Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs Satyavrat Bhardwaj And Anr on 18 December, 2023

    IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)(ACB)­02, ROUSE AVENUE
                     DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI


Presided by : Mr. Jay Thareja, DHJS


CNR No. DLCT11­001858­2019
CC No. : 341/2019
FIR No.: 26/2009
U/S. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well
as under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Police Station: ACB, GNCTD.


IN THE MATTER OF :­

State                                 v   1. SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj
                                          S/o Sh. Hari Kishan Bhardwaj,
                                          R/o WZ­34/2­B,
                                          Mukharjee Park Extn.,
                                          Tilak Nagar, New Delhi.

                                          2. Ct. Pramod Kumar
                                          S/o Sh. Sukhbir Singh,
                                          R/o Vill. Raja Pur,
                                          P. S. Saroor Pur Khurd,
                                          Distt. Meerut, U. P.

                                                         Date of Institution : 23.10.2019
                                     Date of Conclusion of Final Arguments : 31.10.2023
                                                         Date of Judgment : 18.12.2023



State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.
FIR No.26/2009
Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch
Page 1 of 132
                                              JUDGMENT

1. The present criminal case has originated from a charge­sheet filed by the State, alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth 'PC Act, 1988') and Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (henceforth 'IPC, 1860'), by the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj and Ct. Pramod Kumar. 1 Brief Synopsis of the Charge­Sheet

2. In the charge­sheet, it has been alleged by the State that the genesis/start­point of this case is a complaint dated 31.08.2009, given by the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya at the Office of the Anti­Corruption Branch of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi (henceforth 'ACB'), wherein the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had inter­alia alleged (i) that on 24.07.2009, he had come to Delhi from Singapore and landed at IGI Airport, Delhi at 1330 hours, (ii) that in order to go from IGI Airport, Delhi to his home town, Kannauj, U.P., he had taken a ride in Innova Taxi bearing registration no.DL1YB5329, being driven by the driver, Sh. Hariom Sharma, (iii) that on the way from Delhi to Kannauj, U.P., while he was sleeping, his hand bag, containing his laptop, cash, certificates etc., had gone missing; (iv) that at about 1630 hours, when he had inquired from the driver, Sh. Hariom Sharma about his missing hand bag, the said driver had told him that he had taken petrol from Alaknanda Petrol Pump, Delhi and while doing so, he had left the taxi unattended;

1 Although the accused have been dismissed from Delhi Police vide order dated 18.05.2017, passed by Sh. R. S. Chauhan, DCP, First Battalion, Delhi Police, for the sake of clarity, they are being referred in this judgment, as per their erstwhile ranks in the Delhi Police.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 2 of 132

(v) that upon getting this information, the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had come to Alaknanda Petrol Pump, Delhi at about 1730 hours and dialed 100 number; (vi) that in response to the said call, police officials had come to Alaknanda Petrol Pump, Delhi, done some investigation and told him to either go to PS C. R. Park or Faridabad; (vii) that after roaming here and there, the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had gone to PS C. R. Park at about 1900 hours and met the accused persons viz. SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj and Ct. Pramod Kumar; (viii) that after hearing the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, the accused persons had assured him that they will lodge an FIR and recover his hand bag, if he gives them a bribe; 2 (ix) that under constraint, the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had agreed to give the bribe; (x) that thereafter, the accused persons had interrogated the driver, Sh. Hariom Sharma and subsequently moved to SI room viz. room no.107, PS C. R. Park; (xi) that at room no.107, PS C. R. Park, the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj had told the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya to write a complaint, as per his guidance; (xii) that thereafter, all of them had gone to Alaknanda Petrol Pump, where the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj had broken the locks of the cupboard of the air filing persons and done a search; (xiii) that after the search, the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar and the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had come back to room no.107, PS C. R. Park and the driver, Sh. Hariom Sharma had stood outside the room; (xiv) that at the said room, both the accused persons had again assured the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya that they will lodge an FIR and recover his hand bag and told him to come back at 0600 hours; (xv) that during this conversation, the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj and Ct. Pramod Kumar had 2 In the complaint dated 31.08.2009, the complainant has specified that the words used were, "MERI SEVA KARNI HOGI".

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 3 of 132 demanded bribe of Rs.50,000/­ from the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya; (xvi) that upon hearing the quantum of bribe sought by the accused persons, the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had got surprised and told them that he cannot pay so much bribe because his cash had already been stolen; (xvii) that in response, the accused persons had told the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya to show them his purse; (xviii) that when the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had shown his purse, containing cash of Rs.10,000/­ and an ATM card, the accused persons had refused to take Rs.10,000/­ only (instead of Rs.50,000/­) and asked the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya to arrange the full bribe of Rs.50,000/­, from a relative or through the ATM and the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj had even offered to take the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya to any place; (xix) that in response thereof, the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had told both the accused persons that he has no relative and his ATM card has expired; (xx) that the said response had upset the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj and he had asked the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya to go to his home, lest he will lose his life; (xxi) that thereafter, the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had come to his company's guest house and spent the night; (xxii) that on the next day, when the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had gone to PS C. R. Park, the duty officer had sent him to the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar; (xxiii) that upon meeting the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar on 25.07.2009, the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had asked for his help; (xxiv) that initially, the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had shown rude behaviour but later he had informed the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya that the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj is in Court and he will assist the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, after speaking with the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, on phone; (xxv) that after some time, the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 4 of 132 come to the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya and instructed him to write an application for a missing hand bag (instead of theft of hand bag), without mentioning any loss of cash, so that a NCR can be lodged; (xxvi) that while giving the said instructions to the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had asked the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya to give Rs.7000/­ as initial payment for lodging the missing report/NCR and told the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya to go back and wait for his call, which he would make after consultation with the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj; (xxvii) that thereafter, the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had taken Rs.7000/­ from the purse of the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya; (xxviii) that on 26.07.2009, the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had received a missed call from the accused persons; (xxix) that in response, when the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had called up the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, the said accused had directed him to contact the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar and act as per his directions; (xxx) that in compliance of the said direction, the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had called the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar on his mobile no.9868089034, on 26.07.2009; (xxxi) that during this telephonic conversation, the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had demanded one lakh rupees (1 peti) on behalf of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj and after consultation with the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had brought down the bribe figure to Rs.60,000/­, for lodging of the FIR; (xxxii) that this telephonic conversation was recorded by the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya through his mobile phone, Nokia Supernova 7210 and transferred in a CD (annexed with the complaint); (xxxiii) that on the next morning, the accused persons had called the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya to Delhi; (xxxiv) that during this visit to Delhi, the State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 5 of 132 complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya was accompanied by his cousin, Sh. Jitender Dwivedi, also a resident of Kannauj, U.P.; (xxxv) that upon reaching Delhi, when the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had met the accused persons, they had demanded the agreed bribe of Rs.60,000/­, for lodging of FIR and told the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya to forget his hand bag; (xxxvi) that after a struggle of 2­3 days, the accused persons had sent the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, back to his home and told him that they will call him again; (xxxvii) that during 24.07.2009 to 05.08.2009, both the accused persons were repeatedly assuring the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya that the FIR will be lodged and his hand bag will be recovered; (xxxviii) that once, both the accused persons had suspected that the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya is not willing to give the bribe, they had started to tell him to go to PS Kalkaji and (xxxix) that legal action should be taken against both the accused persons, for forcing the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya to pay Rs.7000/­, for lodging of a missing report/NCR and for demanding bribe of Rs.60,000/­, for lodging of FIR.

3. Further, in the charge­sheet, it has been alleged by the State that on the basis of the above described complaint dated 31.08.2009 of the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, the FIR of this case was registered, on 07.09.2009; that thereafter, the investigation of this case was conducted for 10 years, by Inspector N. K. Sharma, Inspector Yashpal Singh, Inspector Rahul and Inspector Raghuvir Singh; that during the initial investigation of this case, the IO, Inspector N. K. Sharma had

(a) taken the Nokia Supernova 7210 mobile phone and Kingmax 512 MB memory card (used in the said mobile phone) from the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, (b) prepared two CDs of the relevant audio/sound recordings, with the assistance of Sh.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 6 of 132 Shankar Arya, Assistant in the AC Branch of ACB, (c) sealed the CD­1 in a pullanda and kept the CD­2 for the purpose of investigation, (d) sealed the Nokia Supernova 7210 mobile phone and Kingmax 512 MB memory card (used in the said mobile phone) in another pullanda and seized both the pullandas and the CD­2 vide a seizure memo dated 07.09.2009, (e) got the voice of the accused persons in the audio/sound recordings, identified by Inspector Hari Singh, ATO, PS C. R. Park, in the presence of the panch witness, Sh. K. S. Meena and prepared the voice identification memo dated 11.09.2009, (f) recorded the detailed statement of the complainant under Section 161 of CrPC, 1973 and (g) collected the call details of mobile no.9891173403 (of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj), mobile no.9956288659 (of Sh. Bedram, used by the complainant) and mobile no.9868089034 (of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar).3

4. Further, in the charge­sheet, it has been alleged by the State that during further investigation of this case, the next IO, Inspector Yashpal Singh had (a) arrested the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, on 21.08.2010, (b) taken his consent for recording of his voice sample, on 21.08.2010, in the presence of the panch witness, Sh. Rakesh Kumar, (c) taken his voice sample at FSL, Rohini, on 21.06.2011, in the presence of the panch witness, Sh. Richpal Singh, (d) prepared the transcripts of the subject sound recordings, on 23.08.2010, in the presence of the complainant and the panch witness, Sh. Jaspal, (e) arrested the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, on 3 The said allegation/narration in the charge­sheet appears to be inaccurate because alongwith the charge­sheet, the final IO, Inspector Raghuvir Singh has only filed the CDR of mobile no.9891173403 of the accused, SI Satyavrat and the CDR of mobile no.9956288659 of Sh. Bedram (which was being used by the complainant), which were collected in 2009 by IO Inspector N. K. Sharma, via email. The CDR of the mobile no.9868089034 of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar has never seen the light of day, in this Court.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 7 of 132 23.05.2011, (f) taken his consent for recording of his voice sample, on 23.05.2011, in the presence of the panch witness, Sh. Raj Kumar, (g) taken his voice sample at FSL, Rohini, on 24.05.2011, in the presence of the panch witness, Sh. Neeraj Nayan Saxena, (h) collected the attested photocopies of Roznamcha (A&B) of PS C. R. Park and Kalkaji of 24.07.2009 and (i) recorded the statements of HC Kuldeep Singh and HC Ashok Kumar, who had responded to the PCR call made by the complainant, on 24.07.2009.

5. Further, in the charge­sheet, it has been alleged by the State that during further investigation of this case, the next IO, Inspector Rahul had (a) upon getting to know about the death of the first IO, Inspector N. K. Sharma, had re­ sealed the exhibits of this case, after taking permission from the concerned Court,

(b) sent the exhibits of this case for examination by FSL, Rohini through Ct. Manoj Kumar, (c) obtained the CAF forms of the mobile numbers involved in this case, (d) recorded the statements of Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya and Sh. J. P. Sharma, who had assisted the first IO, Inspector N. K. Sharma in the proceedings dated 07.09.2009, (e) collected the transfer/posting orders of the accused persons and (f) collected the FSL report dated 30.07.2015 qua the audio files found in CD­1, prepared by the first IO, Inspector N. K. Sharma, on 07.09.2009. 4

6. Further, in the aforesaid charge­sheet, it has been alleged by the State that during further investigation of this case, the next/final IO, Inspector Raghuvir Singh had (a) received the dismissal order dated 18.05.2017 of both the accused 4 The said report concludes that the voice of both the accused can be heard in the audio/sound recordings found in CD­1, prepared by the first IO, Inspector N. K. Sharma, on 07.09.2009.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 8 of 132 persons, (b) taken the voice sample of the complainant at FSL, Rohini, on 21.01.2019, (c) sent the exhibits of this case for another examination by FSL, Rohini and (d) collected the FSL report dated 27.03.2019, reflecting that the voice of the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhatia can be heard in the audio/sound recordings found in CD­1, prepared by the first IO, Inspector N. K. Sharma, on 07.09.2009.

7. Lastly, in the aforesaid charge­sheet, it has been alleged by the State that from the total investigation done in this case by IOs, Inspector N. K. Sharma, Inspector Yashpal Singh, Inspector Rahul and Inspector Raghuvir Singh, the logical conclusion that follows is that both the accused, are liable to be prosecuted, convicted and sentenced qua the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and Section 120B of IPC, 1860.

Compliance of Section 207 of CrPC, 1973 and Framing of Charge

8. A perusal of the Court file reveals that the above­described charge sheet was filed in this Court, on 23.10.2019; that on the basis of the above­ described charge­sheet, a Ld. Predecessor Judge had taken cognizance of the subject offences, on 02.11.2019; that upon service of process of this Court, both the accused had appeared in this Court, on 11.11.2019; that after supply of documents to both the accused, in compliance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth "CrPC, 1973"), a Ld. Predecessor Judge had framed the charge(s) against both the accused, on 01.02.2021, whereby both the accused were charged with the commission of (a) the offence of criminal conspiracy, State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 9 of 132 punishable as per Section 120B of IPC, 1860 read with Section 7 as well as 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, (b) the offence of demanding/accepting of bribe by a public servant, punishable as per Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988 read with Section 120B of IPC, 1860 and (c) the offence of criminal misconduct by a public servant, punishable as per Section 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 read with Section 120B of IPC, 1860 and that when the said charge(s) were read over and explained to both the accused, in vernacular language, they had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Evidence led by the State

9. During trial of this case, the State had examined 26 witnesses viz. PW1 Inspector Hari Singh, PW2 Sh. Jaspal Prasad, PW3 Sh. Rakesh Kumar, PW4 Sh. Rajkumar, PW5 ASI Ashok Kumar, PW6 SI Kuldeep Singh, PW7 ASI Anil Kumar, PW8 Sh. Neeraj Nayan Saxena, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, PW10 ASI Satish Kumar, PW11 Sh. Manoj Kumar, PW12 HC Baljit Singh, PW13 Sh. Krishan Kumar Bhati, PW14 ASI Kavinder, PW15 Sh. Pawan Singh, PW16 Sh. Karan Razdan, PW17 Sh. Ajay Kumar, PW18 ASI Lile Singh, PW19 Sh. V. Lakshmi Narshiman, PW20 Sh. Lovit, PW21 Sh. Rakesh Kumar, PW22 Inspector Rahul, PW23 ACP Raghuvir Singh, PW24 Sh. Jitender Prasad Sharma, PW25 ACP Yashpal Singh and PW26 Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya.

10. During examination in chief, PW1 Sh. Hari Singh had inter­alia deposed that on 11.09.2009, he was posted as Inspector ATO at PS C. R. Park; that on that State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 10 of 132 day he had gone to PS ACB in connection with investigation of this case; that at PS ACB, in the presence of the panch witness, Sh. K. S. Meena, an audio recording was played in front of him by the IO of this case and he was asked to identify any voice in that audio recording; that after hearing the audio recording, he had identified the voice of the accused, SI Satyavrat and the accused, Ct. Pramod (both present in Court), with whom he had worked for about 6 months at PS C. R. Park and that after the said voice identification, the IO of this case had prepared the voice identification memo, Ex.PW1/A, bearing his signatures at point A, the signatures of the panch witness, Sh. K. S. Meena at point B and the signatures of the IO. During cross­ examination by the Ld. Advocate for both the accused, PW1 Hari Singh had inter­ alia deposed that he is not certain that at the relevant time, the malkhana of PS Govind Puri was functioning from room no.107 of PS C. R. Park; that as per his re­ collection, there was some proposal to such effect because PS Govind Puri was functioning from a small premises; that on 24.07.2009, ASI Jameel Ahmad was posted in PS C. R. Park and he used to sit with the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj in the same room; that he does not remember the number of the said room but it was on the second floor of PS C. R. Park, which has rooms, from room no.201 onwards; that he does not remember whether on 24.07.2009, CCTV cameras were installed at PS C. R. Park; that he had joined the investigation of this case on the basis of a telephonic call or a written communication; that when he had joined the investigation of this case, on 11.09.2009, he had met Inspector N. K. Sharma; that as per his re­collection, he had seen the transcripts of the audio recording in PS ACB, before the audio recording was played before him; that the said transcripts were perhaps, the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F; that the recording heard by State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 11 of 132 him, on 11.09.2009 was for about 35­40 minutes with a continuous part of 30 minutes; that on 11.09.2009, besides him, IO, Inspector N. K. Sharma and panch witness, Sh. K. S. Meena, one more person was sitting in the room; that he had not been able to identify the said person as he was sitting at some distance; that he does not remember whether the audio recording heard by him was stored in a pen­ drive or a CD; that he is not an expert regarding identification of voice; that the device containing the original audio file was not shown to him by the IO, Inspector N. K. Sharma; that he had heard the audio recording on the computer by using an ear­ phone; that it is wrong to say that he had not heard any audio recording, on 11.09.2009 and that the memo, Ex.PW1/A is a false document, signed by him, at the instance of the IO, Inspector N. K. Sharma.5

11. During examination in chief, PW2 Sh. Jaspal Prasad had inter­alia deposed that on 23.08.2010, he was working as a UDC in Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Bindapur, Dwarka, Delhi; that on that day, he was called on panch witness duty at PS ACB; that on that day, he had gone into the room of the IO, Inspector Yashpal Singh; that in the said room, the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya was present; that in his presence and the presence of the complainant, Sh.

5 During the hearing of final arguments, I had inquired from the Ld. PP for the State and the Ld. Advocates for both the accused, what is the probative value of the voice identification memo, Ex.PW1/A and if it is a reliable piece of evidence, why an expert from FSL was engaged by the State to confirm the voice of both the accused, in the audio/sound recordings made by the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya. In response, the Ld. Advocate for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had submitted that the voice identification memo, Ex.PW1/A is an unreliable piece of evidence and to drive home his point, he had relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar v State, (2011) 4 SCC 143. In the said judgment, it has been inter­alia observed that voice identification is more difficult than visual identification and Courts should be circumspect in basing a conviction on voice identification. The western jurisprudence quoted in paragraphs 36 to 38 of the said judgment, appears to be of relevance in this case.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 12 of 132 Vikas Bhartiya, the IO, Inspector Yashpal Singh had played an audio recording in a computer; that after hearing the audio recording, the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had confirmed that he had spoken to the accused, SI Satyavrat and one Constable, whose name he (PW2 Sh. Jaspal Prasad) does not remember; that thereafter, the IO had prepared a copy of the CD, which he had signed; that he cannot remember how the copy was prepared; that he cannot identify his signatures on the document, he had signed on 23.08.2010; that his statement was not recorded by the IO and that he does not remember how many pages, he had signed on that day. Since, PW2 Sh. Jaspal Prasad had not supported the case of the State in entirety, he was permitted to be cross­examined by the Ld. Substitute PP for the State. During cross­ examination by the Ld. Substitute PP for the State, PW2 Sh. Jaspal Prasad had inter­alia deposed that after hearing the audio recording, the IO had prepared the contents/transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F (which bear his signatures at point A on each page) of the audio recording; that he does not remember whether the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had signed the said contents/transcripts and that the correct name of the Constable, referred to by the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya was Pramod. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, SI Satyavrat, PW2 Sh. Jaspal Prasad had inter­alia deposed that he had received the notice to join PS ACB as a panch witness, one week prior to 23.08.2010; that he had reached PS ACB on 23.08.2010 at 02:00 pm; that he cannot describe the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya; that on that day, when he had met the IO, Inspector Yashpal Singh at about 06:00 pm, the IO was not in uniform; that the process of playing of audio recording in CD and preparation of transcripts, had taken one hour; that he does not remember the make of the CD; that it is wrong State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 13 of 132 to say that he had not joined panch witness duty at PS ACB, on 23.08.2010; that it is wrong to say that no audio recording was played in his presence and that it is wrong to say that he had signed the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F (when they were blank documents) at the instance of the IO. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, PW2 Sh. Jaspal Prasad had inter­alia deposed that he had joined PS ACB as a panch witness only once; that he cannot tell the exact name of the person, who had written the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F; that it is wrong to say that there were several persons in the room, who had separately written the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F 6 and he had signed them at the asking of the IO and that it is wrong to say that he is a stock witness of ACB.

12. During examination in chief, PW3 Sh. Rakesh Kumar had inter­alia deposed that on 21.08.2010, he was working as a UDC in Food & Supply Office, Circle No. 40, Laxmi Bai Nagar, Delhi; that on that day, he was on panch witness duty at PS ACB; that at about 04:00 pm, he was told by the IO to accompany the police team to arrest someone; that thereafter, he was taken to the Office of DCP, PS Sarita Vihar; that at about 06:00 pm at the said office, the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar (present in Court) was apprehended; that after apprehension, the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar was brought to PS ACB; that after informing the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar about his grounds of arrest, the IO had arrested him vide arrest memo, Ex.PW3/A and conducted his personal search vide personal search memo, 6 This testimony of PW2 Sh. Jaspal Prasad is at variance with testimony of PW25 ACP Yashpal Singh. According to PW25 ACP Yashpal Singh the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F, were written by his subordinates under his dictation.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 14 of 132 Ex.PW3/B and that thereafter, the voice sample of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar was recorded by the IO on a CD. Since, PW3 Sh. Rakesh Kumar had not supported the case of the State in entirety, he was permitted to be cross­examined by the Ld. Substitute PP for the State. During cross­examination by the Ld. Substitute PP for the State, PW3 Sh. Rakesh Kumar had inter­alia deposed that before recording the voice sample of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, the IO had recorded his consent vide consent memo, Ex.PW3/C, which bears his signatures at point A and the signatures of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar at point B and that he cannot say whether the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had himself noted his consent on the memo, Ex.PW3/C. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, PW3 Sh. Rakesh Kumar had inter­alia deposed that in his presence, information of arrest of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar was not given to anyone; that he does not remember whether the IO had shown him any order of a Court before recording voice sample of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar; that in his presence, the IO had not cautioned the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar that his voice sample can be used against him, in this matter; 7 that the voice sample of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar was recorded on a CD, through a laptop; that he does not remember as to what sentences and words, the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar was asked to speak, while giving his voice sample; that the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar was not given any written text by the IO to read, for recording of his voice sample; that he does not remember whether the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar was asked to speak some words or sentences repeatedly for his voice sample or he was asked to read some paragraphs or text; that he does not know the make or name of 7 The consent memo, Ex.PW3/C clearly records that the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar was informed that his voice sample can be used against him.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 15 of 132 company of CD, in which voice sample of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar was recorded; that he does not know whether he had signed the said CD; that the IO had sealed the said CD but he does not know the seal impression; that perhaps he had signed the sealed parcel containing voice sample CD of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar; that he does not know, whose laptop was used for recording voice sample of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar or the make of the said laptop; that it is wrong to say that he had not witnessed any of the facts deposed by him in his examination in chief; that it is wrong to say that he is a stock witness, whose signatures were obtained by the IO on blank papers, which were converted into memos of this case; that it is wrong to say that the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar was pressurized, while in police custody, to sign the consent memo, Ex.PW3/C or that the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had never given his voice sample and that it is wrong to say that he had deposed falsely at the instance of IO. Despite grant of opportunity, the Ld. Advocate for the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, had not cross­examined PW3 Sh. Rakesh Kumar.8

13. During examination in chief, PW4 Sh. Rajkumar had inter­alia deposed that on 23.05.2011, he was posted as LDC in the Office of Commissioner of Industries, Patparganj, Delhi; that on that day, he was assigned panch witness duty at PS ACB; that when he had reached PS ACB, one Yashpal Sir had called him in his room and introduced him to the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj (present in 8 The testimony of PW3 Sh. Rakesh Kumar contains a prosecution error. As per the case of the State (reflected in the seizure memo, Ex.PW25/A), the voice sample of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar was taken, on 21.06.2011, in the presence of panch witness, Sh. Richpal Singh at FSL, Rohini in an audio­ cassette and not on 21.08.2010, in the presence of the panch witness, Sh. Rakesh Kumar at PS ACB, in a CD. In my view, this aspect should have been highlighted by Sh. Jagdamba Pandey, Ld. Substitute PP for the State, while cross­examining PW3 Sh. Rakesh Kumar, on 02.03.2021.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 16 of 132 Court); that in his presence, the IO had played a CD on the computer of ACB; that after hearing the audio recording in the CD, the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj had told the IO that the voice in the audio recording was a heavy voice and he does not speak in such heavy voice; that thereafter, the IO had told the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj to give his voice sample; that the consent of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj to give the voice sample was recorded in the memo, Ex.PW4/A, 9 bearing the signatures of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj at point A and his signatures at point B. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, PW4 Sh. Rajkumar had inter­alia deposed that before testifying in Court, he had read his statement under Section 161 of CrPC, 1973 and the memo, Ex.PW4/A; that the proceedings dated 23.05.2011 at PS ACB had started at about 11:30 am; that the proceedings had taken place in a station cabin and not in a closed room, where the voice could be heard clearly; that in his presence, no physical scuffle had taken place between the accused, Satyavrat Bharadwaj and Inspector Yashpal, on that day; that he had received intimation to join PS ACB, on 23.05.2011, around fifteen days prior to the said date; that no certificate of joining the proceedings at PS ACB, on 23.05.2011 was issued to him but his attendance was marked at PS ACB; that as far as he recollects, the CD was played on a recorder which was around one feet in length and was of the size of a normal transistor; that he cannot tell the make or the colour of the said recorder / transistor; that he had been a panch witness in other cases of ACB; that no voice sample of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj was recorded in his presence; that on 23.05.2011, he had left PS ACB at about 06:00 pm but the proceedings in this case, had finished 9 Upon perusal of the said memo, it can be seen that the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj had not consented to give his voice sample, vide the said memo.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 17 of 132 before lunch; that the memo, Ex.PW4/A does not have the signatures of the IO, Inspector Yashpal; that he does not know, in whose handwriting, the memo, Ex.PW4/A was written, except the endorsement above signatures of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, which is in the handwriting of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj; that it is wrong to say that he had never met or seen the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj prior to his date of examination i.e. 02.03.2021; that it is wrong to say that he has wrongly identified the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj at the instance of IO; that it is wrong to say that he had not witnessed any of the facts deposed by him, in his examination in chief; that it is wrong to say that he is a stock witness, whose signatures were obtained by the IO on blank papers, which were later converted into memos of this case; that it is wrong to say that accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj was pressurized while in police custody to sign the consent memo, Ex.PW4/A and that it is wrong to say that he had deposed falsely at the instance of IO. Despite grant of opportunity, the Ld. Advocate for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, had not cross­examined PW4 Sh. Rajkumar.

