Delhi District Court
Vide My Separate Judgment Dated ... vs . on 26 July, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA,
SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI05, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI.
CC No. : 44/12
RC no. : DAI2007A0040CBIACBNew Delhi.
Unique Case ID no. : 02403R1072112008
Title : State (CBI)
Vs.
Mukund Khante, S/o Sh. N.G. Khante,
R/o B203, Saraswati Apartment,
I.P. Extension, Patpar Ganj,
New Delhi - 110092
U/s : Section 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act 1988
Date of Institution : 31.3.2008
Date of reserving order : 26.7.2012
Date of pronouncement : 26.7.2012
(Appearances)
Sh. B.P. Singh, Ld. Special P.P. for CBI.
C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 1 / 138
Sh. H.K. Sharma, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for accused
Mukund Khante.
J U D G M E N T
1. The instant case has been registered on the
complaint of Dr. Tarang Krishna, R/o D842, New
Friends Colony, New Delhi. In his complaint dated
03.10.2007, Dr. Tarang Krishna has complained that
he is running a clinic at D842, New Friends Colony
in the basement. He is the owner of the said
premises and the premises is being used by him
partly for commercial purposes and partly for
residential purposes. He received a notice dated
28.03.2007 from Assessment and Collection
Department of MCD, regarding revising of annual
value of the aforesaid property from Rs. 2,45,710/
to Rs. 5,61,960/ for the purpose of house tax w.e.f
C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 2 / 138
200506 onwards. He replied to the said notice on
24.05.2007 claiming that he was using his property
partly as residential and partly commercial and only
a limited area was being used for his clinic and he
had been paying the house tax regularly on that
basis. In the complaint, he alleged that he had
received a call on his mobile number 9810006264
from mobile number 9891436461, which he had later
came to know was that of Mr. Mukund Khante,
Inspector, MCD, Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar, New
Delhi and he had asked him to come to MCD Office
and meet him personally at 5 PM on the same day.
He further alleged that though it was a gazetted
holiday, he went there and met Mr. Mukund Khante
in his office, where he had demanded from him Rs.
One lac as bribe for reducing the annual value of
aforesaid property and to bring down the amount of
house tax to Rs. 22,000/ annually. He had
expressed his inability to pay the amount demanded
C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 3 / 138
as bribe, whereupon the bribe amount was reduced
to Rs. 60,000/ by the accused and fifty per cent of it
was to be paid in advance and remaining after
completion of the work.
2. On the basis of this complaint, the instant
case was registered by the CBI and a trap was
organized for apprehending the accused on
03.10.2007 itself. The complainant had delivered a
sum of Rs. 25,000/ to the CBI, which was treated
with phenolphthalein powder. The presence of two
independent witnesses namely Sh. C.L. Meena and
Sh. S.B. Gupta, both Assistant Managers, Central
Bank of India, Regional Office, Railway Road,
Shahdara, Delhi was also secured. After
completion of pretrap proceedings, the trap team
had left for the premises of the complainant where
the accused had agreed to accept the bribe amount.
It is alleged that at about 06:35 PM, the accused
C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 4 / 138
had arrived at the reception room of the clinic of the
complainant where the trap team had already taken
suitable positions. He was called inside the
chamber of the complainant Dr. Tarang Krishna,
where he demanded the bribe amount and
thereafter, had accepted a sum of Rs. 25,000/ as
bribe for doing the aforesaid work. The
independent witness namely Sh. C.L. Meena had
given the predecided signal and the accused was
apprehended by CBI Officials and a sum of Rs.
25,000/ was recovered from him. Recovery memo
was prepared and hand wash of the accused was
also taken. The accused was arrested at the spot.
Since the accused is a public servant and as such,
sanction order for his prosecution under Section 19
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was
obtained from the competent authority by CBI. The
reports of the CFSL were collected and on
completion of investigation, the Charge Sheet was
C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 5 / 138
filed in the Court.
3. Accused had appeared in the Court and
copies of documents, as required by the Section
207 Cr.P.C., were supplied to him, to his
satisfaction.
4. My Ld. Predecessor was pleased to
frame charges against the accused under Section 7
and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to which he
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Now, the points for determination are :
(i) Whether the accused, being a public
servant, demanded and accepted bribe from the
complainant in the discharge of his official
duties?
(ii) Whether the bribe amount was recovered
C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 6 / 138
from the accused?
(iii) Whether the accused obtained the bribe
amount by corrupt or by illegal means or by
otherwise abusing his official position?
6. Section 7 of the P.C. Act provides as
under:
"Whoever, being, or expecting to be a
public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to
accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for
himself or for any other person, any gratification
whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive
or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official
act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the
exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour
to any person or for rendering or attempting to
render any service or disservice to any person, with
the Central Government or any State Government or
Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with
C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 7 / 138
any local authority, corporation or Government
Company referred in clause (c) of Section 2, or with
any public servant, whether named or otherwise,
shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall
be not less than six months but which may extend to
five years and shall also be liable to fine.....".
7. Section 13 of the P.C. Act provided as
under:
(1) A public servant is said to commit
the offence of criminal misconduct ..........................
..................................................................................
..............(d) if he
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantages; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 8 / 138 advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest....."
(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."
8. Section 20 of the P.C. Act provides as under:
"Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration : (1) Where, in any trial of offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 or Clause (a) or clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 13 it is C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 9 / 138 proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7 or, as the case may be without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.
(2) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 12 or under Clause (b) of Section 14, it is proved that nay gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or attempted to be given by an accused person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 10 / 138 gave or offered to give or attempted to give that gratification or that valuable thing, a the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7, or as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsections (1) and (2), the court may decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said subsections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no interference of corruption my fairly be drawn."
9. Let me examine the testimony of the material witnesses and the other documents filed before me in light of law and the case law to decide whether charges are proved against the accused or not.
C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 11 / 138
10. CBI in support of their case have examined 15 witnesses.
11. PW1 Sh. R.S. Chauhan, is Senior Scientific Officer, CFSL, CBI has stated that three glass bottles sealed with the seal impression of CBI, ACB, ND2/2007 intact, which tallied with the specimen seal impression forwarded were received in CFSL, ND on 08.10.07. All the exhibits marked as LHW (Left Hand Wash), RHW (Right Hand Wash) and LSFPPW (Left Side Pant Pocket Wash) of the accused were analyzed in the laboratory by chemical analysis. He stated that the examination of these exhibits marked LHW, RHW and LSFPPW gave positive test of the presence of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate. After the examination, the remnants of the exhibits were returned with the seal impression of RSC, CHEM, DIV N, CFSL, CBI N Delhi to the forwarding C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 12 / 138 authority. He proved his report as Ex.PW1/A. He also proved bottles containing hand washes and wash of the left side pant pocket of accused Ex.P1, P2 and P3.
On being cross examined by Sh. H.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused Mukund Khante he stated that Ex. P1 to P3 were not in his possession between 08.10.2007 to 18.10.2007. They were in the CFSL. They were in the custody of Head of Department (Chemistry), CSL. He admitted that Ex.P5 to P7 in cloth wrappers reflected that seal has not been broken and only the thread had been cut to remove the wrapper. He admitted that since they were not in his possession from 08.10.2007 to 18.10.2007 he can not comment about their state.
12. PW2 Ms. Seema Nair, is Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd., New Delhi, who proved the C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 13 / 138 certified copy of the call detail record of mobile phone no. 9891436461 registered in the name of accused Mukund Khante for the period 01.10.2007 to 03.10.2007.
13. PW3 Mukesh Kumar Sharma, is Superintendent, Health Department, Delhi Secretariat, Delhi who stated that during the year 2002 to 2007, he was on deputation to MCD as Assistant Assessor and Collector and was initially posted in West Zone, Property Tax Department. Thereafter, he was transferred to Property Tax Head Quarters at Lajpat Nagar. He further stated that since 01.4.2004, Unit Area Method for calculation of property tax was implemented, and the onus was on the property owner to self assess the property tax and deposit the same. He stated that as far as the department was concerned , it was to scrutinize the property tax return submitted by the tax payers. C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 14 / 138 There were two types of notices being issued by the department, one u/s. 123 (A) and (B) in cases where property owners to file the return and second one u/s. 123 (C) in cases where the property tax owner had submitted the return of lesser amount.
On being cross examined by Ms. Geeta Babbar, Ld. Counsel for accused Mukund Khante he stated that he cannot tell where the originals of Ex. PW3/B to Ex.PW3/F are. He stated that he does not remember if in connection with this case Dr. Tarang Krishna had ever met him personally or had otherwise contacted him. He stated that Dr. Tarang Krishna had given a representation regarding his house tax assessment, but he does not know its contents. He also stated that the representation is Mark A and nothing therein is mentioned regarding pendency of civil case filed by Dr. Tarang Krishna. He stated that he does not know against whom these cases were filed by Dr. Tarang Krishna as Dr. C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 15 / 138 Tarang Krishna had never told him about that. He nd admitted that on Gandhi Jayanti i.e. 2 October, their office remains closed.
14. PW4 Sh. Shokaran Chauhan, Assistant Zonal Inspector, Lajpat Nagar, Central Zone, MCD Office, New Delhi proved letter dated 13.11.2007 addressed to SP, CBI, ACB regarding the original Casual Leave applications dated 16.4.07 and 10.8.07 of accused Mukund Khante, Zonal Inspector, Central Zone for verification. He proved the letter as Ex.PW4/A and Casual Leave applications were proved as Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/C.
15. PW5 Pawan Singh Tomar, Additional Commissioner (Revenue), MCD, Delhi stated that during year 2007 he was working as Additional Commissioner who was competent to appoint and C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 16 / 138 remove from service a person of the rank of Zonal Inspector in MCD. He proved the Sanction Order Ex.PW5/A regarding prosecution of accused Mukund Khante.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he denied that he had granted sanction for prosecution mechanically and without application of mind.
16. PW6 Sh. Amit Prasad, Director, NDMC, Palika Kendra, Sansad Marg, New Delhi stated that during October, 2007 he was working as Joint Assessor and Collector in MCD. Mukund Khante, Zonal Inspector was working under Him. He was looking after a circle and some colonies including the New Friends Colony. He stated that whenever any discrepancy is noted in the selfassessment of any property, a notice is issued. He stated that the note sheet Ex.PW3/F was to be issued to the C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 17 / 138 assessee, Dr. Tarang Krishna. He stated that the note sheet Ex.PW3/F does not bear any signatures of Dr. Tarang Krishna at point X and it also does not bear his own signatures at point Y. He stated that Ex.PW3/D bears his signatures at point B which is a call letter issued under his signatures. He stated that he cannot identify handwriting and signatures of accused Mukund Khante. He stated that the call letter dated 30.10.2007 bears his own signatures at point A and letter is Ex.PW6/A. He also stated that Ex. PW6/B is also a call letter which bears his signatures at point A. Ex.PW3/B is carbon copy of Ex.PW6/B. He stated that Ex.PW6/C does not bear either signatures of Dr. Tarang Krishna nor his own signatures. He stated that vide letter dated 13.11.2007 Ex.PW4/A two Casual Leave applications of Mukund Khante dated 16.4.07 and 10.8.07 were sent to inspector, CBI by him. The original leave applications were proved as C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 18 / 138 Ex.PW6/D and Ex. PW6/E.
17. PW7 Dr. Rajender Singh, Principal Scientific Officer and Head of Physics and Forensic Voice Identification Division, CFSL, New Delhi stated that on 08.10.2007, he had received three sealed parcels from SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi. He stated that the seals on parcels tallied with specimen seals forwarded to him and he had found them in intact condition at the time of opening of parcels. He also stated that the parcels were marked as Ex.Q1, Q2 and S1. Ex.Q1 contained a normal audio cassette which contained questioned recorded conversation of accused Mukund Khante which was marked by him as Ex.Q1 (A). Ex.Q2 contained a normal audio cassette which also contained questioned voice recording of accused Mukund Khante and the same was marked by him as Ex.Q2(A) and Ex.S1 C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 19 / 138 contained a normal audio cassette which contained specimen voice recording of accused Mukund Khante and the same was marked as Ex.S1 (A). He stated that he had examined the questioned voice of accused Mukund Khante which was marked by him as Ex.Q1 (A) and Ex.Q2 (A) with his specimen voice Ex.S1 (A) by auditory and voice spectrographic technique and he had found that the questioned voice of accused Mukund Khante tallied with his specimen voice in respect of their linguistic, phonetic and other voice spectrographic parameters. He proved his report in this regard Ex.PW7/A. On being cross examined by Sh. H.K. Sharma, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that there are auditory parameters for comparing the questioned and specimen voice. He states that it is not necessary that specimen voice recording must be recorded in the same idle C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 20 / 138 condition as the questioned voice recording has been done. He admitted that frequency measurement is one of the parameters for voice comparison. He denied that he has not measured the frequency of questioned and specimen voice in his report Ex.PW7/A. He admitted that it is possible that mimicked voice can be sent to the laboratory by the investigating agency. He denied that he has given false report. He admitted that he has not compared the transcription of the questioned voice.
