Delhi District Court
Cbi...... vs ...Chandan Singh Rana. on 20 August, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SHRI G.P. MITTAL : SPECIAL JUDGE:
DELHI.
CBI......VS...CHANDAN SINGH RANA.
RC No. 27(A)/2001/CBI/ACB/ND.
CC No.18 of 2004
JUDGMENT.
1.Accused Chandan Singh Rana, who was working as a Sub Inspector in Crime Cell, Delhi Police, South District has been sent to this court to face trial for the offence punishable U/s. 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. A complaint dated 8.3.01 was made by one Laxman Singh s/o Man Singh that two cases one U/s. 107/151 Cr.PC. and the other U/s. 323 IPC in connection with the quarrel with servant of his neighbour has been registered against them by police of police station Sangam Vihar. They were acquitted in the case U/s. 107/151 Cr.PC. by the Court of Smt. Gita Rani Verma, Special Executive Magistrate, New Delhi in the year 2000. It is alleged that on 18.2.2001 the accused came to their residence and called them to his office in Nehru Place on 19.2.2001. He and his mother went to his office, where the accused informed them that the case U/s. 323 IPC was still pending with him. The accused demanded Rs.5000/- as a bribe to close the case. They did not pay the said amount. Afterwards the accused had telephoned him at his house and demanded the bribe. It is 2 alleged in the complaint that on 7.3.2001 the accused came to his house and demanded that at least Rs.2000/- should be paid to him on 8.3.01 in the evening and that he would be coming to his house to collect the same. According to the allegations made in the complaint, the accused had threatened the complainant that if the bribe was not paid, he will register the case against the complainant and his brother and will arrest them.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Branch, CBI, ordered registration of a regular case and Inspector P.Balachandran was entrusted with the investigation of the case. Inspector P.Balachandran made usual inquiry from the complainant and then arranged Shri Shyam Chand Section Officer and Shri Suresh Kumar, Assistant Grade III from the Office of DVB as panch witnesses. . The complainant was introduced to the two independent witnesses. The complainant produced 4 GC notes of Rs.500/- denomination each. A handing over memo in respect of the amount of Rs.2000/- was prepared. The numbers of GC notes were noted down in handing over memo. Pre trap proceedings were held in the CBI Office and demonstration of reaction of Phenolphthalein Powder with colourless solution of Sodium Carbonate was made. The treated money of Rs.2000/- was kept in the left side pocket of the shirt of the complainant. The complainant was asked to hand over the GC notes to the accused or to any other person on his specific demand and direction and not otherwise. PW Shyam Chand was directed to act as a 3 shadow witness and remain as close as possible to the complainant and to overhear the conversation which may take place between the complainant and the accused and also to see the passing on of the tainted money and to give a signal by scratching his head with both hands on completion of the transaction. The complainant was also handed over one micro cassette recorder after inserting a blank cassette. The trap team including the independent witnesses left the CBI Office at 6.00PM and reached the house of the complainant at Village Tikri at about 6.45 PM. The complainant and the shadow witness travelled in the complainant's car whereas the other members of the trap team had reached the spot in a separate vehicle. On reaching the house of the complainant, he informed the trap laying officer that while on the way the complainant had received a call on his mobile no.9811016462 from his mother that SI Chandan Singh Rana had arrived and was waiting for them in his house. The complainant was then asked to go to his house alongwith shadow witness Shri Shyam Chand and then proceed to the first floor of the house belonging to him. The trap team waited in the by lane whereas the complainant and shadow witness went upstairs. It is the case of the prosecution that at about 7.15 PM Shri Shyam Chand shadow witness came at the door of the first floor and gave the pre arranged signal. The trap party led by Inspector P.Balachandran, TLO entered the first floor of the flat of the complainant and saw a person (who was later identified as Chandan Singh Rana SI) was sitting in the room. After formal introduction Shri Chandan 4 Singh Rana accused was asked as to whether he had accepted money from the complainant. The accused did not respond, whereas shadow witness Shri Shyam Chand confirmed the demand and acceptance of bribe money of Rs.2000/- by Chandan Singh Rana. Shri Shyam Chand is alleged to have informed the TLO that the accused had asked the complainant to keep the money inside the file, which he was carrying. The facts as stated by shadow witness were corroborated by the complainant. The independent witness Shri Suresh Kumar was asked to check the folder, kept with accused Chandan Singh Rana and he recovered the four GC notes of Rs.500/- denomination each. The first page of the file and inside flap of the file folder was washed in the freshly prepared colourless solution of Sodium Carbonate, which turned pink. The micro tape recorder was taken back from the complainant and played at the spot. The conversation recorded in the micro cassette confirmed the demand of bribe by the accused from the complainant. The micro cassette was wrapped in a cloth wrapper and sealed with the seal of CBI.