14. During examination in chief, PW5 ASI Ashok Kumar had inter­alia deposed that on 24.07.2009, he was posted at PS C. R. Park as a Head constable; that on that day, he was on emergency duty; that upon receipt of DD No.31B regarding theft of laptop etc., he had reached near Kalkaji Public School and met the complainant, Sh. Vikash Bhartiya; that after interacting with the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, he had understood that the place where the theft had taken place was falling under jurisdiction of PS Kalkaji; that in view thereof, he had informed the duty officer of PS Kalkaji; that after arrival of HC Kuldeep at the spot, he had handed State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 18 of 132 over the complainant to HC Kuldeep and that his statement was recorded by the concerned IO. In support of his testimony, PW5 ASI Ashok Kumar had tendered in evidence copy of DD No.31B, Ex.PW5/A (OSR) and DD No.33B, Ex.PW5/B(OSR). During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, PW5 ASI Ashok Kumar had inter­alia deposed that on 24.07.2009, ASI Zameel Ahmed was also posted at PS C. R. Park and used to share IO room with the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj on second floor of PS C. R. Park; that he does not remember whether on 24.07.2009, the malkhana of PS Govind Puri was located in the premises of PS C. R. Park; that in his presence, the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had not expressed suspicion over any particular person; that he had not made any inquiry from anybody working at the petrol pump; that on that day, he had left PS C. R. Park after completion of his duty and that on that day, he had neither met the complainant nor seen his taxi/taxi driver at PS C. R. Park. Despite grant of opportunity, the Ld. Advocate for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, had not cross­ examined PW5 ASI Ashok Kumar.

15. During examination in chief, PW6 SI Kuldeep Singh had inter­alia deposed that on 24.07.2009, he was posted at PS Kalkaji as a Head Constable; that on that day, upon receipt of DD No.28A, he had reached near Kalkaji Public School and met the complainant, Vikas Bhartiya; that the complainant had informed him that his laptop etc. had been stolen by someone at Ballabgarh; that in response, he had informed the complainant that PS Ballabgarh is the concerned PS for necessary action; that as a result, the complainant had gone away and he had filed the call and that his statement was recorded by the concerned IO. In support of his testimony, State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 19 of 132 PW6 SI Kuldeep Singh had tendered in evidence copy of DD No.28A, Ex.PW6/A and DD No.29A, Ex.PW6/B. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, PW6 SI Kuldeep Singh had inter­alia deposed that he does not remember if he had met any police official of PS C. R. Park when he had reached at the spot; that he had inquired from the complainant as to why the complainant had come to the petrol pump and made the police call; that in response, the complainant had informed him that he had got his taxi fueled from the said petrol pump; that he had made inquiry from the staff of the said petrol pump but not recorded this fact in the DD No.29A, Ex.PW6/B and that he does not remember if there was CCTV camera at the said petrol pump. Despite grant of opportunity, the Ld. Advocate for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, had not cross­examined PW6 SI Kuldeep Singh.

16. During examination in chief, PW7 ASI Anil Kumar had inter­alia deposed that on 23.05.2011, he was posted in PS ACB as a Constable; that on that day, in his presence, the IO, Inspector Yashpal Singh had arrested the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, after he had surrendered in Court No.307, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and prepared the arrest memo, Ex.PW7/A and personal search memo, Ex.PW7/B; that after arresting the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj and obtaining his two days police custody, the IO had brought the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj to the Office of ACB and played a CD on the computer before him and that after preparing the seizure memo of the CD, the IO had got the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj medically examined at Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital and locked him up in PS Civil Lines. Since, PW7 ASI Anil Kumar had not supported the case of State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 20 of 132 the State in entirety, he was permitted to be cross­examined by the Ld. APP for the State. During cross­examination by the Ld. APP for the State, PW7 ASI Anil Kumar had inter­alia deposed that a panch witness, Sh. Raj Kumar was present in the Office of ACB, when the CD was played by the IO; that upon hearing the audio recording in the CD, the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj had said, "meri awaz nahi sunai de rahi hai, mein itni bhari awaz mein nahi bolta hoon" and that thereafter, the IO had prepared the voice identification memo, Ex.PW4/A, bearing his signatures at point C and the voice sample consent memo of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, Ex.PW7/C, bearing his signatures at point A. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, PW7 ASI Anil Kumar had inter­ alia deposed that he does not remember the appearance of the panch witness, Sh. Raj Kumar viz. whether he was of fair complexion or dark complexion etc.; that he does not know which department he belonged to; that the voice identification memo, Ex.PW4/A, may have been written by the panch witness, Sh. Raj Kumar; that the IO, Inspector Yashpal had signed the voice identification memo, Ex.PW4/A; 10 that the voice sample consent memo, Ex.PW7/C is in the handwriting of Inspector Yashpal; that he does not remember if the IO had told the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj about legal rights qua giving a voice sample; that he does not remember in which room of the Office of ACB, the CD was played and whether the complainant was present when the CD was played and that it is wrong to say that he had not participated in the investigation of this case and no investigation was done in his presence. Despite grant of opportunity, the Ld. Advocate for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, had not cross­examined PW7 ASI Anil Kumar.

10 At this stage of the testimony of PW7 ASI Anil Kumar, this Court had noted that the voice identification memo, Ex.PW4/A, does not have the signatures of the IO, Inspector Yashpal.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 21 of 132

17. During examination in chief, PW8 Sh. Neeraj Nayan Saxena had inter­ alia deposed that on a day of May 2011, whose exact date he does not remember, he was posted as a Steno in the Office of Commissioner of Industries, Patparganj, Delhi; that on that day, he was deputed as a panch witness at ACB, Civil Lines; that on that day, after reaching ACB, Civil Lines, he had accompanied the police officials (including Inspector Yashpal) and the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj to FSL, Rohini; that at FSL, Rohini, the voice sample of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj was recorded in two audio cassettes; that the said audio cassettes were sealed but he does not remember the impression of the seal; that he had signed the parcel containing the audio cassettes as well as the seizure memo of the audio cassettes, Ex.PW8/A at point A; that on that day, the seal was handed over to him and he had deposited it, in ACB, after returning to ACB and that the IO had perhaps recorded his statement. Upon being shown, (a) the audio cassette, Ex.P1, sealed with the seal of 'YPS' and marked SVA­1 and (b) the audio cassette, Ex.P2, sealed with the seal of 'FSL, VLN, Delhi' and marked SVA, PW8 Sh. Neeraj Nayan Saxena had identified them to be the audio cassettes prepared at FSL, Rohini, in his presence. Since, PW8 Sh. Neeraj Nayan Saxena had not supported the case of the State in entirety, he was permitted to be cross­examined by the Ld. Chief Prosecutor for the State. During cross­examination by the Ld. Chief Prosecutor for the State, PW8 Sh. Neeraj Nayan Saxena had inter­alia deposed that he does not remember if his statement under Section 161 of CrPC, 1973, was recorded by Inspector Yashpal, on 24.05.2011; that at FSL, Rohini, he and the others had gone to the physics division; that the two audio cassettes with the voice sample of the accused, SI Satyavrat State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 22 of 132 Bhardwaj were marked as SVA and SVA­1; that he cannot admit or deny that the seal used on 24.05.2011 was 'YPS'; that the parcels sealed on 24.05.2011 were deposited in the malkhana, after return to ACB, Civil Lines from FSL, Rohini and that at ACB, he had returned the seal to Inspector Yashpal. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, PW8 Sh. Neeraj Nayan Saxena had inter­alia deposed that he had come to know about his duty as panch witness at ACB, Civil Lines, about 5 days prior to 24.05.2011; that previously, he had gone to ACB as a panch witness, in another case; that he does not remember whether any attendance certificate etc. was issued to him by officials of ACB, for doing panch witness duty on 24.05.2011; that he had met Inspector Yashpal at ACB, one hour after reaching ACB at 10:30 am; that the two audio cassettes, Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 were sourced from FSL, Rohini and were not taken from ACB; that the cassettes were prepared in a tape recorder, with the assistance of a technician of FSL, Rohini; that he does not remember, if the paper given to the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj to read out, on 24.05.2011, contained words or sentences which were repeated or a paragraph written in continuity; that he does not remember if voice of anybody else, as introductory voice, was recorded in the cassette, before recording of voice sample of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj; that perhaps Sh. Dinesh, who was present at the time, had also signed the audio cassettes; that he had accompanied the IO to the malkhana where the sealed audio cassettes parcels were deposited; that in fact, after leaving FSL, Rohini, they had first gone to the place/malkhana where parcels were deposited and then to ACB; that he does not know the name of the PS or place where the case property was deposited, before going to ACB; that the said place/malkhana was not in the building, in which ACB State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 23 of 132 office was located; that perhaps the seal given to him, was made up of "Peetal"; that he does not remember whether IO had prepared any separate memo of handing over of the seal or return of the seal; that he had heard the audio cassette prior to recording of voice sample and also after recording of voice sample but before recording of voice sample, the audio cassettes were blank; 11 that he does not remember whether the technician of FSL, Rohini had also signed any document prepared on that day by the IO or whether his statement was recorded by the IO; that as far as he remembers, the voice sample of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj was recorded directly in the tape recorder, without external microphone/head phone; that he does not remember whether the place where the voice sample was recorded, was a closed room or it had office cubicles; that the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj was sitting reasonably close to the tape recorder; that at the time of recording of voice sample of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, 3­4 persons were present, including accused Satyavrat; that he does not remember whether seal was given to him after use, inside some envelope or it was given in his bare hands; that he does not remember whether the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj was asked to sign any document at FSL, Rohini; that he and others had remained at FSL, Rohini for about 1­1.25 hours but he cannot tell the exact duration; that he cannot tell the floor of FSL, Rohini, where the subject proceedings were done; that he cannot tell the name/make of the government vehicle, in which, he and others had gone to FSL, Rohini from ACB; that it is wrong to say that he had not gone to the FSL, Rohini, on 24.05.2011; that it is wrong to say that he had signed all 11 It appears that the witness wanted to state that he had heard the audio recording before recording of the voice sample of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj and then, after recording of voice sample of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 24 of 132 the documents on 24.05.2011 at the Office of ACB, on the instructions of Inspector Yashpal; that it is wrong to say that he was never handed over any seal at any point of time by Inspector Yashpal; that it is wrong to say that he is a tutored stock witness of the State; that when he had identified the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, the said accused alone was standing towards the back side of the Court and that it is wrong to say that initially, he was unable to identify the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj because he had never seen him before. At this stage of the examination of PW8 Sh. Neeraj Nayan Saxena, an observation was made by this Court and PW8 Sh. Neeraj Nayan Saxena had responded to a final question of the Ld. Advocate for the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj. The said Court observation and response, are reproduced below:

"Court observation: When the witness was first asked to identify the accused Satyavrat, at that time his face mask was on his face and thereafter this court directed the witness to go out of the court and then accused was asked to take off his face mask and then the witness was called inside again and then he was asked to have a re­look towards all the persons present in the court including one orderly of the court, naib court and then the witness had a look at the accused and gave reply, as mentioned in the examination in chief and cross examination of the prosecutor.

It is correct that when I was called inside again in the court room, naib court went to call me."

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 25 of 132 Despite grant of opportunity, the Ld. Advocate for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, had not cross­examined PW8 Sh. Neeraj Nayan Saxena.

18. During examination in chief, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had inter­alia deposed that he does not remember the exact date but on 20 th or 22nd of July 2009, he had landed at Delhi airport from Singapore; that from the airport, he had engaged a taxi, whose registration number he does not remember; that at about 3­4 pm, he had boarded the taxi to travel to from Delhi airport to his native place, Kannauj; that during the said travel, he was carrying two big bags and one hand bag; that the two big bags were kept in the dicky of the taxi and the hand bag was kept with him; that the driver of the taxi was Sh. Hari; that due to fatigue, half an hour into the journey/ride, he had fallen asleep in the middle row of the taxi (Innova); that at Ballabgarh, near Faridabad, Haryana, the driver of the taxi had stopped the taxi, woken him up and stated that he wants to have tea; that at that time, he had noticed that his hand bag, which was placed on the floor of the middle row of the taxi, was missing; that when he had inquired from the driver about his missing hand bag, the driver had told him that he has no knowledge; that upon further inquiry, the driver had told him that he had stopped the car for refueling at Alaknanda Petrol Pump, Delhi and after refueling and filling of air in the tyres, when he had gone into the office of the petrol pump, for taking the bill, the taxi had been left unattended, for sometime; that from the information given by the driver, he had got convinced that his hand bag had been taken by someone at the Alaknanda Petrol Pump, Delhi and therefore, he had returned to the said petrol pump; that he had left Ballabgarh, Haryana at 06:00 pm and reached the said petrol pump in forty minutes i.e. by 06:40 State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 26 of 132 pm; that from the Alaknanda Petrol Pump, Delhi, he had dialed 100 number; that in response, a PCR had come to the petrol pump; that upon hearing him, the PCR police officer had asked him to go back to Ballabgarh, Haryana; that then, he had gone to a police station in Ballabgarh, Haryana and narrated the incident to the police officials present there; that upon their advice, he had come back to PS C. R. Park, Delhi alongwith the taxi driver and in the same taxi; that his missing hand bag contained his laptop, cash of Rs.20,000/­, his certificates and important documents including his passport and CDC document (a document used for sea ferrying); that upon reaching PS C. R. Park at about 08:00 pm, he had met both the accused viz. SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj and Ct. Pramod Kumar, present in the Court and narrated the incident to them; that in response, the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had told him that his bag would be recovered but "sewa karni padegi meri, dhyan rakhna padega"; that thereafter, a half an hour conversation had taken place between him and both the accused persons, wherein he was taken into confidence by them, by stating that FIR would lodged, his stolen articles will be recovered and everything would get fine; that thereafter, both the accused persons, two other policemen 12 and he had gone to the Alaknanda Petrol Pump, Delhi in the taxi, he was using for travel on that day; that by the time, they had reached the Alaknanda Petrol Pump, Delhi, the air pressure dispenser was closed and the person manning it, was not there; that in his presence, both the accused persons had broken open both the locks on the two air pressure kiosks located at the Alaknanda Petrol Pump, Delhi, conducted a search but not found his articles; that thereafter, they had returned to PS C. R. Park and the two accused persons had interrogated the taxi driver but nothing had come out of it;

12 It is relevant to note that in his complaint dated 31.08.2009, the complainant had not mentioned anything about these two other policemen.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 27 of 132 that thereafter, both the accused persons had told him that since, it was too late in the night, he should go back and return the next morning; that on the next morning, which was perhaps 25.07.2009, he had gone to PS C. R. Park and met both the accused persons; that on that day, the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had demanded Rs.10,000/­ from him by stating that for lodging FIR, the said amount will be required; that at that time, he had given Rs.7000/­ to the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar because he did not have the entire sum of Rs.10,000/­; that in the evening of that day, the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had handed him over, one non­cognizable report, which he had kept, believing it to be the required FIR; that before giving the NCR and asking him to go back to his native place, the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had told him that he will have to spend a good amount for recovery of his bag; that then, he had gone back to his home; that 2­3 days later, both the accused persons had started to call him on his mobile number, which was perhaps 9958288659; that during the said calls, both the accused persons used to say to him that his bag will be recovered, but he will have to spend some amount for it; that in one of the calls, the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had asked him to pay Rs.2,00,000/­ for recovery of his bag; that he does not remember the date of the said call or whether he had made or received the said call; that since, there was recording facility available in his mobile phone, he had recorded few of the calls between him and both the accused persons; that on 30.07.2009 or on a day near that date, he had come to Delhi and met both the accused persons in the room of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj at the first floor of PS C. R. Park; that from the conversations with both the accused persons, he had got suspicious that both the accused persons cannot recover his bag and they were interested in taking his money, only; that then, he had returned to State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 28 of 132 his native place; that about four days later, he had again come to Delhi and given a complaint in the Office of SP, Kalkaji against both the accused persons because by that time, he had recorded few conversations; that 4­5 days thereafter, he had gone to PS ACB and given the complaint, Ex.PW9/A against both the accused persons, which is in his own handwriting and bears his signatures on every page at point A; that alongwith the said complaint, he had handed over his mobile phone of the make Nokia 5210, his SIM card and a memory card; that he does not remember the exact date, when he had given the complaint, Ex.PW9/A and that the said complaint was assigned to Inspector N. K. Sharma, who had prepared two pullandas of his mobile phone, which contained the SIM card and the memory card, sealed them with the seal of 'NKS' and subsequently seized them vide seizure memo, Ex.PW9/B, bearing his signatures at point A.

19. Further, during examination in chief, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had inter­ alia deposed that seven days later, he was again called at PS ACB; that on that day, the recordings of his conversations with both the accused persons were played on a desktop of PS ACB, in presence of one police official, Sh. J. Sharma 13 and another police official, whose name, he does not remember; that on that day, the transcripts of the subject audio conversations, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F, which bear his signatures at point B of every page, were also prepared at PS ACB; 14 that on that day, the subject audio recordings were also copied from the memory card of his 13 It appears that the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya was referring to the panch witness, Sh. J. P. Sharma, subsequently examined as PW24 Sh. Jitender Prasad Sharma. 14 It appears that while making this statement, the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had got confused between the investigation proceedings dated 07.09.2009 (recorded in the seizure memo dated 07.09.2009) and the investigation proceedings dated 23.08.2010 (recorded in the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F).

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 29 of 132 mobile phone in two CDs, one of which was sealed by the Police Inspector and the other was kept open; that in pursuance of the investigation of this case, he was again called on 21.01.2019 at FSL, Rohini, for recording of his voice sample; that he does not remember what was done with his voice sample recorded at FSL, Rohini, on 21.01.2019, with the help of a desktop and that on that day, Inspector Raghbir Singh had prepared the seizure memo, Ex.PW9/C, bearing his signatures at point A.

20. Further, during examination in chief, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, (a) upon being shown the Nokia mobile phone, model no.7210c, Ex.M­1, sealed with the seal of 'VLN, FSL, Delhi'15 and (b) upon being played the six audio files contained in CD­ 1, Ex.P1, sealed with the seal of 'VLN, FSL, Delhi', had identified the Nokia mobile phone, model no.7210c to be his mobile phone, the audio file, "Record003.amr" to contain the conversation between him and the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj (noted in the transcript, Ex.PW2/A), the audio file, "Record004.amr" to contain the conversation between him and the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj (noted in the transcript, Ex.PW2/B), the audio file, "Record008.amr" to contain the conversation between him and the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar (noted in the transcript, Ex.PW2/C), the audio file, "Record009.amr" to contain the conversation between him and the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar (noted in the transcript, Ex.PW2/D), the audio file, "Record010.amr" to contain the conversation between him and the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar (noted in the transcript, Ex.PW2/E) and the audio file, "Record011.amr" to contain the conversation between him and the accused, Ct.

15 The subject memory card, referred in the seizure memo, Ex.PW9/B was not shown to PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya because it was the say of the Ld. PP for the State that it has been misplaced by the authorities at FSL, Rohini. However, no document was shown to the Court, reflecting that the memory card had been misplaced by the authorities at FSL, Rohini.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 30 of 132 Pramod Kumar (noted in the transcript, Ex.PW2/F). 16

21. Since, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had not supported the case of the State in entirety, he was permitted to be cross­examined by the Ld. Chief PP for the State. During cross­examination by the Ld. Chief PP for the State, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had inter­alia deposed that it is correct that the taxi he had hired, had the registration no.DL1YB5329 and it was driven by the driver, Sh. Hariom Sharma; that it is correct that he had departed for his home town from IGI airport at 1430 hours on 24.07.2009; that it is correct that the driver had woken him up at 1630 hours at Ballabgarh; that it is correct that his missing hand bag also contained one digital camera and handycam; that it is correct that from Ballabgarh, Haryana, he had reached Alaknanda Petrol Pump, Delhi at 1730 hours; 17 that it is correct that the PCR official, who had responded to his 100 number call, had advised him to go to PS C. R. Park or Ballabgarh; that it is wrong to say that from Alaknanda Petrol Pump, Delhi, he had straightaway gone to PS C. R. Park; that he had first gone to Ballabgarh and then to PS C. R. Park; that it is correct that he had reached PS C. R. Park at about 1900 hours; that it is correct that at PS C. R. Park, both the accused persons had asked him to give a bribe and said, "meri sewa karni hogi"; that it is correct that the room number of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj was 107; that he cannot admit or deny that at PS C. R. Park, the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj 16 During the examination in chief of PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya the screen­shots of the properties of the folder, "Audio" found in the CD, Ex.P1 were taken and marked as Ex.P1­B running into 9 pages. 17 This statement/deposition of PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, reflects that during cross­examination by the Ld. Chief PP for the State, on 05.04.2022, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya was agreeing to the Ld. Chief PP for the State, without applying his mind. I say so because some time back on the same day, he had stated/deposed during his examination in chief that on 24.07.2009, he had reached Alaknanda Petrol Pump, Delhi at about 06:40 pm. State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 31 of 132 had asked him to write the complaint or that the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj had guided him in writing a complaint;18 that it is correct that after he, both the accused persons and the others had returned to PS C. R. Park from the Alaknanda Petrol Pump, both the accused persons had asked the driver, Sh. Hariom Sharma to go out of the room no.107 and then, both the accused persons had assured him that they would lodge the FIR, he should not worry and his bag and articles would be recovered; that it is correct that thereafter, both the accused persons had demanded Rs.50,000/­ from him; that it is correct that thereafter, when he had told both the accused persons that he cannot pay so much amount because his cash was already stolen, both the accused persons had asked him to show his purse to them; that it is correct that when he had showed his purse to both the accused persons, which contained cash of Rs.10,000/­ and an ATM card, both the accused persons had refused to take Rs.10,000/­ from him and instead said that they want the complete Rs.50,000/­ and had also told him to arrange it, from a relative or an ATM; that it is correct that the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj had even said that he can accompany him, if he wishes to go anywhere and at that time, when he had told the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj that he does not have any relative in Delhi and the ATM card is expired, the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj had got angry with him, abused him and said that if he was unable to pay, he should have told them earlier and then the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj had also said that he should go back to his home otherwise he would lose his life and he should get lost from there; 19 that 18 At this stage, the Ld. PP for the State had confronted PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya with the statement made at points A to A of his complaint, Ex.PW9/A. 19 It is relevant to note that during his examination in chief, which was recorded on the same day i.e. 05.04.2022, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had not even whispered about this entire incident at room no.107 of PS C. R. Park, particularly about being threatened by the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, qua loss of life.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 32 of 132 it is correct that thereafter, he had returned to his company's guest house and on the next morning, hesitantly gone to PS C. R. Park, where the duty officer had sent him to the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar; that it is correct that when he had met the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, he had told the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar that the bribe amount is huge and he is unable to fulfill it, at the time; that it is correct that in response, the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had initially been rude and later said that the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj is in Court and that he would speak to the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj on his mobile and ask what can be done; that it is correct that thereafter, the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had returned to him and asked him to write an application, wherein only the missing hand bag is reported and no theft is mentioned so that the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar is able to get him a NCR; that it is correct that thereafter, the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had asked him to give Rs.7000/­ as initial payment for lodging the missing report and asked him to go back to his home, wait for the call of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, to be made after consulting with the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj; that it is correct that thereafter, the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had taken Rs.7000/­ from his purse; that it is correct that in the evening of 26.07.2009, he had received missed calls on his mobile from the mobile of both the accused persons and thereafter, he had called both the accused persons; that it is correct that when he had called the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, the said accused had instructed him to act as per directions of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar and to contact him; that it is correct that thereafter, he had contacted the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar on his mobile phone, on 26.07.2009; that he cannot admit or deny if the mobile number of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar was 9868089034; that he cannot admit or deny if during the call State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 33 of 132 made by him to the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, the said accused had demanded Rs.1,00,000/­ on behalf of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj or that after consulting of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, the said demand was reduced by the said accused to Rs.60,000/­;20 that he does not remember the exact amount; that he had not made any CD of the audio conversation recorded on his mobile phone and submitted it, alongwith his complaint, Ex.PW9/A; 21 that it is correct that on the next morning, both the accused persons had called him to Delhi; that it is correct that upon reaching Delhi with his cousin, Sh. Jitender Dwivedi, he had met both the accused persons; that it is correct that at that time, both the accused persons had demanded Rs.60,000/­ from him, for lodging FIR as per the deal and told him that he should forget his bag; that it is correct that after 2­3 days, both the accused persons had sent him back by stating that they would call him again; that it is correct that during 24.07.2009 and 05.08.2009, both the accused persons had kept on assuring him that they would lodge the FIR and recover his bag; that it is correct that subsequently, when both the accused persons had suspected that he would not pay the bribe, they had asked him to approach PS Kalkaji, Delhi; that it is correct that thereafter, he had given the complaint, Ex.PW9/A; that it is correct that his mobile phone and the memory card were sealed by Inspector N. K. Sharma, on 07.09.2009 and not on the day when he had given the complaint; that it is correct that before keeping his mobile phone and memory card in a sealed parcel, the audio recordings were copied from the memory card onto two CDs, which were given numbers viz. CD­1 and CD­2; that it is correct that CD­1 was kept in a parcel and sealed with the 20 At this stage, the Ld. PP for the State had confronted PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya with the statement made at points B to B of his complaint, Ex.PW9/A. 21 At this stage, the Ld. PP for the State had confronted PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya with the statement made at points C to C of his complaint, Ex.PW9/A. State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 34 of 132 seal of 'NKS' and CD­2 was kept in open condition for investigation; that it is correct that on 16.09.2009, he was called by Inspector N. K. Sharma; that it is correct that on that day, all the six recordings contained in the CD­2 were played at PS ACB; that it is correct that he had heard them and confirmed them to be the audio recordings, done by him; that it is correct that on that day, Inspector N. K. Sharma had shown him one transcript of the audio conversation; that it is correct that his mobile number was 9956288659; that it is correct that through the said mobile phone, he had spoken to both the accused persons; that he cannot admit or deny that the mobile number of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj was 9891173403 or that the mobile number of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar was 9868089034; that it is correct that he was again called to join investigation, on 23.08.2010 and the audio conversation was played at PS ACB from CD­2; that it is correct that on that day, the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F were prepared and signed by him as well as the panch witness, Sh. Jaspal; that it is correct that when his voice sample was taken at FSL Rohini, on 21.01.2019, it was taken in two audio cassettes, which were marked SVC­I and SVC­IA (copy) and both the cassettes were signed by him and panch witnesses, Sh. Ram Prakash Sharma and Sh. Hemant Kumar and that it is correct that both the said cassettes were kept in two parcels, which were sealed by the IO, with the seal of 'RS'.

22. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had inter­alia deposed that immediately upon reaching Alaknanda Petrol Pump, Delhi, for the first time, he had called 100 number to call the PCR; that by the time, he had called the PCR, it was State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 35 of 132 07:00 pm;22 that thereafter, police officials from two different police stations had come to the said petrol pump; that the police official from the first police station had come within 10 minutes of his call; that on account of lack of knowledge, he cannot admit or deny that the first police official, who had come, was HC Ashok from PS C. R. Park; that it is wrong to say that upon receipt of information from HC Ashok, another police official had come from PS Kalkaji; that he does not know who had come from PS Kalkaji; that both the bikes on which police officials had come, had arrived simultaneously and he had spoken to only one police official at the petrol pump;23 that on account of lack of knowledge, he cannot admit or deny that the second police official was HC Kuldeep from PS Kalkaji; that he had not told HC Kuldeep that he wants to go to PS Ballabgarh; that it was the police official, who had asked him to go to PS Ballabgarh; that within 10 minutes of the arrival of the police official at the petrol pump, his conversation was over and he had left for Ballabgarh; that he cannot say with certainty but it had taken him approximately 40­45 minutes to reach PS Ballabgarh from Alaknanda Petrol Pump, Delhi; that outside PS Ballabgarh, he had met a police official and told him about his case; that it had taken him 10 minutes to speak to that police official; that he cannot remember if upon non­ registration of his complaint at PS Ballabgarh, he had gone to the PS in Sector­17, Faridabad; that it is correct that he had appeared as a witness in the departmental inquiries against both the accused persons; 24 that he does not remember if the PCR 22 It is relevant to note that this statement of PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya is contrary to the DD No.31B, Ex.PW5/A(OSR), which reflects that the PCR call had been made by him, on or before 05:54 pm. 23 It is relevant to note that the said statement of PW9, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya is contrary to testimony of PW5 ASI Ashok Kumar and the testimony of PW6 SI Kuldeep Singh as well as the DD entries tendered in evidence by them.

24 It is relevant to note that this statement of PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya is contrary to the admitted dismissal order dated 18.05.2017, Ex.A1 of both the accused persons, which clearly records that Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had not joined the departmental proceedings against both the accused persons.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 36 of 132 called was made by him, by using the mobile of the taxi driver, Sh. Hariom Sharma (as the battery of his mobile phone had drained out); that it had taken him approximately 40 minutes to come to PS C. R. Park from Ballabgarh; that he does not remember, as to where the taxi was parked at PS C. R. Park, when he had gone there; that it is wrong to say that the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj had met him for the first time, 10­15 steps inside the gate of PS C. R. Park, when he had gone there; that in fact, he had met him near the desk of the Duty Officer of PS C. R. Park; that at that time, only the Duty Officer and both the accused were present there; that at that time, he had not given any written complaint to the Duty Officer; that at that time, he had not even orally told the Duty Officer about the incident; that he had not done so because he had spoken to both the accused persons; that on 24.07.2009, he had finally left PS C. R. Park at about 11.30 pm, after staying there for 1.5 hours; that there was only one table and four chairs in room no.107 of PS C. R. Park; that there was no bed in the said room; that it is wrong to say that at that time, room no.107 of PS C. R. Park was a Malkhana of PS Govind Puri and not the room of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj or any other IO; that he does not have much idea about ranks in the police hierarchy and that he used to address the accused, Satyavrat Bhardwaj as Inspector; that in the complaint, Ex.PW9/A, he had mentioned the designation of the accused, Satyavrat Bhardwaj as Sub­Inspector and not Inspector; that at that time, he knew the rank of the accused, Satyavrat Bhardwaj; that he had written the complaint, Ex.PW9/A at his home; that in his statements, he had not told the investigating agency that two more policemen had accompanied him and both the accused persons, from PS C. R. Park to Alaknanda Petrol Pump; that he does not remember if apart from the complaint, Ex.PW9/A, the State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 37 of 132 IO had recorded his statement; that when he and both the accused persons had gone to the Alaknanda Petrol Pump, the employees and the manager of the petrol pump were present; that in his presence, both the accused persons had not made any inquiry from the employees or the manager of the petrol pump; that the employees and the manager of the petrol pump had not come forward when the locks of kiosks were broken by both the accused persons; that there was no CCTV camera installed at the Alaknanda Petrol Pump, on that day; that he had not asked both the accused persons to search the room of the manager or any employee of the petrol pump; that the IOs of ACB had never asked him to accompany them to Alaknanda Petrol Pump; that it is wrong to say that nothing had happened at Alaknanda Petrol Pump, on 24.07.2009; that he was carrying around Rs.10,000 ­ Rs.12,000/­ in his pocket, on 24.07.2009; that it is wrong to say that on 24.07.2009, he was carrying cash amount of Rs.20,000 - Rs.25,000/­ in his pocket; that on 24.07.2009, his ATM card was is in a working condition; that he does not remember if the taxi driver, Sh. Hariom Sharma was interrogated by both the accused persons at PS C. R. Park, when he and the taxi driver had reached there for the first time or when everyone had returned to PS C. R. Park; that it is wrong to say that when he and the taxi driver, Sh. Hariom Sharma had reached PS C. R. Park for the first time, he was abusing the taxi driver, Sh. Hariom Sharma in the compound of PS C. R. Park, after parking of the taxi in the compound of PS C. R. Park; that it is wrong to say that at that time, the accused, Satyavrat Bhardwaj had met him for the first time and asked him not to abuse the driver, Sh. Hariom Sharma; that it is wrong to say that at that time, the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj had reprimanded him; that it is wrong to say that at that time itself, he had told about the theft of his hand bag to the State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 38 of 132 accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj; that it is wrong to say that at that time itself, he had asked the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj to lock up the taxi driver, Sh. Hariom Sharma; that it is correct that on 24.07.2009, the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj had told him that he has a large experience of investigation and that it did not appear to the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj that the driver, Sh. Hariom Sharma had committed theft, but this fact was said by the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, after the said accused had interrogated the driver, Sh. Hariom Sharma in the PS; that it is wrong to say that after he was reprimanded by the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj regarding abusing the taxi driver, the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj had asked him to go and report the matter to the duty officer; that it is correct that his first meeting with the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj had occurred approximately at 09:30 pm; that it is wrong to say that after the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj had met him near the gate, the said accused had not met him again on that day or that the said accused was not even present at PS C. R. Park after 09:30 pm because he had proceeded for investigation of FIR No.192/09 PS C. R. Park.

23. Further, during cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had inter­alia deposed that he had never tried to meet the SHO of PS C. R. Park regarding the incident at any time; that 3­4 days after 24.07.2009, he had come to know for the first time that in every police station, there is an SHO; that he cannot state any reason for not making a complaint to the SHO of PS C. R. Park about the conduct of both the accused persons; that he had made a complaint to the SP; that the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj had never made a telephonic call to his mobile phone; that he had recorded 3­4 State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 39 of 132 calls/conversations with the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj but he had not handed over the recordings of all the calls/conversations; that he had not recorded all the calls/conversations; that during his initial calls with the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, he had not done the recordings but later, he had done so because he had understood that the accused persons were harassing him; 25 that he does not remember when he had made the last call to accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj; that he had not recorded the last call conversation between him and the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj because by that time, he had compiled the existing recordings and noted them in his complaint; that it is wrong to say that he had deliberately not submitted the call recordings of all the calls made by him to the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj or that he had manipulated the recordings qua the accused SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj and submitted them to the investigating agency; that his phone permitted recording of a call, as soon as a number was dialed and he used to record the call, once the call was picked up by the other person; that it is correct that on 25.07.2009, he had not met the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj at PS C. R. Park; that on 25.07.2009, he had spoken to the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj through the phone of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar; that in his complaint, Ex.PW9/A, he had not mentioned the fact of speaking to the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj through the phone of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar; that he had reached PS C. R. Park on 25.07.2009 at about 06:00­6:30 am and left in the evening at about 06:00­ 07:00 pm; that he had not noted the time mentioned in the NCR report, which was given to him, on 25.07.2009; that he had received NCR in the evening; that he had 25 This response was given by the witness, in respect of the question: "Can you tell whether before making call to accused Satyavrat, you had any idea as to in which call there would be a demand of bribe and in which call there would be no demand?"

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 40 of 132 not given the copy of the NCR to the IO of this case; that he cannot assign any reason for not giving the copy of NCR to the IO of this case; that he does not remember whether in his testimony against both the accused in the departmental inquiry (DE), he had deposed that either of the accused had uttered the words ' meri sewa karni hogi';26 that he had met the ACP, on 07.08.2009, but he does not remember whether the ACP had recorded his statement on that day; that since the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had told him not to tell the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj about Rs.7000/­ taken by the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, he might have told the said fact to the ACP; 27 that it is correct to say that the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj had never demanded any bribe from him during the telephonic conversations but he had said, "jo Pramod kahta hai, woh karo"; that on the day when he had given his complaint, Ex.PW9/A, he was carrying one CD, containing audio recordings but it was not deposited or given to ACB police officials because he was told that the memory card of his phone will have to be seized; that on that day, his mobile phone, SIM card and memory card were not taken; that on that day, only the recording was heard; that it is wrong to say that he had not prepared his complaint, Ex.PW9/A at his home and that he had written it, in the office of PS ACB, as per the dictation of some police officials; that he does not know, on which day the FIR was registered; that around 05.09.2009, he had come to know that the FIR had been registered on his complaint, Ex.PW9/A; that upon being called, he had gone to PS ACB, on 06.09.2009 and stayed for 3­4 hours; that on that day, he had handed

26 It is relevant to note that this statement of PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya is contrary to the admitted dismissal order dated 18.05.2017, Ex.A1 of both the accused persons, which clearly records that Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had not joined the departmental proceedings against both the accused persons. 27 This response was given by the witness, in respect of the question: "Do you recollect that when you met ACP on 07.08.2009, you had specifically said that when accused Pramod took Rs.7000/­ from you, Pramod specifically asked you not to tell about it to accused Satyavrat?"

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 41 of 132 over his mobile phone, SIM card and the memory card; that on that day, he was taken to PS C. R. Park but not to room no.107 of PS C. R. Park; that on that day, both the accused had fled; that on that day, he was made free by 06:00 pm; that Sh. Jitender Dwivedi, his real cousin/distant relative is a Law Graduate, who does not practice as a lawyer; that he had left India in January/February, 2010 and returned five months later; that besides Inspector N. K. Sharma, he had met the other IOs of this case viz. Inspector Rahul, Inspector Raghuvir and one more Inspector, whose name he does not remember; that on the day, when the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F were prepared at PS ACB, one memo was prepared by the IO, which was signed by him; that it is wrong to say that no transcript memo was prepared at the time of preparation of transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F; that he does not know, as to in whose handwritings, the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F are written; that he had reached PS ACB at 10:00 am on the day when transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F were prepared; that he had not received any written notice to come to PS ACB on that day; that prior to seeing the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F in Court, he had seen them on the day, when they were prepared; that the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F were prepared on the ground floor of PS ACB; that he does not remember the name of the police official, who was present at the time of preparation of the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F; that he does not remember if the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F were prepared in a room, cubical or a work station; that at the time of preparation of the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F, the recordings were played on desktop PC; that he does not remember if the desktop PC had separate speakers or it had head phones, attached to it; that at the time of preparation of the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F, there were three persons State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 42 of 132 present; that he does not remember how much time was taken to prepare the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F; that two persons besides him, who were present at the time of preparation of the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F, had signed the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F; that the said two persons were police officials and not public persons; that it is wrong to say that the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F were not prepared in his presence and therefore, he is not able to give clear answers qua them; that it is wrong to say that he had wrongly identified the voices contain in the audio recordings, played during his examination in chief; that he does not know any person by the name of Jaspal; that whenever he had visited the PS ACB regarding this case, he had not met any public person; that he does not know whether the seal of 'NKS' was made up of metal, wood or any other substance; that he does not know who had got it from where and to whom it was given; that it is wrong to say that he had not witnessed the sealing process with the seal of 'NKS'; that it is wrong to say that his failure to bring his passport, reflects that he was not present in India on the dates, when he had allegedly joined the investigation of this case; that he had received the notice to join the investigation of this case and give voice sample from PS ACB; that Inspector Raghuvir and two other persons had accompanied him to FSL for recording of his voice sample; that his voice sample was recorded in a small room on the ground floor of the FSL building; that his voice sample was recorded directly and not through a mobile instrument; that he was asked to read out the complete transcript at the time of recording of his voice sample; that he does not remember, if he was asked to read it out, once or twice or thrice; that he does not remember whether any introductory voice was also recorded before recording of his voice sample; that his voice sample State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 43 of 132 was recorded on a CD and not an audio cassette; that he had signed that CD; that Inspector Raghuvir and two public persons had also signed that CD; that the FSL official who had recorded the voice sample was a male; that he had stayed at FSL on that day, for about 2.5 to 3 hours; that it is wrong to say that his voice sample was never recorded; that the CD was sealed but he does not remember the seal impression or whether it was sealed in a cloth parcel; that he does not remember the make of the CD; that one memo was prepared at the time of recording of his voice sample and he had signed it; that he does not remember what was the name of the FSL official and whether he had signed the said memo; that he does not remember whether the two other persons were public persons or police officials or what were their names; that he had read the memo before signing it but he does not remember whether he had read about those two persons being public persons or police officials; that the recording was done on a big instrument kept at FSL; that in that instrument, cassette used to be inserted and then recording was done; that two cassettes of his voice sample were prepared and that his voice sample was recorded in the audio cassette, "SVC­1", Ex.P­2A and the audio cassette, "SVC­1A", kept in parcel, Ex.P­2B.

24. Further, during cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had inter­alia deposed that he does not know any person by the name of Sh. Ram Prakash Sharma; that at the time of the departmental inquiry against the accused persons, he had come to know about Sh. Ram Prakash Sharma but he does not know him; 28 that he does not know any

28 It is relevant to note that this statement of PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya is contrary to the admitted dismissal order dated 18.05.2017, Ex.A1 of both the accused persons, which clearly records that Sh. Vikas State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 44 of 132 person by the name of Sh. Hemant Kumar; that it is wrong to say that the audio cassettes and the parcel identified by him, were all signed by him while sitting in PS ACB; that it is wrong to say that he had signed the memo and other documents, while sitting at PS ACB, without actual recording of his voice sample; that it is wrong to say that since his voice sample was not recorded, he was confused about it being recorded on a CD or audio cassette; that he does not remember the date, when he had last personally met the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj; that he had spoken to the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, for the last time, in person and not on telephone; that the taxi driver, Sh. Hariom Sharma was never called in his presence, to join the investigation of this case; that he does not remember whether any of the IOs of this case had obtained the telephone number and address of the taxi driver, Sh. Hariom Sharma from him; that it is wrong to say that the sound recordings were never copied from the memory card of his mobile phone to the CD, Ex.P­1; that it is wrong to say that all the sound recordings are fabricated and manufactured and no sound recording was done by him; that it is wrong to say that the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj had directly or indirectly, never made any demand from him; that it is wrong to say that the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj had never assured him that the FIR would be registered qua theft of his articles and his articles would be recovered; that it is correct that the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj had never taken any money from him; that it is wrong to say that the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj had not spoken the words "meri sewa karni hogi"; that it is wrong to say that the said words were never uttered by anyone in the presence of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj; that it is wrong to say that the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj had never abused him and threatened him with loss of life and that it is wrong to say that he Bhartiya had not joined the departmental proceedings against both the accused persons.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 45 of 132 has falsely implicated the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj because the said accused had reprimanded him for abusing the taxi driver, Sh. Hariom Sharma.

25. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had inter­alia deposed that it is wrong to say that during his cross­examination by the Ld. Chief PP for the State, he had mechanically admitted certain facts; that prior to 24.07.2009, he did not know the accused persons; that the accused persons were not arrested in his presence; that he was not called for Test Identification Parade (TIP) of either of the accused persons; that he has seen the accused persons, on 05.04.2022, after his last meeting with them in 2009; that it is wrong to say that he had identified the accused persons, on 05.04.2022, upon pointing out by the IO, outside Court; that no site plan was prepared by the IO in his presence; that his complaint was never marked to either of the accused persons by the Duty Officer or SHO, PS C. R. Park; that it is wrong to say that he had intentionally omitted the facts regarding his meeting with HS Ashok Kumar of PS C. R. Park and HC Kuldeep of PS Kalkaji from his complaint, Ex.PW9/A; that he does not remember the place where his company's guest house was situated; that he must have made entries in the reception register of the guest house; that he had not taken the IO of this case to the said guest house; that it is wrong to say that on 24.07.2009, he had gone back to his native place; that it is wrong to say that he had not met the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar on any day including 24.07.2009; that it is wrong to say that no discussion as alleged by him had happened on 25.07.2009 with the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar as on that day the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar was not present at PS C. R. Park till 04:00 pm; that it is State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 46 of 132 wrong to say that the Duty Officer of PS C. R. Park had not referred him to the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar at any point of time; that he had not introduced, Sh. Jitender Dwivedi to the IO; that it is wrong to say that he had not done so because Sh. Jitender Dwivedi had never accompanied him to PS C. R. Park; that it is wrong to say that no NCR was given to him by the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar nor any missing complaint was given by him at the instance of the accused persons; that it is wrong to say that he had concocted a false story regarding disappearance of cash, laptop etc.; that his PCR call was only about theft of his bag; that he had mentioned in his complaint, Ex.PW9/A that on 25.07.2009, the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had demanded Rs.10,000/­ from him, for lodging FIR; 29 that it is wrong to say that no such demand of Rs.10,000/­ was made by the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar on 25.07.2009; that it is wrong to say that the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had never said the words "Seva karni padegi meri, dhyan rakhna padega mera"; that he had mentioned in his complaint, Ex.PW9/A that he had given Rs.7000/­ to the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, on 25.07.2009;30 that it is wrong to say that the amount of Rs.7000/­ was never taken out by the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar from his purse, on 25.07.2009; that likewise, it is wrong to say that the amount of Rs.7000/­ was never given by him to the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, on 25.07.2009; that it is wrong to say that he had nothing to do with the mobile no.9956288659; that it is wrong to say that the mobile phone, Ex.M­1 is not a mobile instrument; that he had stated in his complaint, Ex.PW9/A that during his telephonic conversation with the 29 At this stage, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya was confronted with his complaint, Ex.PW9/A, where no demand of Rs.10,000/­ is mentioned.

30 At this stage, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya was confronted with his complaint, Ex.PW9/A, wherein it is recorded that Rs.7000/­ were taken out from the purse of the witness by the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 47 of 132 accused persons, they used to say that his bag would be recovered but he will have to spend some amount for it and that in one of the calls, the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had asked him to pay Rs.2,00,000/­ for recovery of his bag; 31 that he had not kept the copy of the complaint given by him in the Office of SP, Kalkaji; that it is wrong to say that no such complaint was filed by him and he has concocted a false story in order to fill up the lacuna of delay in lodging of the complaint, Ex.PW9/A; that it is wrong to say that no recording facility was available on his mobile phone; that it is wrong to say that no conversations, as alleged by him in his examination in chief had taken place between him and the accused persons and that it is wrong to say that he has concocted the story of visiting Delhi, on 30.07.2009.

26. Further, during cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had inter­alia deposed that his complaint, Ex.PW9/A is undated; that he does not remember if he had signed the body of the mobile phone, Ex.M­1; that it is wrong to say that no mobile phone was ever handed over by him; that it is wrong to say that he has improvised his version qua giving of CD to ACB or that he had actually given the CD to ACB but the IO held it back because it was against the complaint, Ex.PW9/A; that it is wrong to say that no sim card or memory card was handed over by him to Inspector N. K. Sharma; that it is wrong to say that he had mechanically identified the mobile phone, Ex.M­1 and the voices of the accused persons, during his examination in chief; that he had not lodged any complaint against the accused persons with the SHO or senior officers of PS C. R. Park between 24.07.2009 and 26.07.2009; that it is wrong to say 31 At this stage, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya was confronted with his complaint, Ex.PW9/A, wherein it is not so recorded.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 48 of 132 that he had not done so because he had no cause; that it is wrong to say that the amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ was never demanded by the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar or that the said demand was not scaled down to Rs.60,000/­ by the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar; that he had not made any endorsement on the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F, certifying that they were correct; that it is wrong to say that the audio recordings covered by the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F were never played in his presence, during investigation and that it is wrong to say that his incriminating testimony against the accused persons is false.

27. During examination in chief, PW10 ASI Satish Kumar had inter­alia deposed that the entry in register no.19, Ex.PW10/F(OSR), reflects that in this case, Inspector N. K. Sharma of PS ACB had deposited in the malkhana of PS Civil Lines, two sealed parcels, sealed with the seal of 'NKS', on 08.09.2009; 32 that the endorsement, Ex.PW10/A made by Inspector Rahul on the back side of the seizure memo, Ex.PW9/B(OSR), reflects that the said case property was re­sealed with the seal of 'RHL' by Inspector Rahul in the presence of a panch witness, after taking permission of the concerned Court, on 23.05.2014; that the entry in register no.19, Ex.PW10/B(OSR), reflects that the said case property was then deposited in the malkhana of PS Civil Lines, on 23.05.2014; that the endorsement in register no.19, Ex.PW10/C(OSR), the road certificate no.108/21/14, Ex.PW10/D(OSR) and acknowledgement receipt, Ex.PW10/E, reflect that the case property of this case was sent to FSL, Rohini, through Ct. Manoj, on 11.06.2014; that the entry in register no.19, Ex.PW10/G(OSR), reflects that in this case, Ct. Jasbir had brought four 32 This date cannot be seen in the entry, Ex.PW10/F(OSR) available at serial no.142 of the register no.19.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 49 of 132 parcels sealed with the seal of 'FSL', on 11.08.2015 and handed over the FSL result to Inspector Rahul; that the endorsement in register no.19, Ex.PW10/H(OSR), reflects that three parcels, two of which were sealed with the seal of 'VLN FSL' and one with the seal of 'RS' as well as one sample seal of 'RS' were sent to FSL, Rohini through ASI Kavinder, on 12.02.2019; that the endorsement in register no.19, Ex.PW10/I(OSR), reflects that in this case, HC Dev Singh had brought three sealed parcels with the seal of 'FSL', on 27.03.2019; that the entry in register no.19, Ex.PW10/J(OSR), reflects that the personal search articles of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar were deposited by Inspector Yashpal Singh in the malkhana of PS Civil Lines, on 21.10.201033 and that the entry in register no.19, Ex.PW10/K(OSR), reflects that in this case, Inspector Y. P. Singh had deposited two sealed parcels, sealed with the seal of 'YPS'.

28. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, PW10 ASI Satish Kumar had inter­alia deposed that he had made departure entry in the DD register, on 23.05.2014, when he had carried the sealed parcels to Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi from the malkhana; that he does not remember the number of the said DD entry; that he had taken the case property to the Court pursuant to an order of the Court, whose date, he does not remember; that he had not mentioned the date of the order, the name of the Court etc. in the entry in register no.19, Ex.PW10/B(OSR); that he had not affixed the Court order alongwith the entry in register no.19, Ex.PW10/B(OSR); 34 that on 23.05.2014, he had not made 33 The actual date recorded in the document is 21.08.2010.

