Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Cbi vs Surender Kumar @ Surender Kumar Sharma on 24 December, 2025

IN THE COURT OF SH. SHAILENDER MALIK, SPECIAL JUDGE
 (PC ACT), CBI-21: ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW
                          DELHI

CBI vs. Surender Kumar @ Surender Kumar Sharma
CBI 80/2024
FIR No. RC-DAI-2024-A-0009
CNR No.DLCT11-000443-2024

Central Bureau of Investigation

      Versus

(1)Surender Kumar @ Surender Kumar Sharma
s/o Sh.Ram Phal Sharma
r/o House No.585, Parwa Panna,
Village Karala, North West Delhi-110081.

(2)Surender Kumar Jangra @ Surinder Kumar
s/o Sh.Mahasukh
r/o 112, Village Madanpur Dabas,
Post Ranikheda, North West Delhi-110081.

(3)Ramesh Chand Jain
s/o Sh.Bimal Prasad Jain
r/o House No.C-317 A,
Chankya Marg, Chajjupur,
Babarpur, Shahdara, Delhi-32.                   ....Accused persons

Date of Institution         :      16.05.2024
Date of judgment reserved   :      06.12.2025
Date of judgment pronounced :      24.12.2025

                            JUDGEMENT

1. Accused Surender Kumar @ Surender Kumar Sharma s/o Ram Phal Sharma (A-1); Surender Kumar Jangra @ Surinder Kumar s/o ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 1 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:16:08 +0530 Mahasukh (A-2) and Ramesh Chand Jain s/o Bimal Prasad Jain (A-3) are facing prosecution for offence u/s 120B IPC and 7 of PC Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and are facing charge for the said offences. FACTS

2. Precise facts of the present case are that on 19.03.2024 complainant Arun Kumar Gupta lodged a complaint with SP CBI ACB, alleging therein that he is constructing a house at 1315B, Jain Nagar, Gali No.4 and on 18.03.2024 one person came to the construction site and introduced himself as Junior Engineer (JE) to labours working at the site. Said person enquired about the owner's name, thereupon labours informed him about the name of owner as complainant. Said person wrote his name as Surender, along with mobile no.9711105078 on a blank paper and handed over to labours, telling them to deliver the same to complainant/ owner with directions to call him. Complainant further alleges that on the same day i.e. 18.03.2024 at about 12.30 or 13.00 hours, complainant when reached at the construction site, he was informed by labours about the above said facts and handed over the said slip containing the name and mobile phone number. Complainant stated to have made a call on above mentioned mobile number and the person told that he is Surender, from MCD and directed the complainant to meet near 40 foota road, Rajbhog, Jain Nagar. Complainant stated to have gone to that place and met with the person by name Surender, who allegedly demanded Rs.30,000/- for allowing complainant to install lanter and threatened complainant that if demanded bribe is not given, house would be demolished. It is stated that ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 2 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:16:15 +0530 since complainant did not want to pay the bribe money to that suspect Surender, therefore lodged a complaint. Complaint was marked to Inspector Balbir Singh of CBI ACB, for verification.

3. The complaint was registered as CO-27/2024 and stated to have been marked to Balbir Singh, Inspector, CBI, ACB for verification of the allegations. Two independent witnesses namely Abhinav Dwivedi as well as Akash, both from FCI, Barakhamba were joined in the verification proceedings.

4. During verification complainant stated to have made a call from his mobile to the same mobile no.9711105078 of suspect Surender and told him that he could not arrange the demanded amount, thereupon suspect instructed the complainant to meet him somewhere in Gali no.5 near Sukhi Nahar. Complainant met the suspect/accused Surender who was along with two other persons sitting in white colour Santro car. Complainant requested the suspect Surender (who introduced himself as JE of MCD in the morning and was sitting on the rear seat of the car), to reduce the bribe amount. Upon which the person who was sitting on the driving seat of the car told the complainant that some of the amount can be brought right now and remaining can be brought later (kuchh ib le lo..... kuchh lanter dalne ke baad). Complainant agreed to pay Rs.15,000/-, the person sitting on the driving seat agreed by saying "aisa kar le".

5. It is mentioned in the charge sheet that aforesaid conversation between complainant Arun Gupta and those suspects was recorded in a DVR and thereby the allegations of demand of bribe of Rs.30,000/-, were ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 3 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:16:21 +0530 verified on 20.03.2024. Thereafter memory card was taken out from the DVR, investigation copy of the recorded conversation was prepared with the help of official laptop of CBI by using Write Blocker for verification and transcription. The SD card was taken out from the DVR and kept in the same plastic cover, signed by members of the verification team including independent witnesses and it was marked as Q-1 in "CO-27/2024". Said cover containing memory card was kept in the paper cover and marked as CO-27/2024. Paper cover was also signed by Verification Officer, complainant and both the independent witnesses. Paper cover was kept in the brown envelope and sealed with the seal of CBI and marked in the same manner. Thereupon verification memo was prepared by Insp. Balbir Singh and present RC was registered.

6. After registration of the FIR, trap team was constituted consisting of Insp. G.Devi Prasad (TLO), Insp. Balbir Singh (verification officer), Insp. Ravinder Kumar Bharti, Insp. Ram Singh Meena, Insp. Anshul Sharma, Insp. Rajender Kumar Chaudhary, Sub Inspector Akash Srivastava and two independent witnesses namely Abhinav Dwivedi (Assistant Grade-III of FCI) and Akash (Assistant Grade-II) beside complainant Arun Gupta.. In pre-trap proceedings independent witnesses as well as complainant were introduced to other members of the trap team, purpose of the assembly of trap team was explained. FIR, verification memo was read over and explained to all the members of the trap team. Brass seal which was handed over to independent witness Abhinav Dwivedi, after completion of verification proceedings was handed over to ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 4 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:16:26 +0530 TLO Sh.G. Devi Prasad, Inspector. Sealed envelope mark as Q-1 in CO- 27/2024 (recorded voice between complainant and accused Surender Sharma, accused Surender Jangra) was produced by VO Balbir Singh, Inspector for further trap proceedings.

7. In the pre-trap proceedings, inter alia complainant produced a sum of Rs.15,000/- i.e. 30 GC notes of 500 denomination each, which were to be delivered to the accused persons. Details of GC notes were noted down in pre-trap memo. Thereafter a demonstration to all the trap team was given to explain use and purpose of phenolphthalein powder and its chemical reaction with solution of Sodium Carbonate in water, which was given by Rajender Chaudhary, Inspector. It was explained that any object or person comes in contact with phenolphthalein powder and such object/ person is washed in solution of Sodium Carbonate and water, the solution would turn pink. It is further mentioned in the charge sheet that independent witness Abhinav Dwivedi conducted personal search of the complainant Arun Gupta, to ensure that there is nothing incriminating left with him except his mobile phone. Colourless solution which turned pink and the wash and remaining phenolphthalein powder was thrown away in the presence of independent witnesses.

8. Above said GC notes of Rs.15,000/- were treated with phenolphthalein powder. Independent witness Akash kept GC notes of Rs.15,000/- smeared with phenolphthalein powder in the left side back pant pocket of complainant. Independent witness Abhinav Dwivedi was directed to accompany complainant as shadow witness to oversee passing ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 5 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:16:30 +0530 of bribe money and to overhear the conversation between complainant and accused. Independent witness Abhinav Dwivedi and complainant were instructed to give signal by making a phone call or by touching their heads with both their hands, soon after passing over of bribe money from complainant to accused person. Complainant and shadow witness were further instructed to see as to where the accused would keep the amount of bribe, after accepting the same.

9. A blank DVR with new 16 GB memory card of Simtronics inserted in the DVR was given. To verify the blankness of DVR, introductory voice of both independent witnesses were recorded and DVR was switched off. Pre-trap proceedings were recorded and a memo was prepared. Thereafter trap team went at the place of construction site, vehicles of the trap team were parked at safe distance. On the directions of TLO complainant made a call to accused Surender on mobile no. 9711105078, in that call complainant asked about the whereabouts of accused Surender Sharma and told him that he is at the construction site. On which accused Surender Sharma told him that he would arrive after some time. That conversation of complainant and Surender was recorded in the memory card of Sony DVR, in the presence of independent witnesses.

10. Complainant Arun Gupta and shadow witness Abhinav Dwivedi moved towards construction site of complainant and stood on a street outside the site, whereas other members of the team took suitable positions near that site. At about 04.35 a person (Surender Sharma), came ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 6 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:16:36 +0530 on motorbike make Bajaj Platina no.DL-8SCU-1414. On seeing the complainant and after some conversation, complainant and said person Surender moved just inside the construction site and shortly after that they came to the street. Complainant thereafter gave the pre-decided signal and all the team members including independent witnesses rushed towards the spot.

11. TLO introduced the said accused Surender about himself and challenged that he had taken the bribe from the complainant Arun Kumar. After seeing the same accused Surender became perplexed and could not utter a word. Balbir Singh, Inspector and Akash, Inspector caught hold right and left hand of the accused from his wrists. DVR was taken out from the person of complainant and switched off by Insp. Anshul Sharma. It revealed that said Surender received the bribe amount from his right hand and kept the same in the right back pocket of pant, same was recovered by independent witness Abhinav Dwivedi which were counted to be Rs.15,000/-.

12. A colourless solution of Sodium Carbonate and water was prepared and in the presence of independent witnesses accused surender Sharma was asked to dip his left hand fingers in that solution. On his doing so, solution turned pink in colour. That solution was poured in a clean glass bottle. White paper slip was pasted on that bottle and marked as 'LHW in RC-09/2024'. In the same manner right hand fingers of the accused Surender Sharma were dipped in another colourless solution of Sodium Carbonate and water, same also turned pink and that solution was ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 7 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:16:52 +0530 transferred in another clean glass bottle, which was wrapped with paper slip pasted on it and marked as 'RHW in RC-09/2024'. Both bottles of hand wash were sealed with the seal of CBI. TLO and both independent witnesses put their signatures.

13. At that stage accused Surender disclosed in the presence of independent witnesses that he is only a private person and not the employee of MCD. Said Surender further disclosed that he accepted the bribe amount on behalf of Ramesh Chand Jain (A-3), JE MCD Narela Zone and also informed that one person Surender Kumar Jangra, helper/ beldar of MCD was also involved in the demand of bribe from the complainant. That accused further informed that JE Ramesh Chand Jain and Surender Jangra were present in the car when complainant came to meet him in the morning.

14. It is further mentioned in the charge sheet that a fresh memory card was taken and inserted in the DVR. On the instructions of TLO accused Surender Sharma made two WhatsApp calls from his mobile no. 92786-78791 on mobile phone no. 97177-86840 of Ramesh Chand Jain, JE, to inform that he has received the bribe amount from the complainant on his behalf. However those calls were not answered.

15. At about 17.29 and 17.37 hours accused Surender received a telephonic call from mobile no.8700072054 of accused Surender Jangra. Accused Surender Jangra asked for him about his whereabouts, thereupon Surender Sharma informed him that he had come to the site of Arun Gupta. Surender Jangra then asked him to leave the spot as soon as ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 8 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:16:58 +0530 possible. That conversation between Surender Sharma and Surender Jangra were recorded in the DVR. (The portion of transcript of this conversation has been reproduced in para 16.24 of the charge sheet).

16. Later at 18.07 hours accused Surender Sharma received a WhatsApp call from mobile no.97177-86840 from accused Ramesh Chand Jain, during that conversation between Surender Sharma and Ramesh Chand Jain, accused Surender Sharma informed him about having received Rs.15,000/- from complainant Arun Gupta to which Ramesh Chand Jain stated "theekh hai" and further told him that he should use the word "15 kagaj" in place of rupees. That conversation was also recorded and reproduced in charge sheet. (Portion of transcript of this conversation has been reproduced in para 16.25 of charge sheet).

17. It is mentioned in the charge sheet that since trap team including TLO observed that secrecy of the proceedings would not be maintained, therefore it was decided to move from the spot to office of DC, MCD Zone Narela for further proceedings. After reaching that office, Assistant Commissioner MCD Narela Zone was requested for providing suitable place.

18. TLO issued authorization u/s 165 of Cr.PC to other CBI officials as per the details given in para 17.27 of charge sheet to conduct search at the residential address of Surender Sharma, Surender Kumar Jangla as well as of Ramesh Chand Jain. In the post-trap proceedings in the presence of independent witnesses GC numbers of tainted bribe money recovered from accused Surender Sharma tallied with number of GC notes ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 9 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:17:03 +0530 as mentioned in pre-trap memo, same was sealed. Similarly the pant pocket of accused Surender Sharma was treated with the solution of Sodium Carbonate and water, which turned pink, same was kept in a glass bottle and sealed, other articles were also sealed. The recorded conversation of complainant and accused Surender Sharma during trap proceedings were saved in the official laptop of TLO and memory card was marked as Q-2 and signed by the independent witnesses and same was sealed. Similarly the recorded conversation of Surender Sharma and accused Ramesh Chand Jain as well as with accused Surender Kumar Jangra were also saved in the official laptop of TLO and said separate DVR was marked Q-3 and was also sealed. Sample voice of accused Suernder Sharma and complainant was taken in the presence of independent witnesses.