4. Charges for the offence punishable U/s. 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges, whereupon the prosecution was directed to produce its evidence.
5. During evidence, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses in support of its case. PW1 Shri KS Chhabra had examined one bottle containing pink colour liquid with 5 sediments. On chemical analysis the liquid gave positive test for Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate. The witness proved his report as Ex.PW1/A.
6. PW2 Shri Ramesh Chander deposed about the collection of specimen voice of the accused in his presence and signing of the audio cassette Ex.PW2/A at point A at the time it was taken. PW3 SI Prem Nath was one of the members of the trap team. He also deposed about taking of specimen voice of accused on a blank audio cassette in his presence vide memo Ex.PW2/A. PW3 SI Prem Nath was ordered to be recalled for further examination U/s. 311 Cr.PC. on the ground that the transcript was prepared by him. In his further statement recorded on 26.3.07 the witness stated that the transcript Ex.PW3/A was correctly prepared by him from the audio cassette, which was handed to him by Dy.S.P. RK Chadha. Laxman Singh complainant was also present at the time the transcript was prepared by him. The witness stated during cross-examination that he himself had not identified the voice of Laxman Singh complainant and Chandan Singh Rana (accused). The witness denied the suggestion that Laxman Singh had not been able to identify the voice of any person from the cassette.
7. PW4 Shri Sushil Kumar is also a witness to the taking of specimen voice of accused Chandan Singh Rana and he corroborated the version as given by PW2 Shri Ramesh Chander and PW3 SI Prem Nath.
68. PW5 Shri CK Jain, Senior Scientific Officer, Grade I , CFSL had analysed the voices on the audio cassette and proved his opinion Ex.PW5/A.
9. PW6 Shri Shyam Chand is an independent witness, who had been asked to be a shadow witness and to remain as close as possible to the complainant and to hear the conversation and to see passing of the tainted money. He deposed the prosecution version on the aspect of reaching the spot at village Tikri and preparation of the handing over memo Ex.PW6/A. The witness deposed that the complainant offered money to Chandan Singh, whereas Chandan Singh (accused) told that he did not take money. One file of Chandan Singh (accused) was lying on the table. The complainant put the money in that file. He gave signal to the CBI Officers, who reached the spot. The witness was permitted to be cross examined by the learned Public Prosecutor and was found to be shifting his stand during the cross examination by learned Senior PP and the Learned Defence Counsel.
10.PW7 Shri Suresh Kumar, Assistant Grade III was also one of the members of the trap team. He had also taken the position outside the house of the complainant and was waiting for the signal of the shadow witness and deposed about the same. On getting the signal, this witness went inside. He was asked to take out the money from the file. He recovered the money from the file and tallied the numbers of the GC notes with the handing over memo, 7 which were found to be the same. The file was washed and the water turned pink. He stated that the cassette was not played before sealing.
11.PW8 Shri Gaurav Aggarwal was working as Sub Inspector in District Crime Cell, South District. He stated that he produced the certified copy of case file pertaining to FIR 88/2000 U/s. 451/323/34 IPC at the request of the Investigating Officer.
12.PW9 Shri P.Kamraj , DIG was working as DCP, South District in Delhi Police at the relevant time. He accorded sanction Ex.PW9/A for prosecution of the accused. He stated that he had granted the sanction after going through all the relevant documents and had applied his mind to the facts of the case. PW10 Hanuman Dan is a formal witness. He was posted as an Inspector in District Crime Cell, South District on 8.3.2001 and he had collected FIR 536/2000 PS Hauz Khas from the CBI, ACB, New Delhi. PW11 SI Dharmesh Yadav is also a formal witness. He stated that FIR 88/2000 was registered on the complaint of Shri Ravinder Singh. He stated that investigation of case of FIR 88/2000 PS Sangam Vihar remained with him from 11.7.2000 to 24.7.2000.
