Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

As M.K. Harshan vs . State Of Kerala (1996) 11 Scc on 2 December, 2016

     IN THE COURT OF SURINDER KUMAR SHARMA
SPECIAL JUDGE, P.C. ACT (CBI) ­ 09, CENTRAL DISTRICT
                TIS HAZARI : DELHI 

                                              CC No.  07/15

                                         R.C. No. 11 (A)/13


Central Bureau of Investigation

               Versus

Shri Rakesh Kumar
Son of Sh. Krishan Ballabh Sharma
R/o Khasra No. 420, H.No. 3
Laxmi Vihar, Burrari, Delhi.
Permanent Add. : VPO Mehus
                   Distt. Shekhpur, Bihar.




Date of Institution      :   22.05.2013
Date of Arguments      :   16.11.2016
Date of Judgment      :   02.12.2016


JUDGMENT

1. The accused Sh. Rakesh Kumar was charge­sheeted by the CBI for the offence punishable under Sections 7 of the CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 1 of 114 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.   He was put on trial for the said offences.

Case of the Prosecution as mentioned in the Charge­ sheet.

2. On the complaint  made by Sh. Brijesh Garg, a case was registered   by   CBI,   ACB,   New   Delhi,   on   08.03.2013 against the accused Rakesh Kumar. During the relevant period,   accused   Rakesh   Kumar   was   working   as   Naib Tehsildar in the office of SDM, Alipur, Delhi.     

3. It   is   alleged   that   complainant   Sh.   Brijesh   Garg   had purchased a HIG flat in Rohini, Delhi, in the name of his wife and subsequently had submitted the documents for registration of the sale before the Registrar, VI B.   Later vide notice dated 26.02.2013 received from the office of SDM, Alipur, Sh. Brijesh Garg was directed to meet the SDM Alipur, regarding short payment of stamp duty qua CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 2 of 114 the registration of the sale deed of the said flat.     In the office of SDM Alipur, after meeting the concerned SDM, Sh.   Brijesh   Garg   was   directed   to   meet   the   accused Rakesh Kumar who was the Naib Tehsildar at that time. Sh. Brijesh Garg met the accused Rakesh Kumar and he was told that the stamp duty paid by him for registration of his   flat was short of Rs. 38,000/­.   He was told by the accused that he might have to pay up to Rs. 3.80 Lacs as penalty in addition to the short stamp duty.   It is alleged that accused Rakesh Kumar for getting the said penalty reduced   to   the   tune   of   Rs.   One   Lac   had   demanded   a bribe of Rs. 50,000/­ from Sh. Brijesh Garg.   Therefore, Sh. Brijesh Garg had made a complaint dated 07.03.2013 to   the   Anti­corruption   Bureau,   CBI,   Delhi,   against   the accused Rakesh Kumar.    

 

4. The     complaint   of   Sh.   Brijesh   Garg   was   marked   to CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 3 of 114 Inspector M.K. Upadhyay for verification.  In order to verify the allegations of the complaint, verification proceedings were conducted by CBI.  Inspector M.K. Upadhyay joined Sh.   Som   Nath   Luthra   as   independent   witness   and   the allegations   made   in   the   complaint   of   Sh.   Brijesh   Garg were explained to Sh. Som Nath Luthra. 

5. For   the   verification   of   the   said   complaint,   a   team comprising   of   complainant   Sh.   Brijesh   Garg,   Sh.   Som Nath   Luthra   and   Inspector   M.K.   Upadhyay   was constituted.  After conducting the verification proceedings, it   was   found   that   the   accused   Rakesh   Kumar   had demanded   bribe   of   Rs.   50,000/­   from   Sh.   Brijesh   Garg and   had   asked   him   to   come   to   his   office.     During   the verification   proceedings,   conversation   between   the complainant and the accused was recorded in the Digital Voice   Recorder   (DVR)   in   the   presence   of   independent CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 4 of 114 witness   and   the   verification   proceedings   were incorporated in Verification Memos dated 07.03.2013 and 08.03.2013.  Thereafter, the present case was registered on 08.03.2013 against accused Rakesh Kumar u/s 7 of P.C. Act, 1988.  

 

6. Thereafter,   a   trap   team   was   constituted   which   included Inspector   Sri   Bhagwan   Trap   Laying   Officer   (TLO), Inspector   M.K.   Updhayay,   Inspector   Shitanshu   Sharma, Inspector   Nikhil   Malhotrra,   Inspector   M.P.   Singh,   two independent   witnesses   namely   S/Sh.   Som   Nath   Luthra and   Harvinder   Singh   and   the   complainant   Sh.   Brijesh Garg.   Both   the   said   independent   witnesses   verified   the facts mentioned in the complaint of Sh. Brijesh Garg and they satisfied themselves regarding the demand of bribe made by the accused Rakesh Kumar.   The complainant produced a sum of Rs. 40,000/­ comprising of 40 currency CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 5 of 114 notes   of     Rs.   1000/­   denomination   each   against   the demand of Rs. 50,000/­ as the complainant could arrange only that much. The serial numbers of the said currency notes along with their denomination were recorded in the Handing Over Memo.

 

7. Thereafter, the CBI trap team in their official vehicles and in the car of the complainant reached the Office of  SDM Narela & Alipur, Village Naya Bans, Delhi, at about 5.30 p.m.   on   08.03.2013.         On   the   way   to   the   spot,   the complainant   on   the   direction   of   the   CBI   team   made   a phone  call  to  the accused Rakesh Kumar  informing the accused about his being a bit late due to some technical problem in his car.

 

8. After reaching the spot, the complainant kept the switched on DVR in his left side wearing shirt pocket and he along CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 6 of 114 with the shadow witness Sh. Somnath Luthra, as decided, went inside the office of the accused Rakesh Kumar.  The remaining   CBI   team   waited   outside   the   said   office because the main gate of the office was closed and the guard   was   not   allowing   anyone   to   go   inside   without confirming the identity.   After sometime, the complainant came outside the main gate and informed Inspector M.K. Upadhyay     about   accepting   the   bribe   amount   by   the accused Rakesh Kumar.  Thereafter, the CBI team along with the complainant and other independent witness Sh. Harvinder Singh rushed towards the office of the accused. The   shadow   witness   Sh.   Som   Nath   Luthra   who   was standing in the corridor on the ground floor informed the CBI team that the accused Rakesh Kumar after accepting the  bribe  amount has went to the first floor.     The CBI team   went   to   the   first   floor   and   on   identification   by complainant   and   shadow   witness   apprehended     the CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 7 of 114 accused   Rakesh   Kumar   who   was   standing   outside   the room of SDM, Narela.   The accused Rakesh Kumar was caught   hold   by   Inspector  M.K.   Upadhyay   and   Inspector Shitanshu   Sharma   from   his   left   and   right   wrists, respectively.     The   DVR   was   taken   back   from   the complainant   and   was   switched   off.       Thereafter,   the accused Rakesh Kumar was challenged to have accepted the bribe of  Rs. 40,000/­ from the complainant Sh. Brijesh Garg, by TLO Sri Bhagwan.     But, the accused Rakesh Kumar kept mum.   He was immediately taken to the room of SDM, Narela, who was sitting in his office.  SDM Narela also joined the CBI proceedings on being asked for.     

9. Thereafter,   the   right   hand   wash   and   left   hand   wash   of accused   Rakesh   Kumar   were   taken   in   two   separate colourless   solutions   of   Sodium   Carbonate   and     water, which   turned   pink   in   colour.     The   said   solution   was CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 8 of 114 prepared   in   the   presence   of   both   the   independent witnesses.   The said pink colour solutions of right hand wash and left hand wash of accused were transferred into two   separate   clean  glass  bottles  marked  as  'RHW'  and 'LHW'   and   were   sealed     using   separate   cloth   wrappers and a seal.   Both the said cloth wrappers and the labels pasted   on   the   said   bottles   were   signed   by   both   the independent witnesses.   

10.The shadow witness Sh. Som Nath Luthra narrated the whole   incident   of   accepting   bribe   by   accused   Rakesh Kumar from complainant Sh. Brijesh Garg, to CBI team. Shadow witness stated that he had seen the complainant handing   over   the   tainted   bribe   amount   to   the   accused which the accused received with his right hand.     Then, the   accused   counted   the   bribe   amount   with   his   both hands and thereafter, kept the bribe amount inside the left CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 9 of 114 front pocket of his wearing pant.  Thereafter, the shadow witness tried to make a call to Inspector M.K. Upadhyay, but he was stopped by the complainant from making the call.   The complainant requested the shadow witness to make the call after receipt of the challan as the accused had gone upstairs to bring the said challan.   Thereafter, the call could not be connected due to network problem. The   complainant   also   corroborated   the   version   of   the shadow witness.

 

11.Regarding the bribe amount, the accused stated that he had thrown away the said amount in the backyard of the office as he suspected something against him.   Despite conducting the thorough search, the tainted bribe amount was not recovered from the spot where the accused had purportedly thrown it away.         Search at the residential premises   of   the   accused   Rakesh   Kumar   was     also CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 10 of 114 conducted   and   the   accused   was   formally   arrested   at about 09.30 p.m.  