19. DVR was kept sealed, screen shot of WhatsApp chat/call log was taken. Mobile phone of accused Surender Sharma was seized and sealed. A1 was thereafter arrested. During investigation it was found that Surender Kumar @ Surender Kumar Jangra was absconding and did not join the investigation and therefore he was served with the notice u/s 41A of Cr.PC, thereupon on 04.04.2024 said accused visited CBI office and joined the investigation. Voice sample of accused Surender Kumar Jangra was taken in the presence of independent witnesses, the memory card of which is S-SJ. Accused Ramesh Chand Jain (A-3) denied to give the specimen voice during police custody, therefore his specimen sample voice was taken in Tihar jail in the presence of independent witnesses after ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 10 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:17:09 +0530 taking permission from the court. Said memory card was also marked S- RCJ. Specimen voice samples of accused persons and of complainant were sent to CFSL.

20. During investigation it revealed that at relevant time A-3 Ramesh Chand Jain was working as JE MCD Narela Zone and assigned ward no.32 and construction site was also located within that jurisdiction. It is mentioned that WhatsApp chats/calls in mobile phone of accused Surender Sharma were scrutinized and some call logs with complainant were found. Screenshots of WhatsApp call made between accused Surender Sharma, accused Ramesh Chand Jain were taken in the presence of independent witnesses and marked as 'printout of WhatsApp chat/call log'. Mobile phone of accused i.e. Realme 8 having two Jio SIM cards of mobile nos. 92786-78791 and 97111-05078 was seized and marked as 'mobile of SS in RC No.09/2024'. Accused Surender Sharma was arrested. Post trap memo was prepared.

21. Accused Ramesh Chand Jain was arrested on 23.03.2024. One mobile phone of Redme Note 11 was also seized from accused Ramesh Chand Jain and sealed, vide arrest cum personal search memo dated 23.03.2024.

22. During investigation CAF and CDR of mobile no.97181- 21333 (Jio) of complainant Arun Gupta was collected. Said mobile phone number was found registered in the name of complainant. CDR of the said mobile number from period 18.03.2024 to 20.03.2024 revealed exchange of mobile phone calls from mobile number of complainant with mobile no. ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 11 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:17:15 +0530 97000-05078 of Surender Sharma (A-1). Location of mobile phone used by complainant, during verification and trap proceedings was also found to be nearby. In the same manner CAF and CDR of mobile phone number 97111-05078 and 92786-78791 of accused Surender Sharma was also collected. Those numbers were found to be registered in the name of accused Surender Sharma. CDR of those numbers also established exchange of calls between accused Surender Sharma and complainant. CDR of mobile no.92786-78791 of accused Surender Sharma also revealed his phone calls exchanged with accused Surender Jangra (A-2) (87000- 72054) and they were in touch with each other.

23. CAF and CDR of mobile no. 87000-72054 of accused Surender Jangra was collected. That number was found to be registered in his name. CDR revealed that his that number was in contact with accused Surender Sharma on his mobile no. 92786-78791. Further location of accused Surender Jangra was also found to be nearby spot, during verification and trap proceedings. CAF and CDR of phone no.97177- 86840 of accused Ramesh Chand Jain was also collected. It revealed that said number is a closed user group (CUG), registered in the name of North Delhi Municipal Corporation (North DMC), allotted to accused Ramesh Chand Jain. On the basis of CDR and IPDR said mobile number location of accused Ramesh Chand Jain at relevant time was also found to be nearby during verification/trap proceedings.

24. Registration certificate of Hyundai Santro car bearing registration no. DL10-CS-0137, in which accused persons allegedly met ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 12 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:17:20 +0530 with complainant, during verification proceedings was collected from accused Surender Jangra vide receipt memo dated 09.05.2024. Said vehicle was found to be registered in the name of one Yash s/o Surender Jangra. Registration number of motorcycle bearing no. DL-8CU-1414, on which accused Surender Sharma allegedly came to meet complainant during trap proceedings was also collected and found to be in his name. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet was filed for offence u/s 120B IPC and 7 of P.C. Act, 1988.

Charge

25. This court after hearing the CBI and ld. Counsels for the accused persons, examining the facts stated in the charge sheet as well as the material, vide order dated 30.11.2024 ordered for framing of charge against above said three accused persons for offence u/s 120B IPC and 7 of P.C. Act, 1988. In terms of order dated 30.11.2024, charges were framed separately against the three accused persons on 04.12.2024, all the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

Prosecution Evidence PWs Name of Witness Nature of Witness PW1 Sh.Shashank Tyagi He is Nodal Officer from Vodafone, who provided CAF and CDR of mobile phone no.

9717786840, which according to PW1 was in the name of Ramesh Chand Jain (JE Civil).

PW2 Sh.Parveen Kumar He is Nodal Officer from Reliance Jio, who testified that he provided CAF and CDR pertaining to mobile no. 9711105078, 9278678791, 9718121333 and 8700072054.

PW3 Sh.Dharu Singh Meena He is a Senior Scientific Assistant (Chemistry) ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 13 Digitally signed SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.12.24 15:17:26 +0530 of CFSL who proved the chemical examination report in respect of hand washes of accused Surender Sharma during trap proceedings, which is Ex.PW3/B. PW4 Sh.Vikas Sharma He is Sr. Scientific Assistant/Expert for mobile and computer forensic examination. This witness testified to have examined mobile labeled as MR-1 memo to serial no.30 mobile of SS in RC 9/2024. Witness stated that upon examining the said mobile Realme 8MG he retrieved call log data between mobile no.

9278678791 and 9717786840 dated 20.03.2024 and provided the same in the shape of CD-R Ex.P-4 and his report is Ex.PW4/B. PW5 Sh.Deepak Kumar Tanwar This witness is forensic voice examiner and stated to have examined Q-1, Q-2, Q-3, S-1, S-2, S-3, S-4 and DVR. Witness stated to have given his report Ex.PW5/A based on questioned recorded conversation and voice samples of accused and complainant.

PW6 Sh.Satish This witness is AE in Narela Zone of MCD, by production cum seizure memo Ex.PW6/A he provided official record of MCD in respect of A-2 Surender Kumar Jangra which is Ex.PW6/B. PW7 Sh.Arun Gupta He is complainant, on whose complaint Ex.PW7/C, verification was carried out.

Verification memo is Ex.PW7/D, on the basis of which FIR was registered and witness testified regarding trap proceedings carried out thereafter.

PW8 Sh.Bhupender Singh He is Executive Engineer, Narela Zone of MCD who testified that he provided vide letter dated 22.04.2024 copy of service file of accused Ramesh Chand Jain which is Ex.PW8/A. Witness further testified that he on 23.04.2024 joined the investigation of the CBI when from the recorded conversation he identified the voice of accused Ramesh Chand Jain and voice identification cum transcription ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 14 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:17:31 +0530 memo is Ex.PW8/C. PW9 Sh.Aakash He is one of the independent witness who participated in the verification proceedings dated 20.03.2024 of complaint of the complainant Arun Gupta as well as in the trap proceedings conducted subsequent to the registration of the FIR. Witness identified the recorded conversation when played in the court.

PW10 Sh.Abhinav Dwivedi He is is another independent witness, who also participated in the verification proceedings dated 20.03.2024 of complaint of the complainant Arun Gupta as well as in the trap proceedings conducted subsequent to the registration of the FIR. Witness identified the recorded conversation when played in the court.

PW11 Sh.Ram Babu Meena He is another independent witness who witnessed taking of voice sample of accused Ramesh Chand Jain on 10.04.2024, in Tihar Jail while the accused was in judicial custody. Witness proved the Specimen Voice Memo of the accused Ex.PW11/A. PW12 Sh.Kumar Vikram He is another independent witness who witnessed the recording of voice sample of accused Surender Kumar Jangra on 05.04.2024 and witness proved Specimen Voice Memo Ex.PW12/A. PW13 Inspector Balbir Singh He is Verification Officer from CBI, who conducted the verification on the complaint of complainant.

PW14 Sh.Gyanesh Bharti This witness is the sanctioning authority, who accorded sanction for prosecution against A-2 Surender Kumar Jangra and A-3 Ramesh Chand Jain, while he was officiating as Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The sanction order of Ramesh Chand Jain is Ex.PW14/A and sanction order of Surender Kumar Jangra is Ex.PW14/B. ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 15 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:17:38 +0530 PW15 Sh.Surender Kumar He is witness from MCD working as Beldar, acquainted with A-2 Surender Jangra. This witness stated to have joined the investigation of the CBI on 24.04.2024, when he identified the voice of accused Surender Kumar Jangra.

Voice Identification Memo is Ex.PW15/A. PW16 Sh.Vikas Chaudhary This witness is Vehicle Inspector, who gave information regarding vehicle no. DL-10CS-0137 which was in the name of Yash s/o Surender Kumar and his letter is Ex.PW16/A. PW17 Sh.Jitender This witness is Sr. Assistant, who gave information regarding Bike no.

DL-8SCU-1414 which was in the name of Surender Sharma (A-1) and vehicle document is Ex.PW17/A. PW18 Ms.Soniya She is another independent witness who joined the investigation of the CBI on 25.04.2024 when she identified the voice of accused Surender Sharma. Voice Identification cum Transcript Memo is Ex.PW18/A. PW19 Sh.Ashok Kakraval This witness is A.E. of MCD joined the investigation of this case when he provided relevant information regarding certain circulars as well as identified the voice of accused Ramesh Chand Jain. Voice cum Transcript memo dated 23.04.2024 is already Ex.PW8/C. PW20 Sh.Aditya Kumar Chaudhary He is another independent witness who identified the voice of accused Surender Kumar Jangra vide Voice identification cum transcription memo dated 24.04.2024 already Ex.PW15/A as well as voice identification cum transcript memo dated 25.04.2024 of accused Surender Sharma which is already Ex.PW18/A. PW21 Sh.G. Devi Prasad He was Trap Laying Officer (TLO), who testified regarding conducting of trap, after registration of the FIR.

PW22 Sh.Ram Singh Meena He is the Investigating Officer, who ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 16 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:17:44 +0530 investigated the matter subsequent to the trap proceedings.

Statement of accused

26. Upon completion of prosecution evidence all the incriminating evidence were put to the accused separately, when their statements u/s 313 Cr.PC (351 BNSS) was recorded. Accused Surender Kumar Sharma (A-1) in his statement even in response to incriminating circumstances put to him, denied the evidence in totality and took the plea that he has not committed the charged offence. Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Complainant is habitual complainant who keeps on filing false complaints against government officials to gain illegal gratification and to conceal his illegal works.

Accused states that Insp. Rajender Kumar Chaudhary of CBI was in connivance with the complainant and false complaint has been filed. Accused Surender Kumar Sharma says that he never went at Sukhi Nahar and states that he was lifted and detained by the CBI officials on 19.03.2024. Accused states that he was taken to the shop of the complainant where CBI officials prepared solution in three bottles, only to implicate him in the present case. It is stated that false recovery has been planted upon him. Accused denies having any conspiracy with any co- accused and stated that he never made any demand of illegal gratification of any amount from complainant nor accepted any money from him. Accused states that his phone was tampered with. His voice sample was obtained in violation of law and investigation is illegal.

______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 17 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:17:51 +0530

27. Accused though took an opportunity to lead evidence in defence, however did not examine any witness in defence, despite opportunity.

28. A-2 is Surender Kumar Jangra who also denied the evidence by ignorance, in totality and taking the plea that on 19.03.2024 he went to Dehradoon with his wife in car no. DL-10CS-0137 in connection with property matter. On 20.03.2024 at about 03.00 p.m., when he returned home his mobile stopped working, therefore he went to Begumpur Mobile Shop to get it checked. Accused Surender Jangra says that from there he went to Pappu's shop to smoke 'hukka' around 05.00 p.m. Three CBI officials stated to have illegally detained him and told him that they had arrested Surender Sharma and stated that since he knew Surender Sharma, asked him to call Surender Sharma and to say exactly what they instruct, otherwise they would frame him in Surender Sharma's case and would never get the bail, if he (A-2) would not cooperate with them. Accused states that he was completely terrified. Accused states that one of the CBI official asked him to speak in his local language and whispering to him as to what is to be stated. Accused states that he spoke while trembling, as instructed.

29. A-2 also took an opportunity to lead evidence in defence, however did not examine any witness in defence, despite opportunity.

30. A-3 Ramesh Chand Jain also denied all the incriminating evidence as put to him, and stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in this case by CBI official. Accused states that he has not committed the charged offence and that there is no direct or circumstantial ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 18 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:17:59 +0530 evidence against him. Accused states that prosecution has not proved the case against him beyond reasonable doubt. No evidence was led by accused in his defence.

Submissions

31. I have heard Sh.Amjad Ali, ld. PP for the CBI and Sh.Vishal Dabas, ld. Counsel for A-1 and Sh.Ashok Kumar Singh, ld. Counsel for A-2 and Sh.Naveen Kumar, ld. Counsel for A-3. I have also gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of accused persons separately.

32. It is submitted by ld. PP for CBI that three accused persons in this case have been charged for offence u/s 120B IPC read with Section 7 of P.C. Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018). It is submitted that charge against the accused persons has been completely proved not only from oral evidence of complainant, independent witnesses as well as witnesses from CBI but also corroborated from the recorded conversation. Ld. PP submits that complainant's evidence is most consistent and cogent and during verification it is established that one person who claimed his name to be Surender from MCD met with the labour, working at the site and handed over a slip containing mobile number. Complainant when talked with that person on that number, he again introduced himself to be from MCD and called the complainant. It is submitted that complainant when met with accused Surender (A-1) he again portrayed himself to be from MCD and met with another person, who as per the evidence of PW7 was A-2 Surender Kumar Jangra. It is submitted that demand of illegal bribe for enabling the complainant to carry on construction was made which is very much proved from the evidence of PW7, PW9, PW10 as well as PW13. It ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 19 Digitally signed SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.12.24 15:18:04 +0530 is submitted that in the recorded conversation during verification, it came that complainant was told that he can pay Rs.15,000/- immediately and remaining Rs.15,000/- after the festival of Holi, which essentially established the demand of bribe. Ld. PP submits that acceptance of bribe is also established when A-1 was apprehended, while accepting the bribe from complainant.

