Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs . Salek Chand Garg on 9 July, 2013

                                               
   IN THE COURT OF SHRI B.R. KEDIA, SPECIAL JUDGE­07 
        (CENTRAL), (PC ACT CASES OF ACB, GNCTD), DELHI


C.C.NO.  : 14/13
Unique Case ID : 02401R0117732013


STATE                  VS.             SALEK CHAND GARG
                                       S/o Late Sh. Chet Ram,
                                       R/o G­120,Arya Samaj Road, 
                                       Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.


FIR NO.                           :        42/1994


U/S                                    :       7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 
                                       1988 


P.S.                             :     Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi


                       Date of Institution 08.03.2013
                       Judgment reserved on 06.07.2013
                       Judgment delivered on 09.07.2013



JUDGMENT

1. The precise case of the prosecution is that in pursuance of the complainant dated 15.4.1994 as lodged by the complainant C.C. No. 14/13 Page No. 1 of 13 Yashpal Singh to the effect that Salek Chand Garg, the accused who was posted as Assistant Engineer in DDA, Vasant Kunj had acquired moveable and immovable assets in the name of his wife Smt.Santosh Garg and son Sanjiv Garg and accused was also carrying on one Chit Fund without any intimation to his Department and had taken Rs. 70,000/­ from the complainant by misrepresenting that he would get allotted one Flat to the complainant in Vikas Puri but he had neither got any such Flat allotted to the complainant nor re­paid the said amount to the complainant, FIR U/S 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered as against the accused at PS Anti Corruption Branch on dated 30.11.1994.

2. Thereafter, on the conclusion of the Investigation, in the First Round the concerned IO filed the Closure Report dated 14.08.2003 but on consideration of the same, predecessor of this Court vide Order dated 9.8.2004 was pleased to pass the order thereby remitting back the matter for doing the complete Investigation against all the allegations as levelled in the Complaint.

3. Thereafter, after conclusion of further Investigation even on Second Round also the concerned IO filed the Closure Report dated C.C. No. 14/13 Page No. 2 of 13 28.09.2007 and on consideration of the same vide Order dated 17.09.2009, the predecessor of this Court was pleased to decline the permission for Closure and directed the IO for further Investigation.

4. Thereafter, on conclusion of the further Investigation, the concerned IO again filed a Closure Report on Third Round of Investigation also and same was not accepted and was sent back with the directions for further Investigation vide Order dated 30.01.2012 as passed by this Court.

5. In compliance of the aforesaid Order dated 30.01.2012, after carrying out further Investigation, the concerned IO has filed the Chargesheet U/S 7/13 (1) (d), 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 only and stating therein that offence U/S 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not made out as against the accused as the Income of accused and his family members from known sources of Income during the period of Investigation was more than the expenditure for the said period.

6. After the filing of the Chargesheet and after compliance with the provision Under Section 207 of Cr. P. C. and after hearing C.C. No. 14/13 Page No. 3 of 13 both sides on the point of charge, charge for offence punishable U/S 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed against accused on 30.04.2013 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

7. Thereafter, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined 13 prosecution witnesses namely Sh.G.D.Nagpal, the then Deputy Director (CR) DDA, a formal witness as PW1, Yashpal Singh, complainant as PW2, Smt.Gurcharan Kaur wife of the complainant as PW3, Sh.Om Prakash Jindal, a formal witness as PW4, Sh.Dharampal, a formal witness as PW5, Barumal, a formal witness as PW6, Retd. HC Onkar Singh, the then Duty Officer, PS Anti Corruption Branch a formal witness as PW7, Retd. ACP Bhim Singh, Part IO as PW8, Retd. ACP Surinder Kumar Sharma, Part IO as PW9, Inspector Y.S.Negi, Part IO as PW10, Inspector Ranbir Singh, Last IO as PW11, ACP Sehdev Singh, part IO as PW12 and ACP Ramphal Singh, Part IO as PW13.

8. After closure of the PE, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which the accused stated that he has never demanded and accepted Rs.70,000/­ for allotment of any Flat C.C. No. 14/13 Page No. 4 of 13 and he was not competent to allot any Flat to the complainant or to anyone. He has further added that the complainant was inimical to him and habitual in making false complaints against him. He further added that complainant has also falsely involved him in a case U/S107/151 Cr.P.C. before filing the complaint and said case was dismissed. Accused claimed to be falsely implicated in this case having no concern with the alleged offence.

