Delhi District Court
(I) V. Thevar vs . State Of Madras, 1957, Crl. Law ... on 14 February, 2022
1
IN THE COURT OF AMIT KUMAR, SPECIAL JUDGE,
PC ACT (CBI) - 04, ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, DELHI.
CC No. 305/2019
R.C. No. 7A/17/CBI/ACB/ND
CNR No. DLCT11-001172-2019
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
VERSUS
SMT. KAILASH WATI
(PUBLIC SERVANT)
W/O SH. PHOOL KUMAR,
R/O HOUSE NO. 634,
VILLAGE SHAHABAD MOHD. PUR,
DELHI-110061.
(ACCUSED)
Date of Institution : 31.05.2017.
Date of Arguments : 17.12.2021.
Date of Judgment : 14.02.2022.
JUDGMENT
1. This case was registered by the CBI on the basis of complaint dated 16.02.2017 given by Raj Vimal (hereinafter referred as complainant) on the allegations that the complainant is an accused in FIR No. 528/2016 registered at PS Janak Puri, which was investigated by Sub Inspector Kailash Wati (hereinafter referred as accused). The complainant got anticipatory bail in this FIR from Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in September 2016. The accused called the complainant on his mobile on 14.02.2017 and asked him to come to PS Janak Puri CC No. 305/2019 Page 1 of 40 2 for joining investigation and she met the complainant on 15.02.2017 at PS Janak Puri and demanded a bribe of Rs. 15,000/- from the complainant, failing which she would get canceled his anticipatory bail. The complainant lodged the complaint on 16.02.2017 with CBI, ACB, Delhi in this regard. The said complaint was verified on 16.02.2017 itself by SI Manish in the presence of independent witness and after verification, the present FIR was registered. As per charge sheet, the trap proceedings were conducted on 17.02.2017 and accused was caught red handed at PS Janak Puri after receiving the bribe of Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant. The accused was apprehended and arrested and after completing the formalities like collecting the hand washes, voice samples, CFSL results etc., the present charge sheet was filed on 31.05.2017.
2. My Ld. Predecessors took cognizance of the offences punishable U/s 7, 13 (2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the PC Act on 03.07.2017 and accused was accordingly summoned. After supplying the copy and hearing arguments on charge, charges were framed against the accused on 20.03.2018 for the offences punishable U/s 7, 13 (2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the PC Act to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution to prove its case examined 20 witnesses, following which statement of accused was recorded. Accused examined two defence witnesses.
4. The prosecution witnesses can be categorized in four CC No. 305/2019 Page 2 of 40 3 categories as under:
i. Formal witnesses ii. Expert witnesses from CFSL iii. Complainant and public witnesses iv. CBI witnesses of verification and trap FORMAL WITNESSES:-
5. Under the category of Formal witnesses, prosecution examined PW2, who is Mr. Saurabh Aggarwal, the Nodal officer of Vodafone Service Provider who produced the customer application form and CDR of Mobile No. 8447748218 from 15.02.2017 to 18.02.2017 as Ex. PW2/1 and PW2/2 respectively, which was in the name of Mr. Phool Kanwar (PW17), who is the husband of accused. Nothing important has come out in the cross examination of this witness except that he did not handover any document to CBI regarding his authority to issue certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
6. PW3 is Yogesh Tripathi, the Nodal Officer of Reliance Communication Ltd., who produced the subscriber details and CDR of Mobile No. 9555246083, which was issued to BSES Ltd. This phone was used by the complainant, who was an employee of BSES Ltd. In his cross examination, it has come that he has not provided any authority letter to CBI authorizing him to issue U/s 65 B Certificate or to submit the CDRs to CBI.
7. PW4 is Satya Vir Sharma, Assistant Vice President of BSES Ltd., who stated that the Mobile No. 9555246083 was alloted to the complainant, who was working with CC No. 305/2019 Page 3 of 40 4 BSES Ltd. In his cross examination, he stated that there is a register maintained in the office of BSES for allocation of SIM cards to the employees but he has not brought the said register to show that this SIM was alloted to the complainant. However, he placed on record the copy of the letter to show allotment of this SIM to complainant, which was exhibited as Ex. PW4/X. He denied the suggestion that Ex. PW4/X is a fabricated document.
8. PW6 is Head Constable Kuldeep Kumar posted in CBI, who on 28.03.2017 on the directions of the IO collected the exhibits from the In-charge, Malkhana, CBI and deposited the same with Physics Division of CFSL and proved the said letter as Ex. PW6/1. In his cross examination, he stated that he has taken only five exhibits to CFSL and nothing else. He was also confronted with his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. where it was not recorded that the exhibits were sealed and the seal was intact when the same were in his possession.
9. PW7 is Constable Dinesh Kumar of PS Vikas Puri, who on 16.03.2017 collected the copy of FIR No. 528/2016 PS Janak Puri and extracts of DD entries Nos. 18B & 31B dated 16.02.2017 and 26B & 45B dated 17.02.2017 regarding arrival and departure of the accused at PS Janak Puri and handed over these documents to the IO at CBI office. There is no cross examination to this witness.
10. PW12 is SHO Janak Puri, who stated that on 17.02.2017, he was informed by TLO that accused has been trapped by CBI and he was asked to come to police station. He CC No. 305/2019 Page 4 of 40 5 reached police station and informed TLO that accused was investigating FIR No. 528/2016 lodged against the complainant. He provided certified copy of the FIR and DD entries of 16.02.2017 and 17.02.2017 to the IO through Constable Dinesh. In the cross examination, he stated that he was called by TLO at around 2 pm and he reached PS Janak Puri within 15 minutes. He did not enter the information received from TLO in the DD register.
11. PW13 is Head Constable from PS Janak Puri, who prepared the true copies of the DD entry register dated 16.02.2017 and 17.02.2017 and the same were certified by the SHO. There is no cross examination to this witness.
12. PW14 is Radha Kishan Sharma, a constable in CBI, who on 20.02.2017 collected the exhibits Q1, Q2 and sealed bottles containing washes from the Incharge, Mal Khana and delivered the same to CFSL and on 21.03.2017, collected the reports and exhibits from CFSL and handed over the reports to the IO and deposited the exhibits in the Mal Khana, CBI.