12.The   left   side   pocket   wash   of   the   wearing   pant   of   the accused was also taken in a freshly prepared colourless solution   of   Sodium   Carbonate   and   water,   which   turned pink in colour.   The said pink colour wash was transferred into a bottle marked as 'LFPPW' and it was signed by both the independent witnesses.  Inner lining of the pant pocket was also signed by independent witnesses. The specimen voice   of   accused   Rakesh   Kumar   was   recorded   in   the presence of both the independent witnesses.   A copy of all   the   recorded   conversation,   recorded   during   the   trap proceedings and verification proceedings, was made and thereafter,   the   DVR   used   for   trap   and   verification proceedings was also sealed in a cloth wrapper and was signed by both the independent witnesses.   A rough site CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 11 of 114 plan was prepared and the same was also signed by both the independent witnesses and TLO.   A Recovery Memo was prepared at the spot in which post trap proceedings were mentioned.   The facsimile   of CBI brass seal was taken in ink on each page of the Recovery Memo.   The specimens of CBI brass seal on white sheets were taken and   the   same   were   signed   by   independent   witnesses. Thereafter, the said CBI brass seal was handed over to the   independent   witness   Sh.   Harvinder   Singh   for producing   it   as   and   when   required.       The   copy   of   the Recovery   Memo   was   given   to   the   SDM   Narela. Thereafter,   the   CBI   team   along   with   arrested   accused Rakesh Kumar returned back to the CBI office.   

13.Investigation   was   carried   out   and   statements   of   the witnesses   were   recorded.   After   completion   of   the investigation   and   after   obtaining   the   requisite   sanction CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 12 of 114 from the competent authority u/s 19 of P.C. Act, 1988, for prosecution   of   accused   Rakesh   Kumar,   CBI   filed   the charge­sheet   against   the   accused   Rakesh   Kumar   on 17.05.2013.

 

14.On 04.04.2014, Charge for the offences punishable under Sections   7   and   Section   13(1)(d)     r/w   13   (2)   of   the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was framed against the accused Rakesh Kumar, by my Ld. Predecessor.  The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.  

15.To   bring   home   the   charges   against   the   accused,   the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses in total.   Evidence of the Prosecution

16.  Sh. Brijesh Garg  the complainant in the present case and   the   most   material   witness,   has   been   examined   as PW­5  by the prosecution.   He has deposed that he had CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 13 of 114 made   the   complaint  Ex.  PW­5/1  to  the  CBI  against  the accused   Rakesh   Kumar,   Naib   Tehsildar,   Naya   Baans, Alipur, Delhi, regarding demand of bribe by him.  

17.PW­5 Sh. Brijesh Garg has stated that he had got the sale deed   registered   of   the   flat   in   Sector,   29,   Rohini,   Delhi, which he had purchased in the name of his wife.   After some days, he came to know that he had paid less stamp duty for the registration of the said flat purchased by him. Therefore,   he   met   Sh.   Rajneesh   Kumar   SDM,   Naya Baans, Alipur, Delhi.   SDM Alipur asked him to pay the deficient   stamp  duty. Thereafter,  on the  asking of  SDM Alipur,   Sh.   Brijesh   Garg   met   Naib   Tehsildar   Rakesh Kumar   and   told   him   about   the   issue   of   deficient   stamp duty.   Sh. Brijesh Garg was asked to write letter Ex. PW­ 3/D by accused Rakesh Kumar, for necessary action.   A notice Ex. PW­3/B from the office of SDM was received by CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 14 of 114 Sh. Brijesh Garg.   After receipt of notice Ex. PW3/B, he again met the accused Rakesh Kumar who asked him to meet the SDM.     The complainant Sh. Brijesh Garg felt something suspicious when the SDM again referred him to   accused   Rakesh   Kumar   and   therefore,   he   asked Rakesh   Kumar   to   return   his   documents   and   the complainant   was   asked   to   come   on   the   next   day   by accused Rakesh Kumar.       Accused Rakesh Kumar also told Sh. Brijesh Garg that penalty of Rs. 3.80 Lacs could be imposed upon him and he would have to pay Rs. 1.5 or Rs. 2 Lacs which included deficient stamp duty, penalty and other expenses.   Accused Rakesh Kumar also asked the   complainant   to   give   him   (accused)   Rs.   50,000/­   to bring the penalty and the deficient stamp duty within Rs. 80,000/­   or   Rs.   90,000/­.     Thereafter,   Sh.   Brijesh   Garg made complaint Ex. PW­5/1 to CBI.    For the verification of the complaint Ex. PW­5/1, the complainant along with CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 15 of 114 one witness and one CBI official was sent to the office of accused Rakesh Kumar.  A recording instrument was also given to the complainant for recording their conversation. In the office of accused Rakesh Kumar, the complainant met him and requested him to reduce the bribe amount. But, the accused did not agree to his request and told that he had to pay to his seniors also.  The said conversation between the complainant and the accused was recorded in the instrument. Thereafter, the complainant along with witness and CBI official came back to CBI office. In   the CBI Office, Verification Memos Ex. PW­5/2 and Ex. PW­ 5/4   were   prepared   in   the   presence   of   the   complainant. The   complainant   made   a   telephonic   call   to   accused through mobile phone and the complainant agreed to pay Rs. 50,000/­ to him (accused) as bribe if the accused gets his documents cleared.   

  CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 16 of 114

18.PW­5 Sh. Brijesh Garg has further deposed that he again went to  CBI office and a team, including two independent witnesses was constituted in order  to trap the accused. The   complainant   produced   40   currency   notes   of Rs. 1000/­ denomination each. The serial numbers of the said currency notes were noted down.  The said currency notes were smeared with some chemical powder and a demonstration   regarding  the impact of chemical powder was given to all the persons present there.     The tainted currency   notes   were   kept   in   the   upper   pocket   of   the wearing shirt of the complainant and he was instructed to give   the   tainted   currency   notes   to   the   accused   Rakesh Kumar.     The complainant on the direction of CBI official made a call to the accused on his mobile phone.  The said conversation was got recorded, wherein, the accused had asked the complainant to bring 'Prasad of 50 paisa'.   All the   said   pre­trap   proceedings   were   recorded   in   the CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 17 of 114 Handing Over Memo Ex. PW­5/3.    The person who had accompanied the complainant to the office of the accused during the Verification proceedings was again directed to accompany the complaint as shadow witness to the office of   the   accused   during   the   said   trap.     Thereafter   the complainant along with trap team and witnesses reached SDM   Office,   Naya  Baans,  Alipur,  Delhi.    He  along  with shadow witness went inside the office of accused with a recording instrument in his shirt pocket.  Rest of the trap team positioned themselves outside the said office.   The complainant   and   the   shadow   witness   met   the   accused outside his room,  near the staircase on the ground floor. The   accused   accepted   the   bribe   amount   near   the   said staircase,   from   the   complainant.   Accused   counted   the bribe   amount   and   kept   the   same   in   the   pocket   of   his wearing pant.   The accused also asked the complainant as   to   why   he   had   brought   Rs.   40,000/­   when   he   was CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 18 of 114 asked to bring Rs. 50,000/­.  When the complainant asked the   accused   about   his   documents,   the   accused   went upstairs   towards   the   office   of   SDM   to   bring   the   said documents.     The complainant and the shadow witness could not inform the CBI team about the transaction on mobile phone due to poor network connection.  Therefore, the complainant and the shadow witness informed the CBI team by going outside.  Thereafter, the CBI team entered the   office   premises   and   on   the   indication   of   the complainant the CBI team apprehended the accused who was coming down the stairs.   On being asked about the bribe amount, accused replied that he had thrown away the   said   amount.     Then   the   accused   was   taken   to   the office   of   SDM   Narela,   in   whose   presence   accused admitted   about   having   accepted   the   bribe   amount. Thereafter the hand washes of the  accused and wash of the pocket of the wearing pant of the accused were taken CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 19 of 114 separately, which turned the solution pink in colour.   The said solutions were sealed in separate bottles.     Sample voice of the accused was also recorded.  Despite search conducted   by   CBI,   the   bribe   amount   could   not   be recovered.   The proceedings conducted by the CBI were signed by the complainant.   Recovery Memo Ex. PW­5/5, Voice   Identification   Memo   Ex.   PLW­5/6   and   the transcription   Ex.   PW­4/DA   bear   signature   of   the complainant. 

 

19.The   complainant   identified   the   introductory   voice, recorded in CD Ex. P­5, of independent witness who had accompanied   to   the   office   of   the   accused.   The complainant   also   identified   the   conversation   which   took place between him and the accused which is recorded in Ex. PW­4/DA.  

  CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 20 of 114

20.Sh. Som Nath Luthra  a member of the trap team was examined   as  PW­8.    He   had   accompanied   the complainant during  verification proceedings and was also deputed   as   the   shadow   witness   during   the   trap   of   the accused Rakesh Kumar.  He has deposed that he went to the CBI office on the direction of Manager (P) DTC. There he met Inspector Manish Upadhyay and the complainant Sh. Brijesh Garg who was having with him his complaint Ex.   PW­5/1.     The   complaint   Ex.   PW­5/1   was   regarding demand   of   bribe   amount   of   Rs.   50000/­   by   accused Rakesh   Kumar   for   getting   reduced   the   penalty   on   the deficient stamp duty to Rs. One Lac.   