18. PW8 Sh. P. S. P. Rao, UDC, Health Department, MCD, Rohini, New Delhi stated that in the year 2007 he was posted as Assistant Zonal Inspector (MCD), Assessment & Collection Department, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. On 04.10.07, two CBI Inspectors had come inside their office and had searched the almirah of the accused Mukund Khante and from the almirah, bunch of share C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 21 / 138 certificates and a notice were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/A. On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused he stated that he does not know as to how the CBI officials had got to know the address of Vigilance (MCD), 16, Rajpura Road, Civil Lines, Delhi. He stated that only search was carried out in his presence. He also stated that the CBI Inspectors had brought the key of the drawer of accused Mukund Khante and from his drawer, key of his almirah was found. His almirah was locked. He denied that the almirah was accessible to everyone.
19. PW9 Sh. R. K. Singh, Nodal Officer, Bharati Airtel, proved letter dated 13.11.2007 Ex.PW9/A. He stated that vide this letter he had provided call details of telephone no. 9810006264 registered in the name of one Dr. Tarang Krishna. C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 22 / 138 He proved the call detail record from 01.10.07 to 03.10.07 running into five sheets Ex.PW9/B.
20. PW10 Sh. Shyam Bihari Gupta, Assistant Manager, Cetral Bank of India, Regional Office A, Shahdara, Delhi stated that in the year 2007 he was posted at Central Bank of India, Regional Office A, Shahadara, Delhi on 01.10.07. He was directed by his office to report to CBI office on 03.10.07. He had accordingly reported to CBI Office at CGO Complex. He was also accompanied by his colleague Sh C.L. Meena, who is Assistant Manager in his office. They had gone to the office of one Sh. Sandhu where one person in the name of Dr. Tarang was also present. Sh. Sandhu had told them that Dr. Tarang had brought to him a complaint of corruption. Thereafter, Dr. Tarang had contacted someone on his mobile phone on the asking of Sh. Sandhu but the call did not get C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 23 / 138 through as the number was busy. After a short while Dr. Tarang had received a call on his mobile phone and in that call conversation regarding bribery had taken place. The conversation was recorded by plying the cassettes etc. Dr. Tarang had wanted a favour in the case of a property. The other party was demanding bribe from Dr. Tarang. He stated that he had heard the conversation. He stated that he did not know much technical details of recording but he knows that the conversation was recorded. He was shown the transcription of cassette Q1 dated 23.10.07 which was read over to the witness. He stated that it is the same conversation which had taken place on 03.10.07. He stated that his signatures appear on all the five sheets on Ex.PW10/A. He stated that after sometime Dr. Tarang had made a telephonic call again and a conversation had taken place which was also recorded. Thereafter, he was told that the C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 24 / 138 person had to be apprehended and for that, they had to make preparations. Rs.25,000/ consisting of currency notes of Rs.1,000/ were taken from the pocket of Dr. Tarang. Their numbers were recorded on a paper. Thereafter, a white powder was applied on the currency notes properly and the notes were given a jerk. Thereafter, water was poured in a glass and another powder was put therein and it was dissolved and colour of water remained white. Thereafter, after touching the currency notes, he had put his hands in the glass and the colour of water had turned pink. He stated that a practical demonstration was given to them. The currency notes were given to Dr. Tarang. Thereafter, preparation was made for going to the residence of Dr. Tarang at Friends Colony. However, he does not remember the house number. He stated that all these proceedings were recorded vide Ex.PW10/B. During further examinationinchief which C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 25 / 138 was recorded on a subsequent date he stated that Dr. Tarang had told them that a person from MCD was demanding money from him for doing favour to him in the matter of house tax and he did not wish to pay any bribe. Dr. Tarang also told that an amount of Rs. 1 Lakh was demanded as bribe which was subsequently reduced to Rs. 60,000/. He stated that he does not know the name of the person who was demanding bribe. The complaint given by Dr. Tarang to CBI was read over to them and complaint Ex.PW13/A appears to be the same complaint which was read over to him in the CBI office. Thereafter, Dr. Tarang was asked to make a telephonic call to someone, i.e., the person who was demanding the bribe. The telephone call did not get through in the first attempt. Again, telephonic call was made and it got through, but the person on the other end told that he would dial the telephone again. A telephonic call was received on the mobile C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 26 / 138 phone of Dr. Tarang and a conversation had taken place which was recorded and it was later on played before them. The meeting place was decided at the residence of Dr. Trang at New Friends Colony in the evening. The sealed cassette was signed by him as well as by Sh. C.L. Meena. In the CBI Office, first their hands were got washed and the colour of the water had remained same. Thereafter, Dr. Tarang took out Rs.25,000/ in the denomination of Rs. 1,000/ each. The numbers of these currency notes were noted down on a paper. Thereafter, a powder was applied on the currency notes. They were told that the powder applied on the currency notes was not visible, but if they will touch those currency notes and wash their hands, the colour of the water would turn pink. Sh. C.L. Meena and he were asked to touch the currency notes and thereafter, they were asked to dip their hands in water and on doing so, the colour of water had turned pink. That C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 27 / 138 water was thrown away. The treated currency notes were handed over to Dr. Tarang. An empty bag was taken and seal was handed over to him. They were told that they were trapping the person demanding the bribe. They left the CBI Office in their vehicles. They were directed to do as told and he was directed to remain with the CBI team. The proceedings were recorded in CBI Office. The witness was shown Handing Over Memo Ex.PW10/B on which he had identified his signatures at point A on each page. He further stated that they had reached the residence of Dr. Tarang where is clinic was situated. On reaching the residence of Dr. Tarang, Sh. C.L. Meena was told to go inside the residence of Dr. Tarang. He was directed to stay outside alongwith CBI team. They had reached the residence of Dr. Tarang between 6:00 pm to 6:30 pm. They kept waiting there. Dr. Tarang, C.L. Meena and some officers of C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 28 / 138 the CBI had gone inside the residence of Dr. Tarang. At about 7:00 pm, he was called inside and accordingly, he had gone inside the residence of Dr. Tarang. Inside his residence, there was a waiting hall and adjoining the waiting hall was chamber of Dr. Tarang. When he went inside, he was asked to take out the money out of the pocket of accused, present in the Court. He had taken out 25 currency notes out of the pocket of the accused and their numbers were matched with the numbers already recorded and the currency notes were found to be the same. The hands of the accused were got washed and the colour of the water had turned pink and the same was poured in a bottle and the same was sealed and signatures were obtained. He identified his signatures on Ex.P1 and P2. The twenty five currency notes were produced int he Court in unsealed condition and were shown to the witness. The witness had compared the number of C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 29 / 138 those currency notes with the numbers recorded in the Handing Over Memo Ex.PW10/B and had stated that they were the same currency notes which were recovered by him from the pocket of the accused. The currency notes were proved as Ex.P8 to P32. Thereafter, accused was given a towel and he was asked to put off his pant. The pocket of the pant was washed and the colour of the wash turned pink. The pink water was poured in a bottle and it was sealed and their signatures were obtained on the paper slip pasted on it. He identified the sealed bottle sealed with the seal of CFSL Ex.P3 and pant of the accused Ex.P33. He further stated that the tape recorded conversation was played then and he had heard the same. Thereafter, the cassette containing conversation was sealed and his signatures were obtained on Ex.PW11/A. He stated that the rough site plan Ex.PW11/B also bears his signatures. The accused was arrested and arrest C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 30 / 138 cumpersonal search memo was prepared. He stated that thereafter, they had taken meal at the clinic of Dr. Tarang which was arranged by Dr. Tarang. Thereafter, they had returned to the CBI office alongwith the accused. In the CBI Office, Inspector Sandhu had prepared some documents and their signatures were obtained and they were relieved at 3:00 am. They were again called to the CBI Office on 04.10.2007. He stated that their signatures were obtained on some documents on that day also. The specimen handwriting and specimen voice of accused were also taken. He stated that their specimen voice were also taken vide specimen voice recording memo Ex.PW11/E. He stated that after 20 days they were again called to the CBI Office. He further stated that the conversation contained in the tape was played and transcription thereof was prepared and their signatures were obtained on the transcription. He C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 31 / 138 stated that he does not know if Dr. Tarang had identified the voices. He identified his signatures on transcription Ex.PW11/G at point C. He also identified photocopies of specimen handwritings and signatures of accused which also bear his signatures and the same were Mark A1 to A15. He stated that the file Ex.PW13/D which bears his signatures at point A on each page was seized at the clinic of Dr. Tarang. He stated that he has brought the seal which was handed over to him by the IO. The seal is Ex.P40. On the Courts direction, the same was directed to be fastened alongwith the case file securely. The witness also identified the cassette P36 and his signatures on the inlay card. He also identified the specimen handwriting of accused P12 H to P12X which bears his signatures at point B on each page. He also identified the note sheet ExPW6/C which bears his signatures at point A. He also identified papers C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 32 / 138 of MCD ex.PW12/B which bears his signatures at point B, C, D and E. He stated that these papers were seized at the clinic of Dr. Tarang.
On being cross examined by Sh. H.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused, he stated that he has never been deputed by CBI in any other case as witness. He stated that he was instructed by his office to go to the CBI office in writing. He stated that he had heard the persons on the other end of the conversation demanding money. He denied that the speaker on the other end was not demanding money. He stated that the transcription was already in existence when he was asked to play the recorded conversation. He stated that he does not know who had prepared the transcription. He admitted that in the conversation some domestic matters pertaining to pregnancy of some cousin at Chandigarh had also figured. He stated that he never came to know that Dr. Tarang and his father C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 33 / 138 were giving treatment to a relative of accused who was suffering from cancer. He stated that he is not witness of recording specimen voice of accused.