13.PW12 Inspector SC Bhalla was one of the members of the trap team. He deposed in detail as to how the trap was laid and wherefrom the money was recovered. During cross 8 examination the witness was confronted with his previous statement because of omission of several facts therein.
14.PW13 DSP RK Chadha was the TLO. He deposed as to how the trap was laid and the tainted money recovered from the file.
15.On close of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined U/s. 313 Cr.PC. The accused admitted that in the year 2001 he was posted and working as Sub Inspector in District Crime Cell, South District, Nehru Place, New Delhi. He stated that he had called Shri Man Singh in his office on 19.2.2001 at 10.00 PM. He did not appear inspite of the service of the notice on 2.3.2001. He visited the residence of the complainant for serving the notice U/s. 160 Cr.PC. upon the complainant and his father. The complainant met him. He told the complainant to ask his brother to see him for formal arrest and bail in the said case as the offences were bailable. The complainant requested to stop the proceedings against his brother. He (the accused) showed his inability to accede to the request. He also warned the complainant that in case his brother would not appear voluntarily he shall have to send the notice U/s. 160 Cr.PC. to his brother through Army Head Quarters. On the said day, the complainant did not receive the notice U/s. 160 Cr.PC. and requested him to come after 5-6 days as he wanted to consult his advocate. On 8.3.2001, he went to the house of the complainant for service of notice U/s. 160 Cr.PC. upon his brother Capt. Shatrughan Singh. On that 9 day the complainant against requested him to drop the proceedings against his brother. He showed his inability to comply with the request. On his refusal, he offered bribe to him, which he declined. The mother of the complainant was also present at that time. She also started requesting him to drop the proceedings against his son as it may affect his army service. During this period, the complainant without any demand and without any knowledge might had kept the money in the office file, which he had kept on the side stool on the corner of the room. During his conversation with complainant and his mother, the CBI officers challenged him that he had accepted the bribe from the complainant. They asked him about the whereabouts of the bribe money. At this the complainant told that he had kept the money in his office file lying on the side stool kept in the corner of the room. He told the CBI officer that he had not taken any money from the complainant and that the money had been kept in the file without his knowledge. The accused thus stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case. The accused declined to produce any evidence in defence.
16.I have heard Shri Akhilesh, Learned Senior PP for the CBI and Shri Pawan Kumar, advocate, Learned counsel for the accused and have perused the record.
17.In order to establish its case, U/s. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption, 1988 the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had accepted or had agreed to accept illegal 10 gratification. Once this is shown a presumption U/s. 20 of the Act would come into force that acceptance of gratification was a motive or reward for doing or for bearing to do any official act as laid down in Section 7 of the Act. The onus would then shift to the accused to show that the amount accepted was not a bribe.
18.Section 13(1)(d) of the Act is wider in scope. As a public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct if he by corrupt or illegal means obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage or by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage or while holding office as a public servant obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. Thus, U/s. 7 of the Act mere acceptance of illegal gratification completes the offence whereas U/s. 13(1)(d) of the Act, the use of the word "Obtain" connotes some effort or some threat on the part of the public servant and would thus indicate that there should be demand of bribe by the public servant.
19.It has been urged by the learned Senior Public Prosecutor that the tainted money was kept in the file belonging to the accused only on his direction. The wash of the file in colourless solution of Sodium Carbonate had turned pink, which would establish acceptance of bribe by the accused. Further more, the presence of accused in the house of the 11 complainant itself is indicative of the fact that he had visited the house of accused to obtain illegal gratification. It has been urged that though the shadow witness PW6 Shri Shyam Chand had not supported the prosecution version fully and complainant could not be produced in the court, yet the prosecution case of obtaining illegal gratification by corrupt and illegal means stand established from the statement of the recovery witness and other circumstantial evidence.
20.On the other hand, it has been urged by the learned defence counsel that the prosecution has not led any reliable evidence to prove demand or acceptance of illegal gratification. The accused has given his explanation as to the circumstances in which he was present at the house of the complainant and thus the accused is entitled to be acquitted.