 

21.PW­8 Sh. Som Nath Luthra has deposed that verification proceedings were initiated by Inspector Manish Upadhyay during   which   the   voice   of   PW­8   Somnath   Luthra   was recorded in DVR. The     complainant made a telephonic CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 21 of 114 call   to   Rakesh   Kumar   on   the   asking   of   CBI   and   the speaker of phone was kept on.   The     demand of bribe was confirmed through the said conversation between the complainant and Rakesh Kumar.   Thereafter, he (PW­8) along   with   the   complainant   reached   the   office   of   the accused.   The DVR was kept in the upper left pocket of the   wearing   shirt   of   the   complainant.   Inspector   Manish Upadhyay   waited   outside   the   office   of   accused   Rakesh Kumar.   The complainant and PW­8 met the accused and he   (PW­8)   was   introduced   as   the   elder   brother   of   the complainant.     He (PW­8) had requested the accused to reduce the bribe amount to Rs. 5­6 thousand because the complainant   was   unable   to   arrange   the   amount   of Rs. 50,000/­.  But, the accused asked the complainant to bring Rs. 50,000/­ as bribe amount and  Rs. One Lac for stamp   duty,   on   the   next   day,   for   the   work   to   be   done. Thereafter, the complainant, Inspector Manish Upadhyay CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 22 of 114 and   PW­8   came   back   to   CBI   office.   On   08.03.2013, Inspector   Manish   Updhyay   constituted   a   team   of   CBI officials   to   trap   the   accused   Rakesh   Kumar,   which included   him   (PW­8)   and   Sh.   Harvinder   Singh   as witnesses. The complainant produced 40 currency notes of   Rs.   1000/­   denomination   each.     The   currency   notes were smeared with some chemical powder and their serial numbers were noted down.   A demonstration was given, wherein,   it   was   shown   that   hand   wash   taken   after touching the said smeared currency notes would change the colour of the solution.  Thereafter, the specimen voice of both the witnesses were recorded in DVR.  The tainted currency   notes   were   kept   in   the   pocket   of   the   wearing pant of the complainant.  He was given instructions to give indication by putting hand on the face after the transaction of handing over the bribe amount to the accused.  PW­8 was also instructed to give a phone call to Inspector Sri CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 23 of 114 Bhagwan after handing over of the bribe amount by the complainant to the accused. The proceedings conducted in the CBI office were recorded in Verification Memo Ex. PW­5/4 and Handing Over Memo  Ex. PW­5/3.   

 

22.PW­8 Sh. Som Nath Luthra has further deposed that the trap   team   reached   the   SDM   Alipur   office   at   about   5.30 p.m. DVR was kept in the pocket of the complainant in switched on mode.  He (PW­8) along with the complainant went   inside   the   office   of   the   accused   Rakesh   Kumar, while   the   other   team   members   along   with   witness Harvinder Singh remained outside the office.     Accused Rakesh Kumar asked the complainant to accompany him outside his office room and he (PW­8) was asked to sit in the   office   room   of   the   accused.       But,   he   followed   the complainant   and   the   accused.   He   had   seen   the complainant   giving   the   tainted   bribe   amount   to   the CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 24 of 114 accused, which the accused accepted with his both hands and then kept in his pocket at left the place.   Immediately, after   the   transaction   of   the   bribe   amount   was   over,   he (PW­8) made a call to Inspector Sri Bhagwan, but could not contact due to network problem.  PW­8 has deposed that complainant asked him not to make the call because the   accused   had   gone   to   bring   the   documents   of   the complainant.  But, he did not listen to the complainant and went to call CBI officials, followed by complainant.     On seeing   both   of them, CBI officials came in the office of SDM   Alipur   and   apprehended   accused   Rakesh   Kumar inside   the   room   of   SDM   Narela.       PW­8   told   the   CBI officials   that   the   accused   had   kept   the   tainted   bribe amount in his pant's pocket.  Hand washes of the accused were   taken   in  the solution, which  turned pink in colour. The said hand washes were kept in separate bottles and were sealed.   CBI officials were told by the accused that CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 25 of 114 he had thrown away the currency notes.       Wash of the pockets   of   the   wearing   pant   of   the   accused   was   also taken in the water, which turned pink in colour. The said wash was also kept in a bottle and the same was sealed. Pant   of   the   accused   was   also   sealed.       However,   the tainted bribe amount was not recovered despite search. Thereafter CBI officials prepared the Recovery memo Ex. PW­5/5   bearing   his   signature.     Specimen   voice   of   the accused was recorded in the DVR, then the said DVR was sealed.     Thereafter,   the   arrest­cum­personal   search memo   Ex.   PW­8/A,   search­cum­seizure   memo  Ex.   PW­ 8/B and site plan Ex. PW­8/C were prepared, bearing  his signatures. 

 

23.Thereafter   on   02.04.2013,   Sh.   Som   Nath   Luthra   again went to the CBI office.  There transcription of the recorded conversation   was   prepared   in   his   presence   and   in CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 26 of 114 complainant's presence.     The voice identification memo and   rough   transcription   are   Ex.   PW­5/6   and   PW­5/DA, respectively, bearing his (PW­8) signatures.     

24.Sh. Harvinder Singh was examined as PW­9.   He was an   independent   witness   engaged   by   the   CBI   and   the member   of   trap   team.     He   has   deposed   that   on   the directions of Senior Vigilance Officer of his department, he had   went   to   the   CBI   office   on   08.03.2013   and   met   an Inspector of Anti Corruption Branch. He was shown the complaint made by  Mr. Brijesh regarding demand of bribe of Rs. 50,000/­ by Naib Tehsildar Rakesh posted in SDM Office,   Narela.     He   was   informed   to   accompany   the raiding team to the office of SDM Narela.   One Sh. Som Nath Luthra was also called to join the raiding team as a witness. He has stated that he had heard the telephonic conversation  between the complainant and the accused CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 27 of 114 which   was   arranged   by   the   CBI   Inspector.     The   said conversation was recorded by using an instrument.   The conversation   was   regarding   demand   of   Rs.   Fifty Thousand  by  Rakesh with respect to the preparation of papers of a flat.  The complainant was asked by Rakesh to bring  Rs. Forty Thousand.   PW­9 has further deposed that the complainant has produced the currency notes of Rs.   Forty   Thousand   in   the   denomination   of   Rs.   1000/­ each.   Thereafter the said currency notes were smeared with some powder and a demonstration was given that if the   tainted   currency   notes   were   touched   and   then   the hand wash of the hand is taken in water, the water would turn pink in colour.   Thereafter, serial numbers of the said tainted   currency   notes   were   noted   down   and   the   same were   kept   in   the   left   pocket   of   the   wearing   pant   of   the complainant.     Complainant was instructed to give signal to   the   CBI   team,   after   giving   the   bribe   amount   to   the CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 28 of 114 accused Rakesh Kumar.   Independent witness Sh. Som Nath Luthra was directed to accompany the complainant. He   has  further   stated  that he had  signed   the Handing Over   Memo   Ex.   PW­5/3,   wherein,   the   proceedings conducted in the CBI office were recorded.    

25.Thereafter,   the   CBI   team   along   with   independent witnesses and the complainant left the CBI Office to reach SDM Office Narela, in two vehicles.     They reached the SDM Office,Narela at about 5.30 p.m.   The complainant along   with   Sh. Som   Nath Luthra went  inside the office. The complainant was also given a recording instrument. The other CBI team members took their positions outside the gate of the SDM Office.  On receiving the missed call of the complainant on the phone of the Inspector CBI, the trap team along with PW­9 went inside the SDM office. The complainant and Sh. Som Nath Luthra met them at CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 29 of 114 the ground floor and told them that the money had been given to the accused Rakesh.   But, the accused was not present there and was found, after a search of about 10 minutes,   in   a   room   situated   at   the   first   floor.       He (accused) was apprehended and his personal search was taken by CBI officials.   But, the tainted bribe amount of Rs.   Forty   Thousand   was   not   recovered   from   the possession   of   the   accused.   Search   of   the   office   of   the SDM was also conducted, but the tainted bribe amount of Rs. Forty Thousand could not be recovered. Thereafter, in the   presence   of   SDM,   washes   of   the   hands   of   the accused and the wash  of the wearing pant of the accused were taken separately, which turned the solutions pink in colour.   The said solutions were collected in bottles.  The bottles and pant of the accused were sealed. Specimen voice of the accused was recorded and the CBI retained the recording instrument.   The proceedings conducted at CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 30 of 114 the spot were recorded and the same were signed by PW­ 9 Harvinder Singh.

 

26.PW­9 Sh. Harvinder Singh has further deposed that the documents i.e. Recovery Memo Ex. PW­5/5, Arrest­cum­ Personal Search Memo Ex. PW­8/A, Office Search­cum­ Seizure Memo Ex. PW­8/B, File Ex. PW­3/A seized from the   office   of   the accused Rakesh  Kumar,  Site  Plan Ex. PW­8/C,   Voice   Identification­cum­rough   transcription Memo Ex. PW­5/6, rough transcription Ex. PW­4/DA, were signed by him (PW­9).   He also identified his signatures on Ex. PW­2/5 to Ex. PW­2/7 (three cloth pieces ), on Ex. PW­8/X   (pant   worn   by   the   accused),   on   Ex.   P­3   (cloth piece with which DVR was covered).  PW­9 Sh. Harvinder Singh has also identified the voices of accused Rakesh Kumar, complainant Brijesh Garg, idependent witness Sh. Som Nath Luthra and his voice recorded in the DVR Ex. CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 31 of 114 P­2.