13. PW17 is Phool Kanwar, the husband of the accused and stated that SIM of Vodafone No. 8447748218 was issued in his name and was used by his wife i.e. accused.
EXPERT WITNESSES FROM CFSL:-
14. PW8 is V.B. Ramteke, the Principal Scientific Officer, Chemistry, CFSL, New Delhi who examined four washes collected by the IO. He gave his report Ex. PW6/2 and CC No. 305/2019 Page 5 of 40 6 opined that all the four glass bottles marked as left hand wash, right hand wash, red diary wash and white packet wash tested positive for the presence of phenolphthalein powder. In the cross examination, he stated that CFSL is under direct administrative control of CBI though technical work is independent. He admitted that all the four bottles produced in the court do not contain pink liquid though he clarified that the pink colour fades away with time. He denied the suggestions that his report has been prepared under the influence of CBI.
15. PW10 is Dr. Subrat Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. Scientific Officer, Physics, CFSL, New Delhi, who examined the voice samples of the questioned and admitted voices contained in questioned micro SD cards Q1 and Q2 and specimen voice recording S1 having sample voice of accused and C1 having sample voice of complainant. On examination, he found that the voice of accused contained in specimen voice called S1 tallied with the respective questioned voices contained in Q1 and Q2 and similarly, the sample voice of complainant contained in C1 tallied with respective questioned voices in Q1 and Q2 for which he gave detailed reasoned opinion in his report Ex. PW10/1. In his detailed cross examination, he stated that CFSL, New Delhi has not been notified U/s 79 (A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 but denied the suggestion that it is because CFSL is not an independent body. He also stated that spectrographic and auditory examination results are close to 100%. He also admitted CC No. 305/2019 Page 6 of 40 7 that in the transcript received by him, the name of the speaker was clearly mentioned. He also stated that the word 'probable' used in his report is nowhere prescribed in the voice identification manual. He, however, stated that in voice examination cases, the word 'probable' use is interpreted as positive identification.
COMPLAINANT AND PUBLIC WITNESSES:-
16. PW11 is the complainant Raj Vimal, who supported the prosecution case and his complaint and deposed that he was accused in FIR investigated by the accused herein at PS Janak Puri and anticipatory bail was granted to him by Hon'ble High Court and accused demanded a bribe of Rs. 15,000/- from him, which he did not want to pay and lodged his complaint Ex. PW5/2 with CBI on 16.02.2017. The verification was conducted by CBI through SI Manish on the same day after involving one independent witness Bajdev Raj Paul. The bribe amount was negotiated, which was reduced to Rs. 10,000/-. After the verification proceedings, the trap was laid on 17.02.2017, on which date he reached CBI office alongwith the bribe amount of Rs. 10,000/- in the denomination of Rs. 500/- GC Notes. Inspector Sanjay Upadhyay (TLO) constituted a trap team. The demonstration of the phenolphthalein powder was conducted with the solution of sodium carbonate and water, which turned pink and thereafter, they left the CBI office at about 12.30 pm with two lady staff members. The DVR was kept in his left side pocket. After reaching PS Janak Puri, he met the accused, who CC No. 305/2019 Page 7 of 40 8 asked him to get a copy of his Aadhar card and he got a copy of the Aadhar card and returned to the room of the accused where she demanded the bribe amount by gesture and without speaking asked him to keep the bribe amount in the red diary lying on her table. He placed the bribe amount in the red diary as asked by the accused and thereafter, came out of her room and made a gesture by rubbing his hand on his face and also called the TLO and intimated him about the transaction of bribe on phone. The CBI team including lady staff entered the room of accused. The DVR was taken from him and was switched off. The two lady members of the CBI team caught the accused by her hands. The bribe amount was recovered from the white envelope from the office drawer of the table of the accused. The distinct numbers of the currency notes were tallied and the hand washes of both the hand of the accused were taken, which turned pink. The wash of the inside cover of the red diary and the white colour envelope were also taken separately, which turned pink. Rough site plan was prepared and then the CBI team returned to CBI office. The recovery memo was prepared and specimen voice samples of the accused and the complainant were taken and all the material was separately sealed. He again went to CBI office on 31.03.2017 where the transcriptions of the recordings were prepared in the presence of the two independent witnesses. He also identified the bribe amount produced in the court as well as the white envelope, red colour CC No. 305/2019 Page 8 of 40 9 diary recovered from the room of the accused. He also recognized the recording played in the court as his conversation with the accused. In the cross examination, he stated that he got anticipatory bail from High Court on 22.09.2016. On 15.02.2017, he was called on phone to join investigation at PS Janak Puri. He admitted that notice U/s 160 and 175 CrPC bears his signatures, which were given to him by the accused. He knows one Reena Mehra and her husband Rakesh Mehra, who are co- accused with him in FIR investigated by the accused. Reena Mehra is active in politics and a worker of AAM Aadmi party. He does not recollect, if he had talked to Reena Mehra four times on 15.02.2017 nor, if he talked to her husband four times between 16.02.2017 to 18.02.2017. He might have met accused on 14.02.2017 when accused asked him to come to PS Janak Puri on 17.02.2017 with surety and documents for furnishing bail bond. He identified the particulars of his surety Ravinder Pal on documents Ex. PW11/DX1, his arrest memo Ex. PW11/DX2 and the photocopy of the documents of surety as Ex. PW11/DX3 to DX6.