21.The story of the prosecution as per complaint dated 8.3.01 Mark A is that a case U/s. 323 IPC in connection with a quarrel with the servant of a neighbour was pending investigation with the accused, who was working in District Crime Cell. The accused had called the complainant and his mother in his office on 19.2.01 and had demanded Rs.5000/- as bribe for closing the case. Later on, on 7.3.01, the accused visited the house of the complainant again and demanded that an amount of Rs.2000/- should be paid to him on the next day. He would come to collect the money, 12 failing which the complainant and his brother would be arrested.
22. The complaint Mark A has not been proved by the prosecution, as the complainant was not produced in the court inspite of the fact that several opportunities were granted to the prosecution to produce him in the court. According to the story put forth by the prosecution, mother of the complainant was a witness to the demand and acceptance of money, but she was not even cited as a witness by the prosecution. An application U/s. 311 Cr.P.C. was moved by the prosecution to produce mother of the complainant, but the application was rejected by this court order dated 11.5.07. Name, address and particulars of the mother of the complainant were not mentioned in the application. The fact that she was available was also not stated. Her statement U/s. 161 Cr.PC. had not been recorded during the course of investigation. Therefore, examination of the mother in the circumstances was found to be not essential for the just decision of the case and the application was accordingly rejected.
23. The complaint Mark A has not been proved because of non examination of the complainant. Otherwise also, in the absence of complainant the complaint Mark A on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW12/B was recorded cannot be used for any purpose. In State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Surban - 1996 II A.D. (SC) 192 : 1996 Cri. L.J. 3199, it was held that FIR cannot be used as substantive evidence or for corroborating 13 statement of a third party and the same can be used either to corroborate or to contradict the maker of the FIR. A similar view was taken in Sheikh Hasib @ Tabarak. Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 283.
24.Now what is to be seen is whether the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt in the absence of examination of the complainant. PW6 Shyam Chand is the star witness of the prosecution. He is the shadow witness, who as per the case of the prosecution had accompanied the complainant to his house and the transaction had taken place in his presence. In his testimony as PW6 Shri Shyam Chand deposed that he was told to act as father's sister's husband (Phufa) of the complainant and to remain with the complainant and to give signal to the CBI party on acceptance of bribe by the accused. The witness deposed that he and Laxman went to his house on the first floor, whereas other members of the trap team remained in the car. Accused Chandan Singh Rana was found sitting in the room. Laxman (complainant) went to the bathroom and came back after switching on the tape recorder. He testified that the complainant offered money to accused Chandan Singh Rana. Chandan Singh Rana however told the complainant that he did not take money. One file of Chandan Singh was lying on the table. Complainant put the money in that file. He (the witness) gave signal to the CBI officers. The CBI officers came there . He told them that the money was in the file. The witness was allowed to be cross examined by the learned Public 14 Prosecutor. The witness denied that they had read the complaint and satisfied themselves by asking questions. The witness denied that the complainant had been instructed by Inspector P.Balachandran to give money to the accused on his specific demand. PW6 Shyam Chand deposed that the complainant had asked his mother about the money and then went inside posing as if he was to take money from his mother. When Laxman Singh came back, he stated that the money was ready. The witness denied the suggestion that Chandan Singh Rana had asked the complainant if he had the full amount. He denied the suggestion that Chandan Singh Rana was having a file with him and he opened the first page and indicated to the complainant to keep the money. He denied having made any such statement to the police. The witness deposed that when they had entered the house, the accused was having a file in his hand. He (the accused) had then kept the file on a stool in the corner. Laxman Singh kept the money in the file. He denied the suggestion that after the complainant had kept the money in the file, the file was closed and kept by SI (accused). The witness denied the suggestion that complainant and his mother told the accused to close the matter and not to trouble again or that accused had assured that they would not be troubled or that the matter would be settled. The witness also denied the suggestion that he had signed the handing over memo, recovery memo and other documents after reading the same. He denied the suggestion that he had been won over by the accused. During cross examination on behalf of the accused, the 15 witness showed his ignorance if the accused had told the CBI team that he had refused to take the money, but Laxman Singh had kept the money in the file, without his knowledge.