33. Ld. PP submits that no doubt that later it revealed that A-1 was a private person, however the conduct of A-1 and A-2, recorded conversation clearly establish that A-1 and A-2 were acting in connivance with A-3 Ramesh Chand Jain who was JE in MCD, Narela Zone. It is submitted that during trap proceedings A-3 made a call on the phone of A-1 and when A-1 told him of having received the amount of Rs.15,000/-, A-3 can be heard in the recorded conversation instructing A-1 to speak in an indication instead of directly speaking on phone. Ld. PP submits that such recorded conversation also establish that three accused were acting in concert and prior agreement with each other and therefore there was a criminal conspiracy among them for demanding bribe amount from the complainant.

34. Sh.Vishal Dabas, ld. Counsel for A-1 on the other hand submits that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that complainant is habitual in filing false cases, with the view to cover up his own illegal activities. It is submitted that complainant has admitted that he is carrying on business of illegal e-rickshaw charging station, has also filed another case against a police official and was known to Rajender Kumar Chaudhary, Inspector of CBI. It is submitted that A-1 ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 20 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:18:10 +0530 had never demanded any amount of bribe from complainant and rather was detained on 19.03.2024 itself, to falsely implicate in the present case on

20.03.2024. It is argued that there are many contradictions in the evidence of complainant and other witnesses. It is submitted that the labour, who according to prosecution case received the chit mentioning name/mobile number, has neither been examined nor that chit has been proved on record. It is submitted that as per prosecution case accused was detained after trap proceedings, thereupon he was forced to make a call to other accused persons. It is submitted that anything stated by A-1 while being in custody of CBI, after trap, was inadmissible and it has come in the recorded conversation of audio file no.240320_1807 Ex.PW5/L that A-1 can be heard stating "kya boloon".

35. It is submitted that prosecution case is based on digital evidence in the shape of recorded conversation with the help of DVR and SD card, whereas the hash value of digital evidence has never been ascertained or proved on the record, which clearly establish the concoction and fabrication. It is submitted that digital evidence is not supported with certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. Ingredients of Section 7 of P.C. Act have not been proved.

36. Sh.Ashok Kumar Singh, ld. Counsel for A-2 on the other hand submitted that name of A-2 Surender Kumar Jangra was never mentioned in the complaint, PW7 however for the first time in his evidence mentioned the name of A-2. As such evidence of complainant is contradictory to the complaint itself. It is submitted that it has come in evidence that A-2 was identified for the first time in the court and there ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 21 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.12.24 15:18:15 +0530 being no prior TIP during investigation. It is submitted by ld. Counsel that even the prosecution story taken on the face of it, admittedly the alleged demand of bribe had already been made from complainant by other accused. It is submitted that vital ingredients of demand and acceptance have not been proved in this case qua accused no.2. Ld. Counsel submits that in fact A-2 was detained from the shop of Pappu, where he was forced, pressurized to make a call to A-1 only to implicate him as well as other accused persons.

37. Sh.Naveen Kumar, ld. Counsel for A-3 has submitted that it is case of the CBI in charge sheet that during verification on 20.03.2024, accused Ramesh Chand Jain was present in the car along with other co- accused persons. However that aspect has not been proved at all on the record. It is submitted that complainant when appeared in the witness box as PW7 could not identify A-3 to be one of the occupant of the car, when he allegedly went near Sukhi Nahar to meet with accused persons. It is submitted that allegations of A-3's presence has also not been proved even from other two independent witnesses, as such there is no evidence at all proving involvement of A-3 in any manner. It is submitted by ld. Counsel that there is no evidence of demand, acceptance or recovery from A-3, which is essential ingredient for proving the charge u/s 7 of P.C. Act. Reliance in this regard has been placed on judgments in Jai Narayan vs. State (Crl. A. No.259/2007), Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731, Soundarajan vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police Vigilance Anticorruption Dingigul (Crl. Appeal ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 22 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:18:20 +0530 No.1592/2022), K. Shanthamma vs. The State of Telangana (Crl. Appeal No.261/2022).

38. It is further argued by ld. Counsel for A-3 that alleged disclosure made by A-1 against A-3, after being detained by the CBI officials is inadmissible and cannot be relied upon as evidence being hit by Section 24, 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act. It is submitted that CBI had not recorded even the disclosure statement, nor even bothered to get that statement recorded with the help of DVR. As such there is no corroborative evidence for proving this vital aspect of the prosecution case. It is submitted that A-1 in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC has denied having made any disclosure regarding A-2 or A-3. It is submitted that A-3 was not named in the FIR, however was falsely implicated in the present case only to invoke Section 7 of P.C. Act. It is stated that prosecution case clearly show the sign of reverse engineering as CBI first selected the accused to implicate and then fabricated the evidence against them. It is submitted that alleged WhatsApp call of A-3 to A-1, after his arrest is not admissible and therefore cannot establish the conspiracy. It is argued that Section 10 of Evidence Act can also not be invoked as for invoking Section 10 it is required to be established by foundational facts that there was a conspiracy, it is thereupon anything said, done or spoken by any of the conspirator can be considered as admissible evidence, which is missing in the present case.

39. It is submitted that WhatsApp call evidence is inadmissible for non-compliance of certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act. It is submitted that digital evidence is not corroborated by hash value of the contents and ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 23 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:18:25 +0530 therefore cannot be taken into consideration as evidence in the absence of hash value. Reliance in this regarding has been placed on judgments in Umesh vs. State of Karnataka (2022 Cr. Appeal No.2760/2012 decided on 21.07.2022), Ram Kishan Fauji vs. State of Haryana 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 5058, Yuvraj vs. State 2023/MHC/2420, Ajay Gupta vs. State Thr. CBI 2022/DHC/004498, Joginder Singh Malik vs. CBI, Sudhir Chaudhary vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2016) 8 SCC 419. Legal Position

40. Before I discuss the evidence in detail, it is appropriate here to recapitulate the legal position. Accused persons in this case have been charged for offence under Section 120B IPC and 7 of the P.C. Act 1988 (as amended in 2018). One can make out the following ingredients of offence u/s 7 :

1. Any Public servant who

(i) obtains; (ii) accepts; (iii) attempt to obtain from any person"an undue advantage" for

(a) with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly ; or

(b) to forbear or cause to forbear to perform such duty either by himself or by other public servant ; or

(c) as a reward for improper or dishonest performance of public duty or for forbearing to perform such duty either by himself or another public servant;

2. Perform or induces another public servant to perform improperly or dishonestly a public duty or forbear performance of such duty.

______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 24 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:18:32 +0530

3. It is not necessary that performance of such public duty by public servant is or has been improper or not, if there is evidence of obtaining, accepting or attempting to obtain an undue advantage. (Expl. I)

4. Expressions 'obtain', 'accepts' or 'attempt to obtain' shall cover cases where a public servant obtains or accepts or attempt to obtain any undue advantage for himself or for another person by abusing his position as public servant or using his personal influence over another public servant or by other corrupt or illegal means.

5. Thus proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by public servant as a fact in issue, by prosecution is sine qua non, for proving the charge against the accused public servant u/s 7 or u/s 13(1)(d) (i) and (ii) of P.C. Act. The factum of demand of illegal gratification and subsequent acceptance of the same can be proved either by direct or circumstantial evidence.

6. It be noted that proof of exchange of bribe, however is not essential requirement under the law. Further those public servants who do not take the bribe directly but through their middlemen or touts, can still be held guilty under the section as Explanation 2(ii) makes it clear that it shall be immaterial whether such public servant obtains or accepts or attempt to obtain the undue advantage directly or through a 'third party'.

7. Thus in a case where public servant obtains the illegal gratification through a third party, there must be some evidence showing that such third party/middleman acted in conspiracy with such public servant.

41. Above stated provisions however are to be read with Section 20 of the Act of 1988 which lays down presumption to be drawn against accused that he accepted or obtained undue advantage as motive or reward for performing or to cause to perform a public duty improperly or ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 25 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:18:37 +0530 dishonestly, upon proof that such public servant accepted or obtained or attempted to obtain for himself for any other purpose, any undue advantage from any person. However such presumption is rebuttable, upon proof of foundational facts requiring drawing of presumption, it is for accused to explain that how the bribe money has been received either by him directly or indirectly and if he fails to offer any satisfactory explanation, it will be presumed that he has accepted the bribe.

42. While invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However, before the accused is called upon to explain as to how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. Generally complainant is considered to be an interested and partisan witness, concerned with the success of the trap and therefore his evidence must be assessed with scrutiny and court may look for independent corroboration before accepting his evidence. (C.M. Girish Babu v. C.B.I. Cochin, High Court of Kerala (2009) 3 SCC 779). Points of Determination

43. Having considered the facts, circumstances and the evidence as come on the judicial record as well as in the light of oral as well as written submissions made at bar, this court finds that following are the points for determination in the present case:

______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 26 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.12.24 15:18:43 +0530

(a) Whether there is no evidence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, being necessary ingredient for offence u/s 7 of P.C. Act, 1988 ;

(b) Whether evidence of complainant, independent witnesses, officials of CBI are unworthy of reliance on account of contradictions as raised ;

(c) Whether the recorded conversation in Q-1, Q-2, Q-3, cannot be taken into consideration, on account of legal objections as raised ;

(d) Whether the charge against all or either of the accused is proved or not?

Analysis and Conclusion

44. Let us examine the evidence as come on the judicial record, for deciding the above formulated points of determination. This court is taking up (a) and (b) point of considerations together, being inter related in the facts and can be decided simultaneously in the light of submissions as made at bar.

(a) Whether there is no evidence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, being necessary ingredient for offence u/s 7 of P.C. Act, 1988?

(b)Whether evidence of complainant, independent witnesses, officials of CBI are unworthy of reliance on account of contradictions as raised?

Demand and Acceptance of illegal gratification

45. Since the aspect of proof of ingredient of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, has been raised by all the ld. Counsels ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 27 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:18:49 +0530 for the accused persons, therefore need to be decided first in the light of submissions.

46. Having examined the evidence of complainant (PW7), two independent witnesses (PW9 and PW10), if we examine whether the factum of demand of bribe and acceptance of bribe, has been proved or not, let us first take the arguments raised on behalf of the defence. Evidence of complainant has been criticized on the ground of certain contradictions. It is submitted by ld. counsel for A-1 that evidence of complainant is unworthy of any reliance on account of many contradictions, missing of material facts such as : (i) the slip as per complainant, was given to the labour at the site of construction, was never produced; (ii) the labour who met for the first time with the person who claimed himself to be from MCD, has also not been examined; (iii) no documents/photographs of construction material/bills have been placed on record.

Circumstances leading to filing of complaint to CBI

47. If we examine the evidence, complainant PW7 Arun Gupta testifies that he purchased property no. 1315-B, Jain Nagar, Rohini, Sector 38, in year 2024 and started making construction over the said plot for his residence. D-16 Ex.PW7/A are self attested copy of documents of purchase of above said plot. PW7 says that while the construction on the said plot was going on, in March 2024, one person visited at the site of construction, met with labour and that person handed over a slip mentioning his name Surender and phone number 9711105078 and told the ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 28 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:19:08 +0530 labour that whenever owner of the plot would come, slip be handed over to him. PW7 says that on the same day at about 02.00 p.m., when he reached at the site, labour handed over him that slip. PW7 stated to have made a call on that number as mentioned on the slip. In that call said person said his name as Surender and that he is working in MCD. PW7 says that the said person Surender told him that it is for his benefit to meet him.

48. PW7 stated to have went to a shop, on the road of Jain Nagar Rohini to meet that person. PW7 thereupon identified A-1 Surender Kumar present in the court to be the one, who met him and introduced himself as an employee of MCD. Witness says that A-1 told him that he would introduce him to JE and took PW7 to a person standing near the shop Jeet Properties. PW7 identified in court the accused Surender Kumar Jangra (A-2) to be the one whom A-1 introduced as JE in the MCD. PW7 went on to testify that both A-1 and A-2 made inquiries from him about the status of construction, number of floors etc. and thereafter as per PW7 accused Surender Kumar Jangra who represented himself as JE, demanded Rs.30,000/- for construction over the plot.

49. PW7 further states that he told him that he is not in a financial position to pay so much of amount as bribe as demanded. Upon which both of them told witness to think again and told that if he would not pay the bribe, construction over his plot would be demolished. PW7 also testified that later he received a call from the same number as mentioned in the slip, from Surender Kumar, who told PW7 on phone to negotiation on the question of amount of bribe, however PW7 stated that he was not ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 29 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:19:12 +0530 interested to pay the bribe. PW7 says that next day i.e. on 19.03.2024 he went to the CBI office and filed the complaint Ex.PW7/C.