21. PW 11 Sh. C. L. Meena, Assistant Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office A, Jaina Building, Railway Road, Shahadara, Delhi, who is shadow witness stated that on 02.10.2007 he alongwith his colleague Sh. Shyam Bihari Gupta had gone to the room of Sh. A.S. Sandhu at CBI Headquarter. Dr. Tarang had filed complaint pertaining to the MCD office. Dr. Tarang had spoken on telephone and had taken the time. He had fixed the time of meeting in the evening. He stated that he had heard the conversation partially. He stated that the conversation was recorded with the help of an instrument. The doctor had spoken again to the person at the other end who was an inspector of MCD and had informed him that time of C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 34 / 138 5:00 or 5:30 pm has been fixed. The time was fixed for trap as that person would come for accepting the bribe and would be caught red handed. The person on the other hand had demanded Rs.60,000/, however, he had finally settled for Rs.30,000/. Dr. Tarang was carrying only Rs. 25,000/. He stated that tape recorded conversation was played to them and they had heard the same. A pink colour powder was brought from the Malkhana and was applied on the currency notes. The numbers of all the currency notes were written on a paper. The powder was applied with a view that if anybody touches the currency notes, the powder would get transferred and the colour would change into pink. Powder was applied to currency notes and it was demonstrated to them. The treated currency notes were handed over to the Doctor. The treated currency notes were put by the Doctor in his pocket and he was directed to give the same C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 35 / 138 on demand. He stated that he was directed to see as to how the money will be given. Papers were prepared and signatures were obtained thereon. He identified his signatures on handing over memo Ex.PW10/B. Thereafter, they had left CBI office and had reached New Friends Colony at the Clinic of the Doctor which was situated in the basement. Two CBI inspectors, Doctor and himself had gone inside the basement. He stated that his other colleague was made to stand outside. They had taken their position inside the basement. The Inspectors had sat down at the reception and he had taken his seat in front of the doctor. The nurse of the Doctor had informed that someone had come. The Doctor asked the name of the visitor and she told him that it was Mukund Khante. Accused Mukund Khante was called inside. The witness identified the accused in the Court. He stated that accused Mukund Khante was carrying a file with him, which pertained to C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 36 / 138 house tax. He placed the file on the table and he was carrying a bag also. The bag was also placed on the table. He stated that accused Mukund Khante had an objection regarding his presence and had asked the Doctor as to who he was. The Doctor had introduced him to the accused Mukund Khante as his uncle. Thereafter, he was sent outside. He stated the he cannot tell as to why he was sent outside. He stated that he was again called inside after about 15 minutes. The Doctor had told that his accountant work was being looked by his uncle. He stated that when he had returned inside the room, the file brought by accused Mukund Khante, was open. Accused Mukund Khante had shown the file to him being his uncle. Accused Mukund Khante had shown the file to him where he had made some calculations. Therein there was a calculation of Rs.2.87 Lakhs and after giving a rebate of Rs.2.21 Lakhs, Rs.66,000/ was to be paid C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 37 / 138 as house tax. There was a conversation regarding giving and taking between the Doctor and accused Mukund Khante. Thereafter, the Doctor had taken out the money from his pocket and had handed over the same to accused Mukund Khante. The Doctor had asked the accused Mukund Khante to count the same and had told him that they were total Rs. 25,000/. Accused Mukund Khante had put the same in his pant pocket. He further stated that he was instructed to give a hint to the raiding party on completion of the transaction. He stated that he had given signal by rubbing his head with his hands. Both the Inspectors had come inside and had confirmed from him whether accused Mukund Khante had taken money and he had confirmed the same. Thereafter, both Inspectors had caught both the hands of the accused by wrists. Both the Inspectors had told accused Mukund Khante that he was taking bribe and was doing an illegal act. He C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 38 / 138 stated that other members of the trap team were also called inside. He was asked as to in which pocket the money was put by accused Mukund Khante and he had told the same. He stated that his colleague, who was from bank, was asked to take out the money and he had taken out the same. After taking out the money, the hands of the accused Mukund Khante were got washed and the colour of the water had turned pink and the same was preserved in a bottle. He stated that he does not remember whether both the hands of accused were washed. The bottle was sealed later on and was deposited in Malkhana. He stated that perhaps currency notes were also washed. The numbers of the currency notes were noted in the CBI office and they were compared on the spot. The currency notes were found to be the same. The personal search of accused was carried out and all his personal belongings like specs, diary, mobile etc., C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 39 / 138 were taken from him and were kept aside. His pant was also got washed and he was given a towel to wear. The pocket of the pant, in which currency notes were kept, was washed. The colour of the wash had turned pink. It was kept in a bottle and the bottle was sealed. Thereafter, proceedings were carried out. He identified his signatures on the recovery memo dated 03.10.207 Ex.PW11/A. The witness was shown 25 currency notes of denomination of Rs.1,000/ each which were produced in the Court in unsealed condition. He stated that he had compared their numbers with the numbers recorded in handing over memo Ex.PW10/B and had found that the currency notes were the same. The same were proved as Ex.P8 to P32. A pant was also produced in the Court in unsealed condition which was identified by the accused and was thereafter, exhibited as Ex.P33. One sealed envelop sealed with the seal of CFSL C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 40 / 138 was opened in the Court and a cassette Q2, its inlay card and cloth wrapper were taken out. The witness identified his signatures on the cassette and the cloth wrapper. Thereafter, the cassette Q2 was exhibited as Ex.P 34 and cloth wrapper as Ex.P 35. Another sealed envelop which contained cassette Q1, inlay card and cloth wrapper were also identified by the witness since they bore his signatures at point A and were exhibited as Ex.P36 and P 37. He identified the site plan Ex.PW11/B with his signatures at point A. He stated that the accused was arrested at the spot and arrestcumpersonal search memo Ex.11/C was prepared. The file which was brought by the accused was also seized. He identified his signatures on the seizure memo Ex.PW11/D. He stated that he does not remember if the specimen voice of the accused was taken in his presence. He stated that he has seen the specimen voice recording memo dated 04.10.2007 C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 41 / 138 Ex.PW11/E which bears his signatures at point A. Another sealed envelope sealed with the seal of CFSL was opened in the court containing one cassette S1, inlay card and cloth wrapper. The witness identified the cassette S1 Ex.P38 and cloth wrapper Ex.P39. A transcription was also prepared from the cassette Ex.PW11/F. He identified transcription dated 23.10.2007 Ex.PW11/G since the same bears his signatures at point A. Thereafter, the cassette S1 was played in the Court. The witness stated that it contained introductory voices Sh. Shyam Bihari Gupta of SBI saying that "main C.L. Meena, Assistant Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office A, Jaina Building, Shahadra, Delhi31, aaj dinank 04.10.2007 ko CBI, ACB Office, New Delhi se bol raha hu". Thereafter, there is voice of accused Mukund Khante in the cassette to the effect that "main telephone pe itni lambi discussion nahi kar C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 42 / 138 paunga....etc. ...... etc.." was identified by him.
On being cross examined by Sh. H.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the accused he denied that he has falsely deposed before the Court. He denied that there was no recovery of any money from the accused. The witness was shown transcription Ex.PW11/G. After going through the same the witness stated that only complainant was talking about the money. He stated that Ex.PW10/A contained the conversation that had taken place between the complainant and the accused on the mobile of the complainant from CBI Office. He admitted that In Ex.PW10/A at point X, the complainant is taking about his discussion with his father about the strategy. He stated that he does not know if the father of the complainant was also a doctor but he had seen him on the day of trap. He admitted that the mobile phone was dialed by the complainant three times and at first two attempts no C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 43 / 138 conversation had taken place and the conversation had taken place in the third attempt. The conversation with the father of the complainant has also been mentioned in the transcription. He admitted that the complainant had asked the accused whether he could come to the clinic or to any hotel or restaurant or elsewhere. He admitted that in the same phone call the time was settled as 6:30 pm. After going through Ex.PW12/D he stated that this document was seen by him in the clinic of Dr. Tarang. No conversation had taken place about property tax payable annually there. He stated that the talk which had taken place was about the total tax payable. He also stated that no conversation had taken place regarding the tax payable amounting to Rs. 22,000/. The witness was shown Ex.PW 13/A. On seeing the same, he stated that he cannot tell whether he had seen it before or not. He stated that he had identified the documents in C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 44 / 138 the Court on the basis of his signatures on those documents but had identified them since the documents were prepared in his presence. He stated that when they had reached the clinic of the complainant, he did not know whether the complainant was a homeopathic doctor or an allopathic doctor. However, he came to know that he was a doctor of cancer. After the completion of the transaction the CBI had first asked him about the transaction and then had told the accused Mukund Khante that he was doing a wrong thing. And the accused had stated "nahi nahi". He stated that he had not heard the accused telling that father of his wife was suffering from cancer and doctor was treating him. He stated that perhaps the father of Dr. Tarang had not come over there when this conversation had taken place. He stated that he had not come to know that father of Dr. Tarang Krishna was Dr. Hari Krishna, though his parentage C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 45 / 138 is mentioned in document Ex.PW10/B. He stated that except the CBI team and the complainant, only one nurse was present in the clinic at the time of the raid. He stated that he had not come to know whether accused Mukund Khante had spoken to the nurse, but on his arrival the nurse had informed the doctor. He admitted that for sometime he was not present in the chamber of the doctor when the complainant and the accused were talking to each other. He stated that in the Chamber, accused Mukund Khante and the doctor had opened a file containing the calculation sheet. The witness was shown the calculation sheet Ex.PW12/E. After going through the same he stated that it is the same calculation sheet which was lying open in the Chamber of Dr. Tarang. He stated that it is not in his knowledge whether the fatherinlaw of accused was being treated by the complainant and his father Dr. Hari Krishna and that he was helping them on C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 46 / 138 humanitarian ground in their tax matter. He stated that he does not know if the accused had told the CBI team that it was his moral compulsion to help the doctor who was treating his fatherinlaw otherwise the doctor had got registered false cases against other public servants. He denied that he was made to sit outside and the CBI had told the accused inside the chamber of the Doctor as the chamber was quite small. He stated that he does not know if the accused had told the CBI that his father is the same person who had made false allegations against senior officials of Delhi Police in Ansal Plaza shootout case. He stated that he does not know if the accused had told the team that the complainant had also filed a suit against son of Chairman of CAT, Principal Bench, Delhi. He stated that in his presence, the accused did not tell the CBI that he used to ask the doctor that his treatment was not bearing any fruit and he should change the C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 47 / 138 course of his treatment. From CBI Office the complainant had gone to his residencecumclinic in his car and he was also sitting in the car. He stated that in his presence in the CBI Office before they left for the clinic of the complainant, the complainant did not say that he was calling the accused for purposes of payment of house tax. He also stated that in the CBI Office, whatever the complainant was talking on his mobile phone was clearly audible to him. He stated that he does not remember if he had heard from a cassette the words spoken to by the complainant during conversation with the accused. He stated that he does not remember whether digital recorder was shown to him by the CBI officials before recording the voice. In the clinic of the complainant, the complainant and the accused had talked about 15 to 20 minutes. He stated that he does not remember if on arrival at the clinic, the first sentence spoken by the accused to C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 48 / 138 the doctor was "pehle aapki aawaz nahi aa rahi thi". He stated that the telephonic conversation recorded in the CBI office was played and heard by them. He admitted that the person at the other end had spoken "shaam ko phir milta hoon". He stated that he cannot say anything about the words "telephonically" and "main aaunga". He stated that he had left the CBI office for going to the residence of the Doctor at 5:00 pm. He stated that the currency notes were given back to the complainant by CBI Officials after demonstration and treatment with powder at about 4:00 pm. He stated that he does not know as to what was done with the currency notes by the complainant between 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm. He stated that they had reached the clinic of the complainant between 5:15 to 5:30 pm. The complainant had remained with in the compound of his clinic. He stated that he cannot say if the complainant had made any C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 49 / 138 telephonic call to anyone else. He stated that he does not remember whether the accused had shaken hands with the complainant at the time of his arrival at the clinic. He admitted that the transcription Ex.PW11/G contains transcription of the telephonic and on the spot conversation. He stated that there is no distinction in the transcription between the telephonic conversation and on the spot conversation. He state that he does not remember when the conversation was transferred from digital recorder to cassette. He also stated that he could not understand as to what the relation between Dr. Tarang and the accused when they were talking at the clinic. He stated that seal of the cassette was opened on 23.10.2007 and the cassette was played. Cassette was thereafter sealed with a cloth. He identified the cassette already Ex.P34. He stated that it is the same cassette which was played before 23.10.2007. He C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 50 / 138 denied that Ex.P34 was not available with the CBI on 23.10.2007. He also denied that Ex.P34 was never played in his presence on 23.10.2007 He identified the cassette already Ex.P36. He stated that it is the same cassette which was played before 23.10.2007. He denied that Ex.P36 was not available with the CBI on 23.10.2007. He also denied that Ex.P36 was never played in his presence on 23.10.2007. He stated that specimen voice recording memo Ex.PW11/E bears his signatures. He stated that the accused must be in the custody of CBI when this memo was prepared. No Court order was shown to him regarding the present case when this document was signed by him. He stated he had never heard the voice of accused Mukund Khante in any cassette except in connection with this case. He denied that he had signed documents of the transcription without hearing the cassette. He had returned to the CBI C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 51 / 138 Office from the residencecumclinic of the doctor. He denied that wife of the accused was present at the clinic of the doctor when the accused was arrested and papers of his arrest were prepared. He denied that the cassette heard by him was tampered with. He denied that the same was never in sealed condition. He stated that it was not brought to his notice that Dr. Tarang Krishna had dispute with MCD. He denied that Ex.PW11/DA reflects his involvement with officials of CBI and that it reflects that he is a witness of convenience. He stated that he has not visited CBI Office in connection with any other case. He stated that he was shown copy of writ petition Mark A at the time of raid. The conversation between accused and the complainant had continued for about 10 minutes before the accused was caught. When the cassette was played in the CBI Office for preparation of the transcription it contained the conversation between C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 52 / 138 the complainant and CBI officials after apprehending the accused. There was no conversation in the cassette between himself and the CBI Officials. He denied that he had deposed falsely.
22. PW12 Dr. Deepak Raj Handa, Senior Scientific Officer, CFSL, New Delhi stated that he had compared the questioned handwriting, specimen handwriting and signature of accused Mukund Khante which was sent to him by CBI. He proved his report in this regard Ex. PW12/A. He stated that he had examined Ex. PW6/D, PW6/E, PW6/C and Ex. PW 12/B to PW12/H. On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that the detailed reasoning regarding his report is mentioned alongwith gist of the report. He had denied that he has filed a false report.