34 A copy of the said Court order is part of the charge­sheet filed by the State and available at page no.40. The original copy of the said order is available in the miscellaneous papers of this Court.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 50 of 132 any entry in register no.19, except the entry, Ex.PW10/B(OSR); that it is correct that in the endorsement, Ex.PW10/C(OSR), the impression of the seal affixed on the parcels is nowhere mentioned; that it is correct that in the endorsement, Ex.PW10/C(OSR), there are no signatures of Ct. Manoj; that it is correct that in the copy of the road certificate, Ex.PW10/D(OSR), there is no impression of the seal which was used to seal the parcels; that it is wrong to say that no parcels were sent to FSL, on 11.06.2014 and the case property was tampered with; that it is correct that in the acknowledgement receipt, Ex.PW10/E, the seal impression is not mentioned and that it is wrong to say that he is not conversant with the handwriting of HC Ram Kumar. Upon inquiry, the Ld. Advocate for the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, had adopted the above narrated cross­examination of PW10 ASI Satish Kumar.

29. During examination in chief, PW11 Sh. Manoj Kumar had inter­alia deposed that on 11.06.2014, he was posted at PS ACB; that on that day, he had taken four sealed parcels from the custody of MHC(M) PS Civil Lines to FSL, Rohini, on the request of Inspector Rahul vide RC No.108/21/14, Ex.PW10/D and obtained the acknowledgement receipt, Ex.PW10/E; that two parcels were sealed with the seal of 'RHL' and the other two were sealed with the seal of 'YPS' and that as long as the case property was with him, it was not tampered with. Nothing material was elicited by the Ld. Advocate for the accused during the cross­examination of PW11 Sh. Manoj Kumar.

30. During examination in chief, PW12 HC Baljit Singh had inter­alia State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 51 of 132 deposed that the entry in register no.19, Ex.PW12/A(OSR), reflects that in this case, Inspector Raghuvir Singh of PS ACB had deposited in the malkhana of PS Civil Lines, two parcels sealed with the seal of 'RS' and stated to be containing voice samples in audio cassettes, SVC­I and SVC­IA, on 21.01.2019; that the endorsement in register no.19, Ex.PW10/H(OSR), the road certificate no.26/21/19, Ex.PW12/B(OSR) and acknowledgement receipt, Ex.PW12/C(OSR), reflect that three parcels, two of which were sealed with the seal of 'VLN FSL' and one with the seal of 'RS' as well as one sample seal of 'RS' were sent to FSL, Rohini through ASI Kavinder, on 12.02.2019; that the endorsement in register no.19, Ex.PW10/I(OSR), reflects that in this case, HC Dev Singh had brought three sealed parcels with the seal of 'FSL', on 27.03.2019 and the FSL report brought by him was handed over to the IO and that the endorsement in register No. 19, Ex.PW12/D(OSR), road certificate no.45/21/20, Ex.PW12/E(OSR) and acknowledgement receipt, Ex.PW12/F(OSR) reflect that one parcel, sealed with the seal of 'VLN FSL', containing one CD (Exhibit­1) and two blank CDs were sent to FSL, Rohini, through Ct. Ankit Rana, on 28.02.2020. Nothing material was elicited by the Ld. Advocate for the accused during the cross­examination of PW12 HC Baljit Singh.

31. During examination in chief, PW13 Sh. Krishan Kumar Bhati had inter­ alia deposed that on 23.05.2014, while he was working as Technical Assistant, Directorate of Employment, Pusa, Delhi, he was asked to do panch witness duty at PS ACB. On that day, he was taken to Tis Hazari Court Complex by the IO, whose name he does not remember; that on that day, in his presence, additional seals were applied on two already sealed parcels, on the ground that the earlier IO had expired;

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 52 of 132 that the two sealed parcels were not opened in his presence; that he was told that in the parcels, there was a mobile phone, a CD and something else; that he does not remember the impression of seal, which was already existing on the two parcels; that he does not remember the impression of the new seal, which was affixed on 23.05.2014, as sufficient time has passed since 23.05.2014; that he remembers the name of one police officer to be Satish; that he does not remember the name of other police officers; that in his presence, some noting/endorsement was made by the police officials and he was asked to sign the said noting/endorsement; that the endorsement, Ex.PW10/A made on the back side of the seizure memo, Ex.PW9/B, bears his signatures at point B and was prepared, on 23.05.2014 and that he does not recollect to whom, the sealed parcels were handed over. Since, PW13 Sh. Krishan Kumar Bhati had not supported the case of the State in entirety, he was permitted to be cross­examined by the Ld. APP for the State. During cross­ examination by the Ld. APP for the State, PW13 Sh. Krishan Kumar Bhati had inter­ alia deposed that it is correct that the name of the Inspector/IO, who had conducted the proceedings on 23.05.2014 was Inspector Rahul; that it is correct that the impression of the seal, already affixed on the parcels was 'NKS', belonging to the IO, Inspector N. K. Sharma, who had expired; that it is correct that the impression of the new seal affixed, on 23.05.2014 was 'RHL'; that it is correct that on 23.05.2014, the IO, Inspector Rahul had prepared two sample seals of his seal, 'RHL' on two papers, which were signed by him; that it is correct after affixation of fresh seals, both the parcels were handed over to HC Satish, who had brought them and that he cannot admit or deny that the parcel containing mobile phone had a micro SD card also and that the second parcel, only had a CD.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 53 of 132

32. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, PW13 Sh. Krishan Kumar Bhati had inter­alia deposed that he does not remember the Court number or the floor of Tis Hazari Court Complex, where the above mentioned proceedings were done; that he does not remember whether the proceedings were done inside the Court room, in the corridor or in any other room, attached to the Court; that he does not remember, whether Inspector Rahul had shown him any Court order for doing the sealing exercise; that it is correct that he had signed the endorsement, Ex.PW10/A at point B, as per the asking of Inspector Rahul and he had not read the contents of the endorsement, Ex.PW10/A, before signing it; that it is wrong to say that he had not joined any such proceedings, on 23.05.2014; that it is wrong to say that no such proceedings were done, on 23.05.20014; that it is wrong to say that he had signed the documents, while sitting at PS ACB, at the asking of Inspector Rahul and that it is wrong to say that he had deposed falsely at the instructions of the IO. Upon inquiry, the Ld. Advocate for the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, had adopted the above narrated cross­examination of PW10 ASI Satish Kumar.35 35 In my view, the entire testimony of PW13 Sh. Krishan Kumar Bhati, does not bear much relevance because alongwith the charge­sheet, the IO has filed the copy of the application filed in the Court of Sh. Narottam Kaushal, the then Ld. Special Judge (ACB), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, on 08.05.2014 and the copy of the order dated 23.05.2014, passed by the said Court on the said application. These documents, whcih are mentioned at serial no(s). 16 & 17 of the charge­sheet, can be accessed at page no(s). 39 & 40 of the charge­sheet. The originals of the said documents are available in the miscellaneous papers of this Court. Upon perusal of the originals, it can be seen that Sh. Narottam Kaushal, the then Ld. Special Judge (ACB), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, had ordered the MHC(M) to produce the case property; that on 23.05.2014, Inspector Rahul, PW13 Sh. Krishan Kumar Bhati and HC Satish, MHC(M), PS Civil Lines were present in Court and that only with the permission of the Court, the process of re­sealing was done.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 54 of 132

33. During examination in chief, PW14 ASI Kavinder had inter­alia deposed that on 12.02.2019, he was posted as ASI at PS ACB; that on that day, he had taken three parcels from the malkhana to FSL, Rohini; that two parcels were sealed with the seal of 'VLN FSL Delhi' and the third parcel was sealed with the seal of 'RS'; that he had also taken the sample seal of 'RS'; that he had taken the case property vide road certificate no.26/21/19, Ex.PW12/B(OSR) and obtained acknowledgement receipt, Ex.PW12/C(OSR) from FSL, Rohini; that the endorsement in register no.19, Ex.PW10/H(OSR), records this process and that as long as the case property was with him, it was not tampered with. Nothing material was elicited by the Ld. Advocate for the accused during the cross­examination of PW14 ASI Kavinder.

34. During examination in chief, PW15 Sh. Pawan Singh had inter­alia deposed that he is working as Nodal Officer in Vodafone Idea Ltd., since 2005; that in response to a request received from ACB, vide his letter dated 06.11.2014, Ex.PW15/A, he had supplied to the ACB (a) copy of customer application form of mobile no. 9891173403 of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, Ex.PW15/B and (b) the copy of the ID card of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, Ex.PW15/C, given at the time of taking the mobile no. 9891173403; that previously, in response to e­mail dated 08.09.2009, Mark P15/X, received from the DCP of ACB, 36 vide e­mail of the same date, Mark P15/X1, Idea Cellular had supplied to ACB, the CDR of mobile no. 9891173403, for the period, 24.07.2009 to 04.08.2009, Mark P15/X3 and that at present, due to lapse of several years, M/s. Vodafone Idea Ltd., is not in possession 36 It is not understood why any official of ACB, has not given certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 qua the email dated 08.09.2009, Mark P15/X, sent from the email ID, jtcp­ anticorrupt­[email protected].

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 55 of 132 of the CDR of mobile no. 9891173403. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, PW15 Sh. Pawan Singh had inter­alia deposed that in the e­mail, Mark P­15/X­1, his name is not mentioned as the sender; that no certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, was supplied to the ACB qua the CDR, Mark P­15/X­3; that in case, the caller and the receiver of a call are using different service providers, their respective CDRs may not show the same time log as there is a difference in time of the servers of different service providers and that in case, the caller and the receiver of a call are using different service providers, their respective CDRs may not show the same call durations because in case of some service providers, a call starts as soon as the bell starts ringing on the other side and in case of some service providers, the call starts only when it is picked up by the other person. Despite grant of opportunity, the Ld. Advocate for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had not cross­examined PW15 Sh. Pawan Singh.

35. During examination in chief, PW16 Sh. Karan Razdan had inter­alia deposed that he is working as Senior Section Supervisor in MTNL, Delhi and that in response to a request received from the ACB, Sh. Naeem Akhtar, the then Manager (CAF) GSM, Eidgah Telephone Exchange, MTNL, Delhi (with whom he had worked and whose signatures he identifies) had submitted to the ACB, (a) the customer application form, Ex.PW16/A(OSR) of subscriber of mobile no. 9868089034, which is the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar and (b) the copy of ID card of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, Ex.PW16/B, which was given at the time of taking the mobile no. 9868089034, vide the letter, Ex.PW16/C. During cross­examination by the Ld. State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 56 of 132 Advocate for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, PW16 Sh. Karan Razdan had inter­ alia deposed that no CDR of mobile no. 9868089034 was ever supplied to the ACB and that due to lapse of several years, the said CDR is no longer available. Despite grant of opportunity, the Ld. Advocate for the accused, SI Satyvrat Bhardwaj had not cross­examined PW16 Sh. Karan Razdan.

36. During examination in chief, PW17 Sh. Ajay Kumar had inter­alia deposed that he is working as Nodal Officer of Bharti Airtel Ltd., since 2007; that he does not know in whose name, the mobile no. 9956288659 existed because it pertains to UP and not Delhi but he can get this information from his office alongwith the customer application form, if available; that the e­mail dated 02.09.2009, Mark P­ 17, is no longer available in his records and therefore, he cannot verify the said e­ mail; that no certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in respect of the said email was ever given to the investigating agency and now, it cannot be given because the email does not exist on the system of Bharti Airtel Ltd.; that he does not recollect if he was Nodal Officer of Airtel, on 02.09.2009; that the CDRs, Mark P­17/X1 and X2, attached to the email, Mark P­17/X, are not in the format given by Airtel to an investigating agency or the Court and therefore, he cannot verify them; that the call details of the mobile no. 9956288659 for the period, 24.07.2009 to 04.08.2009, are no longer available with Airtel and therefore, they cannot be supplied; that no certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, was ever supplied to the investigating agency in respect of the CDR of mobile no. 9956288659; that the customer application form of mobile no. 9956288659 is not available in his office and that from details, Ex.PW17/A, taken from the database of State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 57 of 132 Airtel, he has discovered that the mobile no. 9956288659 belonged to Sh. Bed Ram S/o P. Pal, R/o 104, Naruiya, Kannauj, UP 209721. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, PW17 Sh. Ajay Kumar had inter­alia deposed that it is correct that CDRs, Mark P­17/X­1 and X­2 do not bear signatures or stamp of Airtel and the details are not attested or verified by anyone from Airtel. Despite grant of opportunity, the Ld. Advocate for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, had not cross­examined PW17 Sh. Ajay Kumar.

37. During examination in chief, PW18 ASI Lile Singh had inter­alia deposed that in the month of July 2009, he was working as Chittha Munshi at PS C. R. Park and his job was to assign and prepare duty roster of the police officials posted at PS C. R. Park; that he had prepared the duty roster for 24.07.2009, Ex.PW18/A; that the entry at point X of the said duty roster, reflects that the accused, Ct. Pramod, Belt No. 1709/SE (present in Court), was supposed to work as DD Writer on 24.07.2009 from 4.00 PM till 12.00 midnight; that the entry at point Y of the said duty roster, reflects that the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj (present in Court) was on emergency duty on 24.07.2009 from 8 AM to 8 PM and that the original duty roster register is not available because it has been destroyed. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, PW18 ASI Lile Singh had inter­alia deposed that it is correct that in 2009, the room no. 107 of PS C. R. Park was being used as malkhana of PS Govind Puri; that it is correct that in July 2009, ASI Jameel Ahmad was posted at PS C. R. Park; that it is correct that ASI Jameel Ahmad and accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj were sharing the same IO room; that it is correct that their IO room was located on the second State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 58 of 132 floor of PS C. R. Park; that he does not remember the IO room number, today; that it is correct that on the second floor of the PS C. R. Park, the room numbers start from the number 200; that the duty officer and the DD writer of PS C. R. Park used to sit together in the PS; that it is correct that in July, 2009, CCTV cameras were installed at PS C. R. Park, at the place, where DO and DD writer used to sit; that it is correct that in no police station, the DO and the DD writer can leave the police station or go out for any work whatsoever, during their working hours; that at the relevant time, an IO room of PS C. R. Park, used to have four five chairs, two tables and one bed; that the IO room of ASI Jameel and the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, had the same furniture; that being the Chittha Munshi, he was on duty for 24 hours on 24.07.2009 and that he does not remember if on 24.09.2009, the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj had scolded any public person on the gate of PS C. R. Park at around 9.30 PM. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, PW18 ASI Lile Singh had inter­alia deposed that after duty, the accused, Ct. Pramod did not use to stay in the barracks of the police station. 37

38. During examination in chief, PW19 Sh. V. Lakshmi Narshiman, Assistant Director (Physics), FSL, Rohini, had inter­alia deposed that on 11.06.2014, four sealed envelopes, were received in FSL, Rohini through Ct. Manoj Kumar from PS ACB, along with the FSL form; that after tallying the seals with the sample seals 37 In my view, PW18 ASI Lile Singh should have been re­examined by Sh. Zenul Abedeen, Ld. Chief Prosecutor for the State, on 18.07.2022 because his testimony to the effect that in 2009, the room no.107 of PS C. R. Park was being used as malkhana of PS Govindpuri, is contrary to the case set up by the State and because his testimony to the effect that there were CCTV cameras installed at PS C. R. Park, wherein the DO and the DD writer could have been seen, is damaging from the vantage point of the case of the State, for if such CCTV cameras existed, their footage should have been collected, by the IOs.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 59 of 132 of 'YPS' and 'RHL', he had opened the parcels; that upon opening, the first parcel, which was sealed with the seal of 'RHL' and stated to be containing one CD, was found to be containing another parcel bearing the seal of 'NKS'; that upon opening, the said parcel was found to be containing a CD of the make Moserbear, Exhibit - 1; that upon examining, the said CD was found to be containing six audio files in ".amr' format; that the details of the said filed are mentioned on the first page of his report dated 30.07.2015, Ex.PW19/A; that the speakers of the said six audio files were respectively marked as Q­1, Q­1, Q­2, Q­2, Q­2, Q­2; that upon opening, the second parcel, which was sealed with the seal of 'YPS', was found to be containing one audio cassette of 'Super Cassettes Industries Limited', which was stated to be containing specimen voice of one Sh. Satyavrat Bhardwaj; that the said audio cassette was marked as 'Exhibit­2' and the speaker was marked as 'Exhibit - S1', in the laboratory; that upon opening, the third parcel, which was sealed with the seal of 'YPS', was found to be containing one audio cassette of 'Sony', which was stated to be containing specimen voice of one Sh. Pramod Kumar; that the said audio cassette was marked as Exhibit­3 and the speaker was marked as 'Exhibit - S2', in the laboratory; that upon opening the fourth parcel, which was sealed with the seal of 'RHL', was found to be containing one mobile phone of the make Nokia, without SIM and SD card and that the said mobile phone was marked as 'Exhibit ­4', in the laboratory.38

39. Further, during examination in chief, PW19 Sh. V. Lakshmi Narshiman, 38 It is interesting to note that in the fourth parcel no pullanda sealed with the seal of 'NKS' by Inspector N. K. Sharma, on 07.09.2009 was found by PW19 Sh. V. Lakshmi Narshiman. This should not have been the case, if the proceedings dated 23.05.2014, recorded on the endorsement, Ex.PW10/A, are correct.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 60 of 132 Assistant Director (Physics), FSL, Rohini, had inter­alia deposed (a) that upon auditory analysis, done by critical listening, subsequent waveform and spectrographic analysis of relevant audio files in the CD, Exhibit­1, it was found that there was no indication of any form of alteration of the audio files; (b) that no opinion was given regarding the working condition (recording facility) of mobile phone, Exhibit­4 because there was no facility in the laboratory to examine it; (c) that upon auditory analysis of the recorded speech samples of speakers marked Exhibit­Q1 and Exhibit­S1, and subsequent acoustic analysis of speech samples by using CSL (Computerized Speech Lab) the voice exhibits of the speaker in the questioned recording matched and was found similar to the voice exhibits of the speaker whose sample was contained in Exhibit­S1, in their acoustic cues and other linguistic and phonetic features; (d) that upon auditory analysis of the recorded speech samples of speakers marked Exhibit­Q2 and Exhibit­S2, and subsequent acoustic analysis of speech samples by using CSL (Computerised Speech Lab) the voice exhibits of the speaker in the questioned recording matched and was found similar to the voice exhibits of the speaker whose sample was contained in Exhibit­S2, in their acoustic cues and other linguistic and phonetic features and (f) that therefore, he had prepared the report dated 30.07.2015, Ex.PW19/A, concluding that the voice of Sh. Satyavrat Bhardwaj and Sh. Pramod Kumar matched with the questioned audio recordings, Exhibit - Q1 and Q2, respectively.

40. Further, during examination in chief, PW19 Sh. V. Lakshmi Narshiman, Assistant Director (Physics), FSL, Rohini, had inter­alia deposed that no relevant files were found in the retrieved data of mobile phone, Exhibit­4, which was retrieved State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 61 of 132 by the computer forensic unit of FSL; that two copies of CD, marked Exhibit­1 were prepared and both the CDs containing copy were marked as 'copy of Exhibit­1' and that after the analysis, the case properties were sealed with the seal of 'V.L.N­FSL­ Delhi'. Upon being shown, (a) the audio cassette of the make T­series, already Ex.P2/PW8, pertaining to the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, (b) the audio cassette of the make Sony, pertaining to the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, Ex.P3/PW19 and

(c) the mobile phone, Ex.M­1/PW9, PW19 Sh. V. Lakshmi Narshiman had identified them as well as his signatures on them.

41. Further, during examination in chief, PW19 Sh. V. Lakshmi Narshiman, Assistant Director (Physics), FSL, Rohini, had inter­alia deposed that on 12.02.2019, three sealed envelopes were received in FSL, Rohini through ASI Kavinder from PS ACB; that after tallying the seals, he had opened the parcels; that upon opening, the first parcel, which was sealed with the seal of 'FSL­V.L.N.­Delhi', was found to be containing one CD of the make Moserbear, which was marked as Exhibit­1 in the laboratory; that the said CD was found to be containing six audio files, the details of which are mentioned in his report dated 27.03.2019, Ex.PW19/B; that the speaker of all the six audio files was marked as Exhibit­Q1; that upon opening, the second parcel, which was sealed with the seal of 'FSL­V.L.N.­Delhi', was found to be containing one mobile phone; that in fact, the said parcel was not opened by him because during the previous examination, noted in his report dated 30.07.2015, Ex.PW19/A, he had found that the said mobile phone was irrelevant; that upon opening, the third parcel, which was sealed with the seal of 'RS', was found to be containing one audio cassette of the make, 'Maxell', which was stated to be State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 62 of 132 containing the voice sample of one Sh. Vikas Bhartiya; that the said voice sample was marked as Exhibit S­1 in the laboratory; that upon auditory analysis of the recorded speech samples of speakers marked Exhibit­Q1 and Exhibit­S1, and subsequent acoustic analysis of speech samples by using CSL (Computerized Speech Lab) the voice exhibits of the speaker in the questioned recording matched and was found similar to the voice exhibits of the speaker whose sample was contained in Exhibit­S1, in their acoustic cues and other linguistic and phonetic features; that therefore, he had prepared the report dated 27.03.2019, Ex.PW19/B, concluding that the voice of Sh. Vikas Bhartiya matched with the questioned audio recordings, Exhibit - Q1 and that after this analysis, the case properties were sealed with the seal of 'FSL­VLN­Delhi'. Upon being shown, (a) the CD, already Ex.P1/PW9 and (b) the audio cassette of the make 'Maxell', pertaining to the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, Ex.P2A/PW9, PW19 Sh. V. Lakshmi Narshiman had identified the CD to be the one, examined by him, on both the occasions and the audio cassette, to be the one, examined by him, on 27.03.2019 and to bear his signatures.

42. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, PW19 Sh. V. Lakshmi Narshiman had inter­alia deposed that the audio recordings found in the CD, Ex.P­1, were not found in the mobile phone, Ex.M­1; that there was no external storage device/SD card sent to the FSL along with the mobile phone, Ex.M­1; that he had not asked the IO to supply him the original mode of recording in which original questioned recording was contained; that it is wrong to say that on 30.07.2015, being Senior Scientific Officer (Physics), he was not competent to give any opinion regarding the questioned voice of the State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 63 of 132 accused persons; that he has no idea if on 30.07.2015, FSL Rohini, Delhi was not a notified institute under Section 79A of the IT Act, 2000; that by the words, 'acoustic cues', he means acoustic features which were identified in the audio recordings; that it is correct that acoustic cues contain sensory cues, contained in the speech sound signal which are used in speech perceptions to differentiate phonetic and linguistic characteristics; that he cannot tell whether there are 42 or 44 phonetic features; that it is correct that in his reports, Ex.PW19/A and Ex.PW19/B as well as in his note­ sheets, the dialects of the questioned audio recordings are not mentioned; that it is correct that in his reports or in his note­sheets, the exact linguistic features are not mentioned; that he had checked the variations qua inter speaker/intra speaker by taking the clue words; that it is correct that he had not matched every single word contained in the audio recordings; that in order to ascertain whether there was any alteration in the questioned audio recordings, he had examined the entire audio recordings and not simply checked portions; that at present, he does not remember whether there was any pause in the questioned audio recordings; that in his reports, Ex.PW19/A and Ex.PW19/B, he had not mentioned the pauses, the gaps or the sound of clicks (in audio cassettes); that he cannot say that in a recording if pauses, gaps and sound of clicks exist, it would be an indication of alteration; that it is wrong to say that the existence of pauses, gaps and sound of clicks, would definitely indicate alteration and that he is deliberately not answering so; that he has never heard about examination of any audio recording, to rule out any alteration in the form of container based or content based method and therefore, he cannot say which of the two methods, he had applied in this case; that he is not aware about Electric Network Frequency (ENF); that he cannot say if in order to check the alteration, he State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 64 of 132 was supposed to check ENF, Time Frequency, Enhancement, Environment and Compression; that he had not checked the Bits Notes of the audio; that he does not remember as to when the CSL was calibrated, prior to preparation of his reports, Ex.PW19/A and Ex.PW19/B; that the said fact is not mentioned in his note­sheets; that the fundamental frequency of a male speaker remains between 120 to 150 hertz, normally; that some males can have higher or lower frequency; that in his note­sheets, the frequency of each word is not mentioned; that in his note­sheets, the matching points of fundamental frequency are mentioned; that his note­sheets qua the reports, Ex.PW19/A and Ex.PW19/B are Ex.PW19/D­1 and Ex.PW19/D­2, respectively; that he has not mentioned in his notes, about the speech notes; that it is correct that CSL is basically used in medical field, for speech disorders; that it is correct that the audio files in a audio cassette are in analogue form whereas the audio files in a CD are in digital form; that the sample voices contained in audio cassettes were converted by him in digital form and only then, the analysis was done; that it is correct that this fact is not mentioned in his reports, Ex.PW19/A and Ex.PW19/B; that it is correct that there is a possibility of slight variation in fundamental frequency of a person speaking after a gap of few years; that in the systems of FSL, Rohini, the said slight variation is taken care of, before comparison of voice; that till today FSL, Rohini is using CSL system; that it is wrong to say that till the time of preparation of the reports, Ex.PW19/A and Ex.PW19/B, the FSL, Rohini was using outdated, inefficient or ineffective systems of comparison; that there is a Working Procedure Manual issued by FSL for all kinds of laboratory examination done by the Physics department, which includes audio analysis; that it is correct that in the audio cassettes containing specimen voices of the three State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 65 of 132 persons, as mentioned in his report, each cassette contained voice of only one person and not of anybody else; that it is correct that sample voices were mere repetition of the questioned audio recordings; that it is correct that the investigating agency had not picked/selected few words from the questioned audio recordings and the investigating agency had not framed new sentences/paragraphs by including the picked/selected words form the questioned recordings, in the voice samples which were sent to FSL, Rohini; that he was supplied the transcripts of the questioned recordings alongwith the questioned recordings; that in the said transcripts, the name of the person who spoke the questioned audio recordings were also clearly mentioned39 and that it is wrong to say that at the instance of the investigating agency, without actually carrying out proper procedure of audio analysis, he had given the reports, Ex.PW19/A and Ex.PW19/B.

43. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, PW19 Sh. V. Lakshmi Narshiman had inter­alia deposed that he had not noted down the IMEI number of the mobile phone, Ex.M­1 in his reports, Ex.PW19/A and Ex.PW19/B; that he had not opened/operated the mobile phone, Ex.M­1 and that it is wrong to say that in such state of affairs, he cannot say whether the mobile phone, Ex.M­1 was a dummy or a genuine mobile instrument. After this brief cross­examination, the Ld. Advocate for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, had adopted the above narrated cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, 39 This aspect of the testimony of PW19 Sh. V. Lakshmi Narshiman, is relevant from the vantage point of the western jurisprudence, quoted with approval in paragraph 37 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar v State, (2011) 4 SCC 143, which stipulates that any officer attempting a voice recognition exercise should not be provided with a transcript, bearing the annotations of any other officer.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 66 of 132 SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj.

44. During examination in chief, PW20 Sh. Lovit had inter­alia deposed that a petrol pump by the name of Anup Service Station, located at Alaknanda, New Delhi is owned by his mother, Smt. Santosh; that he has been looking after the affairs of the said petrol pump since 2008; that he does not remember, if he was ever inquired/questioned about this case; that he was never called by ACB for any case and that he does not remember if any of the staff members, working at the petrol pump had ever called or informed him about an incident that might have occurred at the petrol pump in 2009.

45. Since, PW20 Sh. Lovit had not supported the case of the State, he was permitted to be cross­examined by the Ld. Chief Prosecutor for the State. During cross­examination by the Ld. Chief Prosecutor for the State, PW20 Sh. Lovit had inter­alia deposed that it is correct that on 24.07.2009 at about 10:15 pm, when he was present at his residence, he had received a telephonic call from Sh. Mahender Pal Singh, the gunman working at the petrol pump; that it is correct that in the said call, Sh. Mahender Pal Singh had informed him that some policemen alongwith one civilian had come to the petrol pump, from PS C. R. Park; that it is also correct that Sh. Mahender Pal Singh had informed him that the policemen wanted to search the petrol pump premises, because according to them, few days ago some articles and documents of someone were stolen from there; that it is correct that he had permitted Sh. Mahender Pal Singh to let the policemen search the petrol pump premises, including the kiosk of the puncture wala; that on that day, he had State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 67 of 132 remained at his residence and not gone to the petrol pump; that subsequently, Sh. Mahender Pal Singh had left the job and his current whereabouts are not known; that although he recollects that some policemen had come to his petrol pump from a police station, but he does not know the name of the police station; that it is correct that the policeman had inquired about an incident but he does not remember the date, month or year or whether they had recorded his statement and that he cannot admit or deny that his statement dated 07.06.2019 was recorded by Inspector Raghuvir Singh from PS ACB.

46. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, PW20 Sh. Lovit had inter­alia deposed that though he used to maintain the records of employees but due to passage of more than 10 years, the record of employment of Sh. Mahender Pal Singh is not available with him; that he does not remember the exact date when the policemen had come to make inquiries from him; that they had come 3­4 years back; that it is wrong to say that no person by the name of Sh. Mahender Pal Singh used to work at the petrol pump in 2009; that he does not remember the date of 24.07.2009, as the date when Sh. Mahender Pal Singh had called him; that he also does not remember the name of the police station, told by Sh. Mahender Pal Singh i.e. whether it was PS Kalkaji, PS C. R. Park or PS ACB and that it is wrong to say that Sh. Mahender Pal Singh had never made any call to him. Despite grant of opportunity, the Ld. Advocate for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, had not cross­examined PW20 Sh. Lovit.

47. During examination in chief, PW21 Sh. Rakesh Kumar had inter­alia State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 68 of 132 deposed that in August 2019, he was posted as DCP, First Batallion, Delhi Police; that after going through the material supplied by the investigating agency, he had given the separate sanctions under Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 dated 06.08.2019, Ex.PW21/A and Ex.PW21/B against the both the accused persons and that the said sanctions were communicated to the investigating agency vide separate letters dated 07.08.2019, Ex.PW21/C and Ex.PW21/D. During cross­ examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, PW21 Sh. Rakesh Kumar had inter­alia deposed that only the transcripts of the subject audio recordings were sent to him by the investigating agency; that he had not demanded the copy of the audio recordings from the investigating agency; that the draft sanction orders, Ex.PW21/D1 and Ex.PW21/D2(OSR) were not received from the investigating agency; that upon his instructions, his subordinate had prepared the draft sanction orders, Ex.PW21/D1 and Ex.PW21/D2(OSR); that upon correcting the draft sanction orders, Ex.PW21/D1 and Ex.PW21/D2(OSR), he had prepared the final sanction orders, Ex.PW21/A and Ex.PW21/B; that the disclosure statements referred in the sanction orders, Ex.PW21/A and Ex.PW21/B are not on the office files brought from the Office of DCP, First Batallion; that it is wrong to say that he had accorded the sanction orders, Ex.PW21/A and Ex.PW21/B, without application of mind or without going through the record; that the forwarding letters of the investigating agency, seeking sanctions are Ex.PW21/D3 and Ex.PW21/D4; that the sanction orders, Ex.PW21/A and Ex.PW21/B are verbatim the same, except the name of the accused and that it is wrong to say that as DCP, First Batallion, Delhi Police, he was not the competent authority to grant sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 against the accused persons. During cross­examination by the Ld. State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 69 of 132 Advocate for the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, PW21 Sh. Rakesh Kumar had inter­alia deposed that during his tenure the sanction file was not sent back to the investigating agency for any reason; that it is correct that in the forwarding letters, Ex.PW21/D3 and Ex.PW21/D4, it is mentioned that the sanction file was sent back to the investigating agency; that he had not asked from the IO as to why the statement of Sh. Hariom Sharma was not recorded; that he had not cross checked, the date and time of the calls between the complainant and the accused, from the CDR supplied to him. After this brief cross­examination, the Ld. Advocate for the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, had adopted the above narrated cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar.

48. During examination in chief, PW22 Inspector Rahul had inter­alia deposed that the investigation of this case was handed over to him in March 2013, when he was posted at PS ACB; that during investigation, when the case property duly sealed and seized by the first IO, Inspector N. K. Sharma vide seizure memo dated 07.09.2009, was sought to be deposited in FSL, it was returned on the ground that the sample seal of Inspector N. K. Sharma was also required; that the said sample seal was not available on the investigation file and Inspector N. K. Sharma had expired, on 13.08.2010; that in such state of affairs, on 23.05.2014, with the permission of the concerned Court in Tis Hazari, he had sealed the two parcels already sealed with the seal of 'NKS' in another cloth parcel, with his seal, 'RHL'; that during the process, he had not opened the two parcels, already sealed with the seal of 'NKS'; that on 23.05.2014, the case property was brought before the concerned Court by MHC(M) Satish Kumar; that a panch witness, whose name he State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 70 of 132 does not remember, had witnessed the fresh sealing process; that upon completion of proceedings, he had made the endorsement, Ex.PW10/A on the back side of the seizure memo, Ex.PW9/B and handed over the case property back to MHC(M) Satish Kumar alongwith his sample seal of 'RHL'; that during investigation, he had noted that the statement of the witnesses of the seizure memo, Ex.PW9/B had not been recorded; that therefore, he had several times, tried to call the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya but he had not joined the investigation; that through Ct. Manoj, he had got the exhibits of this case deposited in FSL, Rohini, on 06.11.2014 and subsequently received the FSL report dated 30.07.2015, Ex.PW19/A; that during investigation, he had also received the letter dated 20.10.2014, Ex.PW16/C from MTNL alongwith customer application form, Ex.PW16/A(OSR) and copy of ID card of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, Ex.PW16/B and that upon transfer in 2017, he had handed over the investigation of this case to someone else.

49. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, PW22 Inspector Rahul had inter­alia deposed that in the investigation file, he had not seen any objection letter from FSL in which it was mentioned that the sample seal of Inspector N. K. Sharma was required for receiving the case property in FSL; that in the investigation file, he had not seen any road certificate through which the case property might have been sent to FSL prior to 23.05.2014; that he does not remember whether Inspector Yashpal had made any efforts to send the case property to FSL, during his tenure; that it is mandatory to deposit sample seal alongwith the case property in the malkhana; that he had not recorded the statement of the then MHC(M) qua acceptance of the case property State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 71 of 132 without sample seal; that he does not remember whether from any documents in the investigation file, he was able to figure if Inspector N. K. Sharma had prepared the sample seal or if it was prepared but subsequently lost; that he had not collected the copies of register no.19, made prior to 23.05.2014; that he had filed an application before the concerned Special Judge regarding resealing and thereafter, the MHC(M) had brought the case property to the Court; that he had not shown any order of the Court to the MHC(M) for production of the case property; that he had filed the application, on 09.05.2014;40 that he was told by the Naib Court to appear with the panch witness in the Court, on 23.05.2014; that he does not know whether the Naib Court had directly informed the MHC(M) to bring the case property in the Court, on 23.05.2014; that he had not personally gone back to the malkhana to deposit the case property, on 23.05.2014; that he does not know the contents of the two parcels, which were re­sealed, on 23.05.2014, except the description given in the seizure memo, Ex.PW9/B; that the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F were available in the investigation file, when he had received it; that he had not asked the FSL to give any opinion about the said transcripts; that he had not compared the authenticity of the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F; that it is wrong to say that a tampered pullanda of the case property was re­sealed by him, on 23.05.2014; that he does not remember whether he had inquired about the registered consumer of mobile no.9956288659 from the service provider and that it is wrong to say that he had not conducted a fair investigation. Upon inquiry, the Ld. Advocate for the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj had adopted the above narrated cross­examination by the Ld. 40 The original application available in the miscellaneous papers of this Court, reflects that the application was filed, on 08.05.2014 and Sh. Narottam Kaushal, the then Special Judge, ACB, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, had passed the requisite orders.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 72 of 132 Advocate for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar.

50. During examination in chief, PW23 ACP Raghuvir Singh had inter­alia deposed that on 27.02.2017, he was posted at PS ACB; that upon being marked the investigation of this case, he had collected the investigation file of this case from MHC(R); that upon perusal of the investigation file of this case, he had found that the voice sample of the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had not been obtained; that therefore, he had contacted the complainant and got the date fixed from FSL for collecting the voice sample of the complainant; that on 21.01.2019, the complainant was called at FSL, Rohini and there, the FSL official had recorded the voice sample of the complainant, in an audio cassette; that after recording of the voice sample of the complainant, the FSL official had handed him over one audio cassette containing original voice sample of the complainant, which was marked as SVC­1 and one duplicate copy of said audio cassette, which was marked as SVC­1A; that he had sealed both the cassettes in two different envelopes with his seal, 'RS' and seized the envelopes/parcels vide seizure memo, Ex.PW9/C, bearing his signatures at point X and the signatures of the panch witnesses, Sh. Ram Prakash Sharma and Sh. Hemant Kumar at point B and C; that he had deposited both the sealed envelopes/parcels in the malkhana of PS Civil Lines; that he had recorded the statements under Section 161 of CrPC, 1973 of panch witnesses, Sh. Ram Prakash Sharma and Sh. Hemant Kumar; that he had also recorded the statements under Section 161 of CrPC, 1973 of the complainant and the MHC(M); that during investigation, he had received, the order of dismissal of both the accused persons, Ex.A­1; that on 12.02.2019, on his instructions, ASI Kavinder had collected three State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 73 of 132 sealed parcels alongwith one sample of 'RS' from the malkhana of PS Civil Lines vide RC No. 26/21/19, Ex.PW12/B(OSR), deposited them at FSL Rohini and handed over the acknowledgement receipt, Ex.PW12/C(OSR)to the MHC(M); that he had recorded the statements under Section 161 of CrPC, 1973 of ASI Kavinder and the MHC(M); that on 27.03.2019, HC Deb Singh had collected the result and exhibits from FSL Rohini, deposited the exhibits in the malkhana and handed over the result to him; that he had recorded the statement under Section 161 of CrPC, 1973 of HC Deb Singh; that on 13.05.2019, he had obtained the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 from Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya, who had prepared the CDs from the memory card of the mobile phone of the complainant, on 07.09.2009; that he had recorded the statement under Section 161 of CrPC, 1973 of Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya; that he had recorded the statements under Section 161 of CrPC, 1973 of Sh. Pawan Singh of Idea Cellular and Sh. Surender of Bharti Airtel; that he had recorded the statement under Section 161 of CrPC, 1973 of Sh. Lovehit Singh, owner of Anoop Service Station, Alaknanda; that he had obtained the sanction orders, Ex.PW21/A and Ex.PW21/B alongwith the forwarding letters, Ex.PW21/C and Ex.PW21/D and that upon completion of investigation of this case, he had filed the charge­sheet in Court. Upon being shown, (a) the audio cassette of the make Maxell, Ex.P­2A/PW9 and (b) the envelope, Ex.P­2A1, bearing the seal of 'RS' (found alongwith the said audio cassette), PW23 ACP Raghuvir Singh had correctly identified them to be the audio cassette, containing the original voice sample of the complainant and the envelope in which, he had sealed the said cassette. Also, upon being shown a parcel, duly sealed with three seals of 'RS' and bearing the endorsement 'SVC­A1', PW23 ACP Raghuvir Singh had correctly identified it to be State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 74 of 132 the second parcel, sealed by him, on 21.01.2019 and containing the copy of the voice sample of the complainant.

51. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, PW23 ACP Raghuvir Singh had inter­alia deposed that on 21.01.2019, he had taken the assistance of the FSL official, for obtaining the voice sample of the complainant; that the said official is not cited as a witness on any document or article; that some worksheet was prepared by the FSL official; that his signatures, the signatures of panch witnesses and the complainant were obtained on them; that he had provided the blank audio cassettes for recording of the voice sample of the complainant; that alongwith his request letter, he had provided the copy of the transcript to the FSL official; that the text for the voice sample was prepared by the FSL official, on the basis of the said transcript; that after use, he had handed over his seal to one of the panch witness, who had returned it back to him at ACB, after the case property was deposited by him in the malkhana; that this fact is not mentioned in the seizure memo, Ex.PW9/C; that he does not remember how many times, the given text was repeated by the complainant, for giving his voice sample; that he had not obtained any written consent from the complainant, about his voluntariness to give the voice sample; that he had not prepared any FSL form, on 21.01.2019; that he had prepared his sample seal, on 21.01.2019 but not recorded so in the seizure memo, Ex.PW9/C; that it is wrong to say that he had not done any proceedings, on 21.01.2019; that he does not remember if he had signed Register no.19 at PS Civil Lines, on 21.01.2019; that he had not collected the copy of register no. 19 from MHC(M), on 21.01.2019; that he had not lodged any DD entry State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 75 of 132 at PS Civil Lines about deposit of case property in the malkhana of PS Civil Lines; that he had mentioned so in his arrival entry at PS ACB on 21.01.2019; that he does not remember if copy of the said arrival entry was placed on record by him; that it is wrong to say that he had not deposited audio cassettes with MHC(M), PS Civil Lines, on 21.01.2019 or that entries thereof, are ante timed and ante dated; that he had not collected the respective DD entries relating to movement of ASI Kavinder, on 12.02.2019 and HC Deb Singh, on 27.03.2019 but he had recorded their statements; that it is wrong to say that ASI Kavinder and HC Deb Singh had not joined any investigation of this case, on 12.02.2019 and 27.03.2019, respectively; that his seal of 'RS', is usually kept in the SO Branch of ACB and it is taken, whenever it is required to be used; that as far as he can recollect, some record was being maintained in SO Branch regarding movement of seal(s); that his seal of 'RS' was in SO Branch, on 12.02.2019; that it is wrong to say that all the case properties were tampered with, before sending them to FSL; that he had visited, Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya at his house, on 13.05.2019; that the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was got typed by Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya and given to him, after putting his signatures; that it is not that firstly, he had made some inquiries from Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya, on 13.05.2019 and thereafter come back to his office, got prepared the certificate and then obtained the signatures of Sh. Shankar Parsad Arya, by going to his house; that Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya was aware about provisions of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; that Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya had told him on 13.05.2019 that the recordings transferred by him, were related to some sting operation; that it is wrong to say that he had mechanically obtained signatures of Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya on certificate, State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 76 of 132 Ex.PW26/B; that after sending exhibits to FSL, he had come to know that the SD card of the present case was not traceable; that the FSL official had told him that the SD card had been misplaced during the earlier examination of the exhibits of this case; that he had informed his senior officers about the said development and they had deputed ACP, ACB to inquire into the matter independently; that he has no knowledge about the fact finding inquiry conducted by the ACP, ACB; that he had not obtained any opinion from FSL, as to whether tampering/editing/deletion was possible with the help of the mobile phone, Ex.M­1; that he had not obtained any opinion from FSL about authenticity of the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F; that he had not prepared any transcript, himself; that he had not compared the correctness of transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F, by hearing the audio recordings; that he does not remember if any transcript was available in the file, when he had received it; that it is wrong to say that no statement under Section 161 of Cr.PC, 1973 was made by Sh. Luvhit Singh; that he does not remember if he had collected the details of the registered consumer of mobile no. 9956288659; that he does not remember whether any order of the Court was found by him, regarding obtaining of voice sample of the accused persons; that he had gone through the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F, during investigation; that he had not inquired from the previous IOs about the author of the said transcripts; that during investigation, he had not found, who was the scriber of the said transcripts; that he cannot say whether the said transcripts are complete or incomplete or whether the said transcripts are correctly recorded; that he had not found any site plan of the places where the complainant and accused persons had allegedly met or of the petrol pump, where the complainant had gone, at the first instance; that he had visited the State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 77 of 132 said places, but he had not prepared any site plan; that it is correct that a site plan is prepared for spot identification; that he had not prepared any site plan in the present case as the spot of the petrol pump, was related to missing articles of the complainant; that he cannot assign any specific reason for not preparing the site plan of the other spots; that he cannot admit or deny the suggestion that accused persons were not arrested in the presence of the complainant; that he had gone through all the documents when the investigation file was received by him; that he had not subjected any of the accused persons to any judicial TIP, from the complainant; that he had not called any Jitender Trivedi to join the investigation of this case; that he had not checked the movement of the case property in the malkhana record of PS Civil Lines, in relation to the proceedings dated 23.09.2014; 41 that it is correct that the questioned recordings in the present case were telephonic recordings; that it was not revealed to him, from any document that sample voices of accused persons were taken through any mobile set; that the sample voice of the complainant was not taken through any mobile set at FSL, on 21.01.2019; that he had not sought any clarification from Inspector Rahul, for recording statement of Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya, with a delay of five years; that the Nodal Officers of IDEA Ltd. and Bharti Airtel had not given any certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 but he had recorded their statements; that he does not remember if CDR of mobile number 9868089034 was collected by him or not; that he had not examined any person by the name of Sh. Bed Ram, S/o. Sh. Pal Ram, R/o. Naroia, Kannauj, UP in the present case; that he does not remember whether the mobile number of the complainant was in fact registered in his name or not; that he does not remember if any evidence was collected by him from FSL regarding its 41 This date should have been 23.05.2014.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 78 of 132 notification under Section 79A of IT Act, 2000, on the respective dates of examination of the exhibits of this case; that he had not sent draft sanction proforma to the office of the sanctioning authority; that he had sent the proposal; that he does not remember whether copies of questioned recordings were sent to the office of sanctioning authority or not but the transcripts and FSL results, were sent; that he had not checked the properties of the CD kept open for investigation purposes, in order to ascertain its date of creation; that the hash values of the recordings of SD card and the CD were not available on record, when the investigation file was received by him; that he had not made any inquiry from the guest house of the company of the complainant, as to whether on or around 24.07.2009, the complainant had stayed there; that it was not revealed to him that prior to lodging of his complaint with ACB, the complainant had lodged a complaint with the senior officers of Delhi Police also; that he had evaluated the duty rosters and movement entries of the accused persons, collected from their police station; that he had not examined the taxi driver, Sh. Hariom Sharma; that it was not revealed to him from any document that a complaint was lodged by the complainant at PS Ballabhgarh, regarding his missing articles; that he had written a letter to the SHO, PS C. R. Park to provide copy of NCR report, but he was informed that the relevant record has been weeded out, in routine, as per rules; that the said letter is not a part of the charge­sheet; that he had not demanded the copy of such NCR from the complainant; that he had not inquired from PS C. R. Park if room no.107 was allotted to any police official because rooms are not formally allotted to any police official, in a PS; that he had not made any inquiry, particularly about room no.107, by recording statement of other subordinates of PS C. R. Park i.e. whether room no.107 was State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 79 of 132 allotted to the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj or not; that he had not recorded the statement of duty officer of PS C. R. Park, whom the complainant had allegedly met, on 24.07.2009; that he had not recorded statement of duty officer of PS C. R. Park regarding allegations contained in the complaint, particularly the allegation against the duty officer, of sending the complainant to the accused persons, on 25.07.2009; that he does not remember if he had noticed from the received records of PS C. R. Park that on 24.07.2009, the investigation of case FIR No.192/09, PS C. R. Park was assigned to the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj and he had departed from the PS; that he had not inquired from the complainant as to what complaint he had written as per the instructions of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, on 24.07.2009; that he had not asked the complainant to provide its copy to him; that he had not inquired from any police official of PS C. R. Park, if he/she had seen the complainant meeting the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj in the PS C. R. Park, between 24.07.2009 to 30.07.2009; that he does not remember how many total transcripts were received by him, when the present case was assigned to him; that he had asked the complainant, whether the complainant had visited PS Ballabhgarh or not and the complainant had informed him that he had not gone to PS Ballabhgarh; that this fact was not specifically recorded by him in any statement of the complainant; that the CDR of the mobile phone of accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar was collected by the previous IO; that it is wrong to say that the CDR of mobile number of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar has been withheld by him as it was against the story of the State;42 that it is wrong to say that the CDR of mobile phone of complainant is a 42 In this regard, it is relevant to note that the case diary dated 16.09.2009, written by Inspector N. K. Sharma, records that the CDR of mobile no.9868089034 of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar has been received from the service providers through e­mail on the e­mail address of DCP/ACB and has been placed on the investigation file.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 80 of 132 fabricated document or that it was not provided by any service provider and that it wrong to say that he had not conducted a fair investigation and falsely charge­ sheeted the accused persons. Upon inquiry, the Ld. Advocate for the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, had adopted the above narrated cross­examination of PW23 ACP Raghuvir Singh.

52. During examination in chief, PW24 Sh. Jitender Prasad Sharma had inter­alia deposed that on 07.09.2009, when he was posted as Bradma Machine Operator (BMO) in Employment Exchange Department; that on that day, he was assigned panch witness duty at PS ACB; that at PS ACB, he was called in the cabin of Inspector N. K. Sharma, where one person was present; that he does not remember the name of the said person; that in front of him, the said person had given one mobile phone and two CDs to Inspector N. K. Sharma; that his signatures were obtained on one of the CDs and thereafter, Inspector N. K. Sharma had sealed it, in a pullanda; that the second CD was kept open and that after the said procedure, he had signed the seizure memo, Ex.PW9/B at point B. Upon being shown (a) the mobile phone, Ex.M­1 and (b) the CD, Ex.P1, the witness PW24 Sh. Jitender Prasad Sharma had correctly identified them as well as his signatures at point X3 on the CD, Ex.P­1.

53. Since, PW24 Sh. Jitender Prasad Sharma had not completely supported the case of the State, he was permitted to be cross­examined by the Ld. Substitute PP for the State. During cross­examination by the Ld. Substitute PP for the State, PW24 Sh. Jitender Prasad Sharma had inter­alia deposed that his State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 81 of 132 statement under Section 161 of CrPC, 1973 was recorded by the police, but he does not remember the date when it was written; that he does not remember and therefore, he cannot admit or deny that the person who gave the mobile phone was Sh. Vikas Bhartiya; that he does not remember and therefore, he cannot admit or deny that alongwith the mobile phone, the person had also given a Micro SD Card; that he had not made the statement dated 22.03.2016, Mark P­24/X1 under Section 161 of CrPC, 1973; that it is wrong to say that in his presence, Inspector N. K. Sharma had called Sh. Shankar Arya, a Data Operator in the room and thereafter, the recording contained in the mobile phone was played by Sh. Shankar Arya on the office computer, lying in the room of Inspector N. K. Sharma; 43 that it is wrong to say that then, Sh. Shankar Arya had prepared two copies of the audio recording from the mobile phone or its memory card on two CDs; that the CDs were already prepared; 44 that it is correct that the CDs were signed by the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, Sh. Shankar Arya and Inspector N. K. Sharma and him before one CD was sealed in a parcel; that it is correct that there were two CDs; that it is correct that one CD was sealed by Inspector N. K. Sharma, with his seal of 'NKS' and the second CD was kept open for investigation purposes; that it is correct that the mobile phone and the memory SD Card of the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya were also kept in a parcel which was also sealed by Inspector N. K. Sharma, with his seal of 'NKS'; that it is correct that the CDs, mobile phone and memory card were then seized by Inspector N. K. Sharma vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/B, which he had signed; that it is wrong to say that the two CDs were prepared in his presence by Sh. Shankar Arya from the 43 At this stage, the Ld. Substitute PP for the State had confronted PW24 Sh. Jitender Prasad Sharma with the portion at points A to A of the statement, Mark P­24/X1. 44 At this stage, the Ld. Substitute PP for the State had confronted PW24 Sh. Jitender Prasad Sharma with the portion at points B to B of the statement, Mark P­24/X1.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 82 of 132 original audio recording in the mobile or that the CDs were not already prepared; that it is wrong to say that he has partially not supported the case of the State, on account of being won over by the accused persons or on account of being unable to remember facts due to passage of time.

54. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, PW24 Sh. Jitender Prasad Sharma had inter­alia deposed that the process of showing him the CD, the mobile phone, their sealing and preparation of the seizure memo, Ex.PW9/B had taken about half an hour, in the room of Inspector N. K. Sharma; that he does not know, who had written the seizure memo, Ex.PW9/B; that he does not remember whether the seizure memo, Ex.PW9/B was already prepared, when he had entered the room of Inspector N. K. Sharma or whether it was written in his presence; that he does not remember whether anybody else had signed the seizure memo, Ex.PW9/B, before he had signed it; that he does not remember, if anybody else had signed the seizure memo, Ex.PW9/B in his presence; that his statement under Section 161 of CrPC, 1973 was recorded twice; that it is wrong to say that no parcels, containing mobile phone or the CDs or the micro SD Card were prepared in his presence on any day; that it is wrong to say that his signatures on the seizure memo, Ex.PW9/B were obtained by the IO, without actually carrying out any procedure of seizure of those articles; that it is wrong to say that the seizure memo, Ex.PW9/B is an ante date and ante timed document; that he was not shown the identity card of the two persons, present in the room of Inspector N. K. Sharma, on 07.09.2009, for him to establish their identities. Upon inquiry, the Ld. Advocate for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had adopted the above narrated State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 83 of 132 cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj.

55. During examination in chief, PW25 ACP Yashpal Singh had inter­alia deposed that on 29.07.2010, he was posted at PS ACB; that on that day, upon being assigned the investigation of this case, he had perused the investigation file; 45 that during the investigation of this case, on 21.08.2010, he and a panch witness had gone to PS Sarita Vihar and from the District Lines Office, located in the Compound of PS Sarita Vihar, he had apprehended the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar and brought him to PS ACB; that at PS ACB, he had played the questioned audio recordings from a CD, available in the investigation file; that after hearing the audio recordings, the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had given the consent for recording of his voice sample vide consent memo, Ex.PW3/C, bearing the signatures of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar at point B, the signatures of the panch witness at point A and his signatures at point C; that on that day, a voice identification memo was also prepared but it is not on record; that the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar was then arrested vide arrest memo, Ex.PW3/A, bearing his signatures at point B, the signatures of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar at point C, the signatures of the panch witness and one HC at points A and D, respectively; that the personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo, Ex.PW3/B, bearing his signatures at point B, the signatures of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar at point C and the signatures of the panch witness and one HC at points A and D, respectively; that on 23.08.2010, the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya was called at PS ACB and the audio recordings 45 A perusal of the case diary of the IOs, reflects that till 20.10.2009, some efforts were being made to arrest the accused persons and some investigation was being done but during 20.10.2009 to 29.07.2010 (a crucial period of more than 9 months), absolutely no investigation was done and then, the investigation was taken over by PW25 ACP Yashpal Singh.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 84 of 132 from the CD in the investigation file were played before the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya; that the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had heard the audio recordings and identified them; that thereafter, the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F were prepared; that the said transcripts bear his signatures at point C and the signatures of the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya at point B; that the said transcripts were prepared in presence of a panch witness, who had signed them at point A; that upon filing of an application for surrender, the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj was arrested from the concerned Court, on 23.05.2011 vide arrest memo, Ex.PW7/A; that the personal search of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj was done vide memo, Ex.PW7/B; that the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj was taken on two days police custody; that on 24.05.2011, the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj was taken to FSL, Rohini, Delhi along with panch witness and at FSL, Rohini, Delhi, his sample voice was got recorded; that after recording of the sample voice of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, the concerned FSL official had handed him over two CDs; that one CD was given Mark SVA and the other CD was given Mark SVA­1; that Mark SVA and SVA­1 contained the voice sample and copy of voice sample of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj; that the CD, Mark SVA was converted into a parcel, sealed with the seal of 'YPS' and the said parcel was taken into possession vide seizure memo, Ex.PW8/A; that the CD, Mark SVA­1 was kept in the investigation file for investigation purposes; that vide the seizure memo, Ex.PW8/A, both SVA and SVA­1 were taken into possession; that prior to the recording of voice sample of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, the audio recordings in the CD, available in the police file were played before the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj and his consent for recording of sample voice was taken; that the memo regarding State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 85 of 132 identification of voice of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj is Ex.PW4/A, which does not bear his signatures but is in his handwriting; that the consent memo pertaining to the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj is Ex.PW7/C; that during further investigation of this case, he had collected the copies of the relevant DD entries from PS C. R. Park and PS Kalkaji; that thereafter, he had issued various notices to the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya to join the investigation but he was out of country; that on 21.06.2011, he had taken the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar to FSL, Rohini for recording of his voice sample; that after recording of the voice sample of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, the concerned FSL official had handed him over two CDs; that one CD was given Mark SVB and the other CD was given Mark SVB­1; that the CDs, Mark SVB and SVB­1 contained the voice sample and copy of voice sample of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar; that the CD, Mark SVB was sealed in a parcel with the seal of 'YPS' and taken into possession vide seizure memo, Ex.PW25/A; that the CD, Mark SVB­1 was kept in the investigation file for investigation purposes and that vide the seizure memo, Ex.PW25/A, both SVB and SVB­1 were taken into possession.46

56. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, PW25 ACP Yashpal Singh had inter­alia deposed that he had not lodged any arrival entry at District Line Office, situated in the compound of PS Sarita 46 In my view, this testimony of PW25 ACP Yashpal Singh reflects a prosecution error. Sh. Kumar Sanjay, Ld. PP for the State, examining him on 22.03.2023, should have cross­examined him and reminded him that as per the seizure memo dated 24.05.2011, Ex.PW8/A, the voice sample of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj was taken on two audio cassettes, Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, which were given Mark SVA and SVA­1 and not on two CDs and that as per the seizure memo dated 21.06.2011, the voice sample of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, was taken on two audio cassettes, including the audio cassette, Ex.P3, which was given Mark SVB and not on two CDs.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 86 of 132 Vihar, on 21.08.2010, when the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar was apprehended; that it is wrong to say that no consent was given by the accused persons for recording of their voice samples; that it is wrong to say that the consent memos were fabricated on blank papers, after obtaining the signatures of the accused persons; that he had not obtained any formal permission from the Court, for taking the voice samples of both the accused persons; that he had mentioned about the requirement of voice sample of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj in the application filed for grant of his police custody; that it is wrong to say that no voice identification memo qua the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar was prepared by him; that he had not given any warning of drawing of adverse inference, in writing, to any of the accused persons, before taking them to FSL; that the text for the voice samples of the accused persons was prepared by him, after picking exact sentences/words from the questioned audio recordings; that he had not prepared any text of independent sentences by picking clue words from the questioned audio recordings; that the sample voice of both the accused persons was not taken by mixing unknown voices in their sample voices; that he had lodged DD entries regarding his movements on the days, when he had visited FSL; that the said entries are not on record; that he does not remember, as to how many times, the given text was repeated by both the accused persons at the time of recording of their voice samples; that he had taken assistance of FSL officials on both the occasions, for recording of voice samples of the accused persons; that the said FSL officials are not witnesses of this case; that he does not remember their names; that some internal note sheets were prepared by FSL assistant at the time of recording of voice samples of the accused persons; that he had not collected the copies of those note sheets; that he had not recorded State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 87 of 132 the statement of any of the FSL Assistants; that the sample voice recording procedure was conducted in the presence of Dr. C. P. Singh of Physics Division FSL; that he does not remember whether this fact is mentioned in any statement under Section 161 of CrPC, 1973 of any panch witness or in any memo; that it is wrong to say that no proceedings were conducted in the presence of Dr. C. P. Singh; that it is wrong to say that both the accused persons were never taken to FSL for recording of their sample voices or that the cassettes related to sample voices are fabricated and morphed; that he had gone through the FIR when the investigation was assigned to him; that he had satisfied himself with the contents of the FIR; that usually, the date and time of occurrence of offence is noted down by the duty officer in the FIR, from the contents of rukka; that it is correct that in the FIR, Ex.A2, the date and time of occurrence is mentioned as 07.09.2009 at 05:00 pm; that as per rukka, Ex.PW25/D1, the time of sending rukka is 07.09.2009 at 05:00 pm and the date and time of occurrence is 24 th July to 4th August 2009; that he had not noticed this ambiguity, during investigation.

57. Further, during cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, PW25 ACP Yashpal Singh had inter­alia deposed that the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F were written by his subordinates, under his dictation; that he had not obtained the signatures of the subordinates/scribes on the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F; that he had not recorded the statements of the subordinates/scribes; that the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F, do not have the names of the subordinates/scribes; that he had not obtained any opinion from FSL regarding the compatibility of the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F with the audio State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 88 of 132 recordings in question; that he had not obtained any opinion from FSL, as to whether tampering/editing/addition was possible in the audio recordings with the help of mobile phone, Ex.M­1; that he had not collected copies of register no.19, pertaining to his tenure of investigation; that he had given seal to the panch witnesses, on both the occasions, after sealing the audio cassettes of sample voices; that he does not remember if he had mentioned the factum of handing over of the seal to the panch witnesses, in the respective seizure memos; that the panch witnesses must have disclosed about these facts in their respective statements under Section 161 of CrPC, 1973; that it is wrong to say that no articles were ever sealed by him; that it is wrong to say that no seal was ever handed over by him to any panch witness, after use; that in the seizure memos, Ex.PW25/A and Ex.PW8/A, it is not mentioned that he had handed over the seal to the panch witnesses on the respective dates; that he had sent the request letter to the service provider of the mobile number of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar and mentioned so, in the inner case diary; that the keeping of the said letter in the investigation file was not necessary, if the required document had been received; that in response to his letter, the service provider had informed in writing that the CDR of the mobile number of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar was not available as it was older than one year; that he had not kept the said letter of the service provider on the investigation file; that it is wrong to say that no official effort was made by him, for obtaining any CDR of any mobile phone, during his tenure of investigation; that it is wrong to say that the CDR of mobile phone of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar was unofficially obtained by him and it has deliberately not relied upon, because it does not support the case of this State; that he had not left any document on the investigation file, reflecting that the CDR of the State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 89 of 132 mobile phone of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar was obtained by him; that it is not in his knowledge, if the voice samples of any of the accused, were recorded in a CD through a laptop; that no CD was sealed in the presence of the panch witness, Sh. Rakesh Kumar, on 21.08.2010; that on the said date, only the open CD in the investigation file was played in the presence of the panch witness; that it is wrong to say that some CD was sealed, on 21.08.2010 or that it has been intentionally withheld by him; that it is wrong to say that the panch witness, Sh. Rakesh Kumar had not joined any proceedings, on 21.08.2010 or that the signatures of the panch witness, Sh. Rakesh Kumar were obtained falsely, on documents and articles; that it is wrong to say that Sh. Neeraj Nayan Saxena had not joined the investigation of this case, on 24.05.2011 or that his signatures were obtained falsely, on documents and articles.

58. Further, during cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, PW25 ACP Yashpal Singh had inter­alia deposed that he was not consulted by the subsequent IO, while preparing the charge­sheet of this case; that the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya was not present, when the accused persons were arrested in this case; that it is correct that the accused persons were not known to the complainant, prior to 24.07.2009; that he had not subjected any of the accused persons to any judicial TIP, from the complainant; that no site plan of any of the place of the occurrence, involved in this case, was available in the investigation file, when he had received it; that he had not prepared any site plan in this case; that it is correct that a site plan is prepared, for identification of place/places of occurrence; that he had not examined Sh. Jitender Dwivedi, friend of State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 90 of 132 the complainant, in this case; that he had not demanded any proof of cash, laptop or camera from the complainant, which the complainant had claimed to be missing; that during investigation, he had not found, who was the registered consumer of mobile number 9956288659, used by the complainant; that he had not sent any request to the service provider of mobile number 9956288659 for obtaining CDR and CAF; that he cannot say whether mobile number 9956288659, which was being used by the complainant, was in fact registered in his name or not; that during investigation, he had not found that prior to lodging the complaint with ACB, the complainant had also lodged a complaint with Senior Officers of police; that the complainant had not given him any separate CD; that it is wrong to say that he had not done a fair investigation; that it is wrong to say that the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F are wrong; that during investigation, he had not found any transcript prepared by the first IO, Inspector N. K. Sharma; that it is wrong to say that no proceedings were done by him, on 24.05.2011 and therefore, the memo, Ex.PW4/A (pertaining to the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj) does not bear his signatures; 47 that it is wrong to say that the said memo is not in his handwriting; that he has not placed on record, the copies of the various notices sent by him to the complainant; that it is wrong to say that no notices were sent by him to the complainant, to join the investigation of this case; that it is wrong to say that he has taken a false plea of sending notices to the complainant, in order to fill up the lacuna of time gap, in the investigation of this case; that it is correct that the seal used by him in this case was his personal seal; that he had never kept his seal with the SO Branch of ACB; that it is correct that the questioned audio recordings were telephonic conversations; that he had not got the 47 The date in this suggestion should have been 23.05.2011 because the memo, Ex.PW4/A is dated 23.05.2011.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 91 of 132 voice samples of the accused persons, recorded with the help of any mobile set; that he had informed the FSL Assistant that the questioned audio recordings were telephonic conversations; that he had not examined the taxi driver, Sh. Hariom Sharma and that he had not collected the copy of the NCR, referred in the complaint, Ex.PW9/A, from PS C. R. Park or from the complainant.

59. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, PW25 ACP Yashpal Singh had inter­alia deposed that he does not remember if any separate memo was prepared regarding preparation of the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F; that it is wrong to say that the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya and the panch witness, Sh. Jaspal Prasad (panch witness qua the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F) had never met each other during the investigation of this case; that he does not remember whether the CDR of the mobile phone of the complainant or the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj was available on the investigation file, when he had received it; that he does not remember whether the CDR of mobile no. 9891173403, for the period, 24.07.2009 to 04.08.2009, Mark P15/X3 was available on the investigation file, when he had received it; that he had not made any effort to find out if the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj was physically present at PS C. R. Park after 09:30 pm, on 24.07.2009; that he had never physically visited PS C. R. Park, in connection with the investigation of this case and therefore, he had never visited room no.107 of PS C. R. Park; that he had not recorded the statement of the duty officer of PS C. R. Park regarding guiding the complainant to the accused; that it is wrong to say that Sh. Neeraj Nayan Saxena had not joined the investigation of this case, on 24.05.2011 or that he had not met State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 92 of 132 the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, on 24.05.2011; that no separate handing over memo qua handing over of the seals to the panch witnesses was ever prepared; that he had not given any direction to the panch witnesses, specifically directing them about the time when they should return the seal; that after the case property was deposited in the malkhana, the seals were taken back and that in this regard, no separate statement of the panch witnesses was recorded. After this brief cross­ examination, the Ld. Advocate for the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, had adopted the above narrated cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar.

60. During examination in chief, PW26 Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya had inter­ alia deposed that on 07.09.2009, he was working as a Computer Operator at PS ACB; that on that day, he was called by Inspector N. K. Sharma in his room and given one mobile phone, whose make or colour, he does not remember; that the mobile phone had some recording, which he was asked to copy on a CD; that thereafter, he had attached the micro SD card of the mobile phone with the computer system in ACB and prepared two copies of the audio recordings, in two CDs; that in his presence, one CD was sealed by the Inspector, with the seal of 'NKS' and the second CD was kept in open condition, for the purpose of investigation; that he had signed a document, prepared by the IO at the time of taking possession of the CD and sealing it; that he does not remember, if he had also signed the CDs, prepared by him or the envelope in which, one of the CD was sealed; that the seizure memo, Ex.PW9/B bears his signatures at point C; that after he had left the services of ACB, Inspector Rahul had interrogated him but he does State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 93 of 132 not recollect the year or the month, when Inspector Rahul had interrogated him; that perhaps his statement was recorded by Inspector Rahul and his signatures were also obtained, but due to passage of time, he does not remember the exact event and that thereafter, in 2019, another IO had come to him and obtained his signatures on some statement but he does not recollect the exact event. Since PW26 Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya had not supported the case of the State in entirety, he was permitted to be cross­examined by the Ld. PP for the State. During cross­ examination by the Ld. PP for the State, PW26 Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya had inter­ alia deposed that he had made the statement, Ex.PW26/A, in front of Inspector Rahul, on 15.10.2014; that it is correct that on 07.09.2009, the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhatia Bhartiya was also present in the room of Inspector N. K. Sharma; that it is correct that the mobile phone was of the make, NOKIA and it was having a micro SD card in it; that it is correct that at that time, one panch witness, Sh. J. P. Sharma was also present; that it is correct that on the direction of Inspector N. K. Sharma, he had played the audio recordings contained in the micro SD card on the office computer of ACB and the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had heard the audio recordings; that it is correct that two CDs, which were prepared by him qua the questioned audio recordings were labeled as CD­1 and CD­2; that he does not remember whether he, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, Sh. J. P. Sharma and N. K. Sharma had signed the CDs and therefore, he cannot admit or deny the said fact; 48; that it is correct that Inspector N. K. Sharma had kept the Nokia mobile phone as well as the memory card in a cloth parcel which was sealed with the seal of 'NKS'; that it is correct that besides him, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, Sh. J. P. Sharma and Inspector N. K. 48 At this stage, the Ld. PP for the State had confronted PW26 Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya with the portion at points A to A of the statement, Ex.PW26/A. State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 94 of 132 Sharma had signed the seizure memo, Ex.PW9/B at points A, B and D, respectively; that the certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 dated 13.05.2019, Ex.PW26/B bears his signatures at point A; that he had handed over the said certificate to Inspector Raghuvir Singh, on 13.05.2019 and the said Inspector had recorded his statement under Section 161 of CrPC, 1973 on that day; that it is correct that when he had copied the audio recordings from the Nokia mobile phone and prepared the two CDs, the copies were exact and there was no tampering; that he does not remember the exact model number of the mobile phone and therefore, he cannot admit or deny whether the model number of the mobile phone was 7210C and that he can identify the mobile phone and the CD, if shown to him. Upon being shown the CD, Ex.P1, PW26 Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya had identified his signatures at point X4 on the said CD and deposed that it is one of the two CDs, prepared by him, on 07.09.2009. Upon being shown the mobile phone, Ex.M­1, PW26 Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya had deposed that he does not remember exactly but the mobile phone, Ex.M­1 appears to be the one that he had dealt with, on 07.09.2009.

61. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, PW26 Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya had inter­alia deposed that he had not told any of the IOs that the audio recordings were related to some sting operation;49; that he had not prepared the certificate, Ex.PW26/B; that Inspector Raghuvir had brought it, read it over to him and then, he had signed it; that he had no idea as to what Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is; that the certificate, Ex.PW26/B does not bear his signatures on the first page; that the 49 At this stage, the Ld. Advocate for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had confronted PW26 Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya with the portion at points X to X of the certificate, Ex.PW26/B. State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 95 of 132 certificate, Ex.PW26/B does not bear case particulars viz. FIR No. etc.; that it is correct that he had identified the signatures of Sh. Vikas Bharitya and Sh. J. P. Sharma on the seizure memo, Ex.PW9/B because their names are written beneath their signatures; that when he had signed the seizure memo, Ex.PW9/B, besides the exhibit written with red ink, the entire memo was, as it appears; that he was not shown any identity proof of Sh. Vikas Bhartiya or Sh. J. P. Sharma; that even his ID proof was not shown to them; that he had prepared the two CDs on the computer system, in the room of Inspector N. K. Sharma; that whenever his statement under Section 161 CrPC, 1973 was recorded by an IO of this case, he had signed it; that he had copied the entire data from the micro SD card, when he had prepared the CDs; that in his presence, the IO had not mentioned in any of the document, the total number of files/folders and the duration of the audio video files, found in the micro SD card; that he was an outsourced employee with ACB; that the seal after use, was retained by Inspector N. K. Sharma; that he does not remember whether cloth pullanda, CDs and the mobile phone were also signed by him or not; that he not know what is hash value; that it is correct that in case of transfer/copying of any recording from one storage media to another storage media, the date on which the copy is made, will be reflected in the properties of the file; that is correct that therefore, the date of 07.09.2009 must appear in the properties of the audio recordings copied by him on that day, onto the CDs; that it is wrong to say that no proceedings were conducted in his presence or with his help by Inspector N. K. Sharma, in the presence of any Vikas Bhartiya or J. P. Sharma; that it is wrong to say that he had signed the seizure memo, Ex.PW9/B, in good faith on the asking of the ACB officials; that it is wrong to say that the certificate, Ex.PW26/B was signed State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 96 of 132 by him in a mechanical manner or that he was not competent to issue such a certificate; that it wrong to say that he had mechanically identified the signatures of Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, Sh. J. P. Sharma and Inspector N. K. Sharma; that it is wrong to say that the seizure memo, Ex.PW9/B was not prepared in his presence, on 07.09.2009 or that it is ante dated and ante timed; that it is wrong to say that CD, Ex.P1 was signed by him subsequently at the behest of ACB officials; that it is correct that his signatures are not available on the mobile phone, Ex.M­1 and that it is wrong to say that no mobile phone or SD card was seized and sealed in his presence, on 07.09.2009. Upon inquiry, the Ld. Advocate for the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, had adopted the above narrated cross­examination of PW26 Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya.

62. The record of the Court file reflects that after examining the aforesaid witnesses of the State, the evidence of the State was closed and the case was adjourned for recording of statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of CrPC, 1973.

Statement of Accused under Section 313 of CrPC, 1973

63. In the statement under Section 313 of CrPC, 1973, the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj had denied the various elements of the case of the State, either on account of lack of knowledge or on account of them being wrong/incorrect or on account of them being a matter of record. However, the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj had admitted that he had met the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, on State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 97 of 132 24.07.2009 at PS C. R. Park but qualified the said admission, by stating that he had met the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya for only five minutes near the gate of PS C. R. Park at about 9:30 PM. Also, the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj had positively asserted (a) that PW9 Sh. Vikas Bharitya had falsely identified the CD, Ex.P1 as one of the CDs prepared on 07.09.2009; (b) that PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had wrongly identified him as a speaker in some of the audio recordings; (c) that the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F are wrong/incorrect; (d) that PW26 Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya had deposed falsely in this Court at the instance of an IO; (e) that PW2 Sh. Jaspal Prasad had deposed falsely about the preparation of the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F; (f) that his voice sample was not recorded at any point of time and he had not met PW8 Sh. Neeraj Nayan Saxena during the investigation of this case; (g) that the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Ex.PW26/B is defective; (h) that the sanctions under Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 dated 06.08.2019, Ex.PW21/A and Ex.PW21/B have been accorded without application of mind; (i) that the FSL report dated 30.07.2015, Ex.PW19/A and the FSL report dated 27.03.2019, Ex.PW19/B, are false and prepared by PW19 Sh. V. Lakshmi Narshiman at the behest of the IOs; (k) that the case properties of this case were never sent to FSL and the testimonies of PW10 ASI Satish and PW12 HC Baljit Singh are based on ante dated and ante time entries/records; (l) that the original recordings were not played before PW1 Sh. Hari Singh, on 11.09.2009 and therefore, the voice identification memo, Ex.PW1/A is wrong; (m) that his consent (recorded in the consent memo, Ex.PW7/C) was taken under duress; (n) that this case is false and (o) that all the witnesses of the State are interested witnesses. Lastly, upon being left free to say anything, the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj had State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 98 of 132 stated that he is innocent; that he has been falsely implicated in this case by the police at the instance of the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya; that on 24.07.2009, he was assigned the investigation of FIR No.192/09 PS C. R. Park and when he was proceeding for the investigation of the said case, the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had met him for about five minutes at the main gate of PS C. R. Park at about 9:30 PM, where the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya was scolding and abusing his driver; that he had never visited any petrol pump in Alaknanda with the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya or the co­accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar; that he had never taken the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya to any room of PS C. R. Park; that the co­accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had not accompanied him for any work on 24.07.2009 as he was the DD Writer at PS C. R. Park from 04:00 pm to 12:00 midnight and that he had never demanded any money from the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, for any work.

