to examine whether a fair and transparent procedure was adopted while transferring the data from the DVR and determine if the the Page No.28/34 State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
process adopted was fair, reliable and authentic.
41. The evidence on the record brings out that the conversation in the DVR was transferred on to the audio cassettes in presence of PW4 and two independent witnesses and there is nothing to suggest that at the time of such transfer any interpolation or mischief was done with the recording. Mere fact that editing was possible is not by itself a circumstance to disregard the entire tape recorded conversation and it can neither be a legal norm or matter of prudence to appreciate the recording with a suspect mindset or to discard it altogether. It has been urged by Ld. PP for the State that the purpose of transferring the recorded conversation in the DVR on to blank audio cassette is a procedure which is beneficial to both the prosecution as well as to the accused as it facilitates not only convenient examination by the expert but also enables the prosecution to examine the contents and help in the investigation besides enabling supply of a copy to the accused.
42. It may be indicated here that PW1 stated that he had carried out the examination of the questioned cassettes Q1 Ex.P2 and Q2 Ex.P7 with specimen cassettes S1 mark Ex. P12 and S2 Ex.P17 with voice spectogram and some common clue words were selected from the conversation and that he had also checked the cassettes Q1 and Q2 about continuity its recording and he found Page No.29/34 State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
nothing wrong in regard thereto. In other words, noting wrong was found about any pause or gap in the manner of the recording from start to finish. While linguistic or phonetic comparison might not be full proof, the spectrograph tests have a high degree of scientific accuracy. The fundamental principle of voice identification rests on the fact that every voice is unique and individually characteristic enough to distinguish it from other through analysis likc a finger prints. The spectrogram serves as a permanent record of the words spoken and facilitates the visual comparison of similar words spoken by an unknown and known speaker's voice. This test was certainly conducted by the expert PW1. It is also pertinent to mention here that the voice of accused A1 and A2 were categorically identified by PW4 with questioned audio cassette Q2 which was played in the court.
43. As regards the quality of the audio recording, the same has been heard by the undersigned again and again using a head phone and all that I can hold is that despite some disturbance in the background, the high lighted portion italics(bold) are clearly audible in the transcripts and attributable to A1 and there is no denying the fact that A2 accepted the tainted money on behalf of A1.
Page No.30/34
State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
44. Much has been argued that PW4 is the solitary witness and he did not utter a single word or any demand of money by A1 up till 04.01.2008. The demand of bribe was certainly not expressed in specific words by A1 and it was the manner in which the demand was conveyed which is far more important. The fact that the demand emanated from A1 is writ large on the face of the record in as much as it was he who was the only authority to give a date for execution of conveyance deed and he very conveniently changed the date on the assurance that his demand was going to be met. Corrupt people find quite ingenious ways to get illegal gratification and it was a clever ploy on the part of A1 in telling PW4 to hand over the tainted money to A2. The fact that A2 accepted the money and asked for whether it was full amount and counted the same amply demonstrate that there was previous meeting of minds between the two accused to accept graft.
45. Much mileage was sought to be drawn from the fact that both PW4 and PW14 conceded in their cross examination that there was no words in the conversation vide Q2 and its transcript that any demand was made by the A1 or A2. Well, the defence can not be allowed to pick a few word here and there, and distort an otherwise simple and truthful version of the witnesses. Indeed there is no explicit word indicating demand of bribe but the entire Page No.31/34 State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
conversation needs to be considered in the whole contextual setting of the case. The element of demand could be manifested in several mannerswords, gestures or by conduct of the accused. The circumstance brought on the record considered as a whole clearly bring out that A1 Knew why PW4 was there to meet him and there was a demand of bribe when A1 asked ''kuchh laya hai kya'' and changed the date of execution and told PW4 to give the money to A2 in the rear of the cabin who readily accepted the tainted money. The factum of demand and acceptance of bribe is clearly brought out in the whole contextual setting of the case.
46. Lastly, much has been argued that accused A1 has not been accorded a fair trial in as much as when PW4 was midway under cross examination, the same was stopped on the application by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The witness PW4 was examined in chief and thereafter tendered for cross examination. I do not see as to how any prejudice has been caused to the accused in as much as the examination of the witness was allowed as inadvertently the Ld. Sr. PP had failed to put the tape recorded conversation to the witness PW4 which was a vital piece of evidence in deciding the present matter.
Page No.32/34
State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
CONCLUSION
47. The prosecution in order to bring home the charge u/s 7 of PC Act was required to prove that the accused either accepted , obtained or attempted to attain illegal gratification from the complainant; and in order to establish the guilt of the accused u/s 13(2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, the prosecution was required to establish that the accused by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his official position, obtained advantage or a valuable for himself or any other person. In the case of Krishna Ram. Vs,. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 147 and (2009) 11 SCC 708, it was held that every acceptance of illegal gratification, whether preceded by a demand or not, would be covered by Section 7 of the Act. But, if the acceptance of an illegal gratification is in pursuance of a demand by the public servant, then it would also fall under Section 13 (1)(d) of the PC Act.
48. In the light of the said proposition of law, in conclusion, I find that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Gurcharan Singh demanded and accepted the bribe while the accused J.B.Joshi accepted the bribe for and on behalf of A1 in pursuance of criminal conspiracy. In so far as A2 demanding Rs.100/ to carry out the dispatch, I am afraid, nothing has been deposed by PW4 in this regard and it is difficult to Page No.33/34 State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
discern that any demand for illegal gratification was made by him as such.
49. Accordingly both the accused are convicted separately under section 120B of IPC read with section 7 and 13 (1)(d) r.w section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Accused Gurcharan Singh is convicted u/s 7 and 13 (1)(d) r.w section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Accused J.B.Joshi is further convicted u/s 13(1)(d) r.w section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
50. Let they be heard on point of sentence on 10.07.2012. ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT TODAY i.e ON 07.07.2012 (DHARMESH SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE -03,CBI NEW DELHI.