C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 53 / 138
23. PW13 Dr. Tarang Krishna, who is the complainant himself, stated that he runs his clinic from D842, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. He has stated that he has filed a Civil Suit regarding ground floor and second floor, whose occupant had encroached upon his servant quarters during his absence. He had received notice from MCD, Property Tax Department informing him that total tax of his property has been increased to Rs. 5,61,000/ (Rupees Five Lakh and Sixty One Thousand) approximately making the entire property commercial and had imposed a sum of Rs. Two and Half Lakhs. He had replied to the said notice in May, 2007 and had informed MCD Authorities that he is only using front portion for running the clinic and the notice was illegal. He stated that he had met accused Mukund Khante, Inspector MCD, Property Tax Department, who was the incharge of C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 54 / 138 New Friends Colony and had requested him to look into the matter as said notice was counter attack on the Civil Suit. On 01.10.2007 he had received a call on his mobile no. 9810006264 in the afternoon from accused Mukund Khante, where he had asked him to come to MCD Office. He stated that he was shocked on receiving a call since it was a Gazetted Holiday and at about 05:00 PM in the evening he had gone to met accused Mukund Khante on 02.10.2007 where he told him that "aise matter mein toh humari seedhi ungli uthti hai". He had asked him that what does that mean and he said that he will charge Rs. 1,00,000/ ( Rupees One Lakh) and he will reduce the dues to Rs. 20,290/ (Rupees Twenty Thousand and Two Hundred and Ninety), as the real property tax dues. He told that he had requested him several times, but he had paid no heed to his request. However, after further negotiations he had reduced the bribe amount to C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 55 / 138 Rs. 60,000/ (Rupees Sixty Thousand). He stated since he did not want to pay the bribe amount, the next day morning on 03.10.2007 he went to CBI office at CGO Complex, Lodhi Road and had met Sh. Bhupinder Kumar, SP, CBI and had narrated to him the complaint. On hearing this, he had deputed Inspector Sandhu to verify the authenticity of the complaint and on confirmation to immediately lay a trap. Inspector Sandhu had asked him whether accused Mukund Khante will confirm the bribe amount or not to which he confirmed that he will do it. At 02:15 PM he had called accused Mukund Khante from his mobile phone and the said phone call was recorded. His mobile number was having the last digits as 661 and the initial digits were 98914. He stated that he does not recall the exact mobile number. When the call was being recorded, Inspector Sandhu and two independent witnesses Sh. Meena and Sh. Gupta, both from Central Bank, C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 56 / 138 Shahdara and himself were present. When he had called his number, it was busy. At about 02:20 PM, accused Mukund Khante had called him back and the whole conversation was recorded. At that time also, the aforesaid persons were present. He had asked accused Mukund Khante to meet him in the evening and had requested to reduce the bribe amount to Rs. 60,000/ (Rupees Sixty Thousand) to which he had confirmed and told him that he will let him know the place. He had asked whether he wanted to meet him in the hotel or in his clinic. He told him that he will confirm the same. The conversation was taped and then it was transferred to a different cassette. Before recording the call some specimen voice recording was also done. On confirmation of the bribe amount from accused Mukund Khante, Inspector Sandhu showed him the reaction of phenolphthalein powder. The powder was applied on the fingers of one independent C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 57 / 138 witness, and on dipping the same in a solution, the colour of the solution had turned pink and the same was thrown away. CBI had asked him to arrange Rs. 25,000/ (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) in currency notes of Rs. 1,000/ (Rupees One Thousand) denomination and he had arranged the currency notes accordingly and had produced the same before the CBI. Phenolphthalein Powder was applied on the currency notes in the presence of two independent witnesses Sh. Meena and Sh. Gupta. After application of the said powder the currency notes were handed over to him and he had kept the currency notes in the right front pocket of the pant. The number of 25 (Twenty Five) currency notes of Rs. 1,000/ (Rupees One Thousand) each were noted down and confirmed and were signed by two independent witnesses, Sh. C.L. Meena and Sh. Gupta, who were from Shahdra branch of Central Bank of India. The pockets of all the members of C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 58 / 138 the raiding party were checked and they were not allowed to keep anything incriminating with themselves. He was instructed by CBI to try to hand over the currency notes to accused Mukund Khante in his hand in the presence of two independent witnesses Sh. Meena and Sh. Gupta. A digital recording device was also handed over to him and he was also asked by to CBI to keep it inside the chamber. He was asked to press the "on" button of the digital recorder when the conversation begins. He had called accused Mukund Khante at about 06:00 PM before leaving for the clinic and he had told him that he will come to his clinic to take the bribe amount. The entire conversation was duly recorded in the digital recorder. They had left for the clinic in two cars. In one car their was the team of CBI and in another car Inspector Sandhu, Sh. C.L. Meena and himself were present and had reached the clinic D842, New Friends Colony, at C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 59 / 138 about 06:00 PM. He and Sh. C.L. Meena were asked to stay in the chamber whereas Inspector Sandhu and Inspector Sharma were to wait at the reception. Another independent witness Sh. Gupta was also waiting at the reception. Other members of the raiding party were staying far away from his clinic. At about 06:10 PM he had received a telephonic call from accused Mukund Khante and he had confirmed the time and place and had asked him to come to his clinic. When accused had reached his clinic, his guard Shankar Lal informed him about his arrival. He had asked his guard Shankar Lal to bring him in the chamber. When accused had entered in his chamber and sat down he had asked him by pointing towards Sh. Meena to send him outside; so that he can start conversation. He had asked Sh. Meena to go to the reception and had switched on the digital recorder. Accused had brought his file of house tax assessment and had C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 60 / 138 placed before him on the table. He told him that he was doing him a favour by reducing the tax calculation and for that he was asking for the bribe. He told accused that he was not much acquainted with tax calculation and had asked him to explain it to his uncle. Then accused had told him to call Sh. Meena. He had introduced Sh. Meena as his uncle to the accused. Accused had told Sh. Meena that he had reduced the tax calculation and was doing a favour to him and that is why the tax calculation had come down. He had told accused that he could arrange only Rs. 25,000/ (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) and on this he told him to add Rs. 5,000/ (Rupees Five Thousand) more to make it Rs. 30,000/ (Rupees Thirty Thousand). He had folded his hands before the accused and had told him that this was the maximum which he could arrange. He took the money from the front right pocket of his pant and had handed over the same to C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 61 / 138 the accused. He had asked him to count the same, to which he just smiled and had kept the same in the left front pocket of his pant. Sh. Meena went outside of his chamber after watching the transaction and he had called Inspector Sandhu inside. Inspector Sandhu challenged accused and had caught hold of his wrists. Inspector Sandhu had asked accused Mukund Khante if he had taken bribe, to which he kept mum initially and he got scared. On asking him again, accused confirmed that he had taken the bribe to reduce the tax calculation. The rest of the CBI team had entered the chamber and had caught hold of accused. Sodium carbonate solution was brought over and Sh. Meena was asked to recover the money. Again said, some independent witness was asked to recover the money and the money was recovered from left front pocket of pant of the accused. His hands were washed in sodium carbonate solution C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 62 / 138 and the solution had turned pink. That solution was safely kept in containers and was sealed with seal. Accused was handed over a towel and was asked to take off his pants. The left front pocket of his pant was washed in sodium carbonate solution and the solution had tuned pink. The solutions were poured in bottles and the bottles were sealed. The number of the currency notes were compared with the paper in which their numbers were already recorded and currency notes were found to be the same. The contents of the digital recorder were transferred in a cassette. The cassette was sealed and was signed by the independent witnesses. The file brought by the accused was also seized by the CBI. The proceedings continued till 11:00 PM and he was asked by CBI to come to the CBI office on the next day. On the next day, specimen voice was recorded. The statements were also recorded. He identified his complaint as Ex. PW13/A. He was C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 63 / 138 also shown FIR of the case, which bears his signature at point A. He also identified his signatures at point B on Ex. PW13/B which was prepared in the CBI office before proceeding for the raid. He also identified recovery memo Ex. PW11/A which bears his signatures at Point D. He proved rough site plan Ex. PW11/B which was prepared at the spot. He also shown productioncumseizure memo dated 04.10.2007 which bears his signatures at point A Ex. 13/C. He stated that through this memo photocopy of notice and his reply to this notice were seized and the same are Ex. PW13/C1 to C2. He has proved Ex. 11/E through this memo. The specimen voice of accused was taken but he was not asked to sign it. He also identified recorded voice transcription memo Ex. PW11/F which bears his signature at point B. He stated that through this memo transcription of conversation was prepared in his presence. The transcription so prepared was C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 64 / 138 proved as Ex. PW13/G which bears his signatures at point B on each page. The other transcription so prepared was proved as Ex. PW10/A. This transcription was prepared as per the contents of the cassette. He stated that in the transcription 'C' stands for him and 'A' for accused Mukund Khante. The contents of the transcription were found to be the same in the cassette on being played. The file brought by accused to his chamber was seized by CBI and was proved collectively as Ex. PW13/D. The calculation Ex. PW13/E was shown to him by accused in his chamber. He also identified three bottles sealed with CFSL seal and produced in the court as Ex. P1 to P3. He proved the 25 (Twenty Five) currency notes of Rs. 1,000/ (Rupees One Thousand) produced in the court which were later recovered from the accused as Ex. P1 to P32. He also identified the pant of the accused Ex. P33. He stated that the cassette was played before him in C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 65 / 138 the CBI office. He identified his own voice as well as that of accused Mukund Khante correctly and thereafter, the transcription was prepared simultaneously and thereafter he had signed it.
Audio cassette of intercepted conversation was played in the Court. After hearing the conversation, the witness had identified his voice, voices of the independent witnesses and that of the accused and had confirmed the major portion of the intercepted conversation mentioned in transcription thereof Ex.PW10/A to be the same as had taken place between him and the accused.
On being cross examined by Sh. H.K. Sharma, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for the accused, he stated that his father was a cancer specialist, however, he treats cancer patient but is not a specialist. He stated that he never prescribed any drug originated from the field of Alopathy. He admitted document Ex. PW13.DA which is print out C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 66 / 138 of their own web site which mentions their work, professional degree, newspaper reporting and other testimonies pertaining to him and his father. He stated that he had litigation with one Sh. Puneet Bali. He admitted that he has filed a civil suit against Sh. Puneet Bali who had taken over his servant quarter illegally. He stated that he had withdrawn the said case. He stated that his father Dr. Hari Krishna was a witness of Ansal Plaza shoot out case where two unarmed men were shot dead in the basement of Ansal Plaza. He admitted that a Kalandra was registered against his father and brother regarding Ansal Plaza Shoot out case under Section 179/ 203 IPC. He stated that the said case is still pending trial. He stated that his brother and his father had filed revision against the said order before the Hon'ble High Court. He stated that his father had filed writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. An application under Section 340 C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 67 / 138 Cr.P.C. filed by his father and the letter dated 17.5.2010 were admitted as Ex.PW13/DC and Ex.PW13/DD respectively. He stated that the accused was apprehended by CBI officials from his clinic where he used to practice alongwith his father. He stated that he has no idea whether Sh. Ved Bhushan Aggarwal was a cancer patient and had received treatment from his clinic or from his father. He admitted that he does not know whether Sh. Ved Bhushan Aggarwal was fatherinlaw of accused. He stated that after seeing the documents of treatment of Sh. Ved Bhushan Aggarwal, he can say that he was a cancer patient. He admitted that on 02.10.2007 the Office of MCD was closed. He stated that at that time, his father was not treating fatherinlaw of accused. He denied that his father used to call accused to meet him in the evening hours. He denied that his father had also informed him to direct accused to bring back all remaining C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 68 / 138 medicines dispensed to Sh. Ved Bhushan Aggarwal and to take back his settled professional fees. He denied that prior to the said date there was an exchange of bad words between accused, his wife with his father in his presence. He further denied that after that incident, he and his father had conspired together to implicate accused in a false case. He denied that he and his father knew that son in law of Mr. Ved Bhushan Aggarwal i.e. the accused Mukund Khante was working in MCD Property Tax Branch. He stated that no notice was issued by the MCD in respect of of use of the basement by them for commercial purposes, however, it was issued for seeking enhancement of property tax payable. He denied that on 02.10.2007, accused and his wife had visited their clinic at D842, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. He denied that he and his father had told accused and his wife that one of their family member is in advance stage C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 69 / 138 of pregnancy and therefore, they do not want any curse. He denied that wife of accused had told him and his father that she was the daughter of cancer patient or that under false pretext of treating her father, huge money had been taken from them by his father. He also denied that wife of accused had pleaded that she does not want to do anything and only wants return of their money. He stated that if accused's fatherinlaw had been their patient, he would be having certain documents like registration number, registration ID, medical bills of their clinic. He denied that he had asked the accused and his wife to bring back all the documents of Sh. Ved Bhushan Aggarwal's registration card, registration ID and all medical bills of their clinic so that in future on the strength of those documents, no further litigation can be initiated. He denied that accused did not want to come to him on 03.10.2007 and that he had falsely made him to come on false pretext. C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 70 / 138 He denied that Ex.PW13/Z1 and Ex.PW13/Z2 were visiting cards given to accused and his wife by his father. He denied that his father, in lieu of returning fees, had asked the accused to settle the property tax matter of their D842, Residence cum clinic in his presence or to guide him in the manner in which the said settlement can be arrived at from MCD. He also denied that since his father had expressed his inability to come to the MCD Office, therefore, the file of MCD was brought to D842, Basement.