 

27.Sh. Dharampal was examined as PW­1.   At the relevant time,   he   was   posted   as   Principal   Secretary   (Revenue) cum   Divisional   Commissioner,   GNCTD.   Vide   Sanction Order   Ex.   PW­1/A,   he   had   accorded   the   sanction   for prosecution of accused Rakesh Kumar. After the perusal of the material submitted before him, he found that this was a fit case to grant sanction for prosecution of accused Rakesh   Kumar   for   the   offences   punishable   under   P.C. Act,   1988.     He   has   stated   that   he   was   the   competent authority to remove the accused Rakesh Kumar, the then Naib Tehsildar, Alipur, from service.  

 

28.Sh.   V.B.   Ramteke  was   examined   as  PW­2.       At   the relevant time, he was working as Senior Scientific Officer, Grade I, Chemistry, CFSL, New Delhi. He has prepared CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 32 of 114 the Report Ex. PW­2/A which is regarding the chemical analysis of the contents of three sealed bottles, sent by Sr.   SP,   ACB,   CBI,   Delhi,   vide   letter   dated   20.03.2013. He found the seal of the said bottles intact.  He has stated that   the   chemical   examination   of   the   contents   of   said bottles   gave   positive   test   for   the   presence   of Phenolphthalein   and   Sodium   Carbonate   in   it.    He identified the bottles Ex. P2/1 to Ex. P2/3 and their cloth wrappers.

 

29.Sh. Rajanish Kumar Singh was examined as PW­3.  At the   relevant   time,   he   was   posted   as   SDM,   Alipur   Sub­ Division, Delhi.  He has deposed that at the relevant time, accused   Rakesh   Kumar   was   posted   as   Naib   Tehsildar, Sub­Division,   Alipur,   Delhi,   under   him   and   was   the Dealing Assistant with regard to stamp duty cases.   He has stated that the sale deed pertaining to Flat No. 118, CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 33 of 114 Block­B, Sector­29, Rohini, Delhi, was presented before the   Sub­Registrar­VI­B   for   registration.     But,   the   Sub­ Registrar impounded the documents, as the stamp duty paid was deficient, and sent the same to his office as he was   also   working   as   the   Collector   of   Stamps.     After seeking clarification from the DDA, a notice Ex. PW­3/B was issued   to Smt. Rekha Garg (w/o the complainant), the   purchaser   of   the   said   flat   regarding   payment   of deficient stamp duty qua the registration of the said flat. Notice   Ex.   PW­3/B   was   signed   by   Rakesh   Kumar   as Dealing Assistant of Collector of Stamps.     Reply to the said notice was filed by Smt. Rekha Garg.  The said reply was put up before him on 06.03.2013 and he marked the same to Rakesh Kumar Dealing Assistant Naib Tehsildar II.    On 08.03.2013, Rakesh Kumar Naib Tehsildar II had put   up   the   file   along   with   reply   and   his   (accused)   note before   him.     Thereafter,   he   (PW­3)   imposed   penalty   of CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 34 of 114 Rs. 60000/­ in the said case on account of deficient stamp duty.     He   has   deposed   that   no   one   met   him   regarding deficiency of stamp duty in the said case.   PW­3 had left the office at about 4.00 p.m. and did not come back to the office on that day.   He came to know about the arrest of the accused Rakesh Kumar, on the next day.  Vide letter Ex. PW­3/F, he had handed  over the files pertaining to 11 cases of deficient stamp duty, to CBI officials.  

30.Dr.   Rajender   Singh  Director   cum   Chemical   Examiner, CFSL, CBI was examined as PW­4.   He has stated that on 01.04.2013, Physics Division of CFSL had received a sealed   parcel,   Marked   R,   from   SSP,   CBI,   ACB,   New Delhi.   He had found the seal intact.   Ex. R was a DVR containing   seven   audio   files.   PW­4   had   examined   the Questioned   voice   of   accused   Rakesh   Kumar     with   his specimen voice through auditory and voice spectographic CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 35 of 114 technique. He found that the Questioned voice recording of accused Rakesh Kumar tallied with his specimen voice in   respect   of   his   linguistic,   phonetics   and   other   general spectographic parameters.  On further examining, he also found   that   the   recordings   of   the   file   have   not   been tampered.       His   report   regarding   details  of   parcels  and seals, description of the articles contained in the parcels, laboratory   procedure,   experiment   and   analysis   and   his detailed result of examination, is Ex. PW­4/A.  He has also stated that DVR Ex. P­2 is the same DVR which he had examined and had prepared the true copies of recorded conversation in the form of CD Ex. P­5 by transferring the data.

 

31.Sh.   Vishal   Gaurav  was   examined   as  PW­6.       At   the relevant time, he was posted as Nodal Officer in Bharti Airtel Limited.   He has deposed that on the asking of CBI CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 36 of 114 official, vide  forwarding letter Ex. PW­6/1, he had given the call details Ex. PW­6/2 pertaining to mobile number 9810167823,   the   certified   copy   of   the   Customer Application Form Ex. PW­6/4, to the CBI.  The Certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act issued by him is Ex. PW­ 6/3.

 

32.Sh. Anuj Bhatia was examined as PW­7.   At the relevant time, he was posted as Nodal Officer in Vodafone Mobile Services Limited.  He has stated that on the asking of CBI official, he had provided the certified copy of the Customer Application Form Ex. PW­7/2 and call details pertaining to mobile no. 9911287803 which is Ex. PW­7/3, to the CBI, vide forwarding letter Ex. PW­7/1.   The certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act issued by him is Ex. PW­7/4.  

33.Sh. Ajay Arora  was examined as  PW­10.     During the CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 37 of 114 relevant period, he was posted as SDM Narela at MPCC, Village Naya Bans, Delhi.  He has deposed that accused Rakesh Kumar was posted as Naib Tehsildar under Sub Division, Alipur, and Sh. Rajanish Singh SDM Alipur was his supervisory Officer.     On 08.03.2013, when he (PW­

10)   was   holding   the   Court,   few   CBI   officials   who   have caught hold of accused Rakesh Kumar entered his office and   informed   him   about   the   trap   of   accused   Rakesh Kumar for taking bribe. On the asking of CBI officials, he had directed the attendants to inform the guards that no one should go outside the main gate of the office complex without the permission of the CBI officials, as the tainted money had not been recovered.     Then, he had gone to his retiring room in order to complete the case in hand. Thereafter, he came back to his Court room, where the CBI   officials,   accused   and   independent   witnesses   were present.   He was told by CBI officials that the hand wash CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 38 of 114 of the accused had been collected, which he had seen in two   glasses.     Then,   the   said   pink   colour   wash   was transferred in two bottles.   The said bottles were sealed and labels were pasted upon them.

 

34.PW­10 Sh. Ajay Arora had also told the CBI officials that he is SDM Narela and SDM Alipur was the supervisory officer   of   the   accused   who   had   the   power   of   imposing penalty on the complainant.   In his presence, one of the two independent witnesses and the complainant told the CBI officials that in their presence, accused had received the money from the complainant. The pocket wash of the pant of the accused was taken in his (PW­10) presence which   turned   pink   in   colour.     The   said   pant   wash   was collected in another bottle which was sealed and labeled. The witnesses had signed the same.  

  CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 39 of 114

35.PW­10   Sh.   Ajay Arora further  stated that thereafter  the CBI   officials   searched   all   the   rooms   of   the   office   and outside,   but   the  CBI  officials  failed  to  recover   the  bribe amount,   despite the  use of search light, which  was  got arranged by him.     He had also signed the proceedings recorded in his presence.   He has stated that Recovery Memo Ex. PW­5/5, arrest cum personal search memo Ex. PW­8/A, search cum seizure memo Ex. PW­8/B also bear his signatures.

 

36.Inspector Manish Upadhayay was examined as PW­11. He has deposed that at the relevant time he was posted as Inspector CBI, ACB, New Delhi. He has conducted the verification proceedings regarding the authenticity of the allegation   made   in   the   complaint   lodged   by   the complainant   Sh.   Brijesh   Garg   against   accused   Rakesh Kumar.   The verification proceedings were conducted on CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 40 of 114 07.03.2013 and also on 08.03.2013.   He has stated that Sh. Som Nath Luthra   joined the verification proceedings as   independent   witness.     To   conduct   the   verification   of complaint,   he   along  with  Sh.  Som  Nath  Luthra  and the complainant,   on   07.03.2013,   went   to   the   office   of   the accused   Rakesh   Kumar   at   SDM   Office,   Alipur,   Delhi. There a Digital Voice Recorder was kept in the pocket of the   complainant for   recording  the conversation between the complainant and accused Rakesh Kumar. In the said DVR,   introductory   voice   of   Sh.   Som   Nath   Luthra   was recorded.   Sh.   Som   Nath   Luthra   had   accompanied   the complainant   to   the   office   room   of   the   accused   Rakesh Kumar   and   he   remained   outside   the   office.     From   the recorded   conversation   which   took   place   between   the complainant   and   the   accused   Rakesh   Kumar   on 07.03.2013,   the   demand   of   bribe   was   confirmed.     Sh. Som Nath Luthra, the independent witness, upon asking CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 41 of 114 also confirmed the demand of bribe by accused Rakesh Kumar.     He   has   further   stated   that   the   verification proceedings   were   also   carried   on   08.03.2013.       On 08.03.2013, complainant was asked by the CBI officials to make   a   call   to   the   accused.     The   said   telephonic conversation   was   recorded   in   the   DVR   and   was   also heard by CBI officials who were present there.     During the   said   conversation,   accused   Rakesh   Kumar   had demanded the bribe of Rs. 50,000/­ from the complainant apart   from   the   challan   amount   of   Rs.   One   Lac.     After much pleadings by the complainant, accused reduced the bribe amount to Rs. 40,000/­ and directed the complainant to meet him (accused).   