50. Having examined the evidence of PW7 to the extent of filing of complaint to the CBI, perusal of evidence of PW7 shows that he in his examination in chief itself has referred to the address of the plot where construction was going on, PW7 stated that said plot was purchased by him in the name of his wife and documents pertaining to that property are Ex.PW7/B. No doubt that receipt has never been taken, during investigation nor the labour who met with that person, has been examined. However it hardly affects the prosecution case, when complainant made the call on that number and gave the details of that phone number to CBI during investigation. Even otherwise, allegations in the complaint were not straightaway accepted as gospel truth and before registration of FIR, allegations were duly verified. Verification proceedings were carried out on 19.03.2024.

51. In complaint Ex.PW7/C name of A-1 Surender Kumar only is mentioned, however in that complaint there is reference that A-1 Surender Kumar met complainant near shop of Jain Nagar with his friend. No doubt there is reference in the complaint Ex.PW7/C that A-1 Surender Kumar introduced his friend as JE in MCD as stated by complainant/PW7 in his evidence, for the first time. However this aspect does not assume much significance firstly because there is some reference in the complaint that A-1 when met with the complainant near the shop of Jain Nagar, he met along with one of his friend. So far as the fact stated by PW7, for the first ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 30 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.12.24 15:19:18 +0530 time in his evidence that A-1 Surender Kumar introduced A-2 Surender Jangra as JE in MCD. In this regard witness PW7 was never confronted regarding such improvement as come in his evidence.

52. The second exception to the general rule provided in sub- Section (1) of Section 162 Cr.P.C. (section 181 of BNSS) is that the accused can use the statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. (section 180 of BNSS) to contradict the witness in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Evidence Act (section 148 of BSA) When a witness makes a statement in his evidence before the Court which is inconsistent with what he has stated in his previous statement recorded by the Police, there is a 'contradiction' or 'improvement' in his evidence. As stated in the proviso to sub-Section (1) of section 162, the witness has to be contradicted in the manner provided under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. Section 145 of Evidence Act reads thus:

"Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing.-A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him."

53. Above section thus operates in two parts. The first part provides that a witness can be cross-examined as to his previous statements made in writing without such writing being shown to him. Thus, for example, a witness can be cross- examined by asking whether his prior statement exists. The second part is regarding contradicting a witness. While confronting the witness with his prior statement to prove ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 31 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:19:40 +0530 contradictions, the witness must be shown his prior statement. If there is a contradiction or improvement between the statement made by the witness before the Court and what is recorded in the statement recorded by the police, the witness's attention must be drawn to specific parts of his prior statement to police, which are to be used to contradict him. It be noted that only if the 'contradictory part' of his previous statement is proved the contradictions can be said to be proved. The usual practice is to mark the portion or part shown to the witness of his prior statement produced on record. Clause (3) of Section 155 of Evidence Act ( BSA) is also relevant in this context, which provides that the credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party, or, with the consent of the Court, by the party who calls him- (3) by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted."

54. It must be noted here that every contradiction or omission is not a ground to discredit the witness or to disbelieve his/her testimony. A minor or trifle omission or contradiction brought on record is not sufficient to disbelieve the witness's version. It is only major contradiction or improvement in evidence can be taken into consideration to disbelieve his testimony. What is a material contradiction or omission depends upon the facts of each case. Whether an omission is a contradiction also depends on the facts of each case. If, according to defence counsel, there is a material contradiction or improvement, rendering the witness's version either fully or partially unbelievable, than witness needs to be confronted with such ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 32 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:19:47 +0530 improvement or contradiction made by him with his previous statement recorded by the police. In the present case, PW7 has not been confronted with his previous statement/complaint given to CBI, regarding the above- discussed improvement.

Verification proceedings PW-7

55. Moving further to examine the evidence of PW7, witness says that upon filing of that complaint, he was told that allegations in the complaint would be verified first and therefore he was instructed to visit CBI office on the next day. PW7 says that he however told that for saving of time of officials of CBI, it is better that CBI officials visit the Jain Nagar area of Rohini to verify the allegations. Accordingly on 20.03.2024 at about 11.30 a.m. four persons including two officials of CBI namely Balbir and Akash and two independent witnesses from FCI came in that area. PW7 thereafter went on to testify regarding production of DVR, fresh SD card, which was taken out from the packing and inserted in the DVR. PW7 says that he made a call on the given number of A-1 Surender Kumar and in that call he told him that he want to meet him. A-1 stated to have asked the witness to meet near 'Sukhi Nahar' of Jain Nagar area. Witness stated that said conversation was recorded through DVR in the SD card as mobile phone was kept on speaker mode.

56. PW7 says that he accordingly went on his Scooty to the place as agreed, whereas CBI officials remained at some distance. DVR inserted with SD card, was handed over to PW7 in switched on mode, when he ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 33 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:19:53 +0530 went to meet him. PW7 says that when he went near 'Sukhi Nahar' he went to near a car where he found three persons sitting in the car out of which Surender Kumar (A-1) was sitting on the rear seat whereas another person who claimed himself to be JE, was sitting on the front seat of the car. PW7 says he however could not identify the third occupant of the car as he did not talk to him as his face was not visible to witness. PW7 says that in his such discussion with A-1 and A-2, he requested for reduction of bribe, thereupon the person who was sitting on the front seat and claimed to be JE, told witness that he can give half of the amount of bribe at that time i.e. Rs.15,000/-- and remaining half (Rs.15,000/-) can be paid after festival of Holi, to which PW7 stated to have agreed and asked for time by 02.00 p.m. of the same day to arrange the money.

57. PW7 stated to have came back to the same place where CBI team was waiting for him. DVR was handed over to Akshay Sir of CBI. PW7 says that thereafter he along with the CBI team went to his office in Mangolpuri, where the recorded conversation was heard and paper work was done. PW7 states that the SD card was kept in envelope and sealed and verification memo was prepared which is Ex.PW7/D. Recorded conversation of Q-1 was thereafter played in the court as it contained in the SD card which was sealed at the office of PW7. In audio file no. 240320- _1201, it came in the evidence that there was a recorded conversation wherein accused Surender Jangra was heard stating "यह बात मान ली कु छ अब एक कु छ ऐब ले लो कु छ लैंटर डालने के बाद". Witness identified his voice, voice ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 34 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:19:59 +0530 of A-1 as well as A-2. Transcript of the recorded conversation of Q-1 was proved to be as Ex.PW7/E. PW-9

58. It is appropriate here to examine the evidence of independent witnesses. One of them is PW9 Akash, who testifies that he is working as Assistant Grade-II in FCI and on 20.03.2024, as per directions of his office, he remained on duty in CBI to stand as a witness. On that day another witness Abhinav Dwivedi of FCI had also visited CBI office as a witness. PW9 says that when he visited the CBI office, one CBI official namely Akash as well as another CBI official showed him the complaint of complainant Arun Gupta (PW7), which PW9 stated to have read through along with another witness Abhinav Dwivedi. PW9 says that thereafter the were where shown one digital voice recorder and one SD card/memory card was also produced, same was inserted in the DVR. Introductory voice of him as well as of Abhinav Dwivedi was recorded through that DVR. PW9 went on to testify depose regarding verification proceedings on the complaint of complainant, for which witness states that CBI officials along with both those witnesses went near Maharaja Agrasen Hospital Rohini and met with complainant Arun Gupta. During verification witness states that complainant made a call to the official of MCD, who according to him was demanding bribe from him. That conversation was heard by independent witnesses as complainant, kept his mobile phone on speaker mode and that conversation was recorded through DVR. Witness says that ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 35 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:20:04 +0530 in that conversation MCD official called the complainant to reach near Sukhi Nahar.

59. PW9 says that thereafter complainant as instructed went on his Scooty to Sukhi Nahar, DVR was kept in his pocket on switch on mode, complainant when went there, and came back after 5 to 10 minutes. Thereafter CBI team reached to the shop of the complainant, where recorded conversation was heard. PW9 says that as per complainant when he went there in a vehicle there were three people sitting. In that recorded conversation complainant expressed his inability to pay the bribe amount, however int that recorded conversation those persons agreed to receive bribe amount of Rs.15,000/- for the time being and rest of the amount to be paid after construction of lanter.

PW-10

60. Another independent witness is PW10 Abhinav Dwivedi, who on verification proceedings has deposed that on 20.03.2024 he again reached to the office of CBI, when he along with Akash (PW9) were shown complaint give by one Arun Gupta regarding demand of illegal gratification by MCD official. PW10 says that for the purpose of verification of complaint given by Arun Gupta, one DVR was produced and fresh SD card was also taken and inserted in the DVR, in which introductory voice of him as well as of Akash Kumar was recorded. PW10 says that for the purpose of verification CBI officials along with him and Akash went near Maharaja Agrasen Hospital Rohini, where they met with complainant. Complainant thereafter instructed to make a call to the person who as per complaint was ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 36 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.12.24 15:20:11 +0530 demanding bribe. Accordingly complainant made a call to said official of MCD, in that conversation said MCD official called the complainant to reach near Sukhi Nahar. PW10 says that said conversation was recorded with the help of DVR.

61. PW10 says that thereafter complainant was instructed by CBI officials to reach Sukhi Nahar on his scooty, whereas other members of the CBI team went near that place in their vehicle. DVR was again handed over to complainant by keeping it on switch on mode, complainant thereafter went to the agreed place to meet MCD officials. PW10 says that after about 10 minutes complainant returned to the place. DVR was switched off and taken back from the complainant. PW10 says that thereafter the team went to the shop of complainant near Sanjay Gandhi Hospital where the recorded conversation was heard. PW10 says that in that recorded conversation complainant expressed his inability to arrange the amount of bribe, in that recorded conversation it came that complainant and those persons agreed to receive bribe amount of Rs.15,000/- and rest of the amount to be paid after the construction of lanter.

62. PW10 went on to testify that the said SD card was taken out from the DVR, witness testified regarding sealing of the SD card Q-1, preparing of verification memo Ex.PW7/D. PW10 thereafter heard the audio files of recorded conversation of Q-1, wherein he identified the voice of complainant and voice of MCD official. Witness also identified the transcript Ex.PW7/E having been prepared as the recorded conversation.

______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 37 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:20:17 +0530

63. Now if we appreciate the evidence only with regard to verification proceedings, PW7 testified that when he met with accused Surender (A-1), after making him a call near a shop, complainant met with Surender along with Surender Kumar Jangra (A-2), PW7 stated that Surender represented himself as employee of MCD and introduced Surender Jangra as JE of MCD and it is A-2 who demanded bribe of Rs.30,000/- for allowing him to carry on the construction over his plot. If we examine the evidence of PW7, firstly on the aspect of verification of the complaint, this court does not find any inconsistency or contradictions regarding the sequence of events as happened during verification proceedings done on 19.03.2024. Such verification was done in the presence of two independent witnesses (PW9 and PW10), who have also corroborated the evidence of complainant. PW7, PW9 as well as PW10 have been consistent about the sequence of events as transpired on 19.03.2024 during verification. These witnesses have testified that complainant made the call to accused Surender Sharma, who called him to reach near 'Sukhi Nahar'. Thereafter DVR containing SD card was given to the PW7 who went to that place on his Scooty, whereas members of verification team stayed at some safe place from Sukhi Nahar and after 10 minutes when complainant came back, both independent witnesses, verification officer (PW13 Insp. Balbir), heard the recorded conversation before the SD card was sealed at the spot.

64. PW7 has testified that when he went near Sukhi Nahar, he saw three persons in a car, out of which A-1 Surender Kumar was sitting on the ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 38 Digitally signed SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.12.24 15:20:23 +0530 rear seat and the person who was claiming himself to be JE was sitting on the front seat of the car. PW7 however could not identify the third occupant of the car. Evidence of PW7 if examined along with the audio of recorded conversation in audio file no. 240320_1201, it is very much evident that complainant was talking with Surender Kumar and Surender Jangra. It can be heard in their conversation that complainant stated "थोड़ा अभी ले लो बाकि बाद में कर दूंगा लैंटर डालने के बाद, मेरा लैंटर भी रुकवा दिया मैंने कहीं टू ट न जाये". In response thereto the voice which PW7 identified to be of Surender Jangra, can be heard stating "यह बात मान ली एक भाई कु छ इब ले लो कु छ लैंटर डालने के बाद" and complainant can be heard stating "15 अभी कर देता हूँ".

65. Above recorded conversation was heard by both the independent witnesses, PW9 and PW10 who have also identified the voice of complainant as well as of accused persons. Evidence of PW7, PW9 and PW10 also get corroboration from evidence of verification officer PW13 Insp. Balbir Singh. Nothing came in the cross-examination of these witnesses, to disbelieve their evidence on the above discussed aspect of verification of the complaint. Moreover the voice as identified by the complainant have also been proved to be of A-1 Surender Kumar and A-2 Surender Jangra as per the CFSL report Ex.PW5/A. PW5 Deepak Kumar Tanwar is the expert witness, who with regard to recorded conversation contained in Q-1 has testified that he found that SD card Q-1 containing five audio files and he examined those audio files with the voice samples of complainant, accused Surender Kumar and accused Surender Kumar ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 39 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.12.24 15:20:29 +0530 Jangra and on the basis of auditory and spectographic analysis he concluded that questioned voice exhibits matched with the sample voice of complainant, accused Surender Kumar and accused Surender Jangra. Thus in view of their evidence along with recorded conversation, this court finds that there is clear evidence of demand of bribe made by A-1 from complainant, whereas A-2 represented himself as JE in the MCD. Thus the evidence of PW7, PW9 and PW10 remained consistent, corroborative to each other.