24. PW14 Inspector A.S. Sandhu, who is the trap laying officer stated that on 03.10.2007 he was called by SP, Sh. Bhupinder Kumar in his chamber. He introduced him with the complainant Dr. Tarang Krishna and had handed over to him a written complaint for verification and laying a trap. The witness was shown complaint Ex.PW13/A and C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 71 / 138 the witness had identified the endorsement at point X of Ex.PW13/A. He stated that the complaint was regarding demand of bribe of Rs.1 Lakh by accused Mukund Khante for reducing the value of the property for the purpose of house tax. After formal verification, the case was got registered on the said complaint. Thereafter, a trap team was constituted consisting of himself as Trap Laying Officer, Praveen Ahlawat and D.D. Sharma, both Inspectors and Sh. Pankaj Vats, Sub Inspector and other subordinate staff. Two independent witnesses, namely, Sh. C.L. Meena and Sh. S.B. Gupta, both Assistant Managers of Central Bank of India were also called. The trap team had gathered in his office. They were introduced to each other and complaint was perused by all. Arrangement was made to confirm the demand of bribe and Dr. Tarang Krishna, Complainant, was asked to contact accused from his mobile phone on the mobile C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 72 / 138 phone of the accused. The call could not materialize as the mobile phone of accused was engaged. After few minutes, Dr. Tarang Krishna had received a call on his mobile from the mobile of accused. The same was recorded with the help of digital recorder in the presence of independent witnesses. Since the time and place of transaction could not be confirmed, a call was made again by complainant to accused and time of bribe as 6:30 pm was decided and the place was to be decided later on. The said conversation was also recorded in the presence of independent witnesses. The above recording was got transferred in an audio cassette with the help of tape recorder. Both the witnesses had signed on the label of the cassette and the same was sealed with the help of cloth wrapper and the cloth wrapper was also singed by him as well as by both the independent witnesses. The cassette was marked as Q1 and investigation C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 73 / 138 copy was also prepared of the cassette. Specimen seal was taken on blank papers and the seal after use was handed over to independent witness Sh. S.B. Gupta. Thereafter, a leather bag was arranged containing material required for the trap. A practical demonstration about the reaction of sodium carbonate solution and phenolphthalein powder was given by Inspector D.D. Sharma. He stated that the complainant had produced Rs.25,000/ of the denomination of Rs.1,000/. The same was treated with phenolphthalein powder and independent witness Sh. S.B. Gupta was asked to touch the tainted notes with his right hand fingers and was asked to wash his fingers in the solution of sodium carbonate. On doing so the solution had turned pink and the same was thrown away. Before applying phenolphthalein powder on the notes, the numbers of GC notes were recorded in the handing over memo. Remaining phenolphthalein powder C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 74 / 138 was returned to Malkhna. He stated that personal search of the complainant was taken by independent witness Sh. C.L. Meena to ensure that he was not carrying any incriminating material on his person. Thereafter, the tainted bribe amount was handed over to the complainant and he had kept the same in his front right side pocket of pant. The complainant was directed to hand over the same to the accused on his specific demand or to any other person on his direction and not otherwise. All the trap team members had searched each other mutually and their hands were got washed with soap and water. The digital recorder which was to be handed over to the complainant after reaching the spot was checked for its blankness and voices of independent witnesses were recorded in the begining. The same procedure was adopted before recording the telephonic conversation earlier also as mentioned above. He stated that the independent C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 75 / 138 witness Sh. C.L. Meena was instructed to act as a shadow witness and to see and hear the conversation that was likely to take place between the complainant and the accused and to give signal on completion of the bribe transaction by scratching his head with both his hands. He stated that Handing Over Memo was prepared to this effect and was explained to all the concerned in vernacular language and the same was signed by all in token of its correctness. Copy of FIR, complaint, Handing Over Memo and some other stationary material were kept in a separate briefcase and was taken along by the trap team. The witness identified his signatures on Handing Over Memo Ex.PW10/B. Thereafter, the trap team including the independent witnesses and complainant had proceeded to the clinic of the complainant at D842, New Friends Colony, New Delhi in two separate vehicles. On arriving at the spot the digital recorder was handed C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 76 / 138 over to the complainant Dr. Tarang Krishna after explaining its operation to him and he was instructed to record the conversation that was likely to take place between him and the accused. The shadow witness and the complainant were directed to go inside the clinic. In the meanwhile, a phone call was received from accused Mukund Khante by the complainant on his mobile and the conversation was recorded in the digital recorder in the presence of shadow witness Sh. C.L. Meena. The conversation was played and was heard by all and it was confirmed that the accused was coming to the clinic. Thereafter, Dr. Tarang Krishna and shadow witness went inside the chamber of Dr. Tarang Krishna. He stated that he alongwith Inspector D.D. Sharma had taken position in the reception room and the remaining trap team was instructed to take suitable position outside the clinic. He stated that after some time, a person had come with a file in his C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 77 / 138 hand to the reception of the doctor and after some time he was called in the chamber of the doctor. Thereafter, shadow witness had come outside for some time and had again gone inside the chamber. After sometime, again shadow witness had come outside the chamber and had given the pre appointed signal by scratching his head with both his hands. On this, he alongwith Inspector D. D. Sharma followed by shadow witness, had rushed inside the doctor's chamber and had found that one person was sitting on the chair across the table in front of the complainant. He stated that the complainant had told him that the person who was sitting before him was accused Mukund Khante, Inspector, MCD who was demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.25,000/ from him. He stated that he had disclosed his identity to the accused and had challenged him whether he was demanding or accepting bribe of Rs.25,000/. The accused had C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 78 / 138 become perplexed and had kept mum. He had again asked the accused about the same to which he replied that he had demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.25,000/ from the complainant. Then he had called the remaining trap team members alongwith other independent witnesses inside the chamber and had inquired from the shadow witness Sh. C.L. Meena about the bribe transaction. He further stated that Sh. C.L. Meena had informed him that when he was sitting with the complainant in his chamber, one person had come with a file in his hand and had sat on a chair on his right side in front of the doctor. With gesture of his eyes he had inquired from the doctor about Sh. C.L. Meena and he was informed by the doctor that Sh. C.L. Meena is his uncle. Thereafter, Sh. C.L. Meena was asked to go outside the chamber and after sometime he was again called inside the chamber. Sh. C.L. Meena had seen that person was sitting with an C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 79 / 138 open file kept on the table and the complainant had told the accused to make Sh. C.L. Meena understand about the tax calculation and accordingly, the accused had explained to Sh. C.L. Meena as to how he will reduce the amount of house tax and he will try to further reduce the house tax later on. He further stated that Sh. C.L. Meena had told that Dr. Tarang Krishna had told the accused that he has arranged Rs.25,000/ on which accused had replied that he should give at least 30,000/, however, the complainant told him with folded hands that he cannot do more than that. Thereafter, the complainant had taken out the bribe amount and had told the accused to count the same. The accused had accepted the bribe amount with his right hand and had folded the GC notes with both hands and had kept the same in his front left side pocket of the pant. He further stated that he had inquired from the complainant about the bribe C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 80 / 138 transaction and the complainant had corroborated the version of the shadow witness.
Thereafter, a colourless solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in a clean glass tumbler and the accused was asked to wash his right hand fingers in that solution. On his doing so, the solution had turned pink in colour. The same was poured in a clean bottle and the same was marked as RHW. The bottle was capped and was sealed with the seal of CBI with the help of cloth wrapper. Both the witnesses had signed on the label as well as on the cloth. Similarly, a colourless solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in a clean glass tumbler and the accused was asked to wash his left hand fingers in that solution. On his doing so, the solution had turned pink in colour. The same was poured in a clean bottle and the same was marked as LHW. The bottle was capped and was sealed with the seal of CBI with the help of C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 81 / 138 cloth wrapper. Thereafter, bribe amount was recovered from the font left side pocket of pant of accused Mukund Khante by Sh. S.B. Gupta. Handing Over Memo was handed over to the independent witnesses and they were asked to tally the numbers of the recovered GC notes with the numbers recorded in the handed over memo. On doing so, the independent witnesses had informed that the numbers were fully tallying. The amount recovered from the pocket of accused was counted, which was Rs.25,000/ consisting of 25 notes of Rs. 1,000/ each.
He further stated that on his direction, colourless solution of sodium carbonate was prepared and pant pocket wash of accused Mukund Khante was taken and on doing so the solution had turned pink in colour and the same was transferred in a bottle and was sealed with the seal of CBI and was signed by both the independent witnesses. C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 82 / 138 The bottles containing solution was marked as LSF PPW denoting left side front pant pocket wash of the accused. Thereafter, the file which was brought by accused Mukund Khante pertaining to property tax of property no. D842, New Friends Colony was seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW11/D. He stated that the site plan was prepared by Sub Inspector Pankaj Vats. Digital recorder was taken back from the complainant and was played and the conversation was heard which corroborated the version of shadow witness and the complainant. The conversation was transferred in audio cassette and was signed by both the witnesses and was marked Q2. The same was wrapped in a cloth and sealed with the seal of CBI. Accused Mukund Khante was arrested and his personal search was taken. Personal Search cum Arrest Memo Ex.PW11/C was prepared. The witness identified his signatures on the same. He further stated that C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 83 / 138 the Recovery Memo to this effect was prepared by him which was signed by all concerned including himself. The impression of CBI seal was put on all the pages at point X1 on the recovery memo Ex.PW11/A. He stated that the CBI seal was handed over to Sh. S.B. Gupta, independent witness at the spot after use. He stated that on 04.10.2007 complainant Dr. Tarang Krishna had come to CBI Office and had handed over to him the MCD Notice given to him and his reply to the same. The same was taken in possession in the presence of the independent witnesses and was seized vide memo Ex. PW13/C. Thereafter, specimen voice of the accused was taken in presence of both the independent witnesses and the cassette containing specimen voice was marked as S1 and the same was signed by both the independent witnesses and was sealed with the seal of CBI after taking it back from independent witness Sh. S. B. Gupta. He C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 84 / 138 identified his signatures on Memo Ex.PW11/E at point C. He stated that Specimen handwritings of the accused Ex.PW12/H to Ex.PW12/X were also obtained in the presence of both the independent witnesses by him. Case property seized vide the above mentioned memos was deposited in the malkhana of CBI and the CBI seal was again handed over to the independent witness Sh. S.B. Gupta. Thereafter, cassette Q1, Q2 and S1 were exhibited as Ex.P36, Ex.P34 and Ex.P38 respectively. One navy blue pant, which the accused was wearing at the time of his arrest was proved as Ex.P33. Thereafter, three wrapped and sealed bottles already Ex.P1, P2 and P3 were produced from Malkhana and were shown to the witness. The witness identified the same bottles as the bottles which were used to seal the hand washes and pant pocket wash of the accused. He stated that the exhibits, cassettes and the washes C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 85 / 138 were sent to the CFSL by him for examination by expert alongwith letter of request by SP of ACB, CBI and that the seals were intact when the same were deposited in CFSL. He stated that till the case property remained in his possession, the seals remained intact and there was no tampering, addition or alteration either in the audio cassettes mentioned above or the sealed hand washes mentioned above. He stated that the further investigation was handed over to Inspector Alok Kumar as per the direction of SP, CBI. He identified the accused who was present in the court and was arrested by him.