17. PW15 is Baldev Raj, one of the independent witnesses of the verification and trap proceedings and stated that on 16.02.2017, he reached CBI office and was explained about the complaint of Raj Vimal by SI Manish and then DVR and new memory card was arranged by SI Manish in which his introductory voice was recorded and then they left for PS Janak Puri. After reaching there, CC No. 305/2019 Page 9 of 40 10 complainant was asked to make a call to accused from his mobile with speaker mode on and thereafter, he alongwith the complainant went inside PS Janak Puri. After entering PS Janak Puri, he came out and after some time, the complainant also came out with one lady and they both walked towards District Centre Janak Puri and talked for about ten minutes and he identified that lady being accused, who was present in the court. He followed them and thereafter, they returned to CBI vehicle where SI Manish took the DVR from the complainant and switched it off and they reached CBI office where recorded conversation was heard in which there was a demand of Rs. 15,000/- by the accused, which was negotiated to Rs. 10,000/-. The memory card was taken out from the DVR and sealed and verification memo Ex. PW11/1 was prepared. On the next day, he again reached CBI office and met Inspector Sanjay Upadhyay, who introduced himself and another independent witness Pradeep Kumar. The demonstration of the chemical reaction applied on the bribe amount of Rs. 10,000/- brought by the complainant was shown and thereafter, the tainted amount was kept in the right side pocket of the complainant by him. Thereafter, they left for PS Janak Puri. Independent witness Pardeep was directed to remain with the complainant and he remained with the CBI team. After reaching PS Janak Puri, the complainant and Pardeep Kumar went inside PS while he alongwith CBI team remained outside PS. At about 2.10 pm, TLO alerted CC No. 305/2019 Page 10 of 40 11 entire team and they all went inside a room of police station where accused was present. TLO and the two female officers were also present in the room and the female officials had caught hold of both hands of the accused. Pardeep Kumar found a white envelope in the left drawer of the table of the accused containing bribe amount. The number of the currency notes were tallied. The DVR was taken from the complainant and switched off. The left and right hand washes of the accused, wash of red diary and wash of white envelope were taken. The currency notes were kept in white envelope and sealed and then they returned to CBI office. The conversation was heard and memory card was taken out from the DVR. The voice samples of complainant and accused were also taken. He did not visit CBI office after 17.02.2017. In the cross examination, he stated that accused and the complainant came out of police station after about 5-7 minutes of this witness coming out of police station on 16.02.2017. He does not recollect, if there was any conversation between accused and the complainant on 16.02.2017 to meet again on 17.02.2017. There was no lock in the drawer of the table of the accused. He does not recollect, if the colour of the water changed after the hand wash of the accused. He did not read the documents before signing at CBI office and he has identified documents in the court only on the basis of his signatures and not on the basis of particulars of the documents.
18. PW16 is Pardeep Kumar, the independent witness of trap CC No. 305/2019 Page 11 of 40 12 proceedings, who stated that in February, 2017, he was asked by his office to visit CBI office and he was asked to meet Sanjay Upadhyay at CBI office where he waited for him but could not meet and was asked by the Duty Officer to come again on the next morning. He again reached CBI office on the next day where he met Sanjay Upadhyay, who told him that he had to accompany them somewhere. He was introduced with complainant and independent witness Baldev and other team members. He was also shown the complaint Ex. PW5/2. The complainant produced Rs. 10,000/-, which was the bribe amount and they reached PS Janak Puri and he was asked to be with the complainant but at a distance. At police station, complainant entered the room of accused and he kept standing at some distance in the corridor. Later on, he came near the door of said room and saw accused sitting in that room with one more female staff. After some time, complainant came out of the room with a paper in his hand and went outside police station but returned after 5-7 minutes and again entered the room of accused. Accused came out of her room and went to some other room whereas the complainant kept sitting in the same room. The accused returned and after some time, complainant came out of the room and gave pre-decided signal by movement of his face and also called the TLO. The TLO with other team members came in the PS and entered the room of the accused and the two lady constable caught both her hands. The accused was CC No. 305/2019 Page 12 of 40 13 confronted. The TLO took out the DVR from the pocket of complainant and switched it off. Complainant told that he kept the money in a red diary as directed by the accused. TLO asked Baldev Raj to look for the money kept in the red diary but there was no money in the diary. TLO then asked to search the money on the table and the drawer and from the drawer, a white envelope having currency notes was found. The serial numbers of the currency notes were matched with the memo prepared at CBI office and the same tallied. Thereafter, the washes of both hands of the accused were taken but there was no change in the colour of the water. The wash of the red diary and white envelope was also taken and there was no change in its colour as well. Thereafter, they returned to CBI office where remaining proceedings were concluded. In the cross examination, he stated that TLO instructed him to accompany the complainant to overhear the conversation and see the transaction between the complainant and accused. He did not enter the room of accused as TLO asked him to keep a little distance. He does not recollect, if the complainant asked him not to enter the room of the accused. He remained in that room throughout when the proceedings were conducted. The drawer of the table from where money was recovered was not locked. The other lady officer had also come out of that room when accused came out of that room and at that time, the complainant alone kept on sitting in that room.
CC No. 305/2019 Page 13 of 40 14CBI WITNESSES OF VERIFICATION AND TRAP:-
19. PW5 is Inspector Sanjay Upadhyay, who was the trap laying officer (TLO) in this case and took over the proceedings on 17.02.2017 for laying the trap. He stated that after taking over the case, he received FIR verification memo, complaint and its copy Ex. PW5/1 and Ex. PW5/2 from the then SP Sh. G. Bairwa and thereafter, he constituted the trap team consisting of two independent witnesses Baldev Raj and Pardeep, complainant and the officials of CBI. The complainant had arranged Rs. 10,000/- in denomination of Rs. 500/-
GC Notes. The demonstration with the help phenolphthalein powder was given by Inspector Anil Kumar. The DVR was produced by the independent witness Baldev Raj and a new memory card was inserted in the DVR after ensuring the blankness of the DVR and the introductory voices of independent witnesses was recorded. Independent witness Pardeep Kumar was directed to be a shadow witness and the independent witness Baldev Raj was directed to remain with the trap team. The handing over memo was prepared, which was signed by all the members of the trap team and thereafter, the trap team left for PS Janak Puri with two lady constables in two Govt. Vehicles. After reaching there, the complainant was directed to call the accused to ascertain her whereabouts and during that conversation, the accused directed the complainant to come to her room in PS Janak Puri and thereafter, complainant proceeded CC No. 305/2019 Page 14 of 40 15 towards PS Janak Puri with shadow witness to meet the accused followed by two lady constables in discreet manner. After some time, he received a call from the complainant that accused has asked him to bring photocopy of his Aadhar card and he is coming out of police station for the same. Thereafter, the complainant was seen coming out from the police station, who went towards District Centre, Janak Puri and returned after some time. At about 2 pm, he received a call from the complainant, who informed about the transaction of bribe to the accused and he alerted all the team members and rushed towards inside PS Janak Puri. He along with the two lady constables entered the room of the accused and the two lady constables caught hold the left hand and right hand wrist of the accused. DVR was taken back from the complainant and switched off. Accused gave evasive replies regarding the transaction of bribe and thereafter, the