66. It is argued by Sh.Naveen Kumar, ld. Counsel for A-3 that in the charge sheet it was case of prosecution that during verification dated 20.03.2024, accused no.3 Ramesh Chand Jain was present in the car along with A-1 and A-2, when complainant met accused Surender Kumar near Sukhi Nahar. It is submitted that complainant/PW7 in his evidence has not identified A-3 Ramesh Chand Jain to be present as one of the occupant in that car when PW7 went near Sukhi Nahar. It is submitted that complainant was the only witness who had gone to Sukhi Nahar and met during verification proceedings. According to ld. Counsel for A-3 PW7 has not identified A-3 to be present there during verification, as such the prosecution case has not been proved as against A-3.

67. Having examined the evidence of PW7, regarding verification proceedings, no doubt that PW7 in his deposition did not identify A-3 to be one of the occupant in the car, when he went near Sukhi Nahar to meet accused Surender Kumar to negotiate regarding amount of bribe. However PW7 states as "When I went near the car I saw three persons in the car, out ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 40 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:20:44 +0530 of which Surender Kumar was sitting on the rear seat of the car whereas the person who claimed himself to be JE was sitting on the front seat of the car. I however could not identify third occupant ofo the car as he did not talk to me as his face was not visible to me. I was standing outside the car whereas they were inside the car. Thereupon I requested them to reduce the amount of bribe, however they told that amount of bribe cannot be reduced. When I asked them that there should be some scope of reduction of the amount, thereupon the person who was sitting on the front seat and claiming to be JE, told me that I can give half of the amount of the bribe at that time i.e. Rs.15,000/- and remaining half (Rs.15,000-) can be paid after the festival of Holi. Upon which I agreed."

68. Thus the evidence of PW7 is that there was three occupants in the car and he could not identify the third occupant of the car as he did not talk to him and his face was not visible to PW7. Two independent witnesses (PW9 and PW10) had not gone with complainant nor followed him from some distance, during verification, thus could not get any occasion to see anyone of the occupant of the car at that point. Trap proceedings PW-7

69. PW7 further testifies that after the verification, FIR Ex.PW7/F was registered on the basis of his complaint, verification. After sometime other officials of CBI team/trap team reached at his office of Mangolpuri. PW7 went on to testify regarding pre-trap procedure, in which he produced 30 currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination (of total amount Rs.15,000/-), ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 41 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:20:51 +0530 demonstration of phenolphthalein powder and its reaction with solution of Sodium Carbonate and water, noting down the details/distinct numbers of each of the GC notes, in Annexure-A, applying each of the GC note with phenolphthalein powder, keeping those GC notes in the pocket of the jeans of the complainant, taking out fresh SD card and inserting it in the DVR and preparing of pre-trap memo Ex.PW7/G.

70. PW7 testifies that since it was decided that he would meet accused Surender (A-1) at the site of his construction, trap team therefore went in two vehicles and reached near Gali No.3, Jain Nagar. PW7 after reaching there stated to have made a call to accused Surender, by keeping his mobile phone on speaker mode, that conversation was recorded through DVR. In that conversation accused Surender stated to have asked PW7 to reach Karala, however PW7 refused for the same and then accused Surender agreed that he would be reaching to the agreed place i.e. site of construction of the complainant. Thereafter, complainant was asked to reach to the place of his construction and DVR by keeping it in switched on mode was kept in his pocket. One witness (independent witness) was instructed to follow PW7 from some distance as shadow witness, to oversee and overhear at the time of handing over of bribe. PW7 says that after about one and a half hour of his reaching at the place of construction, accused Surender reached there, in the meantime he made a call to him, which was also recorded through DVR. PW7 says that accused Surender reached there on a motorcycle and asked for the amount of bribe, PW7 states that he handed over amount of bribe to him and Surender after taking ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 42 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:20:57 +0530 the same kept it in the pocket of his pant. PW7 says that while he along with accused Surender was coming out of the site of construction, shadow witness who was standing outside the place of construction saw them and made an indication. PW7 says that he also made the indication by putting his hand on his head. On making of such indication, PW7 says that CBI team reached and caught hold of accused Surender. Witness says that bribe amount was got recovered from the possession of accused Surender by independent witness, whose name however PW7 states that he do not remember.

PW-9

71. If we examine the evidence of independent witnesses with regard to 'trap' proceedings. PW9 says that after registration of the FIR, CBI trap team also reached at the shop of the complainant, verification memo, sealed SD card were handed over to new team of CBI officials.

PW9 thereafter testifies regarding pre-trap proceedings in the same manner as deposed by PW7. PW9 specifically stated that distinct numbers of currency notes as produced by the complainant were noted down on a paper. PW9 went on to testify that after pre-trap proceedings CBI team including independent witnesses, complainant left from the shop and reached near the place of construction of the complainant. After reaching there complainant made a call to MCD official, informing him about his reaching there. Witness says that said call was also recorded with the help of DVR. P W9 inter alia states that Abhinav Dwivedi was shadow witness and instructed to follow complainant. PW9 says that after sometime ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 43 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.12.24 15:21:03 +0530 accused Surender Sharma (whom witness identified in the court) came on motorcycle, complainant and accused Surender Sharma went inside the construction side, while shadow witness was following them by keeping some distance. After sometime complainant and accused came out from that site and complainant made the indication. Upon which CBI officials reached there and apprehended accused Surender Sharma. DVR which was with the complainant was taken back and kept switched off.

72. PW9 says that complainant pointed out that tainted money/ bribe money is with accused Surender Sharma, thereupon shadow witness Abhinav Dwivedi recovered the tainted money from right back side pocket of pant of the accused Surender Sharma. PW9 says that recovered money of Rs.15,000/- were checked and the numbers of the currency notes were matched with the details of notes as mentioned during pre-trap proceedings. PW9 identifies his signatures as well as signatures of Abhinav Dwivedi on the Annexure of pre-trap memo Ex.PW7/G, testifies regarding left and right hand wash of accused Surender Sharma in the solution of Sodium Carbonate and water, which turned pink and on each occasion same were kept in separate empty glass bottles and were marked as LHW and RHW. PW9 further testifies regarding pant wash of the accused from the place of his pocket, where he kept the tainted money, in the solution of Sodium Carbonate which also turned pink and that pink colour solution was also kept separately in a glass bottle.

______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 44 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:21:10 +0530 PW-10

73. Similarly PW10 Abhinav Dwivedi deposed on trap proceedings in the same manner as deposed by PW9. So from the evidence of PW7, PW9 and PW10, it can be concluded that the prosecution has been able to brought on record cogent evidence to prove the trap proceedings. PW7 testified regarding the pre-trap proceedings, wherein he inter alia testified that he produced Rs.15,000/-, to be used as bribe money which were of 30 GC notes of Rs.500/- denomination, details of those currency notes as per PW7 were recorded in a separate Annexure. Those GC notes were applied with phenolphthalein powder. Regarding pre-trap proceedings similar is the evidence of PW9 and PW10 as well as PW13 Insp. Balbir Singh and PW21 G. Devi Prasad. Nothing came in the cross- examination of these witnesses, challenging the veracity of pre-trap proceedings.

74. Moving further PW7 thereafter went on to testify that he made the call to the accused Surender Sharma and in that conversation accused asked him to reach to Karala, however complainant refused for the same. Thereafter accused Surender agreed for reaching to the place of construction of complainant. Evidence of PW7 also states regarding arrival of accused Surender on a motorcycle and witness states that on his reaching, accused Surender asked for bribe amount and PW7 handed over the same to him. PW7 stated that accused Surender kept the bribe amount in pocket of his pant. Later, accused Surender was apprehended by CBI trap team members. Immediately after his apprehending, bribe amount was ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 45 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:21:18 +0530 recovered from his possession by independent witness (PW10 Abhinav Dwivedi).

75. Thereafter hand wash of accused was conducted. When the right hand and left hand of the accused were applied separately in the colourless solution of Sodium Carbonate, it turned pink. Similarly witness has also testified regarding pocket of the pant of the accused when applied in the solution of Sodium Carbonate, its colour also turned pink. In the evidence of PW7, PW9 and PW10, three bottles Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 were identified by the witnesses wherein the pink colour solution of Sodium Carbonate was poured. Presence of content of phenolphthalein powder has also been proved from the evidence of PW3 Dharu Singh Meena from CFSL who chemically examined sealed bottles and found to be containing phenolphthalein powder contents.

76. The testimony of PW9 and PW10 (independent witnesses) is also consistent and specific, regarding trap proceedings as discussed above and thus corroborative to the evidence of PW7. The said proceeding as well as recovery memo are also proved from the testimony of prosecution witnesses (PW13 and PW21) i.e. other members of trap team. With respect to the veracity of the trap proceeding, the defence has not been able to point out anything raising doubt regarding trap proceedings.

77. It is argued by ld. Counsel for A-1 as well as for A-2 and A-3 that the ingredients of 'demand' and 'acceptance' of bribe for offence u/s 7 of P.C. Act, has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted by ld. Counsel for A-1 Surender Sharma that he is not a public ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 46 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:21:24 +0530 servant and he has not directly demanded the bribe. On the other hand ld. Counsel for A-2 Surender Jangra submits that such ingredients have also not been established even against his client as in the complaint Ex.PW7/C, there is no reference regarding accused Surender Jangra, whereas as per PW7 before filing the complaint, complainant stated that he met with Surender Sharma along with Surender Jangra.

78. Having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made at bar. It is trite that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant is a pre-requisite to establish the guilt of the accused/ public servant under Section 7 of the PC Act. If the public servant makes a demand and the bribe-giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification, which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of 'obtainment'. In the case of obtaining, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant, which must be proved. Indeed, proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct, oral and documentary evidence. (Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731). The Supreme Court in Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 2023 SC 1567 reiterated the principle that the demand of illegal gratification, at least by circumstantial evidence, is sine qua non to attract the offence under Section 7 or 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act. It is settled law that mere recovery of money is not sufficient. In cases of trap, the first important aspect is that the demand of illegal gratification must be proved beyond a reasonable ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 47 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:21:31 +0530 doubt. Demand can be demonstrated by: (i) Direct evidence (complainant testimony); (ii) Circumstantial evidence, and (iii) Corroboration by trap witnesses or electronic evidence.

79. In the present case no doubt A-1 is not a public servant, but that fact however does not make any difference because as discussed above Explanation II of Section 7 of P.C. Act makes it clear that acceptance can be directly by the public servant or through third party. As such even if A-1 was not public servant, it however came on the judicial record that he was demanding the bribe, by representing himself to be an employee of MCD. Moreover it came in the evidence of PW7 that when complainant contacted accused Surender Sharma, he met A-1 near a shop where accused Surender Sharma represented to PW7 about Surender Jangra as JE in MCD.

80. Thus from the evidence of verification proceedings as well as trap proceedings, as discussed above, 'demand' as well as 'acceptance' of bribe by A-1 and A-2 is well proved on the record. This court has heard the recorded conversation in Q-1 and Q-2 which completely corroborate the evidence on record that A-1 despite being not working in MCD, represented to PW7 that he is from MCD and further introduced PW7/ complainant with A-2 Surender Jangra as JE in MCD, whereas it is matter of record that A-2 at that time was working as 'Beldar' in MCD on contract basis. This clearly shows that A-1 and A-2 were doing all this with their prior concert and agreement. Both A-1 and A-2 demanded bribe amount ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 48 Digitally signed SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.12.24 15:21:38 +0530 from PW7 and later A-1 was apprehended accepting the bribe amount from the complainant.

81. Now let us examine the submissions of ld. Counsel for A-2 that A-2 Surender Jangra was only a Beldar and was not in a position to demand a bribe. Moreover it is submitted that in the complaint Ex.PW7/C, there was no reference of name of accused Surender Jangra and there was a major improvement in the evidence of PW7, when witness stated that near the shop of Rajbhog Jain Nagar, accused Surender Sharma represented Surender Jangra as JE in the MCD. It is submitted that there was no previous TIP got conducted for identification of accused Surender Jangra during investigation. As such there was a serious lapse in the investigation creating doubt about the veracity of the very prosecution case.

82. Having given thoughtful consideration to such submissions, on careful examination of facts and evidence of PW7 as well as PW9 and PW10, it would be apparent that complainant PW7 was handed over a slip mentioning mobile no. 9711105078 (which PW7 mentioned in his complaint Ex.PW7/C) by labour working at the site and also informed that the person by name 'Surender Kumar' from MCD had visited the site.

PW7 later called on that number and met A-1 who stated his name as 'Surender'. PW7 was not previously acquainted with the accused therefore he mentioned the name of Surender as well as his mobile number in his complaint. PW7 also stated in his complaint that he met with friend of Surender. It is in this context PW7 for the first time, identified A-2 Surender Jangra to be the one who had met with Surender Kumar near ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 49 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:21:44 +0530 Rajbhog Shop of Jain Nagar, prior to giving of his complaint Ex.PW7/C to CBI.