On being cross examined by Sh. H. K. Sharma, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for the accused he stated that he does not remember whether the complainant was claiming himself to be a cancer expert or a cancer specialist. He stated that during the period in which the investigation remained with C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 86 / 138 him, he did not come to know that father of the complainant was a witness of Ansal Plaza Shoot out case of Delhi Police. He stated that the digital voice recorder used in this case was brought by Sub Inspector Pankaj Vats for use in the trap. He stated that he does not remember whether Sub Inspector Pankaj Vats had given that digital voice recorder, at any point of time to him. He stated that transcription Ex.PW10/A and Ex. PW11/G are not in his handwriting. He stated that these were not prepared by him and he does not know who had prepared them. He stated that he does not remember whether IO had shown him the transcriptions when his statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He stated that in the present case, the mobile phone of the complainant was on hand free mode and the speaker was on, therefore, the digital voice recorder was able to record voices of both the sides. A cassette recorder C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 87 / 138 containing cassette was directly connected to the digital voice recorder for transferring the data of digital voice recorder in the cassette. The trap kit consisting of phenolphthalein powder, sodium carbonate, brass seal etc. was got issued by him from Malkhana. He denied that the hand washes in the present case had been prepared by him using materials which he had never got issued from Malkhana. He denied that he had got issued brass seal from Malkhana. He denied that he had not heard the conversation between complainant and the accused directly taking place at the clinic of the complainant. He stated that the said conversation was recorded through digital voice recorder. He stated that he had not seen the articles or any other thing having been returned or handed over by the accused or the complainant of the present case on the day of trap. He stated that activities of complainant and accused were not visible to him. C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 88 / 138 He stated that he knows that 02.10.2007 was a gazetted holiday and Offices of MCD are closed. He stated that he did not make any inquiry before proceeding as to whether office of accused Mukund Khante was open on 02.10.2007 or accused was available in his office on 02.10.2007 or the complainant had visited and had met the accused in his office on 02.10.2007. He stated that the investigation of the present case had remained with him till 12.10.2007. He denied that no recovery of money had taken place from the accused as detailed or in the manner reflected in Ex.PW11/A. He stated that he had deposited the bottles of hand washes of accused on 04.10.2007. He denied that the conversation available in the cassette reflected in Handing Over Memo and the Recovery Memo are fabricated after the accused was apprehended and was taken to CBI Office. He denied that the washes, cassette and other materials of the present C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 89 / 138 case were fabricated on 04.10.2007 when both the independent witnesses, complainant and the brass seal was available with him.
25. PW15 Inspector Alok Kumar, CBI, Vigilance Cell, New Delhi stated that during October 2007, he was posted as Inspector, CBI. The investigation of this case was transferred to him from Inspector A.S. Sandhu for further investigation. During the course of the investigation he had recorded statement of witnessess Dr. Tarang Krishna, S.B. Gupta, C.L. Meena, Amit Prasad, Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Shokaran Chauhan, Pawan Singh, R.K. Singh, Inspector A.S. Sandhu, Inspector D.D. Sharma, Inspector Praveen Ahlawat and SubInspector Pankaj Vats. He had also prepared the transcription of the recorded conversation in presence of independent witnesses vide transcription memo Ex. PW11/F. He proved the C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 90 / 138 transcription already Ex. PW11/G and PW10/A. He stated that both these transcriptions are in his handwriting and bear his signature at point D on each page. He stated that these transcriptions were prepared by him by playing the investigation copies of the recorded conversation before the independent witnesses. He had collected admitted handwriting of accused Mukund Khante from his office Ex. PW6/D and PW6/E. The questioned writings of accused Mukund Khante alongwith specimen handwritings and admitted writings were sent for expert opinion to CFSL, New Delhi. He proved the CFSL report Ex. PW12/A. He stated that during the investigation he had collected call details of mobile no. 9810006264 from Bharti Airtel Ltd. These call details were received by him vide letter Ex. PW9/B. He stated that he had also collected the call details and ownership details of mobile no. 9891436461 already Ex. PW2/B, received by letter C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 91 / 138 Ex. PW2/A. The chemical examination report and voice examination report were also received from CFSL which are Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW7/A. He proved the letter sent to CFSL for seeking expert opinion Ex. PW15/A and Ex. PW15/B. He also proved the forwarding letter of admitted handwriting of accused Mukund Khante Ex. PW15/C. On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused, he stated that he does not remember if he had sent notices under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to witnesses Dr. Tarang Krishna and others. He stated that he had not recorded any statement of any person which could reveal the date and time of sending the FIR of the present case to the concerned Special Judge, CBI upon its registration. He stated that two transcripts were prepared in this case, from the investigating copy given to him by Inspector A.S. Sandhu. He stated that he had sent the relied upon documents and the statement of C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 92 / 138 witnesses to the sanctioning authority for seeking sanction. He denied that accused Mukund Khante has been falsely implicated in this case.
26. Statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C in which accused had stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.
27. The accused has examined seven witnesses in his defence.
28. DW1 Statement of Smt. Sunita M. Khante who is the wife of the accused stated that in August/September 2006 her father Sh. Ved Bhushan Aggarwal was suffering from Cancer of liver. Since he was already a heart patient and was operated upon in April, 2005 and was suffering from Hypertension, diabetes and enlarge prostate; the C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 93 / 138 diagnose of liver cancer was a matter of concern for the entire family. She stated that she is a qualified pharmacist and was doubtful as to whether her father will be able to bear Radio Therapy, Chemotherapy or Surgery. While she had tried to search on the internet for option to treat cancer she had learnt about Dr. Hari Krishna Cancer Specialist who treats the cancer patients by Homeopathic medicines. She alongwith her husband accused Mukund Khante had gone to his clinic in November, 2006 alongwith medical report of her father. On seeing the reports, both Dr. Hari Krishna and Dr. Tarang Krishna had informed them, that since the cancer of her father is at initial stage and can be cured by medicines and treatment given by them. Thereafter, Dr. Tarang Krishna was asked for initial fees of Rs. 60,000/ after 2/3 days of the meeting in November, 2006 itself. She further stated that she alongwith her husband had gone to the clinic of Dr. C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 94 / 138 Tarang Krishna and Dr. Hari Krishna and they had given Rs. 60,000/ to Dr. Tarang Krishna who had given them medicines. The medical reports of her father were retained by them on the pretext that they will compare these reports with the new test reports which will be taken after the medicines are consumed by the patient. She stated that this amount of Rs. 60,000/was given to Dr. Tarang Krishna from the personal savings of her daughter Dr. Vipula. She stated that this amount was also shown in the income tax return filed by her daughter on 04.07.2007 for the financial year 200607. She stated that despite medicines given by Dr. Krishnas the health of her father did not show any improvement and, therefore, they had stopped taking medicines and had gone to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Hospital, ESCORTS Heart Institute and Research Centre. The medical report of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital were proved as C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 95 / 138 mark DW1/B. The medical report of Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Hospital were proved as mark DW1/C and DW1/D. The medical report of Delhi MR and CT Scan Centre, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi were proved as mark DW1/E. The medical report of Mahajan Imaging Centre, Hauz Khan, Delhi were proved as mark DW1/F. She stated that thereafter she had taken all these reports to Dr. M. Wali at RML Hospital. He had advised them not to wait further and take her father for advise to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital on 29.12.2006. She had gone to Dr. Nundy's Unit at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and Dr. Soin had advised them to go for surgery and had fixed 08.01.2007 as date of surgery. Her father had remained admitted in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital from 06.01.2007 to 19.01.2007 and his surgery was conducted on 08.01.2007. She stated that the discharge summary reflecting the admission/discharge and date of surgery hereafter C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 96 / 138 is Ex. DW1/G. She stated that thereafter she and her husband had decided to take Rs. 60,000/ back from Dr. Tarang Krishna because his treatment had not shown any improvement in her father's health. In the month of January, 2007 she was busy in looking after her father and thereafter in various other things. In the month of April, 2007 they had gone to the clinic of Dr. Krishna's and had told them that they may take back unused medicine from them and return their money. They had refused to return their money. They had fought with the doctors, but they did not give back the money. In the month of May, 2007 and June, 2007 they could not contact Dr. Krishna because they had got busy in the Engineering Exam of her Son and she had sprained her left ankle. She proved the same vide Mark DW1/K. She stated that during her aliment she had learnt that Dr. Krishna did not hold any specialized qualification for the treatment of cancer. Through C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 97 / 138 RTI they had learnt that the Board of Homeopathic System of Medicines Delhi dated 17.05.2012 had issued direction to Dr. Tarang Krishan and Dr. Hari Krishna to remove all the material from their website showing them as cancer specialist. The said letter was proved as DW1/L. She stated that in the month of August, 2007 she and her husband had again gone to the clinic of Dr. Krishna's and had requested for the refund of money. They had also told that they had learnt about their true credentials that they are not cancer specialist. She stated that her husband had gone to Dr. Krishna's clinic and warned him to refund their money otherwise they will go to press and disclose the reality of Dr. Krishna's. On that Dr. Krishna had told her husband that he can go anywhere he wants. She stated that in the month of September, 2007 Dr. Tarang Krishna had visited office of her husband in connection with the property tax of his clinic. He had asked her C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 98 / 138 husband to help in the settlement of the notice received by him from MCD and they will return his money. On 02.10.2007 her husband had a conversation with Dr. Tarang Krishna and told her husband that he had spoken to his father and then her husband had visited their clinic. She stated that they had decided to give back unused medicine and record to the office of Dr. Tarang Krishna in polythene bag and had decided to join her husband in Dr. Krishna's office in the evening of 03.10.2007. She stated that she had reached the clinic in the evening and the motorcycle of her husband was already parked outside the clinic, she had entered the clinic and had asked the receptionist to inform her husband that she had came and he can call her whenever need be. She stated that for sometime no one came to give any information to her. After sometime she saw that her husband was coming out from Dr. Tarang Krishna's Clinic alongwith one C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 99 / 138 Sardar Ji and one other person. Only at that time she came to know that her husband is being taken to the CBI office. She was asked by CBI officials to sit in the maruti van with her husband. On reaching CBI office she had come to know that her husband had been falsely implicated in trap case. She was made to sit outside in the room where her husband were sitting. After sometime one person from room came out and asked her to sign on personal search memo which she did. Thereafter she was sent back home in the CBI vehicle. She stated that she had informed CBI officials about true facts of the case but they had not recorded her statement. On 03.10.2007 CBI officials had conducted their house search, however, nothing was found at their residence. On 04.10.2007 she had visited office of CBI alongwith clothes of her husband. She was told by the Superior officer of the CBI that her husband is innocent and has not taken bribe and has been C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 100 / 138 falsely implicated in this case.
On being cross examined by Ld. Special PP for CBI she stated that she can not produce any record like prescription slip or medical record prepared by Dr. Tarang Krishna or his father to prove that her father was under their treatment. She further stated that all the papers in respect of treatment of her father were taken back by Dr. Tarang Krishna and his father from her husband which he had taken with him alongwith unused medicines on 03.10.2007 at the clinic of Dr. Tarang Krishna. She denied that no amount of Rs. 60,000/ was paid to Dr. Tarang Krishna for treatment of her father. She stated that she had not lodged any complaint against Dr. Tarang Krishna to police or Homeopathy Council of India regarding their conduct. She denied that they had visited Dr. Tarang Krishna on 03.10.2007 for demanding and accepting Rs. 30,000/ for settling property tax C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 101 / 138 problem of his clinic. She denied that she had not visited clinic of Dr. Tarang Krishna on 03.10.2007 and had reached only after being informed regarding arrest of accused Mukund Khante. She denied that he had deposed falsely to help her husband.
29. DW2 Sh. P.S. Jacob, Assistant, Central Vigilance Commission, Satarkata Bhawan, GPO Complex, INA proved the certified copy of the order no. 73/12/2005 dated 15.12.2005 Ex. DW2/A issued by their office bearing signatures of Sh. Balwinder Singh, Additional Secretary, CVC and Sh. Prashant Kumar Singh, Research Officer, CVC, New Delhi.
On being cross examined by Sh. B.P. Singh, Ld. Special PP for CBI he stated that he does not have any personal knowledge about the present case. The further stated that order C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 102 / 138 Ex.DW2/A has been issued by the competent authority after due deliberations.