 

37.PW­11 Inspector Manish Upadhyay has further stated that Verification   Memos   dated   Ex.   PW­5/2   and   Ex.   PW5/4 were submitted by him to the then S.P.  and FIR Ex. PW­ CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 42 of 114 11/A was registered against the accused Rakesh Kumar. Then the case was marked to Inspector Sri Bhagwan for laying the trap.  The trap team was constituted comprising of himself (PW­11), TLO Sri Bhagwan, two independent witnesses, complainant and other CBI officers.  During the pre­trap   proceedings   the   complaint   Ex.   PW­5/1,   the Verification Memos Ex. PW­5/2 and Ex. PW­5/4 were read over and explained to   the team members.   Thereafter, complainant   produced   the   bribe   amount   of   Rs.   Forty Thousand.   Phenolphthalein powder was applied on the said currency notes and a demonstration was given.   An independent witness was asked to touch the said tainted currency   notes   and   then   to   dip   his   hand   in   colourless solution of Sodium Carbonate.   As a result of which the colourless   solution   of   Sodium   Carbonate   turned   pink   in colour.     Thereafter,   every   member   of   the   trap   team washed his hands.  Sh. Som Nath Luthra was directed to CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 43 of 114 remain   present   with   the   complainant   and   the   other independent   witness   with   the   trap   team.     After   the transaction of the bribe amount, the complainant and Sh. Som Nath Luthra were directed to give a missed call to the TLO or to him (PW­11).     He has deposed that the pre­trap   proceedings   were   recorded   in   Handing   Over Memo Ex. PW­5/3 and the same was signed by all the trap team members.

 

38.Thereafter, the trap team left for the office of the accused Rakesh Kumar at SDM Office, Alipur.   To ascertain the time   of   transaction   of   bribe   amount,   complainant   was asked to call the accused on his mobile phone.  The said telephonic conversation was recorded in the DVR.   The trap team reached the office of the accused at about 4.30­ 5.00 p.m.  The complainant with a Digital Voice Recorder and   the   independent   witness   Sh.   Som   Nath   Luthra CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 44 of 114 entered the office campus and the other members of the trap team remained outside in scattered position.     After sometime   the   complainant   came   out   from   the   office campus and informed him (PW­11) about the acceptance of the bribe amount by the accused Rakesh Kumar.  Then the trap team immediately went inside the office campus and  saw  the   accused standing on the first floor    of the building.  The accused was apprehended and the TLO Sri Bhagwan   challenged   him   of   having   accepted   the   bribe amount from the complainant, but the accused kept quiet and   became   pale.     He   has   further   stated   that   the complainant narrated to the trap team that on the asking of   accused   he   (complainant)   handed   over   the   bribe amount   to   the   accused   in   his   office   in   the   presence   of independent   witness   Sh.   Som   Nath   Luthra.     The independent witness Sh. Som Nath Luthra also told that the   accused   had   demanded   the   bribe   from   the CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 45 of 114 complainant   and   accepted   the   bribe   amount   in   his presence.  The accused kept the bribe amount in the right side pocket of his wearing pant.   PW­11 has stated that the   bribe   amount   could   not   be   recovered   from   the possession   of   the   accused   and   on   being   asked   he (accused) told that he had thrown away the bribe amount as he got suspicious.   The trap team tried to search the bribe amount in the office campus as well as outside, but could not recover the same.  However, the hand washes of  the  accused as well as the pant pocket wash of the accused   turned   pink.     The   said   washes   were   kept   in separate bottles and were sealed.   During the search of the office of the accused Rakesh Kumar, file pertaining to the case of the complainant was recovered.     The SDM was joined the post trap proceedings.   Recovery Memo Ex. PW­5/5 was prepared at the spot.     The CBI official arrested   the   accused   vide   Arrest   cum   Personal   Search CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 46 of 114 Memo. Thereafter, trap team left the spot and returned to the CBI office.  

 

39.Sh. Manoranjan Kumar  was examined as  PW­12.   He has deposed that at the relevant time, he was posted as Naib   Tehsildar   with   SDM   Alipur.     At   that   time,   Sh. Rajneesh   Kumar  was   the   SDM   Alipur   and   the   accused Rakesh Kumar was posted as Naib Tehsildar in the office of SDM Alipur.  He has stated that document Ex. PW­3/E is   regarding   penalty   of   Rs.   60,000/­imposed   by   the SDM/Collector   of   Stamps   on   filing   of   short   stamp   duty bearing signature of accused Rakesh Kumar thereupon. Ex. PW­3/E was put up by accused Rakesh Kumar before the Collector of Stamps regarding short stamp duty.   On 08.03.2013, he remained in SDM office till 5.30 p.m. and thereafter left for his home.   He came to know about the arrest   of   accused   Rakesh   Kumar   telephonically   on   his CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 47 of 114 way to home through some known person.   

 

40.PW­12 Sh. Manoranjan Kumar has been cross­examined by the Ld. PP for CBI. During his cross­examination by Ld. PP for CBI, he has denied that he has stated to the I.O. that he telephonically came to know  that accused Rakesh Kumar had thrown away the bribe amount or that the said money could not be recovered from Rakesh Kumar.  

41.Inspector  Sri Bhagwan  was examined as  PW­13.     He was   the   Investigating   officer   of   the   case   and   the   Trap Laying Officer.  He was entrusted the investigation of the case FIR Ex. PW­11/A.  Along with the FIR Ex. PW­11/A, he had also received complaint Ex. PW­5/1, Verification Memos Ex. PW­5/2 and Ex.PW­5/4.  He has deposed that before   starting   the   investigation,   he   had   perused   the complaint   Ex.   PW­5/1   and   the   Verification   Memos   Ex. CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 48 of 114 PW­5/2   and   Ex.   PW­5/4.     He   had   constituted   the   trap team consisting of himself, Inspector Manish Upadhyay, Inspector Nikhil Malhotra, Inspector M.P. Singh, Inspector Shitanshu Sharma, two independent witnesses viz. Som Nath   Luthra   and   Harvinder   Singh   and   the   complainant. The   team   members   were   introduced   to   each   other   and were  informed  about the complaint Ex. PW­5/1 and the allegations thereof which were made by Sh. Brijesh Garg against accused Rakesh Kumar.  The Verification Memos revealed   that   the   accused   had   demanded   bribe   of   Rs. Fifty Thousand from the complainant.   He has stated that during   the   pre­trap   proceedings   the   complainant   had produced   Rs.   40,000/­   containing   40   currency   notes   of denomination   of   Rs.   1000/­   each,   as   he   could   arrange only   Rs.   40,000/­   against   the   demand   of   bribe   of Rs. 50,000/­.   Serial numbers of the said currency notes were   noted   in   the   Handing   Over   Memo   Ex.   PW­5/3. CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 49 of 114 Thereafter,   Inspector   Nikhil   Malhotra   with   the   help   of independent witness Sh. Som Nath Luthra demonstrated that when the currency notes treated with Phenolphthalein powder   come   in   contact   with   the   solution   of   Sodium Carbonate   and   water,   the   solution   turns   pink   in   colour. Thereafter, the said solution was thrown.  All the pre­trap proceedings   were   incorporated   in   Handing   Over   Memo Ex. PW­5/3 and the same was signed by the all the trap team members.   The Digital Voice Recorder, which was already   being   used   in   the   present   case,   was   used   for recording the conversation between the complainant and the accused.     Personal search of the complainant was taken and tainted amount of Rs. 40,000/­ was kept in the left   side   front   pant   pocket   of   the   wearing   pant   of   the complainant. A bag was prepared containing empty glass tumblers, glass bottles, cloth, sealing material, stationery material etc. and it was shown to the trap team members. CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 50 of 114 The   trap   team   members   mutually   searched   each   other before leaving the CBI Office. Thereafter, the trap team left for the office of the SDM Alipur.