83. This court has already noted above that the improvement in the evidence of PW7 does not render his evidence to be unbelievable on this aspect because in cross-examination of PW7, witness was never confronted with his previous statement/complaint in accordance with the provisions of Section 145 of Indian Evidence Act. Now coming to issue of non conducting of Test Identification Parade (TIP). It be noted that a Test Identification Parade (TIP) is necessary when a witness needs to identify an accused person for the first time during the investigation, especially in those situations where the witness saw the accused for the first time, at the time of incidence/ commission of the offence, and the accused was unknown to the witness before the crime. Since the identity of the crime and criminal is relevant to establish the case, to confirm the witness's credibility and ability to recognise the perpetrator among others, acting as corroborative evidence to strengthen the case, a test identification parade is to be conducted during the investigation. However, TIP is not needed if the witness already knows or has seen the accused well. If the witness can identify the accused directly in court without needing a lineup, though, a TIP can still strengthen the case.

84. Moreover, it is settled law that the holding of a Test SHELENDER Identification Parade is not obligatory in every possible case. As stated MALIK Digitally signed by SHELENDER MALIK Date: 2025.12.24 15:24:18 +0530 above, TIP may be necessary where a witness saw the accused/perpetrator for the first time during the commission of the offence and was previously ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 50 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.12.24 15:25:39 +0530 not known. In other situations, failure to hold a parade would not make evidence of identification in court inadmissible. TIPs do not constitute substantive evidence. They are primarily meant for the purpose of helping the investigating agency with an assurance that their progress with the investigation into the offence is proceeding on the right lines. The whole idea of a test identification parade is that witnesses who claim to have seen the culprits at the time of the occurrence are to identify them from the midst of other persons without any aid or any source. Reference can be given of judgment in Heera v. State of Rajasthan 2007 CRI. L. J. 3514 (SC). In the present case, as per evidence of PW-7, he had already met with A-2 Surender Jangra and saw him, when, according to PW-7, he was introduced by A-1 Surender as JE. Therefore in the peculiar facts of the present case, there was no legal necessity for conducting TIP of A-2 Surender Jangra during the investigation.

Proceedings after apprehending of A-1 PW-7

85. PW7 further states in his evidence that, after apprehending of accused, a solution of Sodium Carbonate with water was prepared and hands of the accused were separately put in the tumbler, on which the solution turned pink. Both the hand wash which turned pink of the accused Surender were kept in separate glass bottles. PW7 testifies at this stage that accused Surender started receiving calls repeatedly, members of CBI trap team to cooperate regarding receiving of calls and if he would cooperate, he would be saved. Surender was further asked to state on ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 51 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:25:26 +0530 phone, as directed. PW7 says that those calls were identified, having been made by accused Surender Kumar Jangra, who was inquiring about his location by telling him that CBI team may come and therefore he (A-1) should leave that place immediately. PW7 says that accused Surender Sharma as instructed to him told the caller that he has received the bribe. Thereafter as per PW7 accused Surender was taken to MCD Office Narela along with the entire trap team.

86. After reaching Narela Office of MCD, recorded conversation was heard and written. Written transcript was taken, specimen voice sample of him (PW7) as well as of accused Surender Sharma as well as other independent witness was taken with the help of DVR when separate fresh SD cards were inserted. PW7 also testified regarding wash of trouser/pant, which accused Surender was wearing at the time of trap in the solution of Sodium Carbonate, which also turned pink. The pant of the accused was also separately sealed. Mobile phone of accused Surender was also seized and sealed, bribe amount as recovered from the accused Surender was also wrapped and sealed and PW7 testifies that post trap memo Ex.PW7/H was prepared.

PW-9

87. If we go through the evidence of other witnesses, PW9 testified that after apprehending of accused Surender Kumar, on his mobile phone many calls were coming. Therefore CBI official another fresh SD card, inserted the same in the DVR and accused Surender Sharma was asked to attend those calls. Accused Surender Sharma attended a call and ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 52 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:25:49 +0530 conversation was recorded with the help of DVR. PW9 says that accused Surender Sharma received a call from someone inquiring from him if anything has happened and suggesting him to leave that place. PW9 says that while the trap team members were on their way to MCD Narela Zone office, Surender Sharma received on his mobile phone another call from a person whose name was saved in his mobile as "Jain Sahab", accused Surender Sharma was asked to attend that call. Accused Surender Sharma talked with the caller, that call was also recorded with the help of DVR. PW9 says that in that telephonic conversation, accused Surender Sharma informed the caller that he had received Rs.15,000/-. The caller however suggested the accused Surender Sharma to speak "15 kagaz bolo".

88. PW9 says that at the time of his apprehension accused Surender Sharma disclosed to the CBI team that he is only a 'private person' and was working on behalf of 'Jain Sahab JE of MCD'. PW9 in his deposition heard the recorded conversation of Q-1, Q-2 and Q-3, wherein he identified the voice of accused Surender Kumar Sharma, complainant Arun Gupta as well as accused Surender Jangra as well as in audio file no.240320_1807, PW9 identified the voice of accused Surender Sharma and of 'Jain Sahab' as the name was saved in the mobile of accused Surender Kumar Sharma. This court would discuss the relevant portion of cross-examination of this witness as well little later in the judgment.

______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 53 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.12.24 15:25:56 +0530 PW-10

89. Similarly PW10 says in his deposition recorded on 03.06.2025 states that after apprehension of accused Surender Sharma he disclosed to CBI team that he is a private person and accepted the bribe amount on behalf of JE Narela namely Ramesh Chand Jain. PW10 also testified that after apprehending of accused Surender Sharma he received a call, whose name accused revealed to be accused Surender Jangra. PW10 says that in that conversation said caller instructed accused Surender Sharma to leave that place, whereas Surender Sharma informed him that there is nothing to worry as nothing has happened.

90. PW10 also testified that while they were on their way to MCD Narela office, accused Surender Sharma received a WhatsApp call from the person named as fed in the contact list as Ramesh Chand Jain JE Narela. PW10 says that on receiving such call DVR was switched on, Surender Sharma talked with the caller while keeping his mobile on speaker mode and that conversation of Surender Sharma with the caller was recorded with the help of DVR. PW10 says that in that telephonic conversation, Surender Sharma informed the caller that he had received Rs.15,000/-, thereupon caller told him not to speak so explicitly about Rs.15,000/- and should use some indicative words like 'pandrah kagaz'. PW10 testified about other steps taken during the trap proceedings. PW10 also heard the recorded conversation of Q-1, Q-2 and Q-3.

______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 54 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:26:02 +0530 PW-13

91. In this context it is also important to refer the evidence of PW13 Insp. Balbir Singh, who was member of the trap team. PW13 inter alia testified that after apprehending of accused, he revealed that he is only a private person and not employee of MCD and that bribe amount had been accepted by him on behalf of accused Ramesh Chand Jain, who is JE of MCD. PW13 says that accused Surender Sharma further disclosed at the time of verification proceedings that two other persons who were sitting in the car were Ramesh Chand Jain and Surender Jangra. PW13 says that a fresh SD card was arranged for the purpose of recording conversation, which could take place between Surender Sharma and Ramesh Chand Jain. PW13 says that accused Surender Sharma was asked to call Ramesh Chand Jain who however did not respond to that call. PW13 says that after some time a call was received on the mobile phone of accused Surender Sharma from accused Surender Jangra in which he was pressurizing accused Surender Sharma to leave that place as he had some information of apprehension in that vicinity. Witness says that said call was recorded in the SD card through DVR. Witness says that since at that time lot of people started gathering there, it was decided to leave that place. In the meantime accused Surender Sharma received a call from Ramesh Chand Jain. PW13 says that in that telephonic conversation confirmed regarding receiving of Rs.15,000/- from complainant, upon which accused Ramesh Chand Jain advised accused Surender to use coded language of kagaz or 15 ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 55 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:26:08 +0530 kagas instead of money. PW13 says that said call was also recorded in the SD card through DVR.

PW-21

92. In similar manner, PW21 Inspector G. Devi Prasad, Trap Laying Officer (TLO) inter alia testified that after apprehension of accused Surender Sharma he disclosed that he is a private person and he accepted the bribe amount on behalf of JE Narela namely Ramesh Chand Jain. Witness says that accused further disclosed that another person with him was Surender Jangra as well as JE Ramesh Chand Jain in the car, when bribe amount was demanded from the complainant. PW21 says that a new memory card was taken and inserted in the DVR and on his instructions, accused Surender Sharma made two WhatsApp calls to accused Ramesh Chand Jain which were not attended by him. PW21 further says that thereafter on the mobile phone of Surender Sharma, two calls of accused Surender Jangra came wherein he told accused Surender Sharma that some issue/disturbance is that there at the construction site and asked Surender Sharma to leave that place. Witness says that said telephonic conversation was recorded in SD card through DVR. PW21 says that while they were on way to Narela Office of MCD, accused Surender Sharma received a WhatsApp call from accused Ramesh Chand Jain, during which accused Surender Sharma informed Ramesh Chand Jain that complainant Arun Gupta had handed over him Rs.15,000/- as bribe. Upon which accused Ramesh Chand Jain told Surender Sharma not to speak about the bribe amount of Rs.15,000/- in such manner and to give some indication about ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 56 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:26:14 +0530 the same by using the word "15 kagaz". Witness says that said telephonic conversation was also recorded in SD card through DVR.

93. Thus from the above discussion of the evidence, it is evident that name of A-3 R.C. Jain, who at the relevant time was working as JE, in Narela Zone, surfaced, after apprehension of the accused. It came in the evidence of above mentioned witnesses as noted above that after apprehending of A-1 Surender Sharma, he for the first time disclosed that he is a private person and is not working in MCD. It came in the evidence of PW9, PW10, PW13 and PW21 that after apprehending of accused Surender Sharma he disclosed that he was demanding bribe, on behalf of JE A-3 Ramesh Chand Jain.

94. It is in this context ld. Counsel for A-3 Sh.Naveen Kumar has submitted that alleged disclosure of A-1 against A-3 is unreliable, inadmissible and is barred u/s 24, 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act. It is submitted by ld. Counsel for A-3 that only a portion of statement of accused which lead to discovery of any fact, can be admitted u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. It is also submitted that the alleged disclosure of accused Surender Sharma has not been proved on record as there is nothing in writing in this regard. It is submitted that in the absence of same no role can be attributed as against A-3.

95. Having considered such submissions, there is no denial to the legal proposition that even if accused has only been apprehended and has not yet been formally arrested, still would be considered to be under the custody of law enforcement/ investigating agency, he as such for all intent ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 57 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:26:20 +0530 and purposes would be considered to be under the custody of the investigating agency and therefore while being in such custody anything stated by such accused, cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. It can be considered to be in the same manner as if one accused after arrest makes a confession to police, such confession cannot be taken as a legal evidence. Therefore this court though agrees with the submission of ld. Counsel for A-3 that anything stated by accused no.1 Surender Sharma, after his apprehension, inculpating A-3 Ramesh Chand Jain, may not be considered to be an evidence against A-3. However what accused Surender Sharma stated, may not be considered to be admissible but his conduct in the peculiar circumstances of the present case can still be admissible under Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act. Section 8 of Evidence Act (section 6 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023) inter alia provides "...the conduct of any person an offence against whom is subject of any proceedings, is relevant if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto".

96. In the present case even if this court ignores that accused Surender Sharma after his apprehension by the CBI trap team stated that he was demanding the bribe amount from complainant at the instance of A-3 Ramesh Chand Jain, as deposed by PW9, PW10, PW13 and PW21, still his conduct of informing about the complicity of A-3, who was working as JE, would certainly be within Explanation I of Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act and therefore would be relevant. It is important that even if we ignore the statement given by the accused Surender Sharma, this court can still ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 58 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:26:25 +0530 take into consideration the fact that accused Surender Sharma started receiving calls on his mobile phone, which were duly recorded when fresh SD card was arranged and inserted in the DVR and accused Surender Sharma was asked to make call. It came in the evidence that at first instance, when he made the call to A-3, it was not answered to. In the meantime A-1 Surender Sharma received two calls from A-2, the recorded conversation of those calls are in audio file no. 240320_1729 and 240320_1737. The transcript of the same is as under :

240320_1729 S- हाँ जी भाई Sj- कहाँ है S- भाई जो था ना अपना अरुण गुप्ता Sj- हाँ S- उसकी साइट पे Sj- अच्छा S- हाँ Sj- के गड़बड़ हो गई कोई S- ना कोई ऐसी गड़बड़ ना क्या बात हो गई Sj- गड़बड़ की खबर है यहाँ S- ना ना कोई ऐसी गड़बड़ ना भाई किस चीज़ की खबर आ गयी Sj- उठने की S- ना ना ऐसी तो कोई गड़बड़ ना भाई फ़िलहाल, बता किते गए साहब किते गए Sj- हाँ जी हाँ हाँ क्या?