complainant narrated the entire incident and stated that he kept the tainted bribe amount in the red diary lying on the table of the accused on her directions. The recorded conversation in the DVR was heard, which corroborated the version of the complainant. The independent witness Baldev Raj was directed to recover the bribe amount from the diary but there was no amount in the diary. Accused was again asked about the money but she gave evasive replies and thereafter, both the independent witnesses were directed to search the office table of the accused and witness Pardeep Kumar spotted a CC No. 305/2019 Page 15 of 40 16 white colour packet containing Rs. 500 GC Notes. Currency notes were counted and tallied with the list of handing over memo. The washes of the left hand and the right hand of the accused were taken, which turned turbid. The red diary wash and the white packet wash was also taken, which turned pink. SHO, Janak Puri was informed on phone who reached there in 15-20 minutes. The bribe amount was sealed in a brown envelope. The red diary and the white colour envelope were also sealed separately. Inspector Anil Kumar prepared the rough site plan Ex. PW9/2. Certified copy of the FIR 528/2016 PS Janak Puri and certified copy of the DD entries of 16.02.2017 and 17.02.2017 were received from the SHO. Search of the almirah in the room of the accused at PS Janak Puri and residence of the accused was conducted. Thereafter, the CBI team returned back to CBI office where accused was arrested vide arrest cum search memo Ex. PW9/3 and intimation of arrest was given to her husband. The witness also identified the memory card and the DVR and the CBI brass seal produced in the court. In the cross examination, he stated that he does not remember if as per CBI crime Manual, it is mandatory to video graph/photograph the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings. Whenever a complaint is received in CBI, a separate number is given by the complaint section. No complaint number is there on the present complaint though he specified that it is on the verification memo. He admitted that there is no endorsement of SP, CBI for CC No. 305/2019 Page 16 of 40 17 registration of FIR in this case. There is no order on record passed by the SP for registration of FIR. He admitted that there is inbuilt memory in every DVR. He does not remember, if he has gone through the conversation between the complainant and the accused dated 16.02.2017.
20. PW9 is Navneet Kaur, who was the lady constable in the trap team and supported the statement of TLO. She stated that she and lady constable Ved Kaur were directed to follow the complainant and the independent witness Pardeep Kumar at PS Janak Puri. Complainant entered the room of accused whereas independent witness Pardeep Kumar remained in the corridor and she alongwith constable Ved Kaur were at women help desk. The complainant once came out of the room of the accused and returned back after some time and thereafter, accused came out of her room and she made inquiries with the women help desk visitors and then returned back to her room. After some time, complainant came out of the room of the accused and gave pre-fixed signal by rubbing his face with his hands and also made a call to TLO and TLO came there and alerted them and they entered the room of the accused. TLO made inquiries from the accused regarding bribe amount but she kept mum. She caught the left hand of the accused whereas constable Ved Kaur caught her right hand. Thereafter, complainant narrated the sequence of events and told that he kept the bribe amount in the red diary lying on the CC No. 305/2019 Page 17 of 40 18 table of the accused at her directions. Money was not found in that red diary and the TLO directed the independent witnesses to search the bribe amount in the table of the accused and from the left side drawer of the table, one white envelope having bribe amount was recovered by witness Pardeep Kumar and thereafter, remaining proceedings were concluded. In the cross examination, she stated that the room of the accused is not visible from the women help desk. The accused remained at women help desk for about 2-3 minutes after coming out from her room. The complainant was in the room of the accused when accused was at women help desk. She entered the room of accused alongwith TLO and not before that. She did not hear the conversation recorded in the memory card of the DVR played at PS Janak Puri. The drawer of the table of the accused was not locked. Another lady SI was sitting in the room of the accused on another table. TLO had made some enquiries from that lady SI. She does not know, if the statement of that lady SI was recorded.
21. PW18 is Inspector Manish, who was the verifying officer and a member of trap team and stated that on 16.02.2017, SP, CBI called him in his office and introduced the complainant with him and handed over his complaint for verification regarding bribe of Rs. 15,000/- by the accused posted at PS Janak Puri. This demand was made on 15.02.2017. To verify the complaint, presence of independent witness Baldev Raj was secured through CC No. 305/2019 Page 18 of 40 19 Duty Officer. The witness was explained the purpose of assembly and was also shown the hand written complaint of the complainant. DVR Sony Make Black Colour and 8 GB new memory card was arranged and after ensuring the blankness of the DVR and the memory card, the introductory voice of the complainant and witness Baldev Raj was recorded in the memory card through DVR. Then, they left for PS Janak Puri at about 1.40 pm and reached near PS Janak Puri at 2.30 pm and parked CBI vehicle near PS Janak Puri. The complainant was asked to call the accused with speaker mode on of his mobile to check her whereabouts and the said call was recorded. In that call, accused confirmed her presence at PS Janak Puri. The complainant was directed to visit the accused in her office and the independent witness to follow the complainant and overhear his conversation with the accused. The DVR was switched on in recording mode and kept in left side shirt pocket of the complainant. After about 15 minutes, the complainant and independent witness returned to CBI vehicle and DVR was taken from the complainant and switched off. The complainant informed that the accused asked him to come out of PS Janak Puri alongwith her and the accused demanded a bribe of Rs. 15,000/- from the accused, which was negotiated to Rs. 10,000/-. Complainant told that accused assured that she shall not take any further action on his file and has also stopped his arrest. Complainant told that he informed the accused that he will pay the bribe amount CC No. 305/2019 Page 19 of 40 20 today, if arranged or definitely by tomorrow. Independent witness also stated that he saw the complainant and one lady in civil dress coming out of police station and going towards District Centre, Janak Puri and their meeting lasted for about 10 minutes and the said lady was consciously looking back time and again. Thereafter, they all returned to CBI office. The recorded conversation was heard and the verification memo was prepared. The memory card marked as Q1 was taken out from the DVR and kept in its original plastic packing and was kept in a brown envelope also marked as Q1 and the same was sealed by the CBI brass seal. The impression of the brass seal was taken on the verification memo Ex. PW11/1 and on two white papers in ink as well as lac as specimen impression. The CBI brass seal and the DVR was handed over to independent witness to bring them on the next day. Since it was late hours on 16.02.2017, the verification memo was put to senior officers for further directions on next day. He also directed the complainant and the independent witness to come to CBI office on 17.02.2017. On 17.02.2017, SP informed him that FIR has been registered in this case and told that Sanjay Upadhyay shall be the TLO and I should report to him. Thereafter, Sh. Sanjay Upadhyay formed a trap team consisting of complainant, two independent witnesses Baldev Raj and Pardeep Kumar and other CBI officials including two lady constables. This witness has further supported the prosecution story as stated by the TLO. In CC No. 305/2019 Page 20 of 40 21 the cross examination, he stated that there is no complaint number on the complaint in the present case though he clarified that complaint no. 14/17 was assigned to this complaint. He admitted that verification memo does not bear any endorsement of the SP for registration of FIR nor any endorsement that it was seen by the SP. No effort was made to ascertain the location of accused on 16.02.2017 while leaving CBI office. He submitted verification memo to SP on 17.02.2017 at 10 am. SI Manju was not there in the room of the accused when the CBI team entered that room. The drawer of the table of the accused was not locked from where the white packet was traced.