30. DW3 Dr. S.C. Gupta, HOD, Medical Records Department, Fortis Escort Heart Institute, Okhla, New Delhi proved the medical record i.e. discharge summary dated 04.11.2005, lab investigation report etc. pertaining to Sh. Ved Bhushan Aggarwal Ex.DW3/A colly. He also proved radiology report of Sh. Ved Bhushan Prakash dated 26.7.2007 Ex.DW3/B, ultra sound report dated 26.7.2007 Ex.PW3/C, OPD lab tests reports dated 26.7.2007 Ex.PW3/D colly.
On being cross examined by Sh. B.P. Singh, Ld. Special PP for CBI he stated that he has deposed on the basis of documents produced by him. He also stated the he has not given treatment to Sh. Ved Bhushan Aggarwal and he does not have any personal knowledge about the present case. C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 103 / 138
31. DW4 Sh. Satish Kumar, Technician, NASA Digital XRay & Color Ultrasound, Rohini, Delhi proved the authority letter signed by Director, NASA Scan Centre Ex. DW4/A. He also proved the ultrasound report which was already Mark DW1/A as Ex.PW4/B. On being cross examined by Sh. B.P. Singh, Ld. Special PP for CBI he stated that he is not a qualified doctor. He stated that he has not prepared the abovesaid ultrasound report. He also stated that he has no personal knowledge about the present case.
32. Dr. M. Wali, Consultant in Medicine, CGHS, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital was inadvertently examined as DW 4. He authenticated the medical certificate issued by him in case of Sh. V.B. Aggarwal issued on 14.2.2008 stating that Sh. C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 104 / 138 V.B. Aggarwal was admitted at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital during the period of 06.1.2007 till 19.1.2007 and was a case of cancer of liver. He was operated upon at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. He stated that he had referred the patient to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital on 22.12.2006 since the patient was getting medical treatment from some homeopathic doctor and was getting no relief as immediate surgery was indicated.
On being cross examined by Sh. B.P. Singh, Ld. Special PP for CBI he stated that he does not have any knowledge or idea as to what happened on 03.10.2007 in the clinic of Dr. Tarang. He also stated that he has no personal knowledge about the present case of CBI against accused Mukund Khante. He further stated that he had not personally treated the patient V.B. Aggarwal and had referred him to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. He stated that on the basis of record produced by the C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 105 / 138 daughter of the patient, he had come to know that the patient was getting treatment from some homeopathic doctor. He stated that he cannot produce any record of the treatment received by the patient from the homeopathic doctor as it may be with the daughter of the patient. He stated that he remembers that she had carried some documents of homeopathic treatment at that time. He stated that he had referred the patient to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital only after seeing the medical records produced by the daughter of the patient which have been authenticated by him in the court. He denied that he had not seen any homeopathic record at the time of referring the patient to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. He admitted that he has not come across any homeopathic record of the patient Sh. V.B. Aggarwal.
33. DW 5 Sh. Rajeev Kumar, Inspector of C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 106 / 138 Income Tax, Ward 36(3), Room no. 205, Vikas Bhawan, H Block, I.P. Estate, New Delhi has proved the attested copies of income tax returns of Ms. Vipula Khante from the assessment years 200607 to 201112 Ex.DW5/A. He stated that the record has been photocopied from the original record maintained in their office. He also stated that all the returns reflect the detail of income accrued to the assessee in the relevant year.
On being cross examined by Sh. B.P. Singh, Ld. Special PP for CBI he stated that no scrutiny has been done in the income tax returns of Ms. Vipula Khante for the assessment years 200607 to 201112. All the income tax returns were assessed as filed by the assessee. He stated that he has no personal knowledge about the present case against accused Mukund Khante.
34. DW 6 Dr. K.K. Juneja, Chairman, Board C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 107 / 138 of Homeopathic System of Medicine, Delhi stated that on 17.5.2012, he was working as Chairman, Board of Homeopathic System of Medicine, Delhi. On that day, an information under R.T.I. Act, 2005 was given to Sh. K.N. Sharma under his signatures. He proved the said information letter Ex.PW6/A. He further stated that the contents of the letter are correct.
On being cross examined by Sh. B.P. Singh, Ld. Special PP for CBI he stated that he has no personal knowledge about the present case against accused Mukund Khante. He also stated that he does not have any personal knowledge whether the patient Sh. V.B. Aggarwal was getting treatment from Dr. Tarang Krishna and Dr. Hari Krishna. He stated that he had also not received any complaint against Dr. Tarang Krishna regarding the treatment of Sh. V.B. Aggarwal from any of his family members.
C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 108 / 138
35. Accused has tendered photocopies of two letters dated 09.6.2006 issued by Mr. Ashok Pradhan, the then Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha), Government of India in reply to letter received in MCD Office dated 03.5.2006 addressed to Mr. A.K. Nigam, the then Commissioner, MCD.
36. Defence Evidence was closed thereafter.
37. Final arguments were heard on behalf of Ld. Special PP for CBI as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused. I have heard arguments at the bar and have carefully gone through the case file.
38. Sh. H.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused stated that testimony of PW 13 Dr. Tarang Krishna, who is the complainant, cannot be relied upon since he is a witness who is not worthy of C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 109 / 138 credence. He has drawn my attention to the fact that the complainant Dr. Tarang Krishna and his father late Dr. Hari Krishna had falsely deposed in Siri Fort shoot out case, Delhi and a case has been registered against them for false deposition. It is also stated that Dr. Tarang Krishna had filed false cases against one Mr. Puneet Bali. He has also stated that since the father of Dr. Tarang Krishna was the treating doctor of father in law of accused Mukund Khante and Rs. 60,000/ had been paid by the accused to them; the accused wanted the said money back since he had found out that the father of Dr. Tarang Krishna had falsely projected himself to be a cancer specialist. He therefore, states that in such circumstances it is clear that Dr. Tarang Krishna and his father are in habit of filing false complaints and deposing falsely for their own purposes. He has emphatically argued that accused Mukund Khante had taken back the C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 110 / 138 amount paid by him to Dr. Tarang Krishna as fees for treatment of his father in law and it was not the bribe amount as alleged by CBI.
nd He also states that 2 October is a gazetted holiday and there was no question of nd accused being present in his office on 2 October as the MCD Office would have remained closed on that day. Therefore, it points out that the witness Dr. Tarang Krishna has deposed falsely. He also states that Dr. Tarang Krishna has admitted in his cross examination that he had called accused Mukund Khante on false pretext that somebody in the family was pregnant at Chandigarh which points out that the witness is in habit of speaking untruth. He therefore, states that the prosecution has not been able to make out the case that accused Mukund Khante had demanded bribe from Dr. Tarang Krishna or his father and states that the alleged Rs. 60,000/ were the amount which was the fees paid C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 111 / 138 by the accused to Dr. Tarang Krishna which had to be returned by Dr. Tarang Krishna and therefore, the accused be acquitted.
39. Sh. B.P. Singh, Ld. Special PP for CBI has stated that there is nothing on record to suggest that the accused had not demanded the bribe amount to settle the tax issue of the accused and stated the intercepted conversation clearly points out that accused Mukund Khante had demanded Rs.60,000/ as bribe amount to settle the property tax issue of Dr. Tarang Krishna pertaining to his clinic.
Ld. Special PP for CBI also states that the defence raised by accused Mukund Khante is of no benefit to him as the accused could not produce before the Court the medical record, if any, issued by Dr. Tarang Krishna or any receipt towards payment of Rs.60,000/. He, therefore, states that C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 112 / 138 the plea of Ld. Counsel for accused is devoid of any merit and be rejected.
40. It is further submitted by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the witnesses joined in the investigation namely Sh. C.L. Meena and Sh. Shyam Bihari Gupta were not independent witnesses. It is submitted that they were interested witnesses and have deposed at the instance of the CBI. However, Ld. PP has submitted that there is nothing in cross examination of PW10 Sh. Shyam Bihari Gupta and PW11 Sh. C.L. Meena which could discredit their integrity as independent witnesses.
41. After hearing Ld. Special PP for CBI as well as Ld. Defence Counsel and going through the testimony of the independent witnesses, I am of the opinion that there is no material on the file to C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 113 / 138 suggest that they frequently associate with CBI as witnesses or that they are otherwise under the pressure of the CBI. Unless there is any specific material against any witness, they cannot be called as interested witnesses or witnesses not independent of the prosecution. There is no material on the file which could impeach their credit as witness. Every witness is deemed to be independent unless proved otherwise. In this regard, it is relevant to quote an authority reported as State of Gujarat vs. Raghnathan Vamanra Baxi AIR 1985, SC 1092, wherein while dealing with such a contention, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph 5 as under:
"In appreciating oral evidence, the question in each case is whether the witness is a truthful C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 114 / 138 witness and whether there is anything to doubt his veracity in any particular matter about which he deposes. Where the witness is found to be untruthful on material facts that is an end of the matter. Whether the witness is found to be partly truthful or to spring from tainted sources, the Court may take the precaution of seeking some corroboration, adequate and reasonable to meet the demands of the situation, but a court C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 115 / 138 is not entitled to reject the evidence of a witness merely because they are government servants, who, in the course of their duties or even otherwise, might have come into contact with investigating officers and who might have been requested to assist the investigating agencies. If their association with the investigating agencies is unusual, frequent or designed, there may be occasion to view their evidence with suspicion.
C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 116 / 138 But merely because they are called in to associate themselves with the investigating as they happened to be available or it is convenient to call them, it is no ground to view their evidence with suspicion. Even in cases where officers who, in the course of their duties, generally assist the investigating agencies, there is no need to view their evidence with suspicion as an invariable rule. For example, in rural areas, investigating C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 117 / 138 officers would ordinarily think of calling in the village officers, such as, the Headman, the Patel or Patwari to act as punch witnesses, as they are expected to be respectable persons of the locality. It does not mean that their evidence should be viewed with suspicion because they are government servants or because they are generally associated with investigating agencies whenever there is a crime in the village. For that C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 118 / 138 matter, it would be wrong to reject the evidence of police officers either on the mere ground that they are interested in the success of the prosecution. The Court may be justified in looking with suspicion upon the evidence of officers who have been demonstrated to have displayed excess of zeal in the conduct and success of the prosecution. But to reject the evidence of all official witnesses as the High Court has done in the C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 119 / 138 present case, is going too far. We think that it is extremely unfair to a witness to reject his evidence by merely giving him a label."
42. Similarly, in another authority reported as State of UP Vs. Zakaullah AIR 1991 SC 1417, while dealing with such a contention, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph 10 as under:
"The necessity for "independent witness" in cases involving police or police search is incorporated in the statute not for the C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 120 / 138 purpose of helping the indicted person to bypass the evidence of those panch witnesses who have had some acquaintance with the police or officers conducting the search at some time or the other.
Acquaintance with the police by itself would not destroy a man's independent outlook. IN a society where police involvement is a regular phenomenon many people would get acquainted with the C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 121 / 138 police. But as long as they are not dependent on the police for their living or liberty or for any other matter, it cannot be said that those are not independent persons. If the police in order to carry out official duties, have sought the help of any other person he would not forfeit his independent character by giving help to police action. The requirement to have independent witness to corroborate the evidence of the C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 122 / 138 police is to be viewed from a realistic angle.
Every citizen of India must be presumed to be an independent person until it is proved that he was a dependent of the police or other officials for any purpose whatsoever."
43. In view of the above discussion and the law, referred to above, I am satisfied that PW10 Sh. Shyam Bihari Gupta and PW11 Sh. C.L. Meena are independent witnesses. Their evidence cannot be faulted on any ground particularly the ground of their not being an independent witnesses. The submission is, as such, without merit. C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 123 / 138
44. It is next submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that complainant has lodged a false case against accused as he had failed to reimburse his fee to be given to him for treatment of cancer of his father in law. It is submitted that complainant had grudge against accused as his father was the treating doctor of father in law of accused Mukund Khante and Rs. 60,000/ had been paid by the accused to them. Accused wanted the said money back since he had found out that the father of Dr. Tarang Krishna had falsely projected himself to be a cancer specialist. It is repeatedly submitted that the grudge of the complainant was so strong against accused that he went to the extent of implicating him in this false case.