25. It is well settled law that the testimony of a hostile witness need not be rejected in toto. The court can rely upon part of the testimony, which is found to be truthful and convincing. However, PW6 Shyam Chand has not supported the prosecution version on the material points of demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused. He had been constantly shifting his stand during the different stages of his statement. In his examination in chief, the witness has stated that complainant offered money to Chandan Singh Rana, whereas Chandan Singh Rana told that he did not take money. In his cross examination by ld. Senior PP he deposed that there was no talk of money. In cross examination on behalf of the accused, this very witness deposed that Laxman Singh had told accused Chandan Singh that he was keeping the money in the file. Chandan Singh did not tell him anything when complainant told him that he was keeping the money in the file. In Suraj Mal. Vs. State - AIR 1979 SC 1408 , it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that where witnesses makes two inconsistent statements either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses become unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances, no conviction can be based on the evidence of such statement. Thus, not only that PW6 Shyam Chand 16 has been contradicted from his previous statement recorded during investigation; even during trial he had made different statements. In the circumstances, it is difficult to place much reliance on his testimony.
26.The learned Senior Public Prosecutor has laid much emphasis on the recovery memo Ex.PW6/D, which makes a detailed mention as to how the trap was laid and how the money was demanded and accepted by the accused. Emphasis is also placed on the testimony of PW12 Inspector SC Bhalla, who made a mention of the statement of the complainant and the shadow witness when he reached there alongwith the members of the trap team. The contention is repelled by the learned defence counsel while arguing that any statement of a witness recorded in a panchnama would be inadmissible in evidence. The statement of Inspector SC Bhalla, PW12 as to what was stated by the shadow witness or the complainant would also be inadmissible being hearsay.
27. The learned defence counsel has placed reliance on Vali Bhai Omar Ji. Vs. State, AIR 1963 Gujarat 145 where, it was held that if a panchnama is merely a record of facts, which took place in the presence of panches and of what the panches saw and heard but is not a record of a statement communicated to a police officer it would be admissible U/s. 157 of the Evidence Act and would not fall within the ban of Section 152 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore the fact that the shadow witness Shri Shyam 17 Chand had confirmed the demand and acceptance of bribe money of Rs.2000/- by accused Chandan Singh Rana or that Chandan Singh had asked the complainant to keep the same inside the file which he was carrying or that the complainant had corroborated this fact would be inadmissible in evidence U/s. 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In my view the fact that the four G.C. Notes bearing the same number were recovered from the file would of course be admissible in evidence. At the same time, I fully agree with the learned defence counsel that the statement of PW12 Inspector SC Bhalla as to what was stated by the complainant and the shadow witness to the IO or what was recorded in the recovery memo on the basis of their statements would be inadmissible being hearsay.
28. As per case of the prosecution, the conversation between the accused, complainant Laxman and his mother was recorded on an audio tape. It is further the case of the prosecution that the transcript in respect of the said conversation from the audio cassette was prepared by PW3 Sub Inspector Prem Nath. PW5 Shri CK Jain, Senior Scientific Officer, Grade-I had conducted the auditory and voice spectrographic analysis of the specimen voice samples Mark 2a and Mark 2b with the alleged conversation of the accused Chandan Singh at the time of transaction Mark 1a and Mark 1b. The expert had opined that the voice samples 1a and 1b, 2a and 2b were the probable voice of the same person. During cross examination the witness stated that he had analysed the 18 voice with two selected common sentences in both the cassettes and analysed them through voice spectrograph for the features mentioned in his report. The witness produced the photo copies of the voice spectrograph Ex.PW5/DA and Ex.PW5/DB. The witness admitted that visually the graph may appear to be dissimilar in pages 1 and 2 of Ex.PW5/DA and Ex.PW5/DB respectively. He admitted that for proper analysis of voices by spectrographic test, the questioned and sample voice should have been recorded in the condition of minimum disturbance and by the same mode as far as possible. The witness could not say if the level of disturbance in the questioned voice was very high as compared to the voice contained in the sample cassette where the disturbance was negligible. The complainant has not been produced in the witness box to identify his voice as that of the accused. PW3 SI Prem Nath had admitted in his cross examination conducted on 26.3.07 that he cannot identify the voice of Laxman Singh and Chandan Singh Rana. The audio cassette was played in the court to PW3 SI Prem Nath, wherein he wanted to attribute certain sentences to complainant and some sentences to the accused. While recording further cross examination of PW3 on 26.3.07 it was observed by the court that the witness has been permitted to rewind and hear the cassette. He had taken 45 minutes to rehear the different portions but only a few portions were found to be audible, which were identified by him. This cannot be believed as Sub Inspector Prem Nath as admitted by him in his cross examination on 26.3.07 could not identify the voices of the complainant and 19 the accused. Otherwise also, spectrographic test is only a probable test, which can be used to corroborate the testimony of the person who had the conversation with the accused. Since the complainant had not been produced spectrographic analysis does not carry much value particularly when the audio cassette when played in the court was not even audible to PW3 who had allegedly prepared the transcript of the conversation. In Yusuf Ali Ismail Nagri. Vs. State of Maharashtra -AIR 1968 SC 147 , it was held that if the statement is relevant, an accurate tape record of the statement is also relevant and admissible. It was observed that the time place and accuracy of the recording must be proved by a competent witness and the voices must be properly identified before the tape recorded conversation is admitted into evidence. In the circumstances, since the voices of the complainant and the accused have not been authenticated , the same cannot be used for any purpose.