22. PW19 Inspector Anil Singh is the member of the trap team and supported the prosecution story as per the version of TLO. In the cross examination, he stated that he does not recollect, who all were sitting in the CBI vehicle in which he was sitting on way to PS Janak Puri. He does not remember the make of the vehicle in which they left CBI office. He cannot tell the distance where the vehicles were parked from PS Janak Puri. The independent witnesses did not search any other place before tracing the white envelope from the left drawer of the table though he specified that they started from the table itself.
23. PW20 is IO DSP Anand Swaroop, who took over investigation on 27.02.2017 and filed the charge sheet. He also collected the CFSL results, CDRs of the mobile CC No. 305/2019 Page 21 of 40 22 phones of the accused and the complainant, recorded the statement of witnesses, collected attested copies of the FIR No. 528/16 and the DD entries dated 16.02.2017 and 17.02.2017 from PS Janak Puri Ex. PW20/1, prepared voice identification cum transcription memos. In the cross examination, he stated that he has no knowledge of CBI Crime Manual as it was not taught to him during training. He did not requisite the CDR of mobile phones for 14.02.2017. He denied the suggestions that accused has been falsely implicated in this case.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED:-
24. Statement of the accused U/s 313 CrPC was recorded on 08.09.2021 wherein she stated that she has been falsely implicated in this case as she had asked Reena Mehra and Rakesh Mehra, who are the close friends of the complainant to join investigation in FIR No. 528/16 PS Janak Puri being investigated by her. She never demanded nor accepted any bribe from the complainant.
This false case has been foisted against her by the complainant in connivance with CBI officials.
25. The accused in her defence examined two defence witnesses. DW1 is Nodal Officer, Reliance Jio Infocom, who, however, could not produce any record as the mobile numbers 9211419567 and 9999350620 were not ported to their network in February, 2017 and were ported to their network on 17.02.2018. DW2 is the Nodal Officer from Vodafone, who produced the record pertaining to subscriber of mobile number 9999350620, which was in CC No. 305/2019 Page 22 of 40 23 the name of Rakesh Kumar Mehra, during the period 07.04.2011 to 12.12.2018 as Ex. DW2/1.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. PP FOR CBI:-
26. It was argued by Ld. Prosecutor that in the present case admittedly complainant herein was an accused in FIR No. 528/16 PS Janak Puri investigated by the accused herein and the complainant got anticipatory bail from Hon'ble High Court. The accused had demanded a bribe of Rs.
15,000/- from the complainant failing which she threatened to get his anticipatory bail cancelled. Verification of the complaint was done on 16.02.2017 followed by the trap proceedings on 17.02.2017. The prosecution has proved the case for demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe from the accused. PW11, the complainant, PW15 Baldev Raj Paul and the Verification Officer PW18 SI Manish through their deposition have proved that accused called the complainant for the purpose of investigation after he got anticipatory bail from Hon'ble High Court and threatened him for arrest, if he failed to pay the demanded bribe of Rs. 15,000/-. The conversation recorded through DVR between the accused and the complainant on 16.02.2017 clearly proves that there was a demand of Rs. 15,000/- as bribe by the accused, which was negotiated to Rs. 10,000/- and accused agreed to accept Rs. 10,000/- as bribe from the complainant. The independent witness posted as Sr. Assistant in Ministry of Textile, PW15 has supported the version of the complainant regarding the bribe. PW18 SI CC No. 305/2019 Page 23 of 40 24 Manish, who was the verification officer, has verified the demand of bribe during verification proceedings. It was further argued that as far as the point of acceptance and recovery of bribe is concerned, the same is duly supported by the testimony of PW11, the complainant, two independent witnesses Baldev Raj and Pardeep Kumar and the evidence of TLO, PW5, which was further supported by PW9 and PW19 as well as PW18 SI Manish, who was not only the verification officer but also a member of the trap team. All the witnesses have specifically deposed that the complainant entered the room of the accused and the accused accepted the bribe amount of Rs. 10,000/-, which were recovered in the white envelope from the left side drawer of the table of the accused. The said red diary and the white envelope and the bribe amount were duly seized and proved in the court. The washes of the right hand, left hand, red diary and the white envelope proves the presence of phenolphthalein powder in the solution of sodium carbonate and water and there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case. The accused at the time of offence was a public servant and demanded bribe from the complainant and the testimony of the complainant before this court is a substantive piece of evidence in view of Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act. The complainant is a direct witness of demand and his testimony establishes beyond reasonable doubt that there was a demand of bribe by the accused. Further, the statement of CC No. 305/2019 Page 24 of 40 25 complainant is duly supported by PW5 and PW18. The verification proceedings also proved the presence of demand by the accused. The acceptance is also proved beyond reasonable doubt through the evidence of complainant, PW11. His statement is duly supported by the expert opinion of the chemical examiner PW8, who stated that the contents of the bottles containing washes gave positive presence of phenolphthalein. The recovery of the bribe amount from the table of the accused also supports the fact of acceptance. This fact is also proved from the testimony of PW5, PW9, PW11, PW15, PW16, PW18 and PW19. The positive presence of phenolphthalein on the hand washes proved that accused voluntarily accepted the bribe amount and the same discards the theory of planting the money. The transcripts Ex. PW11/3 and PW11/4 supported by the statement of PW11 establishes that accused had demanded bribe as the motive for showing favours to the complainant in her official functions. The accused by corrupt and illegal means obtained pecuniary advantage for herself. The oral and documentary evidence in the present case proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused demanded and accepted illegal gratification from the complainant and the accused be convicted for the offences punishable U/s 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988. Ld. PP in support of his submissions, has relied upon following judgments:
(i) V. Thevar Vs. State of Madras, 1957, Crl. Law Journal, 1000.CC No. 305/2019 Page 25 of 40 26
(ii) C.M. Sharma Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013) 2 SCC (Crl.) 89.