45. I, however, do not find any merit in this plea as the accused has not lodged any complaint to any authority against refusal of Dr. Tarang C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 124 / 138 Krishna and his father to return the amount of fee paid by accused since he had failed to treat his fatherinlaw. Moreover, PW 10 Sh. Shyam Bihari Gupta, PW11 Sh. C.L. Meana, PW13 Dr. Tarang Krishna and PW14 Inspector A.S. Sandhu have all deposed that on 03.10.2007 he was apprehended while accepting bribe at the residence cum clinic of Dr. Tarang Krishna. Thus, the story of a false complaint being lodged against him is without merit. Ld. Counsel for the accused states that accused is innocent and he had gone to take refund of the the amount of fee paid to the complainant and his father since he had failed to treat his fatherinlaw. I do not find any merit in this contention since if it was so why did the accused object to the presence of shadow witness Sh. C.L. Meena when he was sitting in the clinic of Dr. Tarang Krishna. If the intention of the accused was clear he would have had no objection to anyone sitting in the clinic to C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 125 / 138 take back his own money. The fact that he had not only objected to the presence of shadow witness Sh. C.L. Meena but had also ensured that the said witness was sent outside the room of clinic of Dr. Tarang Krishna when he had spoken to him about the bribe amount points out that he had not gone to take back his own money. Moreover, the accused was present alongwith the file pertaining to property tax matter of the complainant and there is no plausible explanation as to why the official file was carried out by the accused to the clinic of Dr. Tarang Krishna.
46. Ld. Counsel for the accused also states that the testimony of the witnesses of CBI cannot be relied upon even for the purpose of corroboration since the independent witnesses have deposed under threat of CBI and official witnesses of CBI are interested witnesses. In this regard para 10 of the C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 126 / 138 Sate of U.P. Vs. G.K. Ghosh (supra) is quite relevant which is extracted as under:
"It is now time to deal with the criticism urged as a matter of course in the context of the police officer leading the raiding party namely that he is an interested witness. This is true, but only to an extent a very limited extent. He is interested in the success of the trap to ensure that a citizen, who complainants of harassment by a Government Officer making a demand for illegal gratification, is protected and the role of his department C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 127 / 138 in the protection of such citizens is vindicated. Perhaps it can be contented that he is interested in the success of the trap so that his ego is satisfied or that he earns a feather in his cap. At the same time it must be realized that it is not frequently that a police officer, himself being a Government servant, would resort to perjury and concoct evidence in order to rope in an innocent Government servant. In the event of the Government servant concerned refusing to accept the currency notes offered by the complainant it C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 128 / 138 would not be reasonable to expect the police officer to go to the length of concocting a false seizure memo for prosecuting and humiliating him merely in order to save the face of the complainant, thereby compromising his own conscience. The court may therefore, depending on the circumstances of a case, feel safe in accepting the prosecution version on the basis of the oral evidence of the complainant and the police officers even if the trap witnesses turn hostile or are found not to be independent.
C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 129 / 138 When therefore besides such evidence there is circumstantial evidence which is consistent with the guilt of the accused and not consistent with his innocence, there should be no difficulty in upholding the prosecution case. The present case appears to be a case of that nature. If the circumstantial evidence is of such a nature that it affords adequate corroboration to the prosecution case, as held by the Ld. Special Judge, the appeal must succeed. If on the other hand the circumstantial C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 130 / 138 evidence is considered to be inadequate to buttress the oral testimony, the appeal necessarily must fail."
47. It is next submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that transcription has been manipulated to suit the needs of the prosecution case. It is submitted that original recording device has not been produced in the Court and this shows that the transcription is not correct . However, the cassette containing the transcription was played in the Court at the time of examination of PW 13 Dr. Tarang Krishna and he has identified his voice and that of the accused. This witness has been cross examined at length by the accused and there is nothing of any significance in the cross examination which could point out that the transcription has been tampered with to suit the needs of the prosecution. C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 131 / 138 Ld. Special PP for CBI has pointed out that the original recording devices are very few and each one cannot be produced in the Court as they are required in many cases and as such, the cassettes, in which the transcription was subsequently transferred, have been produced in the Court. The submission of Ld. Defence Counsel is, as such, without merit.
48. It is next submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that the specimen voice of the accused has been recorded contrary to the law and as such, the same cannot be read in evidence. However, I have carefully gone through the specimen voice recording memo Ex.PW11/E wherein it is recorded that the accused had given his voice voluntarily. The memo bears the signature of PW 11 Sh. C.L. Meena. As such, it cannot be said that his sample voice was recorded forcibly. The submission, as such, is C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 132 / 138 without merit.
49. The other contention of the Ld. Counsel for accused is that the complainant is not telling the truth since he has stated that the accused had met him in his office on a gazetted holiday since on a gazetted holiday, the offices of MCD remain closed. This argument is also devoid of any merit since even on a gazetted holiday if a person who is working in a particular office carries his own I Card may go to his room in the office and there is no bar to the same.
50. The other contention of Ld. Counsel for accused is that the father and brother of the complainant were witnesses in the Ansal Plaza Shoot out case and since they had been found to have deposed falsely in those cases, it shows that the complainant in the present case was also not C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 133 / 138 telling the truth. I do not find any merit in this contention also since if the father and brother of the complainant have deposed in a particular case and any case has been filed against them, it does not have any bearing on the character of the complainant in the present case. Moreover, the said order is under challange before the Hon'ble High Court and therefore, no finding can be given that they have falsely deposed in the Ansal Plaza Shoot out case.
51. Ld. Counsel for the accused also states that by leading his defence evidence, he has proved that father in law of accused was a cancer patient and was being treated by Dr. Tarang Krishna and his father and therefore, the money being spoken about is actually not the bribe amount but the refund of the fee that he had to take from the complainant also does not find any favour with this Court since C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 134 / 138 though the fact that father in law of the accused was a cancer patient has been proved on record, it could not be proved that he was under medical treatment of Dr. Tarang Krishna or his father since no prescription, no bill, registration card etc. issued by either complainant Dr. Tarang Krishna or his father Dr. Hari Krishna could be produced on record by the accused.
On the other hand, the testimony of the complainant and the independent witness Sh. S. B. Gupta and the shadow witness Sh. C.L. Meena could not be impeached, no major contradiction has emerged in testimony of any of the witnesses and testimony of the complainant has been corroborated by the Independent witness and shadow witness as well as by the testimony of the Investigating Officer and the Trap Laying Officer which is further corroborated by CFSL Report and the report of the hand writing expert. The intercepted conversation C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 135 / 138 has been identified and proved when it was played in the Court and the audio recording and transcript have no major contradiction which can discredit the case of CBI.
52. Moreover in the entire intercepted conversation, there is no mention regarding refund, if any, to be paid by the complainant to the accused. The argument of Ld. Counsel that accused had not settled for Rs.30,000/ is also falsified by the intercepted conversation wherein the accused is given Rs.25,000/ by the complainant and he says to him that he should give at least Rs.5,000/ more. There is also clear indication in the intercepted conversation that the accused was helping them in settling their property tax dispute with MCD for a consideration. Therefore, the entire set of circumstances, the intercepted conversation and the statements of witnesses as well as the FSL Report C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 136 / 138 and the report of the handwriting expert clearly indicate and corroborate the case of CBI and point out toward commission of offence by the accused.
53. I, therefore, hold that the prosecution has been successful in proving beyond reasonable doubt that while working as a public servant, i.e., Inspector, MCD, Property Tax Department, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, he obtained illegal gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward to settle the property tax issues against and while doing so he, by corrupt or illegal means, or by otherwise abusing his position as such public servant, demanded Rs. 60,000/ from complainant Dr. Tarang Krishna which was later on settled for Rs. 30,000/ and was caught red handed while accepting Rs. 25,000/ from the complainant on 03.10.2007. The oral evidence, transcription as well as phenolphthalein powder test, unmistakably point C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 137 / 138 to the guilt of the accused.
54. I, accordingly, hold the accused guilty and convict him under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act.
55. To come up for arguments on quantum of sentence on 27.07.2012 at 2:00 pm. Announced in the open court on 26th July, 2012.
(SWARANA KANTA SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI05), NEW DELHI/ 26.7.2012 C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 138 / 138 IN THE COURT OF MS. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI05, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CC No. : 44/12 RC no. : DAI2007A0040CBIACBNew Delhi. Unique Case ID no. : 02403R1072112008 Title : State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante, S/o Sh. N.G. Khante, R/o B203, Saraswati Apartment, I.P. Extension, Patpar Ganj, New Delhi - 110092 U/s : Section 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act 1988 27.07.2012 (Appearances) C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 139 / 138 Sh. B.P. Singh, Ld. Special P.P. for CBI. Sh. H.K. Sharma, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for convict Mukund Khante.
ORDER ON SENTENCE.
1. Vide my separate judgment dated 26.07.2012, convict Mukund Khante has been convicted on the allegations that on
2. I have heard the arguments on the point of sentence at the bar and have carefully gone through the file.
3. It is submitted by the Ld. Defence Counsel that Convict has suffered great mental agony because of this case. It is further submitted that his father in law is a cancer patient and he has lost his social life. It is prayed that a lenient view may kindly C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 140 / 138 be taken.
4. On the other hand, it is submitted by the Ld. PP that it was the duty of the convict to enforce law and ensure that proper tax is paid by public. It is submitted that he may be punished severely.
5. While dealing with the question of sentence, in an authority reported as State of UP Vs. Sattan @ Satyendra and Others 2009 III AD (SC) 492 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in para 14, as under:
"Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle, and in spite of errant notions, it remains a strong influence in the determination of C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 141 / 138 sentences. The practice of punishing all serious crimes with equal severity is now unknown in civilized societies, but such a radical departure from the principle of proportionality has disappeared from the law only in recent times. Even now for a single grave infraction drastic sentences are imposed. Anything less than a penalty of greatest severity for any serious crime is thought then to be a measure of toleration that is unwarranted and unwise. But, in fact, quite apart from those C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 142 / 138 considerations that make punishment unjustifiable when it is out of proportion to the crime, uniformly disproportionate punishment has some very undesirable practical consequences."
6. Similarly, in a recent authority reported as Surain Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2009II AD (SC) 589, while dealing with the case of a Patwari who had accepted an illegal gratification of Rs. 300/, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraphs 7 and 8 as under: (7) "Day in and day out the gigantic problem of corruption in the public C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 143 / 138 servants is on the increase.
Large scale corruption retards the nationbuilding activities and everyone has to suffer on that count. Corruption is corroding like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politics, social fabric of efficiency in the public service and demoralizing the honest officers. The efficiency in public service would improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does the duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 144 / 138 performance of the duties of his post".
(8) "Considering the peculiar facts of the case, we are of the view that the custodial sentences of one year, which is minimum prescribed, would meet the ends of justice".
7. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the submissions made by the Ld. Defence Counsel, the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for one year under Section 7 of PC Act alongwith fine of Rs.25,000/, in default of which to Rigorous imprisonment for three months.
8. I also sentence the convict to Rigorous C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 145 / 138 Imprisonment for two years under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act alongwith fine of Rs.25,000/, in default of which to Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.
9. Both the sentences shall run concurrently as they arise from the same transaction of offence.
10. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. be given to the Convict as per law.
11. Bail Bond of convict is hereby cancelled and his surety stands discharged. The documents, if any, of the surety be returned against proper receipt after getting the endorsement, if any, cancelled.
12. The case property, i.e., amount of Rs.25,000/ be returned to the complainant immediately as per law. Rest of the case property is forfeited to the C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 146 / 138 Sate to be disposed of as per law after the time of appeal is over.
13. Documents seized in the case be returned to the concerned Department on proper receipt by the IO after the time of filing of appeal is over.
14. A copy of the judgment and order be sent to the Commissioner of Property Tax Department, MCD, Delhi, for information and necessary action as per law. Action taken Report be filed before this Court within 10 days.
15. At this stage, an application u/s. 389 Cr.P.C. is moved by Sh. H.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for convict. Copy supplied to Sh. B.P. Singh, Ld. Senior PP. Fine of Rs. 50,000/ has been deposited by the convict.
C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 147 / 138
16. Heard on the application moved. It is stated that applicant/convict would be preferring an appeal against the judgment of this court and it is requested that order on sentence may be suspended and the convict may be granted bail till filing of appeal.
17. Considering the fact that he has been regularly appearing during the trial, the application is allowed and sentence is suspended till 25.09.2012 subject to the applicant/convict Mukund Khante furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/ with two surety in the like amount. Bail bonds are furnished and accepted.
18. Copy of the judgment and order be given to the convict free of cost immediately. C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 148 / 138
19. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on 27th July, 2012.
(SWARANA KANTA SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI05), NEW DELHI/ 27.07.2012 C.C. NO. 44/12 State (CBI) Vs. Mukund Khante Page no. 149 / 138