 

42.PW­13   Sri   Bhagwan   has   deposed   that   the   trap   team reached the spot at about 5.00­5.30 p.m.     Independent witness   Sh.   Som   Nath   Luthra   was   directed   to   be   a shadow   witness   and   to   watch   the   transaction   of   bribe amount,   between   the   complainant   and   the   accused Rakesh  Kumar.     Complainant was directed to give the tainted   bribe   amount   to   the   accused   on   his   specific demand   or   to   other   person   on   his   direction.     After reaching the spot, complainant and Sh. Som Nath Luthra went inside the office of accused Rakesh Kumar and the other team members remained outside the office premises as the Security Guard was not allowing to enter them in the office without disclosing their identity.   He has further CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 51 of 114 deposed that after sometime, complainant came out from the   office   premises   and   informed   Inspector   Manish Upadhyay that accused had demanded the bribe amount of   Rs.   40,000/­   and   has   accepted   the   same   from   him. Thereafter, all the team members went inside the office and saw Sh. Som Nath Luthra standing in the corridor of the ground floor.   On the information of the complainant, the team members went on the first floor of the building as the accused had gone upstairs where the offices of SDM Alipur and SDM Narela were situated.     There Inspector Manish   Kumar   Upadhyay   and   Inspector   Shitanshu Sharma   apprehended   the   accused.     Inspector   Manish Updhayay caught hold the left wrist of accused Rakesh Kumar and Inspector Shitanshu Sharma caught hold the right   hand   wrist   of   accused.     Then,   the   accused   was challenged of demanding and having accepted the bribe amount   of   Rs.   Forty   Thousand   from   the   complainant CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 52 of 114 Brijesh   Garg.    But  the  accused  kept quiet and became pale.     Thereafter the accused was taken to the room of the SDM Narela.   SDM Narela was also informed about the demand and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs. Forty Thousand by accused Rakesh Kumar.   Hand washes of the   accused   were   taken   in   the   solution   of   Sodium Carbonate and water, which turned pink in colour.   The said solutions were transferred in the bottles, marked as LHW and RHW, and were sealed with the cloth and wax. Signatures  of   the   independent   witnesses   were  obtained on   the   cloth   wrappers   and  on  the  paper   pasted   on   the bottles.     Thereafter,   on   the   asking   of   the   CBI   Officer, complainant   and   Sh.   Som   Nath   Luthra   narrated   the incident   of   demanding   the   bribe   amount   by   accused Rakesh   Kumar   from   the   complainant.     Sh.   Som   Nath Luthra narrated   that when   the complainant along with him went in the office of accused, the accused was sitting CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 53 of 114 there.     The   accused   asked   them   to   wait   and   after sometime, the accused took the complainant to the back side of the office.     Independent witness Sh. Som Nath Luthra also followed them and saw the accused and the complainant talking to each other.   Then, the complainant handed over the bribe amount of Rs. Forty Thousand to the accused which he accepted with his right hand.    He counted the bribe amount with his both hands and then kept the same in his left side front pocket of his wearing pant.     After the transaction of bribe amount, when Sh. Som   Nath   Luthra   tried   to   call   Inspector   Manish   Kumar Upadhyay on his mobile phone, complainant stopped him from doing so, on the pretext that the accused had gone upstairs to bring his challan.  The complainant also asked Sh. Som Nath Luthra to wait for sometime.  Inspite of all that   when   Sh.   Som   Nath   Luthra   tried   to   call   Inspector Manish   Upadhyay,   the   call   could   not   be   made   due   to CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 54 of 114 network problem.   On being asked the complainant also corroborated the version of Sh. Som Nath Luthra.     

43.PW­13 Inspector Sri Bhagwan has stated that on being challenged   again   and   again   regarding   demanding   and having accepted the bribe amount, accused stated that he had   accepted   the   bribe   amount   of   Rs.   Forty   Thousand from   the   complainant,   but   had   thrown   away   the   bribe amount in the backyard as he got suspicious.   However, the   bribe   amount   could   not   be   recovered   despite   the thorough search conducted by the CBI officials. At around 9.30   p.m.   the   accused   was   arrested   vide   arrest   cum personal search memo Ex. PW­8/A. Search of the office of the accused was conducted vide Ex. PW­8/B.   Office search   cum   Seizure   Memo   and   the   concerned   file pertaining   to   the   complainant   and   other   incriminating documents   were   seized.       Wash   of   the   pocket   of   the CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 55 of 114 wearing   pant,   wherein,   the   accused   had   kept   the   bribe amount,   was   also   taken   in   a   solution   of   Sodium Carbonate and water.     The said solution   turned pink in colour and was transferred into a glass bottle.   The said bottle was sealed with the cloth and labelled as LFPPW and both the independent witnesses signed the same.    

44.PW­13 Inspector Sri Bhagwan has further deposed that during   the   trap   proceedings,   the   recording   of   DVR   was heard   which   confirmed   the   transaction   of   bribe   amount between   the   complainant   and   the   accused.     Specimen voice   of   accused,   introductory   voices   of   both   the independent   witnesses   were   recorded   in   the   said   DVR which was sealed in a white cloth wrapper and both the independent witnesses have signed it.   A rough sketch of the   spot   Ex.   PW­8/C   was   prepared.   Thereafter,   all   the washes   and   the   pant   of   the   accused   were   taken   into CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 56 of 114 possession   and   all   the   trap   proceedings   were incorporated   in   a   Recovery   Memo   Ex.   PW­5/5   which bears  the   signatures of the all the trap team  members. The seal used during the trap proceedings was handed over to the independent witness to produce the same as and when required.  Thereafter, the trap team along with the accused left for CBI office.   On 09.03.2013 five days police   custody   of   the   accused   was   given   by   the   Court. During   police   custody   accused   was   interrogated   for recovery   of   the   bribe   amount.   PW­13   Inspector   Sri Bhagwan conducted the further investigation of the case and   recorded   the   statements   of   the   witnesses.   On 14.03.2013 the accused was sent to judicial custody.  On 15.03.2013 the investigation of the case was transferred from him to Inspector Pankaj Vats for further investigation.  

45.Sh.Pankaj Vats  was examined as  PW­14.     He was the CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 57 of 114 second Investigating Officer of the case.   At the relevant time, he was posted as Inspector in ACB, CBI, New Delhi. In   March,   2013,   the   case   was   transferred   to   him   from Inspector Sri Bhagwan for further investigation.     During investigation,   he   had   recorded   the   statements   of   the independent   witnesses,   team   members   and   the Investigating   Officer.     He   had   prepared   the   Voice Identification cum Rough Transcription Memo Ex. PW­5/6, rough transcription Ex. PW­4/DA regarding the recordings made during spot verification, phone calls, on the day of the trap and specimen voice of accused.   Vide Ex. PW­ 6/A and Ex. PW­7/1, he had received the documents as mentioned therein.   He has stated that vide Ex. PW­14/A, the washes were sent to CFSL for chemical examination. Vide Ex. PW­14/B the recordings of the case were sent to CFSL for examination.      He had also collected the CDR of the relevant phone numbers in the case and had also CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 58 of 114 received   the   chemical   examination   Report   Ex.   PW­2/A and  and Forensic Voice Examination Report Ex. PW­4/A from CFSL.   After completion of the investigation, he had filed   the   charge­sheet   before   the   Court   along   with   the statements of witnesses, documents and the Sanction for prosecution   of   the   accused   accorded   by   the   competent authority, collected during the investigation. Statement of Accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. 

46.After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of   the   accused   was   recorded   u/s   313   Cr.P.C.     All   the incriminating evidence which has come on record against the accused was put to the accused in his Statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C.

 

47.The   accused   in   his   statement   has   stated   that   he   was deputed by SDM Alipur, to assess the cost of HIG Flats, CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 59 of 114 situated in Sector 29, Rohini, Delhi, based on the exact area of each flat as handed over by the DDA. There were more than 40 flats which had come for registration and the size of the flats varied between 110 sq. mtr. to 140 sq. mtrs., but the DDA Brochure showed the size of the flats varying between 150­175 sq. mtrs.    though the flats were similarly located.  He has stated that the complainant was the leader of the affected flat owners whose documents were impounded by the Sub­Registrar concerned and the complainant had the apprehension of paying substantial stamp duty in case the actual size of the flats came to the knowledge   of   the  concerned  SDM.     Therefore,  the flat owners through the complainant using his (complainant) proximity   with   DSP   Mr.   Bhattacharya   of   CBI   hatched   a plan to get him trapped in order to remove him from the ongoing verification.     He has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the CBI at CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 60 of 114 the   behest   of   Sh.   Bhattacharya   DSP,   CBI,   and   the complainant. He never demanded or accepted any money from the complainant Sh. Brijesh Garg  and therefore, the CBI   failed   to   recover   the   bribe   amount   from   anywhere. He has stated that the hand washes and pant wash taken by the CBI were that of the complainant which have been imputed to be that of his (accused) washes.   Because of this reason the CBI intentionally did not take the footage of CCTv camera installed inside the office of SDM Narela. He has further stated that neither he accepted any bribe amount   from   the   complainant   nor   had   threw   the   same anywhere   and   that   is   why   the   CBI   intentionally   did   not take   the   footage   of   CCTv   Camera   installed   outside   the office of SDM Narela which could have shown the falsity of   the   prosecution   story.     He   has   stated   that   the transcription of the recorded conversation is manipulated, fabricated   and   edited.   The     prosecution   witnesses   are CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 61 of 114 interested witnesses and they have deposed at the behest and under the pressure of CBI.  

  Evidence led by the accused 

48.In   defence   evidence,   accused   Sh.   Rakesh   Kumar   has examined eight witnesses.

 

49.Sh.   Rajender   Kumar  UDC   from   the   office   of   SDM Chanakya   Puri   was   examined   as  DW­1.     During   the relevant time, he was working as Reader to SDM Narela, Delhi.  He has deposed that on the day of incident i.e. on 08.03.2013, he was present in the office and SDM Narela was   holding   the   Court   as   Revenue   Assistant.     He   has stated that accused Rakesh Kumar was posted as Naib Tehsildar under the jurisdiction of SDM Alipur.     On the day of incident, he had seen the accused Rakesh Kumar with CBI people, who have told SDM Narela that Rakesh CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 62 of 114 Kumar has been trapped for accepting the bribe.   In the room of SDM Narela, CBI officials enquired from accused Rakesh Kumar about the bribe amount, to which accused Rakesh   Kumar   denied   having   received   any   bribe. Thereafter, DW­1 went to his room after taking his files from the room of SDM Narela.  He has also stated that on the   day   of   the   incident,   the   CCTV   Cameras   installed inside   the   room   of  the   SDM   Narela   and   in  the   corridor outside the room of SDM Narela were functioning.   The CCTV Camera installed in the corridor outside the room of SDM Narela   used to cover the said corridor, part of the room of DW­1, staircase going down to the ground floor and some area on the ground floor.   He has further stated that as per photographs Mark PW­13/D1 and PW­13/D2, the CCTV Camera is found installed outside the office of SDM Narela and as per photographs Mark PW­13/D3 and PW­13/D4, the CCTV Camera is found installed inside the CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 63 of 114 Court room of SDM Narela.