(iii) M. Narsinga Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2001 Crl.
Law Journal 515.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED:-
27. It was argued for the accused that she has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant and the prosecuting agency at the behest of Reena Mehra and her husband with ulterior motive to stall the investigation of FIR No. 528/16 when the accused asked the friends of the complainant i.e. Reena Mehra and Rakesh Mehra to join the investigation of FIR No. 528/16 PS Janak Puri. It is stated that there was no complaint against the accused by the complainant till 16.02.2017 though he was granted anticipatory bail by Hon'ble High Court in September, 2016. The accused issued notices to Rakesh Mehra and Reena Mehra on 14.02.2017 and for that reason, this false complaint was made. It was argued that SI Manish, who verified the complaint, was not competent to verify the complaint, being barred by Section 17 of the PC Act. The prosecution has failed to prove any demand of bribe by the accused and therefore, the recovery, if any, made is immaterial. The prosecution has failed to prove the factum of demand by or on behalf of the accused. The complainant never met the accused on 15.02.2017, which is proved by the defence documents. It was argued that the prosecution did not purposely collect the CDRs of the mobile of the complainant and the accused of 14.02.2017 CC No. 305/2019 Page 26 of 40 27 as the same would have proved that the complainant and the accused spoke on phone on 14.02.2017 and never met on 15.02.2017 as alleged by the complainant. On 14.02.2017, the accused was asked to join the investigation on 17.02.2017, which has been proved during the cross examination of the complainant through documents Ex. PW11/DX to DX6. Till the complaint dated 16.02.2017, the alleged demand of bribe was Rs.
15,000/- only and as per prosecution case, it was negotiated to Rs. 10,000/- only during the verification proceedings. The prosecution has failed to prove that when the initial demand of Rs. 15,000/- was made by the accused. The transcript of the alleged recorded conversation was prepared on 31.03.2017. The prosecution has failed to prove that how the CFSL expert received the transcript on 28.03.2017 i.e. days before it was prepared. The prosecution has failed to prove as to where the case property which includes the memory card and the DVR were lying from 17.02.2017 till they were sent to CFSL on 28.03.2017. It is not the case of the prosecution that any copy of the memory card was prepared for investigation purposes nor it is there in the statement of the IO and in these circumstances, the possibility of tampering with the memory cards cannot be ruled out. There is no eye witness of demand and acceptance except the complainant PW11, who is an interested witness. The prosecution witnesses have contradicted each other regarding the colour of the CC No. 305/2019 Page 27 of 40 28 solution at the time of taking washes, which also doubts the presence of phenolphthalein powder in the solution taken at the stage of collecting washes. The documents confronted to the complainant in his cross examination shows that he was called at police station on 17.02.2017 only to furnish his surety bond and for formal arrest in view of the anticipatory bail order. There was no reason for the accused to ask the complainant to bring the photocopy of the Aadhar card if he was allegedly called for giving the bribe. The IO did not interrogate SI Manju for unexplained reasons, who admittedly was present in that room at the time of alleged transaction of accepting bribe. Further, the complainant was alone in the room of the accused for considerable period and at that time, the money was planted upon the accused and she never accepted the bribe amount. As per PW15, the TLO asked them to search the bribe amount from the table, which shows that he was already aware as to where the complainant has kept the bribe amount. Recovery of the bribe amount was not from the person of accused nor at her pointing out. The memory card does not contain the details of the calls made by the complainant to the TLO after the completion of the alleged bribe transaction and that shows that the memory cards were tampered with. There is no evidence of acceptance of the alleged bribe by the accused and the material on record shows that the accused never accepted any bribe as alleged. The transcript clearly shows that accused never demanded nor CC No. 305/2019 Page 28 of 40 29 accepted the bribe from the accused, rather she said to the complainant that she does not want any bribe from him and asked him to donate the amount in the PM Relief Fund. The prosecution has failed to prove that there was any demand, acceptance or recovery from the accused or at the instance of accused and therefore, accused is entitled to be acquitted. Ld. Defence counsel in support of his submissions, has relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Nepal Singh Rawal Vs. CBI, 2011 (4) C.C.Cases (High Court) 41
(ii) Rajender Kumar Narang Vs. State, 2014 (2) JCC 1085
(iii) Jahan Singh Vs. CBI, 2021 (1) JCC 35
(iv) Vishal Chand Jain Vs. CBI, 2011 (1) JCC 570
(v) A. Subair Vs. State of Kerela, 2009 (3) RCR (Crl.) 370
(vi) P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. District Inspector of Police, State of A.P., (2015) 10 SCC 152
(vii) Mukhtiar Singh (Since deceased) through his L.R. Vs. State of Punjab, 2017 (8) SCC 136
(viii) B. Jayaraj Vs. State of A.P., Crl. Appeal No. 696 of 2014 dated 28.03.2014
(ix) Dashrath Singh Chauhan Vs. CBI, Crl. Appeal No. 1276 of 2010 dated 09.10.2018
(x) P. Parasurami Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2011) 12 SCC 294
(xi) M.K. Harshan Vs. State of Kerela, 1997 SCC (Crl.) 283
(x) Maha Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration), 1976 SCC (Crl.) 135
(xi) Shambhu Dass @ Bijoy Dass Vs. State of Assam, AIR 2010 SC 3300 FINDINGS:-
28. The first submission of Ld. Defence counsel is regarding CC No. 305/2019 Page 29 of 40 30 competency of Sub Inspector Manish, PW18 to conduct the verification proceedings. It was argued that no reliance can be placed on the entire verification proceeding, being barred in view of Section 17 of the PC Act, 1988. Ld. Defence counsel in support has relied upon the judgments of Maha Singh (supra) and Shambhu Dass @ Bijoy Dass (supra). I perused these two judgments. In the judgment of Maha Singh, the question before Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the statement of accused recorded by the Inspector before registration of FIR is inadmissible U/s 162 CrPC or not and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that since the Inspector received the complaint and proceeded to achieve the object and questioned the accused, the investigation begun. In the case of Shambhu Dass, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the stage when the investigation begins and held that the movement a police officer received some information to afford him reason even to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence, any step taken by him pursuant to such information would be a part of investigation. It means that the investigation begins as soon as the complaint is received in the office of CBI and an action to collect evidence is taken in pursuance to that complaint and as such, PW18 was not competent to conduct the verification proceedings. More so, when the prosecution has relied upon the verification report as evidence against the accused to prove demand. Yet, the question remains does CC No. 305/2019 Page 30 of 40 31 this investigation by SI Manish in any manner prejudice the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment titled as H.N. Rishbud Vs. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196 held that:
"s. 5(4) and proviso to s. 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (II of 1947) and the corresponding s. 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption (Second Amendment) Act, 1952 (LIX of 1952) are mandatory and not directory and that an investigation conducted in violation thereof is illegal. If cognizance is in fact taken on a police report in breach of a mandatory provision relating to investigation, the results which follow cannot be set aside unless the illegality in the investigation can be shown to have brought about a miscarriage of justice. It is well-settled that an illegality committed in the course of an investigation does not affect the competence and the jurisdiction of the court for trial and where cognizance of the case has in fact been taken and the case has proceeded to termination the invalidity of the preceding investigation does not vitiate the result unless miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby When any breach of the mandatory provisions relating to investigation is brought to the notice of the Court at an early stage of the trial the Court will have to consider the nature and extent of the violation and pass appropriate orders for such reinvestigation as may be called for, wholly or partly, and by such officer as it considers appropriate with reference to the requirements of s. 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption (Second Amendment) Act, 1952."