9. I have heard Final Arguments as addressed by Sh. R.S Singhal, Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused and Sh.Maqsood Ahmed, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and perused the relevant record.

10. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that this accused Salek Chand Garg is innocent and had never demanded nor accepted any amount from the complainant for getting alloted any DDA Flat to him. It is also added by him that the accused has no reason to demand or accept any money from the complainant for getting him alloted any DDA Flat as the accused was merely posted as AE in DDA, Vasant Kunj and was no way concerned with the allotment process of the DDA Flat to any one. It is also added by Ld. Defence Counsel that in response to the Letter dated 10.05.2011 by C.C. No. 14/13 Page No. 5 of 13 the IO in their Reply dated 24.06.2011 Ex.PW13/B, the Deputy Director, Enforcement (Housing), DDA has clearly stated the allotment of the Flats is done through draw of lots against the registered applications and there is no influence of any wing of DDA in draw of lots/allotment of DDA Flats and the same policy was being adopted in 1994 and said Reply also clearly indicates that the accused had no authority to influence the allotment of DDA Flats in any manner and the same reflects the innocence of the accused. It is also added by Ld. Defence counsel that the complainant due to earlier enmity had filed false complaint against the accused in order to harass him and said fact is also found supported from the fact that the complainant had failed to file any documentary proof with regard to the payment of Rs.70,000/­ to the accused. It is also added by Ld. Defence counsel that the complainant has not even stated regarding the date, month and year as to when he has paid said amount to the accused nor had filed any supporting documentary proof in this respect along with the Complaint nor could deliver any such documentary proof to the IO during course of Investigation. It is also added by Ld. Defence counsel that the complainant was already having a Flat in Delhi and therefore, he was not entitled for allotment of any other Flat from DDA in Delhi and therefore, there was no C.C. No. 14/13 Page No. 6 of 13 occasion on his part to make any payment to the accused for getting allotment of any DDA Flat. It is also added by Ld. Defence counsel that since the complainant had filed a false complaint against the accused and therefore, the prosecution could not find any incriminating material as against the accused and was constrained to file Closure Report three times before the Court despite carrying out further Investigation and the same reflects the innocence of this accused. Ld. Counsel further added that the accused has already retired from service several years back and is aged about 71 years and is innocent but has been suffering the hardships of the present case due to the false Complaint lodged by the complainant and as there is no evidence as against the accused, he deserves to be acquitted.

11. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution by examining 13 PWs have clearly established its case as against this accused and therefore, the accused deserves to be convicted for the charged offence. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the complainant PW2 Yashpal Singh as well as his wife PW3 Smt.Gurcharan Kaur clearly supported the case of the prosecution regarding the demand and acceptance of Rs.70,000/­ by the accused from the complainant for getting allotment of a DDA Flat C.C. No. 14/13 Page No. 7 of 13 for the complainant and the accused has neither got alloted the said DDA Flat nor re­paid the said amount to the complainant. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP that there is no reason as to why the complainant and his wife would falsely implicate the accused in this case. It is also added by Ld. Addl. PP that prosecution has been successful in establishing its case as against the accused for the charged offence and hence, he deserves to be convicted, accordingly.

12. From the perusal of the case record, it is revealed that on the basis of the Complaint dated 15.04.1994 Ex.PW2/A, FIR relating to the present case, copy of which is Ex.PW7/A was registered as against the accused at PS Anti Corruption Branch on dated 30.11.1994. However, on the conclusion of the Investigation, Closure Report dated 14.08.2003 was filed by the concerned IO and vide Order dated 09.08.2004, the predecessor of this Court remitted back the matter for further Investigation. Thereafter, on conclusion of the further Investigation, again Closure Report dated 28.09.2007 was filed in Second Round and vide Order dated 17.09.2009 the predecessor of this Court sent back the matter with the directions for further Investigation. Even after conclusion of the further Investigation, the IO again filed Closure Report on Third Round and same was also sent C.C. No. 14/13 Page No. 8 of 13 back with the directions for further Investigation vide Order dated 30.01.2012 as passed by this Court. Ultimately, on conclusion of further Investigation, the IO has filed the present Chargesheet U/S 7/13 (1) (d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 only and stating therein that no case U/S 13(1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is made out against the accused.