 

50.Sh.   Dharampal  Caretaker   at   SDM   Narela   Office   was examined DW­2.    He has stated that he was posted as Caretaker   in   the   office   of   SDM   Narela   since   the   year 2004. On the day of incident i.e. on 08.03.2013, he was present   in   the   office.     At   about   6.00­6.30   p.m.   on 08.03.2013, on hearing some noise, he went to the SDM office situated upstairs.  After sometime, he saw the door of  the  room of the SDM Narela was opened and some persons   who   have   caught   hold   of   Rakesh   Kumar, disclosed their identity as CBI officials and took Rakesh Kumar in the corridor outside the room of SDM Narela. There the CBI   Official Mr. Vats gave severe beatings to Rakesh Kumar as a result of which blood came out from his mouth.   He has further deposed regarding the internal architecture/different   locations   of   the   office   and   its CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 64 of 114 premises.   He has stated that the photographs Mark DW­ 2/1   (colly.)   correctly   depict   the   different   locations   of   his office.       Photographs   Mark   PW­13/D1   and   PW­13/D2 show a CCTV Camera outside the office of SDM Narela. Photographs   Mark   PW­13/D3   and   PW­13/D4   show   a CCTV Camera inside the Court room of SDM Narela.  

51.Sh. Bhairab Dutt  Deputy Secretary LG Secretariat, was examined as DW­3.   He deposed that Report Ex. DW­3/A was   provided   by   him   when   he   was   posted   as   Public Information   Officer   in   the   office   of   District   Magistrate, North District, Delhi.

 

52.Sh. Mahesh Chandra Sharma  Superintendent/Assistant PIO,   General   Administration   Branch,   Revenue Department Govt. of NCT of Delhi, was examined as DW­

4.  He has produced a file containing the information Mark CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 65 of 114 DW­4/A   dated   10.11.2014.       He   has   stated   that   the information   Mark   DW­4/A   was   provided   by   Sh.   A.K. Sharma, the then Public Information Officer.  

53.Sh.   P.V.   Ramakrishan  Research   Officer   CVC   was examined   as  DW­5.     He   has   produced   the   original   of Order dated 15.12.2005, Ex. DW­5/A.  

54.Sh.   Deepak,  a   Photographer,  was   examined   as  DW­6. He has deposed that the twenty six photographs Ex.DW­ 6/A (colly.), pertaining to the office of SDM, Naya Bans, were   clicked   by   him   two­three   years   back   by   using   a digital camera.   Ex. DW­6/B is the receipt issued by him to   the   accused,   after   receiving   the   payment   from   the accused for clicking the said photographs.  

55.Sh.   J.G.   Moses  Senior   Scientific   Officer,   CFSL   was CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 66 of 114 examined as DW­7.   He has deposed that letter Ex. DW­ 7/A was given by him in the capacity of CPIO, in reply to the application Ex. DW­7/B of Ms. Priyanka Punam who has sought information under RTI Act.  

 

56.Sh.   Pawan   Kumar  Grade  II,  Services  Department  was examined as  DW­8.   He has produced the original order dated   12.02.1997   passed   by   Sh.   Manoj   Kumar   Deputy Secretary (Services).  Photocopy of said Order is Ex. DW­ 8/A.   

57. I have heard Sh. A.K. Kushwaha Ld. PP for CBI and Sh. Manoranjan Kumar Ld. Counsel for accused.  I have also perused the file, written arguments filed on behalf of the accused and the case law relied upon by the parties.   CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 67 of 114 Arguments of the Ld. P.P. for CBI   

58.The Ld. P.P. for CBI submitted that in the present case prosecution has examined fourteen witnesses and all of them   have   supported   the   prosecution   case.     It   was contended   that   at   the   relevant   time   accused   Rakesh Kumar   was   working   as   Naib   Tehsildar   in   the   Office   of SDM   Alipur,   Delhi.   The accused had demanded illegal gratification   of   Rs.   50,000/­   from   the   complainant   Sh. Brijesh Garg. It was submitted that the complainant had purchased a HIG Flat in Sector 29, Rohini, Delhi, in the name   of   his   wife   Smt.   Rekha   Garg   and   submitted   the documents   of   said   sale   and   purchase   before   the concerned Registrar. Thereafter, the complainant received a notice from the office of SDM Alipur with a direction to meet the SDM concerned regarding the short payment of stamp duty in respect of the registration of the said flat.  In the office of SDM Alipur, the complainant met the accused CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 68 of 114 Rakesh   Kumar   Naib   Tehsildar   Alipur   who   told   the complainant that the complainant is liable to pay penalty of Rs. 3.80 Lacs apart from the short stamp duty as there was shortage of Rs. 38000/­ in the stamp duty.   It was submitted that accused Rakesh Kumar had   assured the complainant   that   he   would   get   the   penalty   amount reduced to Rs. One Lac and for doing that the accused had demanded an amount of  Rs. 50,000/­ as bribe from the complainant.

 

59.The   Ld.   PP   for   CBI   has   contended   that   from   the conversation   recorded   in   DVR   during   the   verification proceedings of the complaint, demand of Rs. 50,000/­ as bribe amount has been proved as the accused has talked of a total sum of Rs. 1.5 Lacs, out of which Rs. One Lac was   the   challan   amount   and   Rs.   50,000/­   was   bribe amount.   However,   after   some   persuasion,   the CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 69 of 114 complainant   got   reduced   the   bribe   amount   to Rs. 40,000/­.  The demand of bribe has also been proved from   the   statements   of   complainant   and   other independent witness PW­8 Sh. Som Nath Luthra.    

60.It was contended that the demand of bribe has also been proved from the recorded conversation between accused and the complainant.     It was contended that PW­4 Dr. Rajender Singh has proved that Questioned voice of the accused   Rakesh   Kumar   tallied   with   his   specimen   voice and as per Report of PW­4, the demand of the bribe by the accused is also proved.

 

61.For the payment of the bribe amount, the accused had asked the complainant to come to his office.  In the office of the accused, the complainant paid the bribe amount of Rs. 40,000/­ to the accused on his specific demand, which CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 70 of 114 he   (accused)   received   with   his   right   hand   and   after counting the said amount with his both hands, kept the said   amount   in the left side front pocket of his wearing pant. It was submitted that the independent witness i.e. PW­8     Sh.   Som   Nath   Luthra   has   corroborated   the testimony of the complainant regarding the payment of the bribe   amount   by   the   complainant   to   the   accused. Thereafter,   the  accused  went  upstairs  on  the  first  floor. The accused was apprehended by the CBI trap team on the   first   floor   outside   the   room   of   SDM   Narela,   Delhi. After being apprehended, he was challenged by the TLO for having demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.   40,000/­   from   the   complainant.   However,   the   said bribe amount could not be recovered from the possession of the accused as he had thrown away the same while he went   upstairs   after   accepting   the   bribe   from   the complainant.   It was contended that the non­recovery of CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 71 of 114 the   bribe   amount   from   the   accused   is   not   fatal   to   the prosecution case.

 

62.It was submitted by the Ld. P.P. that acceptance of bribe has   also   been   proved   from   the   hand   washes   of   the accused and the left side pocket wash of the pant of the accused, where in the accused had kept the bribe amount after   receiving   the   same   from   the   complainant.   It   was contended that the evidence of PW­2 Sh. V.B. Ramteke Senior Scientific Officer CFSL and his Report Ex. PW­2/A also corroborate the version of the complainant and PW­8 Sh. Som Nath Luthra that the accused had accepted the bribe   amount   from   the   complainant.     Thus,   it  is   proved that   the   accused   had   accepted   the   bribe   from   the complainant.

 

63.It was contended that PW­1 Sh. Dharampal has proved CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 72 of 114 the   Sanction   Ex.   PW­1/A   which   he   had   accorded   for prosecution of the accused Rakesh Kumar after perusal of the material submitted by the CBI before him for grant of Sanction.

 

64.It was contended that the prosecution witnesses could not be   shaken   from   their   stand   during   their   cross­ examinations, thus,   there is no reason to disbelieve the statements of the prosecution witnesses.  The prosecution witnesses are consistent and have supported each other on   all   the   material   points.   It   was   contended   that   the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused   that   he   had   demanded   the   bribe   from   the complainant   and   accepted   the   bribe   money   from   the complainant   in   order   to   reduce   the   penalty   of   Rs.   3.80 Lacs,   which   was   likely   to   be   imposed   by   the   SDM   on account of short payment of stamp duty, to Rs. One Lac.   CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 73 of 114

65.It was contended that all the members of the trap party have supported the prosecution case on all the material points.  They are consistent and corroborative.  From the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the case of the prosecution has been proved and therefore, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence for which he has been charged.