This judgment was followed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in its later judgments in Union of India Vs. Parkash P. Hinduja and Anr. (2003) 6 SCC 195 and M/s. Fertico Marketing & Investment Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Vs. CBI & Anr., 2020 SCC Online SC 938. As per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in these judgments, the investigation cannot be quashed or brushed aside only because it has been conducted by a police officer, not so authorized, if no prejudice is caused to the accused during trial. Ld. Defence counsel in the present case has failed to point out any such prejudice caused to the accused by the CC No. 305/2019 Page 31 of 40 32 verification proceedings conducted by SI Manish and therefore, there is no force in the submissions of the accused that the entire verification proceedings cannot be looked into being done by an officer not so authorized U/s 17 of the PC Act.
29. Coming to the question of demand on the part of accused, for the reasons noted herein below, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove that there was any demand on the part of the accused. The only witness to prove the demand in the present case is the complainant, PW11. The shadow witness, PW15, who went with the complainant at the time of verification proceedings, could not accompany the complainant when the complainant allegedly spoke with the accused and when the alleged demand of bribe was made and therefore, he cannot be said to be an eye witness for the same. The burden to prove the demand and the fact that the accused met with the complainant on 15.02.2017 was on the prosecution. PW11, the complainant in his cross examination stated that it might be correct that he met Kailash Wati on 14.02.2017 when she had asked him to come on 17.02.2017 alongwith his surety and documents for furnishing the bail bond. This statement of the complainant creates doubts in his story that he met the accused on 15.02.2017. Further, it is the case of the complainant that accused demanded a bribe of Rs. 15,000/-, which he was not willing to pay and the same was, thereafter, negotiated to Rs. 10,000/-. The complaint CC No. 305/2019 Page 32 of 40 33 Ex. PW5/2 shows that the accused spoke to the complainant on 14.02.2017 on phone and he was asked to come to police station on 15.02.2017 to join investigation of FIR No. 528/16 and the accused raised the demand of Rs. 15,000/- for the first time on 15.02.2017. The deposition of the complainant in the court in this regard is totally different. In the court, he stated that accused called his wife, brother and family members to PS Janak Puri and used to make them sit at PS Janak Puri for entire day and he got irritated and thereafter, approached CBI on 16.02.2017. The transcript of the alleged conversation dated 16.02.2017, however, shows that the accused never made any demand of Rs. 15,000/- nor there are any negotiations to reduce this amount to Rs. 10,000/-. As per the complaint Ex. PW5/2 dated 16.02.2017, there was no negotiation till the lodging of this complaint and therefore, the negotiations has to be in the transcript Ex. PW11/3 (colly), which happened allegedly during the verification proceeding. Perusal of the entire transcript shows that neither there is any negotiation nor any demand in that conversation and it is the complainant only who can be heard talking about the money. At the bottom of the fifth page continuing to the next page, the complainant had said "to main das de du na appko" to which the accused has replied "abhi ruk ja le lungi ruk ja". This conversation shows that it is the complainant, who is insisting the accused to take the money whereas the accused is asking him to wait. This CC No. 305/2019 Page 33 of 40 34 demand cannot be said to be an absolute demand for demand of money. More so, for the reasons that there was no motive for the accused to receive this amount. The anticipatory bail order passed by Hon'ble High Court dated 22.09.2016 available in document D30 Ex. PW5/5 (colly) at page no. 78 shows that vide this order, anticipatory bail to the complainant was allowed, subject to his joining the investigation and it was not an interim bail extended from date to date, which could have been got cancelled by the accused. Otherwise also, there is no allegation against the accused that from 22.09.2016 till 15.02.2017, there was any demand of any bribe by her. There was no material with the accused to get the bail of the complainant cancelled, which was granted by Hon'ble High Court and there appears to be no motive for demand of bribe. The record further proves that accused called the complainant to the police station on 17.02.2017 for furnishing the bail bond and the surety bond and for his formal arrest. As per prosecution story, the accused asked the complainant to get the photocopy of his Aadhar card when he visited the police station on 17.02.2017. If the accused had called the complainant for delivery of bribe, then why she will ask for the photocopy of his Aadhar card. Further, the documents Ex. PW11/DX to DX6 show that complainant was given a notice to join the investigation at 2 pm on 17.02.2017 and the accused also signed his personal bail bond Ex. PW11/DX1 and the arrest memo Ex. PW11/DX2 and also furnished the CC No. 305/2019 Page 34 of 40 35 documents of his surety Ex. PW11/DX3 to DX6 and the surety Ravinder Pal did not turn up as the signatures of the surety on the surety bond are blank. This supports the defence of the accused that she had called the complainant to the police station on 17.02.2017 for completing the formalities of his arrest and furnishing the necessary surety bond. The prosecution in facts has failed to prove the demand by the accused.