13. From the perusal of the Complaint Ex.PW2/A, it is reflected that in the Complaint Ex.PW2/A, complainant/PW2 Yashpal Singh has stated that he has obtained Rs.70,000/­ through Draft from his brother who was coming after his retirement from Jodhpur but he has not stated the Date, Month and Year in this respect. But in his deposition in the court, said complainant has stated that in January/February 1991 on his request, his brother Jasbir Singh had sent a Draft of Rs.70,000/­ through Bhag Singh, his relative and after getting encashed the said Draft, he paid Rs.70,000/­ to the accused probably in March, 1991 for getting allotment of a DDA Flat but it is pertinent to note here that if the complainant had received any such amount through Bank Draft and got encashed through his Banker then there is no reason as to why he had not submitted any documentary proof in the form of his Bank Statement of Account/Copy of his Pass C.C. No. 14/13 Page No. 9 of 13 Book to the IO despite several opportunities granted to him in this respect. Furthermore, it is not the case of the complainant that he had submitted any application for allotment of any DDA Flat and got registration of the same and without registration of any such application for allotment of any DDA Flat, the question of allotment of any DDA Flat in favour of the complainant does not arise at all.

14. Furthermore, PW13 ACP Rampal Singh, Part IO has deposed as under:­ "On 10.05.2011 I had sent a Letter to Commissioner (Housing), DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi for answering some queries about the accused, the Letter is Ex.PW13/A bearing my signatures at point A. Reply in this regard was received vide Letter Ex.PW13/B which was placed on record."

15. From the perusal of aforesaid query Letter dated 10.5.2011 Ex.PW13/A and Reply Letter dated Ex.PW13/B, it is clearly reflected that the allotment of the Flat was done through draw of lots against the registered applications and there was no influence of any wing of DDA in draw of lots/allotment of DDA Flats and same policy was C.C. No. 14/13 Page No. 10 of 13 there even in the year 1994 and the accused S.C.Garg, who was posted as AE, SW­2, DDA, had no authority to influence the allotment of DDA Flats in any manner.

16. Furthermore, from the perusal of the Complaint Ex.PW2/A, it is reflected that the complainant has taken the stand that he had obtained the sum of Rs.70,000/­ through Draft from his brother who was coming back to home from Jodhpur after his retirement and paid said amount to the accused. But in his deposition in court by taking a contradictory stand, said complainant has stated that his brother had sent a Draft of Rs.70,000/­ through their relative Bhag Singh and after getting encashed said Draft, he paid the said amount to the accused for getting allotment of the DDA Flat. Furthermore, neither said Bhag Singh was examined as PW in the court nor any Bank Record regarding encashment of any such Draft of Rs.70,000/­ in favour of the complainant was proved on record by the prosecution.

17. Furthermore, from the perusal of the Complaint Ex.PW2/A as well as the deposition of the complainant PW2 Yashpal Singh, it is clearly reflected that there is no element of any demand of bribe by the accused from the complainant and the prosecution has failed to C.C. No. 14/13 Page No. 11 of 13 establish the factum of demand of bribe as against the accused.

18. In the absence of proof of "Demand of bribe" by the accused, I am of the considered view that the accused cannot be held liable for penal provisions U/S 7 and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)

(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for which he has been charged with and my said view is found supported from the following judgments:­ (1)2006 (1) SCC 401 "T.Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu"

(2) 2005 Crl.L.J. 1136 "State of H.P. Vs. Sukhdev Singh Rana"

(3) 2007 Crl.L.J. 2919 "State of M.P.vs. Anil Kumar Verma"

(4) 2006 (3) RCR (Crl.) 796 "Amrit Lal vs. State of Punjab"

(5) 2000 Crl,.L.J. 4591 "State of M.P. Vs. J.B.Singh"

(6) 2006 (1) RCR (Crl.) 314 "L.K.Jain vs. The State"

(7) 2005 (4) RCR (Crl) 716 "R.V.Subba Rao Vs. State"

(8) AIR 1979 SC 1408 "Suraj Mal Vs. State"

(9) 1992 (3) RCR (Crl.) 139 "Pritam Singh vs. State of Haryana"

(10) 2009 (4) LRC 275 (SC) "State of Maharastra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede"

19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation to C.C. No. 14/13 Page No. 12 of 13 safely conclude that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused for the charged offence.

20. In view of above, the accused Salek Chand Garg stand acquitted of the charged offence. Resultantly, his bail bond stand cancelled and his surety stands discharged.

Announced in the open court on this 9th day of July, 2013 (B.R. Kedia) Special Judge­07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC, Delhi C.C. No. 14/13 Page No. 13 of 13