______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 59 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:26:32 +0530 S- साहब किते छोड़ दिए Sj- वह तो छोड़ दिए S- जोन में छोड़ दिया Sj- ना ना कं झावला चौक पर छोड़ दिए तो S- अच्छा अच्छा Sj- हाँ देख ले गड़बड़ हुआ क्या है S- अरे मेरे ना है गड़बड़ तो कु छ भी कोना भाई ऐसी Sj- देख ले चल ठीक है S- ठीक है ठीक है ठीक है भाई 240320_1737 S- हाँ जी भाई Sj- सुरेन्द्र S- हाँ जी भाई Sj- एक साइड आकर बात कर S- 1 मिनट बताओ Sj- मैं यह कह रहा हूँ फटाफट निकल यहाँ से वहां से तीन गलियों से फ़ोन आ लिए की जैन नगर में कौन सा सुरेन्द्र बैठा रखा है S- अच्छा चल मैं निकलता हूँ भाई Sj- इससे पहले मेरी कभी यह लैंग्वेज रही है क्या S- ठीक है ठीक है मैं निकलता हूँ यार जैन साहब को मैंने फ़ोन मिलाया इतनी तो उन्होंने उठाया नहीं एक बार भी भाई Sj- भाई मुझे वहां से तीन गलियों से फ़ोन आ गया मेरे पास है तू अभी वहीँ बैठा है ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 60 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.12.24 15:26:38 +0530 S- भाई मैं तो यही हूँ मैंने तो कोई ऐसी बात वह नहीं लगी यार चल मैं निकलता हूँ ठीक है ठीक है भाई Sj- छोड़ दे xxxxx S- ठीक है ठीक है ठीक है Sj- अभी वहीँ बैठा है यार तू इतना होने के बाद में S- ठीक है भाई ठीक है Sj- अभी मालती (असपष्ट आवाज) आ गया S- अच्छा अच्छा, अच्छा Sj- आजा मैं पप्पू की दुकान पर हूँ आजा दिखाऊं मैं तन्ने S- ठीक है ठीक है

97. In this regard it be noted that nothing came in the cross- examination of PW9, PW10, PW13 and PW21 except the suggestion of denial regarding receiving of those calls by accused Surender Sharma. The recorded conversation contained the voice of accused Surender Sharma as well as of accused Surender Jangra has also been proved by the expert witness report Ex.PW5/A. Moreover on behalf of accused Surender Jangra a defence was taken that on 20.03.2024 at about 05.00 p.m. while he was at shop of Pappu, three CBI officials stated to have illegally detained him and told him that they had arrested Surender Sharma and stated that since he knew Surender Sharma, asked him to call Surender Sharma and to say exactly what they instruct, otherwise he would be framed. According to A-2 in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC, he was forced by CBI officials to make those calls to Surender Sharma.

______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 61 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:26:44 +0530

98. Such facts as stated in the statement u/s 313 Cr.PC of A-2, would have certainly helped him to create a defence in his favour had he examined Pappu and the mobile shop owner where he claimed to have gone and gave his mobile phone for repair. However A-2 Surender Jangra failed to get those persons examined as witness in his defence despite an opportunity taken by him. Moreover accused Surender Jangra himself has not appeared in the witness box by invoking Section 315 of Cr.PC nor has proved any letter, complaint etc. made if any if according to his version he was forcibly detained by CBI officials and was forced to make a call to A-1. It is matter of record that accused Surender Jangra has never been arrested during the investigation, rather A-1 and A-3 were arrested and later released on bail. A-2 Surender Jangra when has never been arrested, could have made a complaint in this regard at any point of time if he was actually detained and forced by CBI officials as claimed by him. In the absence of any such complaint/letter or in the absence of any evidence led by A-2, this court would rather find that defence taken by A-2 has not been proved and rather established that he made the call himself to A-1 Surender Sharma.

99. Coming now to the involvement of A-3 Ramesh Chand Jain, almost at the same time, as came in the evidence of PW9, PW10, PW13 and PW21 that accused Surender Sharma received a WhatsApp call from A-3. That call was also got recorded with the help of DVR, the recorded conversation is in audio file no. 240320_1807 and the transcript of such recorded conversation Ex.PW7/E reads as under :

S- हाँ जी सर नमस्कार ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 62 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:26:51 +0530 R- अरे फ़ोन किया था फ़ोन कर रहा था क्या S- साहब कर तो रहा था मैं इतनी देर से R- अरे मैं तो मिलाया तूने उठाया नहीं पता नहीं सिग्नल नहीं मिलती क्या क्या है क्या नहीं मिलती S- पता नहीं साहब मैं मिलाया था आपकी मिस कॉल भी आयी थी फिर मैंने मिलाया था आपने उठाया नहीं R- ऐसे पता नहीं चल रहा है साला पता नहीं क्या हो रहा है क्या बात थी S- घर पर पहुँच गए साहब R- अजी हाँ घर पर पहुँच गए दफ्तर से चला अभी २ घंटे लगेंगे पहुँचने में S- अच्छा अच्छा चलो R- यह खाटू श्याम के मंदिर के पास है कौन सा है यह नरेला से निकलने के बाद खाटू श्याम कौन सो ही अपना गेट लग रही इस्पे S- साब वो एक भाई नहीं था अरुण गुप्ता R- कौन बता कौन है बता कौन सो अरुण गुप्ता S- भाई जो आया नहीं था क्या वहां पर अपना स्टॉक के पास सुबह R- अच्छा S- सुखी नहर पर जब हम खड़े थे साहब R- हाँ हाँ हाँ स्कू टी पर S- हाँ हाँ तो भाई बोला था हम बच्चों को लेने जा रहा हूँ स्कू ल और बच्चों को लेकर आऊं गा R- हाँ हाँ हाँ S- तो साहब उसने 15000 कर दिए हैं R- अरे यार तू पूरा ही बोल ले अब, कम नहीं बोलता तू S- साहब चलो कोई नहीं सब उसने कर दिया R- 15 कागज़ कह दिया कर, 15 कागज़ कह दे भाई 15 कागज़, कागज़ का इस्तेमाल कर S- कोई बात नहीं साब उसने भाई ने कर दिया 15 R- कागज़ से ठीक है S- उसे अपना काम कर दिया R- हाँ कागज़ का इस्तेमाल किया कर मेरे भाई ठीक है S- ठीक है ठीक है साब R- हाँ ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 63 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:26:57 +0530 S- होली के बाद का कह रहा है भाई R- क्या S- करे बाकी होली के बाद कर दूंगा R- हाँ ठीक है कोई बात नहीं S- जी R- ठीक है S- ठीक है साहब R- और सब ठीक है S- ठीक है साब R- भाई ऐसे ही है नौकरी चल कोई बात नहीं S- ठीक है साहब

100. Above stated transcript of the recorded conversation, brings the accused no.3 Ramesh Chand Jain into the picture, for the first time in this case. Ld. Counsel for A-3, being well aware about the legal position, has challenged such conversation on multiple fronts. Before this court deal with different arguments as raised by ld. Counsel for A-3, first of all it be noted that regarding above noted recorded conversation, witnesses PW9, PW10, PW13 and PW21 have stated, however complainant PW7 has not deposed anything in this regard. Now examining such recorded conversation, nothing came in the cross-examination of above mentioned witnesses except the denial by way of suggestion. Expert witness in his report Ex.PW5/A has also given positive findings that the voice as come in that recorded conversation is of A-1 Surender Kumar Sharma and of A-3 Ramesh Chand Jain.

101. No doubt PW7/complainant has not deposed anything regarding WhatsApp call, made by A-3 Ramesh Chand Jain to A-1 ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 64 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:27:17 +0530 Surender Kumar but this does affect the prosecution case firstly because other independent witnesses (PW9 and PW10) who had no concern or contact, with complainant or accused persons have deposed that A-1 received WhatsApp call, from A-3. Nothing came in cross-examination of PW9 and PW10 to disbelieve on this aspect. Moreover there is no material on record to show that independent witnesses would make false assertion in this regard. Secondly evidence of independent witnesses get corroboration from evidence of PW13 and PW21 who also testified same facts in the court. Thirdly, if complainant/PW7 did not testify on this aspect, he was neither cross-examined by ld. PP for the CBI nor by defence counsel for A-3.

102. It is submitted by ld. Counsel for A-3 that since in the present case FIR was registered u/s 7 of P.C. Act, it is later when CBI official came to know that A-1 was not a public servant, therefore A-3 has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that investigation show signs of reverse engineering i.e. accused has been firstly identified and thereafter evidence has been collected to implicate him in the present case. It is further submitted that a WhatsApp call, after A-1's arrest cannot fasten the criminal liability or does not establish conspiracy.

103. Having given thoughtful consideration to such submissions as made by ld. Counsel for A-3, at the outset it be noted that A-1, after his apprehension by the trap team of CBI, made a call to A-3, on the directions of CBI officials. That call was not responded to by A-3. It is later A-1 received a WhatsApp call from A-3 Ramesh Chand Jain. This fact is not ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 65 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:27:24 +0530 only proved by oral evidence of PW9, PW10, PW13 and PW21, recorded conversation, the transcript of which has been reproduced above which is Ex.PW7/E. There is D-7, i.e. printout of WhatsApp chat/call logs in the mobile phone of accused Surender Sharma Ex.PW9/A, regarding which PW9 as well as PW21 have testified that when mobile phone of accused Surender Sharma was scrutinized and call logs with JE Ramesh Chand Jain and Surender Jangra were found, the printout of relevant call logs from mobile phone of Surender Sharma was taken and signed by independent witnesses.

104. Perusal of D-7 (Ex.PW9/A) shows that there has been regular WhatsApp call log between A-1 and A-3 not only on 20.03.2024 rather prior thereto also. It is not denied by even defence that the details saved in the mobile phone of accused Surender Sharma were not of accused Ramesh Chand Jain. This document further shows that name of A-3 Ramesh Chand Jain has been duly saved in the contact list of A-1. Nothing came in the cross-examination of either PW9 or PW21 discrediting regarding taking of printout of WhatsApp call. Beside this, the recorded conversation between A-1 and A-2 (audio file no.240320_1729 and 240320_1737), there is a reference of A-3. Thus taking into consideration the sequence of events, totality of the evidence as come on the judicial record, this court finds that there is very important incriminating evidence against A-3 and therefore it cannot be stated that A-3 has been falsely implicated. Even otherwise no evidence has been led on behalf of A-3 to prove as to why A-3 would be falsely implicated in the present case. The ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 66 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:27:30 +0530 concept of reverse engineering as canvassed by ld. Counsel for A-3 in his submissions, does not have any legal basis. As per Ex.PW9/A WhatsApp call was received in the mobile phone of A-1 from A-3. Thus it cannot be stated that there is no legally admissible evidence against A-3 Ramesh Chand Jain. Rather evidence on the record clearly show that A-3 was part of the conspiracy under which, he while was remaining behind the curtain and putting forward a private person like A-1 Surender Sharma and A-2 Surender Jangra (Beldar), in front, to contact with people and to ask for the bribe.

105. All the three accused persons have been charged for offence u/s 120B IPC r/w Section 7 of P.C. Act. Before this court proceed to enumerate the different evidence regarding the charge of criminal conspiracy. A basic feature of this charge is that different offences were committed by the accused persons, under a criminal conspiracy amongst them. So it is important to examine if a criminal conspiracy has been proved against each of the accused persons or not.

106. The essence of the offence of criminal conspiracy is the fact of combination by agreement. The agreement may be expressed or implied. The conspiracy arises and the offence is committed as soon as the agreement is made. The actus reus in a conspiracy is the agreement to execute the illegal conducts not the execution of it. Following are the ingredients of the offence of conspiracy:

(a) There must be an agreement between two or more persons who are alleged to conspire.

(b) The agreement should be to do, or cause to be done:

______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 67 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:27:42 +0530

(i) an illegal act

(ii) an act, which is though not illegal-by-illegal means.

107. It is settled law that to prove criminal conspiracy, there must be evidence, direct or circumstantial, to prove that there was an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence; there must be the meeting of the mind resulting in the ultimate decision taken by conspirators regarding the commission of an offence. As we all know conspiracy to commit a crime would be hatched discreetly, and direct evidence of criminal conspiracy is rare.

108. Generally, a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy, and it may be not easy to adduce direct evidence of the same. The prosecution will often rely on evidence of acts of various parties to infer that they were done in reference to their common intention. The prosecution will also more often rely upon circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy can be undoubtedly proved by such evidence, direct or circumstantial. However, the court has to examine whether the three accused persons were independently pursuing the same end or they have come together in the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators, but the latter does. Therefore, it is, essential that the offence of conspiracy requires some kind of physical manifestation of agreement. The express agreement, however, may not be proved, nor actual meeting of two persons is necessary. Nor is it necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to the transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient.

______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 68

109. Section 10 of the Evidence Act introduces the doctrine of agency for proof of conspiracy. Section 10 of the Evidence Act renders anything said, done or written by any one of the conspirators in reference to their common intention as a relevant fact, not only as against each of the conspirators but for proving the existence of the conspiracy itself. Further, the said fact can be used to show that a particular person was a party to the conspiracy. The only condition for application of the rule in section 10 is that there must be "reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence." If prima facie evidence of the existence of a conspiracy is given and accepted, the evidence of acts and statements made by any one of the conspirators in furtherance of the common object is admissible against all.

110. Reference can be given of judgment of Apex Court in Mohd. Naushad v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) AIR 2023 SC (Supp) 821, Rajiv Kumar v. State of U.P and Anr. AIR 2017 SC 3772. So legal proposition on the issue emerges to the effect that

(i) Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means. The object behind the conspiracy is to achieve the ultimate aim of conspiracy. In order to achieve the ultimate object, parties may adopt many means. Such means may constitute different offences by themselves, but so long as they are adopted to achieve the ultimate object of the conspiracy, they are also acts of conspiracy.

(ii) For an offence of conspiracy, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that conspirators expressly agreed to do an illegal act, the agreement may be proved by necessary implication.

(iii) It is also not necessary that each member of the conspiracy should know all the details of the conspiracy. Conspiracy is a continuing offence.

______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 69 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:28:33 +0530

(iv) The conspiracy may be a general one and a smaller one which may develop in successive stages. It is an unlawful agreement and not its accomplishment, which is the gist/essence of the crime of conspiracy.