30. Coming to the acceptance and recovery of bribe from the accused. Record shows that even for this acceptance, the complainant is the only witness as none of the two independent witnesses accompanied the complainant when he entered the room of the accused. Further, there are several contradictions in the statement of the complainant and the other members of the trap team regarding the acceptance, recovery of the bribe from the accused as well as her hand washes collected at the spot as well as the transcript of the said conversation. As per the prosecution case, when the complainant initially entered the room of the accused and was asked to get photocopy of his aadhar card, SI Manju was also present in that room alongwith the accused but when he returned with copy of his aadhar card and passed on the bribe amount, SI Manju was not there in that room. The complainant and the TLO have stated that SI Manju was not there when they entered the room after the complainant passed on the signal of completion of the bribe transaction to the TLO but PW9, who was a CC No. 305/2019 Page 35 of 40 36 member of the trap team, in her cross examination stated that lady SI was sitting on another table and the TLO made some enquiries from that lady SI but she does not know, if her statement was recorded or not. The presence of SI Manju in that room at the time of alleged bribe transaction is also established from the transcript Ex. PW11/4 where at page 5, accused is heard talking to SI Manju. Why SI Manju was not made a witness remains unexplained as she would have been an independent eye witness to this bribe transaction, which allegedly happened when she was in that room apart from the complainant and the accused. Further, this transcript clearly shows that the accused straightaway refused even a single penny from the complainant. She said "mujhe tera ek bhi nhi chahiye tu ja, PM Fund main daal de jitna bhi tera hi na riswat dene ka PM Fund main daal de". These conversations demolish the prosecution story regarding acceptance of bribe on the part of the accused. Further, there is evidence on record, which shows that the complainant for a particular time was alone in that room when the accused and SI Manju both came out of that room while complainant remained sitting in that room and that makes the possibility of planting the money. PW9, who was the lady constable, positioned at a place from where she could see the room of the accused, said in her examination in chief itself that when complainant again entered the room of the accused, the accused came out of her room and made some inquiries at Women Help CC No. 305/2019 Page 36 of 40 37 Desk and accused remain at Women Help Desk for about 2-3 minutes and at that time, complainant was present in the room of the accused. PW16, who was the other independent witness and was directed to be shadow witness on the day of trap, also stated that accused came out of her room and remained outside her room for about 3-5 minutes and the other lady officer, who was in the room of the accused, also came out for some time and during that period, the complainant kept on sitting in the room of the accused. It clearly proves that complainant was alone in the room of the accused for quite some time.
31. Coming to the hand washes, there are contradictory statements of the prosecution witnesses regarding the colour of the hand washes of the accused taken at the spot. PW5 TLO in his statement stated that the right hand wash and the left had wash of the accused taken in the solution of sodium carbonate and water turned turbid whereas the red diary wash and the white packet wash turned pink. PW9 in her statement is silent regarding the colour of the washes. PW11 stated that both the hands of accused were dipped in a solution and the solution turned pink and the washes of red colour diary and white colour envelope also turned pink. The independent witness PW15 is again silent regarding the colour of the washes. PW16, the other independent witness, however, contradicted all other and stated that there was no change in the colour of the water after accused washed her hands in the said water and there was no change in the colour of CC No. 305/2019 Page 37 of 40 38 water even in the red diary wash. PW18 stated that the hand wash of the accused turned turbid whereas the wash of the red diary and the white envelope turned pink. PW19, who was CBI officer in the trap team, stated that all the washes at the spot turned pink. There are material contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses regarding the colour of the washes taken at the spot. Ld. PP has argued that the report of chemical examiner, PW8 has found the presence of phenolphthalein in all the washes and as such, the colour of the washes does not make any difference with the passage of time. I do not find force in her contention simply because the witnesses of the spot have materially contradicted each other on the aspect of the change of colour of the solution in which washes were taken and the chemistry result in this regard does not help the prosecution case and the benefit of these contradictions has to go to the accused. The prosecution, therefore, has failed to prove even the acceptance of bribe money on the part of the accused.
32. Coming to the question of recovery, admittedly the bribe amount was not recovered from or at the instance of the accused. As per prosecution case, the accused directed the complainant to keep the bribe amount in a red diary lying on her table and the amount was recovered from a white envelope lying in the drawer of the table of the accused, which was unlocked. How this money was transferred from red diary to the white envelope is a question to be CC No. 305/2019 Page 38 of 40 39 answered by the prosecution. As per prosecution, it was done by the accused but considering the material contradiction regarding the hand washes of the accused, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused even touched the bribe amount. The prosecution witnesses create doubt as they said that the TLO straightaway asked them to search the drawer of the table. PW16 in his examination in chief itself stated that the TLO asked them to search for money on the table and the drawer. How TLO was aware that the bribe amount was in the drawer, remains unexplained.
33. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove the demand of bribe, the acceptance and the recovery of bribe amount on the part of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is settled proposition of law that prosecution has to prove all the ingredients of the offence without leaving any doubt in their case. Demand is the basic ingredient to prove an offence U/s 7 of the PC Act. The prosecution is required to prove that the accused obtained a pecuniary advantage from the complainant for herself other than legal renumeration as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act or favour or disfavour any person. In the present case, the prosecution could not prove any of the ingredient of the offence punishable U/s 7 of the PC Act, 1988. Even the basis ingredient of motive has not been proved in this case and the prosecution has also failed to prove the demand on the part of the accused.
CC No. 305/2019 Page 39 of 40 4034. In view of above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove any offence against the accused and she is accordingly acquitted. Her bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. Documents, if any, of the sureties be returned forthwith. Accused is directed to furnish personal bond in sum of Rs. 20,000/- each with one surety of like amount each as required U/s 437A of Cr. P. C.
35. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signedANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AMIT by AMIT KUMAR Date: TODAY i.e. ON 14.02.2022 KUMAR 2022.02.14 12:28:09 +0530 (AMIT KUMAR) SPECIAL JUDGE, PC ACT, CBI-04, ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, NEW DELHI CC No. 305/2019 Page 40 of 40