29.We are only left with the recovery of the tainted money from the file cover Ex.P.10. This has been established from the statement of PW7 Shri Suresh Kumar and PW12 Inspector SC Bhalla. This is also supported by the recovery memo Ex.PW6/A. Infact the recovery of tainted money from the file/folder belonging to the accused has not even disputed by him. The accused has not even disputed his presence in the house of the complainant on 8.3.01. The accused in his statement U/s. 313 Cr.PC. tried to explain his presence by stating that the file of FIR no.88/2000 U/s.
20451/323/34 IPC PS Sangam Vihar was marked to him for further investigation . From the case file, he came to know that brother of the complainant who was a Captain in the Army was yet to be arrested. On 18.2.01 he served notice U/s. 160 Cr.PC. upon Shri Man Singh to attend District Crime Cell on 19.2.2001 at 10.00 AM. Despite service of notice, he did not appear on the said date. On 2.3.2001, he again visited the residence of complainant for serving notice U/s. 160 Cr.PC. upon complainant and his father. The complainant met him . He told the complainant to ask his brother to meet him for formal arrest and bail in the said case as offence was bailable. The complainant requested him to drop the proceedings against his brother; he showed his inability to accede to such a request. He also warned the complainant that in case his brother would not appear voluntarily he shall have to serve the notice U/s. 160 Cr.PC. upon his brother through Army Head Quarters. The complainant did not receive the notice U/s. 160 Cr.PC. and requested him to come after 5-6 days. On 8.3.01 he went to the house of complainant for service of notice U/s. 160 Cr.PC. upon Captain Shatrughan Singh, brother of complainant. Complainant requested him to drop the proceedings against his brother. He showed his inability. Thereupon the complainant offered bribe to him, which he refused. The mother of the complainant who was also present also started requesting him to drop the proceedings against his son as it may affect his career in the army service. During this period while he was talking to the mother of complainant, the complainant without any 21 demand from him might have kept the money in the office file, which was lying on the side stool kept in the corner of the room. The accused stated that money was kept without his knowledge or any demand whatsoever and that he was falsely implicated in the case.
30.Certified copy of file of FIR 88/2000 had been seized by the IO during investigation of the case and the same was proved as Ex.PW8/B during trial. A notice U/s. 160 Cr.PC. dated 2.3.2001 in the name of Laxman Singh is available on the said file, on which a report had been made that the notice was refused by the complainant on the ground that it should be tendered to him after 5-6 days. One notice U/s. 160 Cr.PC. in the name of Shatrughan Singh (brother of the complainant) and another notice in the name of Ravinder Singh were amongst the documents in the file cover Ex.P.10, which were seized by the IO vide recovery memo Ex.PW6/A. On one paper, name of Shatrughan Singh, C/o 56 APO and one landline and one mobile number are also mentioned. The recovery of these papers in the file cover may not establish the defence version, but would make the version of the accused to be somewhat probable. An accused by giving a probable explanation may be able to create a doubt in the case of the prosecution, which may entitle him to acquittal.
31.The prosecution has failed to prove the demand and acceptance of money by the accused by leading cogent and reliable evidence. Simply on the basis of recovery of tainted 22 money in the circumstances stated above would not show that the bribe was demanded or accepted by the accused.
32.In view of foregoing discussion, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt. The accused Chandan Singh Rana is acquitted.
33. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court.
dated:- 20.8.2007 ( G.P.Mittal )
Special Judge: Delhi.