64. In the statement under Section 313 of CrPC, 1973, the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had denied the various elements of the case of the State, either on account of lack of knowledge or on account of them being wrong/incorrect or on account of them being a matter of record. Also, the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had positively asserted (a) that he had never met the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya;

(b) that since, he was the DD Writer at PS C. R. Park on 24.07.2009 from 04:00 pm to 12:00 midnight, he could not have met the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, on 24.07.2009; (c) that the complaint, Ex.PW9/A is false and the audio recordings in the CD, Ex.P1 are fabricated; (d) that PW26 Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya had deposed falsely in this Court; (e) that the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F are State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 99 of 132 wrong/incorrect; (f) that he was wrongly arrested in this case and his consent (recorded in the consent memo, Ex.PW3/C) was taken under duress; (g) that his sample voice was not taken at FSL, Rohini; (h) that his sample voice was not taken at FSL and it was manipulated at the PS; (i) that the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Ex.PW26/B is defective; (j) that the case properties were tampered with, during transit; (k) that the sanctions under Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 dated 06.08.2019, Ex.PW21/A and Ex.PW21/B were obtained mechanically without sending any document to the sanctioning authority; (l) that the FSL report dated 30.07.2015, Ex.PW19/A and the FSL report dated 27.03.2019, Ex.PW19/B, are false and fabricated, being unreasoned and because the original audio recordings were never sent to FSL, Rohini; (m) that the testimonies of PW10 ASI Satish and PW12 HC Baljit Singh are based on ante dated and ante time entries/records; (n) that the original recordings were not played before PW1 Sh. Hari Singh, on 11.09.2009 and therefore, the voice identification memo, Ex.PW1/A is wrong; (o) that the documents tendered in evidence by PW16 Sh. Karan Razdan have not been duly proved; (p) that this case is false and (q) that all the witnesses of the State are interested witnesses, who have deposed falsely. Lastly, upon being left free to say anything, the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had inter­alia stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case; that on 24.07.2009, he could not have met the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya because he was the DD Writer with the Duty Officer at PS C. R. Park and was not allowed to leave his seat; that he has nothing to do with the questioned audio recordings; that he had not visited any petrol pump in Alaknanda with the co­accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, on 24.07.2009; that he had never demanded or received Rs.7,000/­ from the complainant, Sh. Vikas State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 100 of 132 Bhartiya; that he was not residing in the barracks of PS C. R. Park and that the IO had intentionally not collected the CDR of his mobile number.

65. In his defence, the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, had examined DW1 Sh. Hariom Sharma.

Defence Evidence led by the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj

66. During examination in chief, DW1 Sh. Hariom Sharma had inter­alia deposed that on 24.07.2009, he was operating a taxi under 'Car Club'; that on that day, he was assigned a duty to carry a passenger, Sh. Vishal Bhartiya from Delhi Airport to Kannauj in U.P.; that he does not remember the registration number of the taxi, he was driving on 24.07.2009; that he does not remember the make/model of the car/taxi, which he was driving on 24.07.2009; that while driving the passenger, Sh. Vishal to Kannauj, U.P., he had stopped at Ballabgarh (near Faridabad), Haryana, for the purpose of taking tea, at about 04:30 pm; that when he had brought tea for the passenger, Sh. Vishal, the said passenger had informed him that his laptop had been stolen from the taxi and the said passenger had started abusing him; that the said passenger had also asked to take him to some police station, for lodging a complaint; that first, he and the said passenger had gone to PS Ballabhgarh, but no report was lodged there; that thereafter, someone had called on the mobile phone of the passenger, Sh. Vishal and advised him that he should go to Alaknanda area in Delhi, call a PCR from there and lodge a report, upon arrival of the PCR; that thereafter, he and the passenger, Sh. Vishal had come to Alaknanda, State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 101 of 132 Delhi; that from Alaknanda, Delhi, at about 06.00 pm, the passenger, Sh. Vishal had made a PCR call from his mobile phone; that after 15 minutes of the call, a PCR had come; that after 15 minutes of the arrival of the PCR, police officials, from one police station had come there; that 15 minutes thereafter, police officials from another police station had also come there; that he does not know the name of either of the two police stations, whose police officials had come at Alaknanda, Delhi; that in front of him the passenger, Sh. Vishal had spoken to the PCR officials as well as the officials of two police stations; that at about 07:30pm, the passenger, Sh. Vishal had asked to be taken back to Faridabad, on the premise that his complaint was not being lodged in Delhi; that then, he had taken the passenger, Sh. Vishal to some police station in Faridabad, whose name he does not remember; that upon reaching there, he had remained outside whereas the passenger, Sh. Vishal had gone inside; that after about 10 minutes, the passenger, Sh. Vishal had come out and asked to be taken to PS C. R. Park; that when he and the passenger, Sh. Vishal had reached PS C. R. Park at about 09:30 pm, the passenger, Sh. Vishal had started abusing him at the gate of PS C. R. Park; that upon hearing the abuse, the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, had come and asked the passenger, Sh. Vishal as to why he was abusing him (DW1 Sh. Hariom Sharma); that thereafter, the passenger, Sh. Vishal had gone inside PS C. R. Park and the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj had gone outside PS C. R. Park; that 10 minutes later, the passenger, Sh. Vishal had come out of PS C. R. Park and asked to be taken to Krishna Cottage, near Nehru Place and that thereafter, he had taken the passenger, Sh. Vishal to the said place, dropped him and left for his house. Upon being asked a leading question by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, DW1 Sh. Hariom Sharma had deposed that the State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 102 of 132 correct name of the passenger was Sh. Vishal Bhartiya and not Sh. Vikas Bhartiya.

67. During cross­examination by the Ld. PP for the State, DW1 Sh. Hariom Sharma had inter­alia deposed that he is still working as a taxi driver; that the taxi in which, he had taken the passenger, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, on 24.07.2009 was a Toyota Innova bearing registration no.DL1YB 5329; that he was not the owner of the said car/taxi; that he does not know who was the owner of the said car/taxi as he was merely a driver in 'Car Club' company; that it is correct that the passenger, Sh. Vikas was sitting on the seat behind the driver seat, which used to be middle seat in the car, during the travel to Kannauj; that it is wrong to say that when he and the passenger, Sh. Vishal had reached near PS C. R. Park, besides the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had also met the passenger, Sh. Vikas; that he had not accompanied the passenger, Sh. Vikas inside PS C. R. Park; that he had remained seated in his car; that it is wrong to say that when the passenger, Sh. Vikas had come out of PS C. R. Park, the said passenger had asked that he and the two accused persons should be taken to Alaknanda Petrol Pump; that it is wrong to say that then, all of them had gone from PS C. R. Park to Alaknanda Petrol Pump; that it is wrong to say that at the Alaknanda Petrol Pump, the two accused persons had searched the kiosk of the air filling person(s) by breaking open its lock; that it is wrong to say that at the said petrol pump, the two accused persons had made inquires from staff of the petrol pump; that it is wrong to say that the two accused persons had interrogated him also; that he had never went to PS C. R. Park on any date after 24.07.2009 regarding this case; that he is not aware, if any FIR was registered on the complaint of the passenger, Sh. Vikas or State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 103 of 132 whether any of his articles were recovered or not; that when he and the passenger, Sh. Vikas had left the airport at 02:30 pm, the passenger, Sh. Vikas had kept the suitcase inside the dicky of the car and his hand bag as well as his big bag were kept on the back seat of the car; that it is wrong to say that the passenger, Sh. Vikas had told him that on account of being tired, he was going to take rest and sleep in the car, and therefore, he (DW1 Sh. Hariom Sharma) should take care of his bag; that it is wrong to say that when the passenger, Sh. Vikas had come to know that his bag was missing from the car, the said passenger had asked him, whether he had stopped the car anywhere between the airport and Ballabhgarh; that it is wrong to say that in response, he had told the passenger, Sh. Vikas that he had stopped the car at Alaknanda Petrol Pump, Delhi; that it is correct that from Ballabhgarh, he and the passenger, Sh. Vikas had come to Alaknanda Petrol Pump; that it is wrong to say that the PCR call made by the passenger, Sh. Vishal from Alaknanda Petrol Pump was made at 05:30 pm; that the said call was made at 06:00 pm; that it is wrong to say that at Alaknanda Petrol Pump, he had told the passenger, Sh. Vikas that the bag must have been stolen from the petrol pump and that it is wrong to say that he has been won over by the accused persons and therefore deposed falsely in this Court, at their instance.

68. In response to certain Court questions, DW1 Sh. Hariom Sharma had inter­alia deposed that he had met the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj once at PS Sarita Vihar, when he was called by an ACP and the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj was present; that it was in relation to a case regarding missing of laptop of the passenger, Sh. Vikas; that he does not remember the date of the said meeting;

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 104 of 132 that apart from the said date, he had never met the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj between 24.07.2009 and today (17.05.2023); that he had worked in Car Club company for about 1 year after 24.07.2009; that he had not given any bill to the passenger, Sh. Vikas regarding the travel dated 24.07.2009; that he used to only obtain the signatures of the passengers on duty slips, issued by the company and the company used to settle the fare from the company of the passengers; that he does not know how much fare was to be paid by the passenger, Sh. Vikas for the travel from Delhi airport to his drop off point at Krishna Cottage; that he has been residing in the same house since 2009; that he has come to Court through Delhi Metro and that on 24.07.2009, he had not taken diesel/fuel for his car/taxi from any petrol pump, from the time, the passenger, Sh. Vikas had boarded his car/taxi till the time he was finally dropped.

69. The record of the Court file reflects that after examining the aforesaid witness on behalf of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, the evidence of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj was closed and this case was adjourned for hearing of final arguments.

Final Arguments

70. The final arguments in this case were heard, on 16.10.2023, 17.10.2023, 30.10.2023 and 31.10.2023.50 50 On 16.10.2023, in accordance with Section 234 of CrPC, 1973, the Ld. PP for the State was asked to open the final arguments in this case. However, he had ceded territory and permitted the Ld. Advocate for the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj to open the final arguments.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 105 of 132 Submissions of the Ld. Advocates for both the accused

71. During the hearing of final arguments, the Ld. Advocates for both the accused had submitted that both the accused should be acquitted in this case (a) because the testimony of the star witness of the State viz. the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya is unreliable; (b) because the audio recordings contained in the CD, Ex.P1 are inadmissible in evidence, for want of a proper certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; (c) because the audio recordings contained in the CD, Ex.P1 (even if found to be admissible in evidence) are unreliable and insufficient, for the purpose of returning any finding against the accused persons and

(d) because the shoddy investigation done by Inspector N. K. Sharma, Inspector Yashpal Singh, Inspector Rahul and Inspector Raghuvir Singh of ACB, has left many loopholes in this case, the benefit of which should inure/accrue to both the accused, who have a presumption of innocence, in their favour.

72. In order to buttress their submission that the testimony of the star witness of the State viz. the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya is unreliable, the Ld. Advocates for both the accused had pointed out certain facets of the testimony of the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya.

73. Firstly, the Ld. Advocates for both the accused had pointed out that there is inconsistency in the time­line, stated by the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya in the complaint dated 31.08.2009, Ex.PW9/A and the time­line, deposed State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 106 of 132 about, by the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, in this Court, on 05.04.2022 and 06.04.2022. In this regard, the Ld. Advocates for the accused had pointed out that in the complaint dated 31.08.2009, Ex.PW9/A, the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had stated that on 24.07.2009, he had reached PS C. R. Park at about 7:00 PM (1900 hrs.) and during his examination in chief dated 05.04.2022, the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had deposed that on 24.07.2009, he had reached PS C. R. Park at 08:00 pm. But during his cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, on 06.04.2022, the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had deposed that on 24.07.2009, he had reached Alaknanda Petrol Pump, Delhi at 07:00 pm, stayed there for about 10 minutes, then left for PS Ballabgarh, reached PS Ballabgarh in 40­45 minutes, stayed there for 10 minutes, then left back for PS C. R. Park and then reached PS C. R. Park, in 40­45 minutes. Also, the Ld. Advocates for both the accused had pointed out that the time­ line deposed about, by the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, during his cross­ examination dated 06.04.2022, aligns perfectly with the defence of the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj that on 24.07.2009, he had met the complainant at the gate of PS C. R. Park at about 09:30 pm.

74. Secondly, the Ld. Advocates for both the accused had pointed out that in his complaint, Ex.PW9/A, the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had not expressly stated that on 24.07.2009, before going to PS C. R. Park, he had gone to PS Ballabgarh (from Alaknanda Petrol Pump, Delhi) but during his examination in chief and cross­examination dated 05.04.2022 by the Ld. Chief PP for the State, the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had positively affirmed that on 24.07.2009, he State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 107 of 132 had gone to PS Ballabgarh, Haryana from Alaknanda Petrol Pump, Delhi, before going to PS C. R. Park, Delhi. According to the Ld. Advocates for the accused, the failure of the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya to truthfully disclose in his complaint, Ex.PW9/A that on 24.07.2009, before going to PS C. R. Park, he had gone to PS Ballabgarh (from Alaknanda Petrol Pump, Delhi) makes the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, an unreliable witness.

75. Thirdly, the Ld. Advocates for both the accused had pointed out that during his examination in chief dated 05.04.2022, the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had not supported his complaint, Ex.PW9/A and deposed that on 24.07.2009, he was taken by the accused persons to room no.107 of PS C. R. Park; that only during cross­examination by the Ld. Chief PP for the State, the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had deposed about the said fact but the said deposition/testimony of the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, stands demolished by the testimonies of PW1 Inspector Hari Singh, PW5 ASI Ashok and PW18 ASI Lile Singh, which (as per the test of preponderance of probabilities, required to be met by the accused persons), clearly establish that on 24.07.2009, the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj was sharing his room with ASI Zameel Ahmed on the second floor of PS C. R. Park and the room no.107 on the first floor of PS C. R. Park was being used as a Malkhana of PS Govind Puri.

76. Fourthly, the Ld. Advocates for both the accused had pointed out that in order to establish his credibility, the complainant had not produced the NCR, which was allegedly given to him by the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, on 25.07.2009 and State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 108 of 132 which is the fulcrum of the allegation of the State that on 25.07.2009, the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had demanded a bribe from the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya (to get the NCR recorded) and had consequently obtained/taken Rs.7,000/­ from the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya. According to the Ld. Advocates for the accused, the inability of the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya to produce the said NCR, makes the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, an unreliable witness.

77. Fifthly, the Ld. Advocates for both the accused had pointed out that the testimony of the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya to the effect that on 24.07.2009, both the accused had accompanied him from PS C. R. Park to Alaknanda Petrol Pump, Delhi (in the taxi of the driver, Sh. Hariom Sharma), broken open the locks of the air pressure kiosks and conducted a search, stands demolished by the testimony of DW1 Sh. Hariom Sharma, which (as per the test of preponderance of probabilities, required to be met by the accused persons), clearly establishes that on 24.07.2009, neither the accused persons nor the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had gone to Alaknanda Petrol Pump from PS C. R. Park. 51

78. Lastly, the Ld. Advocates for both the accused had pointed out that the testimony of the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had not been corroborated by

(a) the duty officer of PS C. R. Park (who had allegedly met the complainant, PW9 51 As an adjunct to the said submission, the Ld. Advocates for both the accused had referred to (a) the hostile/hearsay testimony of PW20 Sh. Lovit, (b) the failure of the State to examine Sh. Mahender Pal Singh (gunman of the petrol pump) as a witness, during the trial of this case and (c) the failure of the IOs of this case to collect the location data of the mobile phone of the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya and mobile phones of the accused persons, on 24.07.2009 and submitted that all these facets, lend credence to the defence of both the accused that on 24.07.2009, they had not accompanied the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya to Alaknanda Petrol Pump, Delhi.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 109 of 132 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, on 25.07.2009 and directed him to the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar) and (b) his relative, Sh. Jitender Dwivedi (who had allegedly accompanied the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, on one of the days and witnessed a demand of bribe), as both the said witnesses had not been examined by the State. According to the Ld. Advocates for the accused, in order to make the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, worthy of reliance by this Court, the State should have examined both the said witnesses and the failure of the State to do so, should inure to the benefit of the accused persons.52

79. On the strength above noted six references, the Ld. Advocates for both the accused had prayed this Court should not rely upon the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, for the purpose of returning any finding against the accused persons.

80. In order to buttress their submission that the audio recordings contained in the CD, Ex.P1 are inadmissible in evidence, for want of a proper certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Ld. Advocates for both the accused had pointed out three facets.

81. Firstly, the Ld. Advocates for both the accused had pointed out that the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Ex.PW26/B has inherent defects viz. (a) it does not identify the computer (its make etc.) which was 52 While making this submission, the Ld. Advocates for both the accused had relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meharaj Singh v State of UP, (1994) 5 SCC 188, wherein relying upon illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it has been held that if the State does not produce an eye witness, it can be presumed that the eye witness was not prepared to support the case of the State.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 110 of 132 used by PW26 Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya to allegedly make the two CDs, on 07.09.2009 (including the CD, Ex.P1) and (b) it does not specially state that the said computer was under the control/supervision of PW26 Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya. According to the Ld. Advocates for the accused, the said inherent defects, make the certificate, Ex.PW26/B, unreliable for the purpose of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872.

82. Secondly, the Ld. Advocates for both the accused had pointed out that during examination in chief, PW26 Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya had not deposed about the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Ex.PW26/B; that only during cross­examination by the Ld. PP for the State, PW26 Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya had identified his signatures at point 'A' of the said certificate and stated that he had handed it over to Inspector Raghuvir Singh, on 13.05.2009 but during cross examination by the Ld. Advocates for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, on 21.03.2023, PW26 Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya had deposed that he had not prepared the certificate, Ex.PW26/B; that Inspector Raghuvir Singh had prepared it; that after being read over its contents, he had signed it and that he has absolutely no idea what Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 stipulates.

83. Thirdly, the Ld. Advocates for both the accused had pointed out that during cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, on 21.03.2023, PW23 ACP Raghuvir Singh had deposed that the certificate, Ex.PW26/B was typed and prepared by PW26 Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya and not by him and that on 13.05.2019, PW26 Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya was fully aware about State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 111 of 132 the provisions of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872.

84. According to the Ld. Advocates for both the accused, the anomalies/inconsistencies in the testimonies of PW26 Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya and PW23 ACP Raghuvir Singh regarding (a) the authorship of the certificate, Ex.PW26/B and (b) regarding the understanding of provisions of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 by PW26 Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya, make the certificate, Ex.PW26/B non­est/nullity in law.53

85. In order to buttress their submission that the audio recordings contained in the CD, Ex.P1 (even if found to be admissible in evidence) are unreliable and insufficient for the purpose of returning any finding against the accused persons, the Ld. Advocates for both the accused had pointed out four facets.

86. Firstly, the Ld. Advocates for both the accused had pointed out that during cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had admitted that he had not handed over all the audio recordings done by him. According to the Ld. Advocate for the accused, the selective submission of the audio recordings by the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya makes the audio recordings contained in the CD, Ex.P1, unreliable as the audio recordings not handed over by the complainant, PW9 Sh.

53 While taking exception to the certificate, Ex.PW26/B, the Ld. Advocates for the accused had relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravinder Singh v State of Punjab, (2022) 7 SCC 581, wherein it has been inter­alia held that electronic evidence should be produced, in accordance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and that oral evidence in place of the certificate under the said provision, cannot suffice.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 112 of 132 Vikas Bhartiya, could have pointed towards the innocence of the accused persons or could have demonstrated that the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya was being untruthful.

87. Secondly, the Ld. Advocates for both the accused had pointed out that the State had lost the original memory card (Kingmax 512 MB), seized vide the seizure memo dated 07.09.2009, Ex.PW9/B, containing the originals of the audio recordings contained in the CD, Ex.P1. According to the Ld. Advocates for the accused, the loss of the original of the said audio recordings and the inherent defects in the certificate, Ex.PW26/B, render the said audio recordings to be completely unreliable, for the purpose of returning any finding against the accused persons.54

88. Thirdly, the Ld. Advocates for both the accused had pointed out that the analysis of the audio recordings contained in the CD, Ex.P1, done by PW19 Sh. V. Lakshmi Narshiman, is unworthy of any credit (a) because it had been done on the strength of voice samples of the accused persons, taken in violation of the law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudhir Chaudhary & Ors. v State, (2016) 8 SCC 207;55 (b) because in his report dated 30.07.2015, Ex.PW19/A and report dated 54 In support of this submission, the Ld. Advocate for the accused had relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Singh v Col. Ram Singh, (1985) Supp SCC 611, wherein it has been inter­alia held that in case of tape recorded statement, every possibility of tampering with or erasure of a part of a tape recorded statement, should be ruled out.

55 The said judgment mandates that while taking the voice samples of an accused, the investigating agency should not ask the accused to read out the entire inculpatory material/text but only certain words (as part of passages), which are part of the inculpatory material/text. In this case, PW19 Sh. V. Lakshmi Narshiman has admitted that the voice samples of the accused persons were mere repetition of the inclupatory material/questioned audio recordings and that the investigating agency had not picked/selected few words from the questioned audio recordings and framed sentences, to be read out State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 113 of 132 27.03.2009, Ex.PW19/B, PW19 Sh. V. Lakshmi Narshiman, had clandestinely not disclosed that before doing the analysis, he had converted the sample voices of the accused persons contained in audio cassettes, Ex.P2/PW8 and Ex.P3/PW19 and the sample voice of the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya contained in the audio cassette, Ex.P2A/PW9, from analogue form to digital form; (c) because the report dated 30.07.2015, Ex.PW19/A and report dated 27.03.2009, Ex.PW19/B of PW19 Sh. V. Lakshmi Narshiman are cryptic and do not really assist this Court, in concluding beyond reasonable doubt that the voices of the accused persons and the complainant, can be heard in the audio recordings contained in the CD, Ex.P1 and

(d) because at the time of preparation of the report dated 30.07.2015, Ex.PW19/A (against the accused persons), the FSL, Rohini, was not notified under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.56

89. Lastly, Ld. Advocates for both the accused had pointed out that the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F are unreliable because there are inconsistencies in the testimonies of PW2 Sh. Jaspal Prasad, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya and PW25 ACP Yashpal Singh regarding the manner of their creation and their authenticity/correctness.

90. In support of their submission that the investigation done by Inspector by the accused persons. Likewise, PW25 ACP Yashpal has admitted that the text for the voice samples of the accused persons was prepared by him, after picking exact sentences/words from the questioned audio recordings and that he had not prepared any text of independent sentences by picking clue words from the questioned audio recordings.

56 In support of this submission, the Ld. Advocate for the accused had handed over notification dated 11.04.2018, issued by Ministry of Information & Technology, Government of India, which reflects that FSL, Rohini was notified as an Expert Examiner of Electronic Evidence w.e.f. 11.04.2018.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 114 of 132 N. K. Sharma, Inspector Yashpal Singh, Inspector Rahul and Inspector Raghuvir Singh of ACB, in this case is shoddy and has left many loopholes, the Ld. Advocates for both the accused had inter­alia pointed out the following facets.

91. Firstly, the Ld. Advocates for both the accused had pointed that during the investigation of this case, the IOs (particularly the first two IOs viz. Inspector N. K. Sharma and Inspector Yashpal) had not collected the location data of the mobile phones of the accused persons. According to the Ld. Advocates for the accused, the benefit of this loop hole should inure to the accused persons because the said location data could/would have shown that the accused persons had not visited Alaknanda Petrol Pump, on 24.07.2009.

92. Secondly, the Ld. Advocates for both the accused had pointed that during the investigation of this case, the IOs had not examined Sh. Hariom Sharma, driver of the taxi no.DL1YB5329 and Sh. Jitender Dwivedi, relative of the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, both of whom were named in the complaint, Ex.PW9/A. According to the Ld. Advocates for the accused, the benefit of this loop hole should inure/accrue to the accused persons, especially because during defence evidence, DW1 Sh. Hariom Sharma had supported the defence of the accused.

93. Thirdly, the Ld. Advocates for both the accused had pointed that during the investigation of this case, the IOs had not collected the NCR (referred in the complaint, Ex.PW9/A) from the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya or from PS C. R. Park. According to the Ld. Advocates for the accused, the benefit of this loop hole State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 115 of 132 should inure/accrue to the accused persons because according to the accused persons, the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had not met the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, on 25.07.2009 and not obtained any NCR from him.

94. Fourthly, the Ld. Advocates for both the accused had pointed that during the investigation of this case, the IOs (particularly the first two IOs viz. Inspector N. K. Sharma and Inspector Yashpal) had deliberately not recorded the statement of any of the persons present at Alaknanda Petrol Pump, on 24.07.2009. According to the Ld. Advocates for the accused, if the IOs (particularly the first two IOs viz. Inspector N. K. Sharma and Inspector Yashpal) had done so, immediately upon registration of the FIR or within reasonable time thereafter, they would have found that the accused persons had not visited Alaknanda Petrol Pump, on 24.07.2009.