Page No.34/34
State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHARMESH SHARMA SPECIAL JUDGE03 CBI NEW DELHI DISTRICT, NEW DELHI CC No. 06/2011 Case ID No. 02403R0560692008 RC No. 5 (A)/2008/CBI/ACB/ND In re:
STATE (CBI) VS (1). GURCHARAN SINGH S/O LATE SH. GANGA RAM R/O CD/3A, DDA FLAT, HARI NAGAR, NEW DELHI110054 (2) JANKI BALLAB JOSHI S/O LATE SH. PUNA NAND JOSHI B130, NEHRU VIHAR, DAYAL PUR, DEHI 110094 APPEARANCES: Mr. SC Sharma, Ld.PP for CBI.
Mr. Ankur Arora, Ld.Counsel for the convict JB Joshi. 10.07.2012 ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE.
1. Heard on the point of sentence and perused the record.
2. It is submitted that convict Gurcharan Singh is about 64 years of Page No.35/34 State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
age, and he had put in 33 years of unblemished service with the DDA when this case was slapped upon him; that his family consists of his wife, a divorced daughter and a son, who is studying. It is urged that the convict is a diabetic and suffering from old age ailments. It is pointed out that the convict has suffered the agony of trial for 41/2 years now and was in Judicial Custody from 05.01.2008 to 11.03.2008. It is, therefore, requested that a lenient view may be taken in favour of the convict.
3. Shri Ankur Arora, ld.counsel for the convict JB Joshi submits that convict JB Joshi is about 55 years of age, and he had put in 25 years of unblemished service with the DDA when this case was slapped upon him; that his family consists of his wife, and two sons, who are studying. It is urged that the elder son of the convict has suffered serious injurious in a motor accident recently and the convict is living hand to mouth in order to support his family. It is pointed out that the convict has also suffered the agony of trial for 41/2 years now and was in Judicial Custody from 05.01.2008 to 07.03.2008. It is, therefore, requested that a lenient view may be taken in favour of the convict.
4. Per contra, Mr. SC Sharma, Ld. Special PP for the CBI has urged that no mitigating circumstance exists in this case so as to take a lenient view in favour of the convicts and it is urged that Page No.36/34 State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
exemplary punishment be awarded under the law.
5. It bears repetition that the convict Gurcharan Singh was posted as Assistant Director in DDA and he demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/ through coconvict JB Joshi from the complainant Dalsher Singh Kataria. The detail facts and circumstances under which the convicts demanded illegal gratification from the complainant have already been detailed in judgment dated 07.07.2012. The facts and circumstances proved on the record by the prosecution is a stark illustration of the lure of easy money in the mind of the convicts who were public servants and had a duty to discharge their duties in a fair and honest manner.
6. It is pertinent to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shambhu Dayal Nagar, 2007 A.I.R. (SC) 163 :: 2006(8) S.C.C. 693 : 2007(1) SCC(Cri), observed that "Corruption is corroding like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politics, social fabric of efficiency in the public service and demoralizing the honest officers." It was further observed that "Efficiency in public service would improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does his duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of the duties of Page No.37/34 State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
his post. The reputation of corrupt would gather thick and unchaseably clouds around the conduct of the officer and gain notoriety much faster than the smoke."
7. Coming to the present case, I must say that the primary and onerous fault in demanding and accepting bribe lies with a senior officer i.e. the convict Gurcharan Singh while the criminality gets diluted when it comes to convict JB Joshi, who as a lower ranking peon had no option but to follow the dictates of his superior/boss. Nonetheless convict JB Joshi knew that what he was doing was wrong and therefore he also criminally misconducted himself in accepting the bribe on behalf of convict Gurcharan Singh.
8. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I sentence the convict Gurcharan Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years u/s 120B r/w Section 7 and 13 (2) of PC Act and also pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/ in default to further undergo RI for a period of six months.
9. I further sentence the convict Gurcharan singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years u/s 7 of PC Act and also pay a fine of Rs.50,000/ in default to further undergo RI for a period of one year.
10. I further sentence the convict Gurcharan Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 Page No.38/34 State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
(1) (d) of PC Act and also pay fine of Rs.50,000/ in default to further undergo RI for a period of one year.
11. I sentence the convict JB Joshi to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 years u/s 120B r/w Section 7 and 13 (2) of PC Act and also pay fine of Rs. 5,000/ in default to further undergo RI for a period of three months.
12. I further sentence the convict JB Joshi to undergo minimum sentence of 1 year as rigorous imprisonment u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)
(d) of PC Act and also pay a fine of Rs.10,000/ in default to further undergo RI for a period of six months.
13. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Convict Gurcharan Singh remained in judicial custody w.e.f 05.01.2008 to 11.03.2008 and convict JB Joshi remained in judicial custody w.e.f. 05.01.2008 to 07.03.2008. Benefit u/s. 428 Cr.PC. for the period they remained in judicial custody, shall be given to the convicts.
14. Copy of the judgment dated 07.07.2012 and order on sentence dated 10.07.2012 be given free of cost to the convicts.
15. Vide separate detail order in the order sheet, the applicant/convict JB Joshi has been admitted to bail as per Section 389 Cr.PC. For a period of one month, while the applicant/convict Gurcharan Singh has been allowed to deposit the fine imposed upon him by tomorrow i.e. 11.07.2012 and is Page No.39/34 State (CBI) v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
admitted on interim bail till tomorrow.
16. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT TODAY: ON 10.07.2012.
(DHARMESH SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE 03,CBI NEW DELHI.
Page No.40/34