(v) In order to determine whether the conspiracy was hatched, the court is required to view the entire agreement and to find out as in fact what the conspirators intended to do.

(vi) Section 10 of Evidence renders anything said, done or written by anyone of the conspirators in reference to their common intention as a relevant fact, not only as against each of the conspirators but for proving the existence of the conspiracy itself. However it applies when prima facie evidence of the existence of a conspiracy is given and accepted.

111. Guided with above noted legal proposition, if we examine the evidence of the present case, following evidence, establish that accused no.3 Ramesh Chand Jain was also in conspiracy and connivance with A-1 and A-2 :

(a) Receiving of WhatsApp call from A-3 Ramesh Chand Jain on the mobile phone of A-1 Surender Kumar after his apprehension by trap team;

(b) The WhatsApp call was received from the number of A-3 Ramesh Chand Jain which was found saved in the mobile phone of A-1 Surender Kumar;

(c) Voice of A-3 Ramesh Chand Jain, having been identified by PW8 Bhupender Singh as well as PW11 Ram Babu Meena;

(d) There is reference of name of A-3 Ramesh Chand Jain in the recorded conversation between A-1 Surender Kumar and A-2 Surender Kumar Jangra.

______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 70 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.12.24 15:28:48 +0530

112. In the opinion of this court above noted evidence, were found to be sufficient in the peculiar circumstances of the present case to come to judicial finding that A-3 was also part of the conspiracy with A-1 and A-2. It is important to note the peculiar circumstances of the present case. Since public servant A-3 being JE, has directly not contacted the complainant or demanded illegal gratification, rather tried to escape from the law enforcement agencies by putting forward a private person like A-1 Surender Kumar, to contact complainant and to demand bribe and threatening for demolition of the construction work being carried out the site/property of PW7/complainant.

113. This court further finds on meaningful reading of evidence of PW7 Arun Gupta that there are sufficient material on the record to show that accused persons had already hatched the conspiracy to demand illegal gratification from PW7 as it is evident from evidence of PW7 that (i) A-1 despite knowing the fact that he is not a public person, courageously portrayed himself to complainant that he is working in MCD; (ii) A-1 thereafter introduced complainant with A-2 by portraying him as JE in MCD, whereas A-2 was only working as Beldar; (iii) A-2 demanded Rs.30,000/- as illegal gratification for allowing the complainant to carry on his construction and further threatened that in case the bribe money is not given, his construction can be ordered to be demolished; (iv) during verification, the recorded conversation of A-1 and A-2 with complainant, also establish that they negotiated the amount of illegal gratification with ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 71 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:29:01 +0530 complainant and agreed to receive Rs.15,000/-; (v) A-1 Surender Kumar was apprehended red handed while accepting the illegal gratification of Rs.15,000/- from complainant.

114. As such this court finds that whatever stated and done by A-1 and A-2 with complainant (PW7), not only establish their common intention of A-1 and A-2 but also establish conspiracy, in which A-3 was one of the essential part. In view of the reasons as discussed above, this court finds that there is sufficient evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe and evidence of complainant and independent witnesses, officials of CBI were found to be believable to prove the essential ingredients of section 7 of P.C. Act. This court further finds that there was evidence on the record establishing the charge of criminal conspiracy u/s 120B of IPC as against all the three accused persons for committing the offence u/s 7 of P.C. Act.

(c) Whether the recorded conversation in Q-1, Q-2, Q-3, cannot be taken into consideration, on account of legal objections as raised

115. The recorded conversation in Q-1, Q-2 and Q-3 has been challenged by ld. Counsel for A-1 and A-3 on the ground that digital evidence has not been collected in accordance with the CBI Manual. It is submitted that hash value of digital evidence was not collected at the time when the alleged recorded conversation was kept in the SD card, nor the details of hash value was given when the recorded conversations were sent to CFSL for expert opinion along with the sample voice of accused persons, complainant. It is further submitted that even the CFSL expert ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 72 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:29:45 +0530 has also not ascertained the hash value, before examining the recorded conversation for identification of voice. Ld. Counsel for A-3 has filed along with the written arguments a literature on the topic of "significance of hash value generation in digital forensic". It is also argued that in the present case certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act was also not taken. Reliance has been placed on judgment of Yuvraj vs. State (Madras High Court 2023 MHC/2420), Ram Kishan Fauji vs. State of Haryana 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 5058.

116. In order to deal with the submissions of ld. Counsels for A-1 and A-3, there is necessity to understand the meaning and very purpose of ascertaining the "hash value". It be noted that hash value of any digital device is numeric value of fixed length that uniquely identifies the data in a digital device. The data can be small such as single character to a large.

"Hash value" represent and quantify amount/length of data as much smaller numeric value so they are used as digital signature to uniquely identify every electronic file. "Hash value" is represented as hexa decimal number and length of that number depends on the type of hash algorithm being used which makes the "hash value" as unique. Changing of even a single character in a digital file, would change the "hash value", therefore ascertaining the "hash value" assume importance as the content of any digital file, when ascertained by "hash value", would give assurance that in case of any change or tampering in that digital file, would also change the "hash value" of the same. It is in that context "hash value" is considered to ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 73 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.12.24 15:29:56 +0530 be best indicator as to whether the evidence relating to such digital device has been tampered with or not.

117. In this context it is also important to note that hash value is to be ascertained of a content of digital device, when the content has been derived from that digital device, for example, the content of a Compact Disk (CD), CCTV footage derived from the DVR and stored in another digital device such as CD, SD card or pen drive etc. In case of obtaining and store the content/data of any digital device, it is the protocol that at the time of obtaining the data, the "hash value" of the data is also to be ascertained and noted. So that it would ensure that data has not been tampered with at any stage, once it is kept in any storage device such as pen drive etc. However having so stated the 'hash value' of content in any digital device may not be required to be ascertained when the data has remained store in the same original digital device and has not been transferred or obtained from the device in any other device.

118. Moreover section 3 of Information Technology Act, 2000 (in short "IT Act") also supports the international accepted hash function as the unique and reliable method to authenticate the integrity of data, as emerging from the explanation of section 3, which provides - for this sub- section, "hash function" means an algorithm mapping or translation of one sequence of bits into another, generally smaller, set known as "hash result"

such that an electronic record yields the same hash result every time the algorithm is executed with the same electronic record as its input making it computationally infeasible - (a). to derive or reconstruct the original ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 74 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:30:05 +0530 electronic record from the hash result produced by the algorithm; (b). that two electronic records can produce the same hash result using the algorithm. Rule 3, 4 & 5 of IT Act provide the use of the hash function in authentication of information by digital signature and in creation and verification of digital signature and further provides that the electronic record was unaltered, which is known to be the case if the hash result computed by the verifier is identical to the hash result extracted from the Digital Signature during the verification process.

119. The aforementioned literature and law, as outlined in the Information Technology Act, 2000, highlight the significance of the hash value of an electronic record. At the same time, it does not mandate that in the absence of a hash value, the electronic record has to be discarded by the Court, in totality. Admittedly, CBI did not place on record the hash value of the audio recordings it had collected during the investigation. The issue, which needs adjudication is, is whether in the absence of a hash value, anTimes New Roman electronic record, collected by CBI in this case, was relevant and admissible?

120. In the present case, there is no denial to the fact that when recorded conversation was recorded with the help of DVR in the SD card, during verification proceedings (Q-1), or during trap proceedings (Q-2) as well as after the apprehending of accused Surender Kumar (Q-3), IO did not ascertain the hash value of the SD card before it was sealed. However it is matter of record that Q-1, Q-2, Q-3 were the original SD cards, in which conversation was recorded. It is not the case of prosecution that ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 75 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:30:14 +0530 digital data was obtained as a secondary evidence from some other original source, rather the original SD cards containing the recorded conversation, were sealed. Evidence of recorded conversation contained in Q-1, Q-2 and Q-3 pertained to the fact-in-issue, involved in this case, based on the claims of bribery being demanded by accused persons, raised by complainant. So, CBI rightly collected that evidence.

121. With regard to admissibility of such evidence, this court finds that Section 65-B of IEA is the relevant section. Sub-section 4 of said Section 65-B, IEA, is a condition, precedent to the admissibility of electronic record in evidence. That Section mandates how information/ date contained in an electronic device, transferred , stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media, produced by computer, shall be made admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original. As such Section 65-B IEA talks about how in the absence of original, electronic record, its contemts/data can be made admissible in Court proceedings. So certificate under section 65-B of Evidence Act, is required to be given when secondary evidence of contents of electronic device is sought to be proved. Whereas in present case, original SD cards, in which conversations were recorded, were produced in the Court. So, there was no need for compliance under Section 65-B IEA with respect to said SD cards.

122. In Soumen Kumar Pal v. Central Bureau of Investigation. 2023 CRI. L.J. 4161, a contention similar to that raised on behalf of the defence was made. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held in para 31 of ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 76 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:30:35 +0530 judgment observed that Senior Scientific Officer, (HOD), Computer Forensic Division, CFSL New Delhi, PW15 in his cross-examination mentioned the absence of a hash value certificate of the voice recording which were tested. But, in his report, he has clearly stated that the Micro SD Card was original. High Court held in Para 36 of judgment that though defence has raised contention that the electronic evidence relied on was not duly certified under Section 65 B of the Evidence Act but after going through all the relevant facts and evidences adduced I can come to an authentic conclusion that, in the present matter we are not dealing with any secondary copy of the original piece of evidence as the original Micro SD Card is the primary document and it has been duly identified and authenticated by sufficient supporting evidence and report by the competent authority (Forensic Expert, CFSL New Delhi) (PW15). Hon'ble Apex Court in matters of similar nomenclature has clarified that if an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act, the same is admissible in evidence, without compliance of the conditions prescribed in Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

123. Thus for the reasons as noted above, this court finds that non ascertaining of hash value of SD cards containing recorded conversation, voice samples etc., at the time of sealing or even at the time when same were examined by the CFSL expert, does not affect its authenticity, when there is sufficient evidence showing that SD cards were sealed, in the presence of independent witness, its seal remained intact and in the same sealed condition it reached to the CFSL expert and thereafter, CFSL expert sealed those SD cards with CFSL seal. Thereafter those SD cards were ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 77 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:30:41 +0530 opened and played in the court, when same were produced in the same sealed condition. PW5 Deepak Kumar Tanwar is the CFSL expert who gave his report Ex.PW5/A. His report Ex.PW5/A is detailed, reasoned giving the specific tests applied for ascertaining the voice, while the questioned voice were examined with sample voice. Nothing came in the cross-examination of PW5, which in any manner discredit the report Ex.PW5/A.

124. Coming now to the judgments relied upon by ld. Counsel for the accused in Yuvraj vs. State (supra), no doubt Hon'ble Madras High Court in para 182 to 257 of its judgment discussed the importance of scientific evidence as well as the manner in which the scientific evidence was to be collected. It be noted that in that case, which was for offence of murder, the issue involved was with regard to collecting of CCTV footage of the alleged incidence of crime. It is in that context in para 211 of the judgment Hon'ble High Court laid down that there are four stages, when the hash value is required to be ascertained. However it be noted that such observation of Hon'ble High Court of Madras came in the context of collecting of secondary evidence i.e. CCTV footage from the DVR, such is not the situation in the present case. Without disputing the proposition/ steps to be taken while ascertaining the hash value, in case of collecting evidence in digital form, however facts of that case were altogether different.

125. Similarly in the judgment of Ram Kishan Fauji's case (supra), facts were different as it was a case of sting operation regarding demand of bribe by exchange of hands of money for granting CLU/license, ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 78 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.12.24 15:30:57 +0530 by Lokayukta. In para 11 of the judgment Hon'ble P&H High Court, noted that CFSL Hyderabad expert while examining the CD containing sting operation, did not authenticate the same by noting down the hash value and it was laid down that CD cannot stand the test of authenticity, when its contents were not compared with the hash value from the source.

126. Again there can be no denial to the legal proposition/protocol laid down in that judgment, which is required to be followed while collecting the digital evidence, in a normal condition. However in para 10 of the same judgment, Hon'ble P&H High Court had given reference of Apex Court judgment in R.K. Anand vs. Registrar Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106, wherein the Hon'ble Court was considering the admissibility of recording on some micro chips and CDs and it found that the authenticity and integrity of sting operation had never been doubted as it was a case where micro chip was preserved by popular TV channel and court believed that it could not have been tampered with. As such the judgment in Ram Kishan Fauji's case can also be of no help in the present case.

(d) Whether the charge against all or either of the accused is proved or not?

127. In view of the findings of this court on the other points of determination, having regard to the peculiar facts, circumstances and the evidence as come on the judicial record, since this court has already concluded that there is sufficient evidence showing that A-1 and A-2 demanded the bribe amount as well as A-1 was found red handed accepting the bribe amount, which was recovered from his possession also. This ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 79 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:31:07 +0530 court has further concluded that there is sufficient evidence on the record that A-1 and A-2 were doing so in connivance and conspiracy with A-3 who was actually working as JE in MCD. As such this court concludes that charge for offence u/s 7 of P.C. Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) read with Section 120B of IPC stands proved against all three accused persons. Therefore all the three accused persons are held guilty for offence u/s 7 of P.C. Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) read with Section 120B of IPC Announced in the open Court (Shailender Malik) on 24.12.2025 Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI-21 RACC/New Delhi ______________________________________________________________________ CBI vs. Surender Kumar Sharma & ors. (judgment) Page No. 80 Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:

2025.12.24 15:31:12 +0530