95. Fifthly, the Ld. Advocates for both the accused had pointed out that the IOs had not bothered to examine Sh. Bedram (the registered owner of the mobile no. 9956288659) and establish the connection between the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya and the mobile no. 9956288659. According to the Ld. Advocates for the accused, this was a crucial aspect of the case of the State and the benefit of the failure of the IOs to look into the said aspect, should inure/accrue to the accused persons.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 116 of 132 Submissions of the Ld. PP for the State

96. During the hearing of final arguments, the Ld. PP for the State had submitted that both the accused should be convicted in this case because DW1 Sh. Hariom Sharma (driver of taxi no.DL1YB5329) has established a part of the case of this State viz. that on 24.07.2009, the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had lost his laptop etc.; that upon losing his laptop etc., he had gone to Alaknanda area, Delhi and called a PCR; that in response to his call, a PCR had come to the spot; that thereafter, police officials from two police stations had also come to the spot and interacted with him and that ultimately, the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had gone to PS C. R. Park; because in the wake of the said admitted/proven position on behalf of the accused persons, it can be safely assumed by this Court that on 24.07.2009, the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had gone inside PS C. R. Park and met the accused persons, one of whom viz. the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, admits to having met the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, on 24.07.2009; because PW20 Sh. Lovit establishes the visit made by the accused persons and the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya at Alaknanda Petrol Pump, Delhi, on 24.07.2009;57 because the seizure memo, Ex.PW9/B (which has been duly proved by PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, PW24 Sh. Jitender Prasad Sharma and PW26 Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya), establishes that the CD, Ex.P1 was properly prepared by PW26 Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya; because even though the certificate, Ex.PW26/B is not accurate, it is good in form and duly supported by the report of FSL dated 57 This submission is ex­facie wrong because during examination in chief, PW20 Sh. Lovit was totally hostile to the case of this State and because during cross­examination by the Ld. Chief Prosecutor for the State, he had proffered hearsay testimony regarding the events that had allegedly happened at Alaknanda Petrol Pump, during the night of 24.07.2009.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 117 of 132 30.07.2015, Ex.PW19/A, wherein PW19 Sh. V. Lakshmi Narshiman has reported that the audio files contained in the CD, Ex.P1 are free from alteration; because the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F (which have been duly proved by PW2 Sh. Jaspal Prasad, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya and PW25 ACP Yashpal Singh), clearly establish the case of the State against the accused persons 58 and because the discrepancy in the time­line deposed about by the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya as well the other discrepancies in the testimony of the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya are liable to be glossed over/ignored on account of being minor in nature59 as well as on account of the lapse of time between the dates of incident i.e. 24.07.2009 to 31.07.2009 and the dates of examination of PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya in this Court i.e. 05.04.2022 and 06.04.2022.60

97. Upon inquiry regarding FSL, Rohini not being notified as an Examiner of Electronic Evidence under Section 79A of Information Technology Act, 2000, on the date of preparation of the FSL report, Ex.PW19/A i.e. 30.07.2015, Ld. PP for the State had submitted that this aspect is inconsequential and does not take away the probative value of the FSL report, Ex.PW19/A. 58 While making this submission, the Ld. PP for the State had patiently read out various portions of the transcripts, Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/F, which substantiate the case of the State against the accused persons.

59 In support of this submission, the Ld. PP for the State had relied upon paragraph 42 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. v State of Maharashtra, 5 (2000) 8 SCC 457.

60 At this juncture, the Ld. Advocate for the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had interjected and submitted that the State should not be permitted to derive any capital on account of the time gap between the dates of the incident i.e. 24.07.2009 to 31.07.2009 and the dates of examination of PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya in this Court i.e. 05.04.2022 and 06.04.2022 because the State is primarily responsible for the said time gap and because permitting the State to derive any capital on account of the said time gap, will amount to the State (acting through its IOs) earning a premium on its own laxity/mistake and will give a wrong impression to the IOs of the State that irrespective of the mandate of Section 167 of CrPC, 1973, they can take 10 years to investigate, a simple case like this.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 118 of 132

98. Upon inquiry regarding the IOs of this case, having not prepared any site plan, the Ld. PP for the State had submitted that in a case like this, a site plan is irrelevant.

Analysis and Findings

99. After perusing the record of the Court file and considering the aforesaid rival submissions made by the Ld. Advocates for both the accused and the Ld. PP for the State, I find that both the accused are liable to be acquitted in this case, on account of the following reasons.

100. Firstly, both the accused are liable to be acquitted in this case because there is a sharp contrast between the complaint, Ex.PW9/A of the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya and the examination in chief of the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, recorded on 05.04.2022, which makes the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, an unreliable witness. In this regard, it is inter­alia noteworthy (a) that in his complaint, Ex.PW9/A, the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had elaborately disclosed about the incidents that had happened in room no.107 of PS C. R. Park, on 24.07.2009 but during his examination in chief, recorded in this Court, on 05.04.2022, the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had not even whispered about room no.107 of PS C. R. Park; 61 (b) that in his complaint, Ex.PW9/A, the 61 In my view, it is highly unnatural/improbable that a citizen (like the complainant), who has witnessed a police officer, interrogating a taxi driver, in a room of a police station, at his behest and who has subsequently witnessed, the same police officer losing temper and threatening him with loss of life, in the same room, can totally forget the said room, even if he has forgotten the room number.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 119 of 132 complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had elaborately disclosed about the demand of bribe of Rs.50,000/­ made by both the accused persons (after coming back from the raid at Alaknanda Petrol Pump) at room no.107 of PS C. R. Park, their refusal to accept bribe of Rs.10,000/­ only and their offer to take the complainant to an ATM or a relative but during his examination in chief, recorded in this Court, on 05.04.2022, the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had not even whispered about the said incident, particularly the first quantified demand of bribe (of Rs.50,000/­) made by both the accused persons;62 (c) that in his complaint, Ex.PW9/A, the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had clearly disclosed that on 25.07.2009, the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had taken Rs.7000/­ from his purse but during his examination in chief, recorded in this Court, on 05.04.2022, the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had deposed that he had given the said money to the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar;63 (d) that in his complaint, Ex.PW9/A, the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had not disclosed about the involvement of two other police officers (during the raid at Alaknanda Petrol Pump), on 24.07.2009 but during his examination in chief, recorded in this Court, on 05.04.2022, the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had specifically disclosed that two other police officers were also involved (during the raid at Alaknanda Petrol Pump), on 24.07.2009; 64 (e) that in his complaint, 62 In my view, it is highly unnatural/improbable for the complainant to have forgotten the first quantified demand of bribe made by both the accused persons, especially when it had ultimately resulted in the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, losing temper and threatening the complainant, with loss of life. 63 In my view, this is a crucial aspect of this case as there is a substantial difference between a police officer/public servant taking money out of the purse of a citizen and the citizen voluntarily paying the money to the police officer/public servant.

64 During the cross­examination of PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya by the Ld. PP for the State, on 05.04.2022, no suggestion was put to PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya that during his examination in chief, he had wrongly deposed about the involvement of two other police officers (during the raid at Alaknanda Petrol Pump), on 24.07.2009. In such state of affairs, I have assumed that the State has accepted the version of PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya that two other police officers were also involved (during the raid at Alaknanda Petrol Pump), on 24.07.2009.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 120 of 132 Ex.PW9/A, the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had not expressly disclosed about his visit to a PS in Ballabgarh, Haryana from Alaknanda Petrol Pump, before going to PS C. R. Park, Delhi but during his examination in chief, recorded in this Court, on 05.04.2022, the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had specifically disclosed that on 24.07.2009, he had first gone to a PS in Ballabgarh, Haryana from Alaknanda Petrol Pump, before going to PS C. R. Park, Delhi and (f) that there is substantial variation in the time­line mentioned in the complaint, Ex.PW9/A and in the time­line deposed about by the complainant, during his examination in chief, recorded in this Court, on 05.04.2022, for example in the complaint, Ex.PW9/A, the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had stated that on 24.07.2009, he had reached PS C. R. Park at about 07:00 pm (1900 hrs.) but during the examination in chief, recorded in this Court, on 05.04.2022, the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had deposed that on 24.07.2009, he had reached PS C. R. Park at 08:00 pm.

101. Secondly, both the accused are liable to be acquitted in this case because the testimony elicited during the cross­examination of the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya by the Ld. Chief Prosecutor for the State, does not appear to be natural; because during the said testimony, the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya has not supported some important aspects of the case of the State and because the said state of affairs also make the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, an unreliable witness. In this regard, it is inter­alia noteworthy (a) that during his cross­examination by the Ld. Chief Prosecutor for the State, on 05.04.2022, the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had admitted almost all the facts stated in the complaint, Ex.PW9/A to be correct, without even bothering to State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 121 of 132 explain some of the said facts, qua which he had expressly deposed about or omitted to depose about during his examination in chief, recorded on the same day i.e. 05.04.2022, for example, (i) during his examination in chief, recorded on 05.04.2022, the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had expressly deposed that on 24.07.2009, he had reached PS C. R. Park at about 08:00 pm but during cross­ examination by the Ld. Chief Prosecutor for the State, on 05.04.2022, he had deposed that on 24.07.2009, he had reached PS C. R. Park at about 07:00 pm (1900 hrs)65 and (ii) during his examination in chief, recorded on 05.04.2022, the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had omitted to depose anything about the incidents dated 24.07.2009 at room no.107 of PS C. R. Park but during cross­ examination by the Ld. Chief Prosecutor for the State, on 05.04.2022, he had admitted the occurrence of the said incidents, without himself volunteering any information;66 (b) that during his cross­examination by the Ld. Chief Prosecutor for the State, on 05.04.2022, the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had refused to comment upon the suggestion that on 24.07.2009 at room no.107 of PS C. R. Park, the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj had made him write a complaint; (c) that during his cross­examination by the Ld. Chief Prosecutor for the State, on 05.04.2022, the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had refused to comment upon the suggestion 65 In my view, at this stage of his cross­examination by the Ld. Chief Prosecutor for the State, the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya should have voluntarily explained why during the examination in chief (recorded on the same day) he had stated that on 24.07.2009, he had reached PS C. R. Park at 08:00 pm. 66 In my view, during cross­examination by the Ld. Chief Prosecutor for the State, the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya should have voluntarily explained why during the examination in chief (recorded on the same day) he had not stated anything about the incidents dated 24.07.2009 at room no.107 of PS C. R. Park and upon being reminded about room no.107 of PS C. R. Park, the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya should have volunteered some information regarding the incidents dated 24.07.2009 at room no.107 of PS C. R. Park, instead of relying upon the Ld. Chief Prosecutor for the State to remind him of each and every detail.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 122 of 132 that during a call dated 26.07.2009, the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had demanded bribe of Rs.1,00,000/­ from him and subsequently reduced it to Rs.60,000/­ and (d) that during his cross­examination by the Ld. Chief Prosecutor for the State, on 05.04.2022, the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had refused to admit that he had made a CD of the audio conversations recorded on his mobile phone, Ex.M­1 and submitted it, alongwith the complaint, Ex.P9/A.

102. Thirdly, both the accused are liable to be acquitted in this case because the little credibility that could have been attached to the testimony of the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, has been taken away, by the testimonies of PW1 Inspector Hari Singh, PW5 ASI Ashok Kumar, PW18 ASI Lile Singh and DW1 Sh. Hariom Sharma. In my view, the testimonies of PW1 Inspector Hari Singh, PW5 ASI Ashok Kumar, PW18 ASI Lile Singh credibly dent the already weak testimony of the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya viz. that on 24.07.2009, he and the driver, DW1 Sh. Hariom Sharma were taken to room no.107 of PS C. R. Park; that in room no.107 of PS C. R. Park, the driver, DW1 Sh. Hariom Sharma was once interrogated by the accused persons and that on 24.07.2009, he, the driver, DW1 Sh. Hariom Sharma and the accused persons (as well as two other police officers), had gone to Alaknanda Petrol Pump, Delhi and done some kind of raid etc. 67

103. Fourthly, both the accused are liable to be acquitted in this case 67 The credibility of the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya is also taken away by the fact that while deposing in this Court, he had blatantly lied about participating in the departmental proceedings against the accused persons. The admitted dismissal order dated 18.05.2017, Ex.A1 of both the accused persons, clearly records that the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had not joined the departmental proceedings against both the accused persons.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 123 of 132 because in order to support the testimony of the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya qua the incidents dated 25.07.2009, the State has (a) not examined the Duty Officer of PS C. R. Park, who had allegedly met the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, on 25.07.2009 and directed him to the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar;

(b) not produced the NCR, in respect of which, the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had allegedly obtained Rs.7000/­ from the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya; (c) not collected the location data dated 25.07.2009 of the mobile no. 9956288659, allegedly used by the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, on 25.07.2009 as well as the location data dated 25.07.2009 of the mobile no. 9868089034 of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar68 and (d) not examined, Sh. Bedram (registered owner of mobile no. 9956288659) to explain the connection of the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya with mobile no. 9956288659.

104. Fifthly, both the accused are liable to be acquitted in this case because in order to support the testimony of the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya that on a day after 26.07.2009, he had come to Delhi with his relative, Sh. Jitender Dwivedi and on that day also, both the accused persons had demanded bribe of Rs.60,000/­, the State has not examined Sh. Jitender Dwivedi, relative of the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya and thereby itself, cast a shadow over the said testimony of the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya. In this regard, the Ld. Advocates for both the accused have rightly relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meharaj Singh v State of UP, (1994) 5 SCC 188, wherein, relying upon illustration 68 While making this observation, I have kept in mind the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tomaso Bruno v State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 178, wherein it has been observed that non­collection of electronic evidence like call data records, location data, CCTV footage etc. entitles a Court to invoke Illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 against the State.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 124 of 132

(g) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it has been held that if the State does not produce an eye witness, it can be presumed that the eye witness was not prepared to support the case of the State.

105. Sixthly, both the accused are liable to be acquitted in this case because the audio recordings in the CD, Ex.P1 are inadmissible in evidence, for want of a proper certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Ex.PW26/B suffers from inherent defects viz. (i) it does not identify the computer (its make etc.) which was used by PW26 Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya to allegedly make the two CDs, on 07.09.2009 (including the CD, Ex.P1) and (ii) it does not specially state that the said computer was under the control/supervision of PW26 Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya and is therefore, per se unreliable for the purpose of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Also, in this regard, it is noteworthy that the inconsistencies in the testimonies of PW23 ACP Raghuvir Singh and PW26 Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya, qua the authorship of the certificate, Ex.PW26/B and qua the understanding of the provisions of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 by PW26 Sh. Shankar Prasad Arya, render the said certificate to be non­est/nullity in law.

106. Seventhly, both the accused are liable to be acquitted in this case because even if it is assumed that the certificate, Ex.PW26/B is good in law and as a result, the audio recordings in the CD, Ex.P1 are admissible in evidence, the said audio recordings cannot be read against the accused persons (a) because during State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 125 of 132 cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj, the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had admitted that he had not handed over all the audio recordings done by him to ACB 69 and (b) because in order to come to the conclusion that the audio recordings in the CD, Ex.P1, have the voices of the accused persons, the State has used a fruit of a poisonous tree viz. the voice samples of the accused persons, taken by the IO PW25 Inspector Yashpal Singh, on the audio cassettes, Ex.P2/PW8 and Ex.P3/PW9, on 24.05.2011 and 21.06.2011 respectively, in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudhir Chaudhary & Ors. v State, (2016) 8 SCC 207.70

107. Eighthly, both the accused are liable to be acquitted in this case because even if it is assumed that the certificate, Ex.PW26/B is good in law; that the selective submission of the audio recordings by the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya is fair and that the voice samples of the accused persons, were taken in accordance with law, the report dated 30.07.2015, Ex.PW19/A of PW19 Sh. V. Lakshmi Narshiman, does not inspire confidence. In this regard, it is noteworthy (a) that in the 69 In my view, a citizen alleging corruption by a public servant should make a clean breast of the matter and not withhold anything. By withholding some of the audio recordings, the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya has failed to make a clean breast of the matter and has left open the possibility that the audio recordings in the CD, Ex.P1, represent a partisan picture of the conversations between him and the accused persons. While taking this view, I have kept in mind (a) the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajat Prasad v CBI, (2014) 6 SCC 495, wherein it has been observed that the legal acceptance of sting operations in India, is still debatable and (b) the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Court of its Own Motion v State, 2008 (105) DRJ 557 (DB), wherein it has been observed that sting operations by private persons are by and large unpalatable/unacceptable in a civilized society and that the original of the video/audio of a sting operation, should be maintained. 70 For the sake of clarity, it is specified that the observations made in the said judgment, will apply retrospectively because by default, the law expounded by of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is applied retrospectively. Only when the Hon'ble Supreme Court invokes the doctrine of prospective over­ruling and records that the law expounded by it, is to be applied prospectively, the law so expounded is applied, prospectively. This has been clearly explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd., (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1028.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 126 of 132 said report, PW19 Sh. V. Lakshmi Narshiman has not fairly disclosed that he had converted the voice samples of the accused persons contained in the audio cassettes, Ex.P2/PW8 and Ex.P3/PW19, from analogue form to digital form, before doing the analysis; (b) that the said report is cryptic and does not really assist this Court in concluding beyond reasonable doubt that the voices of the accused persons can be heard in the audio recordings71 and (c) that at the time of preparation of the said report, the FSL, Rohini was not notified as an Expert Examiner of Electronics Evidence, as per Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (which was in force w.e.f. 27.10.2009).

108. Ninethly, both the accused are liable to be acquitted in this case because the investigation done by Inspector N. K. Sharma, Inspector Yashpal Singh, Inspector Rahul and Inspector Raghuvir Singh of ACB, in this case is remarkably slipshod and has left many loopholes, for this Court to even remotely consider giving any finding against the accused persons. 72 In this regard, it is noteworthy (a) that the first IO viz. Inspector N. K. Sharma had never bothered to collect the location data of the mobile phones of the accused persons and the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, for the period, 24.07.2009 to 31.07.2009; 73 (b) that the first IO, Inspector N. K. 71 In my view, the report dated 30.07.2015, Ex.PW19/A, does not meet the standard of law, laid down in Titli v Alfred Robert Jones, AIR 1934 All 273 and reaffirmed in Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v Regency Hospital Ltd. (2009) 9 SCC 709 viz. "that the real function of the expert is to put before the court all the materials, together with reasons which induce him to come to the conclusion, so that the court, although not an expert, may form its own judgment by its own observation of those materials." Upon perusal of the report dated 30.07.2015, Ex.PW19/A, I have not found any material on the basis of which, I can form my own judgment.

72 While making this observation, I have kept in mind the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v Wasif Haider (2019) 2 SCC 303, wherein it has been observed that in case of extreme faulty investigation, the benefit of doubt has to go in favor of the accused persons. 73 The case diary reflects that the investigation of this case was with the IO, Inspector N. K. Sharma from 07.09.2009 to 20.10.2009. During the said period, he had not made any efforts to collect the location State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 127 of 132 Sharma had collected the CDRs of the mobile phones of the accused persons and the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya, through e­mail only, without the supporting certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; 74 (c) that the IOs of this case, had not examined the two persons named in the complaint, Ex.PW9/A viz. Sh. Hariom Sharma, driver of the taxi no.DL1YB5329 and Sh. Jitender Dwivedi, relative of the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya; 75 (d) that the IOs of this case, had not collected the NCR (referred in the complaint, Ex.PW9/A) 76; (e) that the IOs of this case, had not recorded the statement of any of the persons present at Alaknanda Petrol Pump, during the night of 24.07.2009 77 and (f) that the IOs of this case, had not examined Sh. Bedram (the registered owner of the mobile no. 9956288659) in data of the mobile phones of the accused persons and the complainant. Thereafter, the investigation of this case was left unattended till 29.07.2010, when IO, Inspector Yashpal Singh had taken it over. By that time, the one year period of maintenance of CDR, location data etc. by telecom service providers had got over. I have no hesitation in saying that if the first IO, Inspector N. K. Sharma had duly collected the location data of the mobile phones of the accused persons and the complainant from the telecom service providers, the outcome of this case, could have been different. 74 I have no hesitation in saying that if the first IO, Inspector N. K. Sharma had duly collected the CDRs of the mobile numbers of the accused persons and the complainant with proper certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the outcome of this case, could have been different. I say this because an analysis of the CDRs of the mobile no. 9891173403 of the accused, SI Satyvrat Bharadwaj and CDR of the mobile no. no.9956288659 (used by the complainant), which are otherwise inadmissible in evidence, for want of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, reveals that the exchange of calls, as alleged by the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya in his complaint, Ex.PW9/A, had happened between him and the accused persons. At this stage, I must again highlight that the CDR of mobile no.9868089034 of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar has not been filed in this Court, even though the case diary dated 16.09.2009, recorded by the first IO, Inspector N. K. Sharma clearly specifies that it was received by way of e­mail, on the email ID of DCP, ACB. 75 In my understanding, it is unknown to police procedure that a person named in a complaint of the complainant, can be left un­examined by the investigating officer, unless he/she is dead or untraceable.

76 The said NCR was crucial qua the allegation of the complainant, PW9 Sh. Vikas Bhartiya that on 25.07.2009, the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar had obtained Rs.7000/­ from him, for registration of NCR. It is inexplicable as to why the IOs of this case, had not collected this NCR from the complainant or PS C. R. Park.

77 In my view, the recording of said statements was crucial to the case of the State that on 24.07.2009, the accused persons had accompanied the complainant on the taxi no.DL1YB5329, driven by Sh. Hariom Sharma, to Alaknanda Petrol Pump, Delhi and conducted a raid.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 128 of 132 order to establish the connection between the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya and the mobile no. 9956288659.

109. In view of the aforesaid nine reasons, both the accused are acquitted in this case. Before parting with this conclusion, I find it necessary to observe that the acquittal of both the accused in this case is more a reflection upon the inability of the State to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt instead of the ability of the accused persons to prove their innocence.78

110. In Sahabuddin v State of U.P., (2012) 13 SCC 213, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in case of suspicious investigation, appropriate disciplinary action should be taken against the investigating officers of the State. In view thereof, the Joint Commissioner of Police of ACB, is directed to examine:

(a) Why the CDR of mobile no.9891173403 of the accused, SI Satyavrat, the CDR of mobile no.9956288659 of Sh. Bedram (which was being used by the complainant) and CDR of the mobile no.9868089034 of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar were not collected with certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 during the initial investigation of this case? Why the CDR of mobile no.9868089034 of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, which as per the case diary dated 16.09.2009, written by Inspector N. K. Sharma, was received on the email ID of DCP, ACB, has not been filed in this Court?

(b) Why the location data of the mobile no.9891173403 of the accused, SI Satyavrat, mobile no.9956288659 of Sh. Bedram (which was being used by the complainant) 78 A similar observation has been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the concluding paragraph of Panalal Damodar Rathi v State of Maharashtra, (1979) 4 SCC 526.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 129 of 132 and the mobile no.9868089034 of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, was not collected with certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in order to inter­alia prove that the accused persons and the complainant had visited Alaknanda Petrol Pump, during the night of 24.07.2009 and in order to prove that the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya had met the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, on 25.07.2009? Why the investigation of this case was left unattended during a crucial period from the vantage point of the said evidence (location data) viz. 21.10.2009 to 28.07.2010?

(c) Why the IOs of this case had not collected the NCR referred in the complaint, Ex. PW9/A, when it could have been easily collected from the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya or from PS C. R. Park?

(d) Why the IOs of this case had not examined two important persons/witnesses named in the complaint, Ex.PW9/A viz. (i) Sh. Hariom Sharma, driver of the taxi no.DL1YB5329 and (ii) Sh. Jitender Dwivedi, relative of the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya and listed them as witnesses of the State?

(e) Why the IOs of this case, had not recorded the statement of any of the persons present at Alaknanda Petrol Pump, during the night of 24.07.2009 and chosen to rely upon PW20 Sh. Lovit, whose statement under Section 161 of CrPC, 1973 itself reveals that he was not present at Alaknanda Petrol Pump, during the night of 24.07.2009?79

(f) Why the IO, Inspector Yashpal had not completed the investigation of this case and filed the charge­sheet, within the time period prescribed under Section 167 of 79 For the purpose of record, it is specified that the said statement available at page no.190 of the charge­sheet filed in this case, has a typographical error of having been recorded under the name of Sh. Surender Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 130 of 132 CrPC, 1973 and let the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar, be enlarged on default bail, on 25.10.2010? Why the enlargement of the accused, Ct. Pramod Kumar on default bail, on 25.10.2010 had not raised any alarm bells in ACB and why the accused, SI Satyavrat Bharadwaj was also permitted to be enlarged on default bail as per Section 167 of CrPC, 1973, on 23.07.2011?

(g) Why the CD, Ex.P1 and voice samples of the accused persons, which had been duly seized by 21.06.2011, had not been sent to FSL, Rohini for examination till 11.06.2014?

(h) Why all the IOs of this case had not noted a blatant error in the FIR of this case viz. of recording of the date of occurrence of the offence as 07.09.2009 instead of 24th July to 4th August 2009, mentioned in the rukka, Ex.PW25/D1?

(i) Who lost/destroyed the original Kingmax 512 MB card, seized by IO, Inspector N. K. Sharma vide seizure memo, Ex.PW9/B? Why no FIR under Section 379 of IPC, 1860 or under Section 201 of IPC, 1860 was lodged in respect of the said loss/destruction of an important piece of evidence? Why till date, no liability has been fixed on any government official of PS ACB or FSL, Rohini qua the said loss/destruction of an important piece of evidence?

(j) Why the loss/destruction of the original Kingmax 512 MB card, seized by IO, Inspector N. K. Sharma vide seizure memo, Ex.PW9/B was not fairly reported in the description at column no.16 of the charge­sheet filed in this case, by the final IO, Inspector Raghuvir Singh? and

(k) Why the IOs of this case, had not examined Sh. Bedram (the registered owner of the mobile no. 9956288659) in order to establish the connection between the complainant, Sh. Vikas Bhartiya and the mobile no. 9956288659.

State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.

FIR No.26/2009

Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch Page 131 of 132

111. Upon examining the aforesaid questions, Joint Commissioner of Police of ACB, shall file a report in this Court, on or before 31.01.2024, inter­alia informing this Court, if any action is being taken against the erring officials of PS ACB and/or FSL, Rohini.

112. The file of this case shall be consigned to the record room, after compliance of Section 437A of CrPC, 1973 by SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj and Ct.

Pramod Kumar.                                                  Digitally signed
                                              JAY     by JAY THAREJA
                                              THAREJA Date: 2023.12.18
                                                      16:45:21 +0530


Announced in open Court                              (Jay Thareja)
today on 18th December, 2023                 Special Judge (PC Act)(ACB)­02,
                                          Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi




State v SI Satyavrat Bhardwaj & Anr.
FIR No.26/2009
Police Station : Anti­Corruption Branch
Page 132 of 132