  Arguments on behalf of the accused (Rakesh Kumar)

66.The   Ld.   Counsel   for   the   accused   submitted   that   the accused   is   innocent   as   he   never   demanded   any   bribe amount   from   the   complainant   nor   accepted   the   alleged bribe amount from the complainant.   The accused   has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant.   It was contended that as the accused has never accepted any   bribe   amount   from   the   complainant,   therefore,   CBI CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 74 of 114 team failed to recover the alleged bribe amount from his possession or from anywhere else.   

 

67.It   was  contended that at the relevant time the accused was posted as Naib Tehsildar in the office of SDM Alipur. The accused was deputed by the SDM Alipur to assess the cost of HIG Flats situated at Sector 29, Rohini, Delhi. The assessment was based on the exact area of each flat as   handed   over   by   the   Delhi   Development   Authority. Before   the   concerned   Sub­Registrar   more   than   40   flats had come for registration and their size varied between 110 sq. mtrs. to 140 sq. mtrs.  However, as per the DDA Brochure the size of said flats varied between 150­175 sq. mtrs.     It   was   contended   that   the   complainant   was   the leader of the affected flat owners whose documents have been   impounded  by  the concerned  Sub­Registrar.   The complainant had the apprehension that if the actual size CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 75 of 114 of the flats come in the knowledge of the concerned SDM, then the flats owners would have to pay substantial stamp duty.     Therefore,   with a motive to remove the accused from the ongoing verification/assessment, the flat owners through   the   complainant   by   using   the   proximity   of   the complainant   with   Mr.   Bhattacharya   DSP,   CBI,   Delhi, hatched the plan of getting the accused trapped.   It was submitted that the CBI conducted the process of getting the   accused   trapped     on   the  behest   of  said  DSP,   CBI, Delhi.     The   complaint   made   by   the   complainant   Sh. Brijesh Garg is false and concocted one.

 

68.It   was   contended   that   there   was   no   motive   or   any occasion on the part of the accused to demand any bribe from the complainant for the reason that the accused had no power to impose any penalty upon the complainant or to   reduce   any   penalty   as   the   SDM   concerned   was CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 76 of 114 empowered to do so.   Hence, there was no occasion for the   accused   for   demanding   any   bribe   from   the complainant for doing any favour to the complainant.  

69.Ld. Defence Counsel has contended that as per the case of prosecution, accused was apprehended in the corridor of the first floor outside the room of SDM Narela and the post trap proceedings were conducted inside the room of SDM   Narela   after   explaining   him   about   the   trap   of accused   Rakesh   Kumar.   It   was   submitted   that   CCTV Cameras   were   installed   inside   the   room   of   the   SDM Narela as well as outside the said room  i.e. in the corridor of   the   first   floor,   but   the   prosecution   intentionally   and deliberately did not take the CCTV Cameras footage nor made the said footage the part of record, with a view to succeed   in   proving their   false story  as  the same would have shown the falsity of the prosecution story.     It was CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 77 of 114 contended that the hand washes and the pant wash as alleged   by  the CBI team  to be that of the accused are actually of the complainant.    The CBI in order to prove its false story of demanding and accepting the alleged bribe amount by the accused had imputed the said washes of the complainant to be that of the accused.     

70.It was submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that from   the   statements   of   the   witnesses,   it   is   proved   that there were CCTV Cameras installed in the office room / varanda   etc.   in   the   campus   where   the   raid   was conducted.     It was submitted that from the statement of the witness it is proved that the place where the alleged bribe was paid to the accused was also covered under the CCTV   Cameras.   From   the   statements   of   the   defence witnesses it is proved that accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated.  

CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 78 of 114  

71.It was also contended that Sanction for prosecution of the accused is not a valid Sanction in the eyes of law for the reason   that   the   person   who   has   given   the   Sanction   of prosecution   of   accused   was   not   competent   to   grant Sanction   for   the   prosecution   of   the   accused.     It   was contended that this fact is proved from the statements of DW­3   Sh.   Bhairab   Dutt,   DW­4   Sh.   Mahesh   Chandra Sharma   and   DW­5   Sh.   P.   Ramakrishan.   Therefore,   the Sanction for prosecution of the accused is bad in the eyes of law.

Conclusion 

72.Before coming to the facts of this case, the ingredients of the   offences   punishable   u/s   7   of   P.C.   Act   r/w   Section 13(1)(d)   r/w   Section   13(2)   of   the   P.C.   Act   are   being discussed as under:­ CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 79 of 114

73. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported as  M.K.   Harshan   Vs.   State   of   Kerala   (1996)   11   SCC 720, has held as under:

"8.....It   is   in   this   context   the   courts   have cautioned   that   as   a   rule   of   prudence,   some corroboration is necessary.  In all such type of cases   of   bribery,   two   aspects   are   important. Firstly, there must be a demand and secondly, there   must be acceptance in the sense that the   accused   has   obtained   the   illegal gratification.       Mere   demand   by   itself   is   not sufficient to establish the offence.   Therefore, the other aspect, namely, acceptance is very important....."

 

74.It was further held in the case of M.K. Harshan (Supra) CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 80 of 114 as under:

"10.It is thus well settled that the prosecution is duty bound   to   prove   the   demand   and   acceptance   of money   either   by   direct   or   circumstantial   evidence before an inference that the money given is an illegal gratification could be raised......."  

75.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of  K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka (2013) 3 SCC 721 has held that the demand and acceptance of the amount of   illegal   gratification   by   the   accused   is   a   condition precedent to constitute an offence under the Act.  

76.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satvir Singh Vs. State of Delhi through CBI,  Crl. Appeal No. 920/2011  decided   on   20.08.2014,   has   held   that   mere demand by itself is not sufficient to establish the offence CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 81 of 114 under the Act and the other aspect, namely, acceptance is also very important.

77.A joint reading of the provisions of Section 7 of the P.C. Act and the case law discussed above specifies that the following   essential   ingredients   are   to   be   established   to convict a person for the offences under consideration:

i. The person who demanded and accepted the bribe should be a public servant.

ii.There should be actual demand and acceptance of gratification.

iii.The public servant should have obtained gratification as a motive or reward for doing any official favour.

78.  Now all the above referred three ingredients are being discussed as under:­ 

 (i) The person who demanded and accepted the bribe CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 82 of 114 should   be   a   public   servant.    In   the   present   case   the accused   at   the   relevant   time   was   working   as   Naib Tehsildar in the office of SDM, Alipur, Delhi.     Thus, the first   ingredient   that   accused   at   the  relevant   time   was   a Public Servant is fulfilled. 

79.(ii) There should be actual demand and acceptance of gratification.   

(iii)The   public   servant   should   have   obtained gratification   as   a   motive   or   reward   for   doing   any official favour.

80.The   case   of   the   prosecution   is   that   on   07.03.2013   the complainant PW­5 Sh. Brijesh Garg made a complaint to the CBI against the accused regarding demand of bribe by the accused.   As per the case of the prosecution, the allegations   of   the   complainant   Sh.   Brijesh   Garg   as CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 83 of 114 levelled in his complaint Ex. PW­5/1 were verified.   As per prosecution   case   for   verification   of   the   complaint,   one independent witness PW­8 Sh. Som Nath Luthra had also gone  with  the complainant to the office of the accused. PW­11   Inspector   Manish   Upadhyay   had   also accompanied PW­5 Sh. Brijesh Garg and PW­8 Sh. Som Nath Luthra to the office of the accused for the purpose of verification of the complaint.  It is important to note that all of   them   have   deposed   in   contradiction   with   each   other regarding  verification of the complaint.    

81.The perusal of the statement of PW­5 Sh. Brijesh Garg shows that as per his version the verification proceedings were conducted only on 07.03.2013 when he along with other witness and CBI officials had gone to the office of the accused.   On the other hand, the deposition of PW­8 Sh.   Som   Nath   Luthra   shows   that,   as   per   his   version, CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 84 of 114 before going to the office of accused, the complainant was asked to make a call to the accused Rakesh Kumar by keeping the speaker of the phone in the switch on mode. PW­8 Sh. Som Nath Luthra has stated that from the said conversation it was confirmed that there was a demand of bribe. As per the versions of PW­5 Sh. Brijesh Garg and PW­8   Sh.   Som   Nath   Luthra,   the   verification   of   the complaint was done only on one day i.e. on 07.03.2013. On the other hand, as per the version of PW­11 Inspector Manish   Upadhyay,  the  verification  of  the  complaint  was done on two days i.e. on 07.03.2013 and 08.03.2013.     

82.The   case   of   the   accused   is   that   the   complainant   is   an interested witness and therefore, his testimony has to be corroborated   by   some   other   independent   witness.     The contention   of   the   accused   is   that   PW­9   Sh.   Harvinder Singh cannot be termed as an independent witness as he CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 85 of 114 is a Stock Witness for the reason that he has joined the raids of CBI twice or thrice. Reliance in this regard has been   placed   upon   the   judgment     dated   25.05.2012   of Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   of   India   in   the   case   of  Mukut Bihari & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan in Crl. Appeal No. 870/2012.

 

83.As per prosecution case at the time of verification of the complaint of PW­5 Sh. Brijesh Garg, the conversation held between the complainant Brijesh Garg and the accused Rakesh Kumar was recorded in a Digital Voice Recorder (DVR)  of  make Sony.     The said DVR was sent to the CFSL for the purpose of voice identification.     This DVR contained   the   questioned   voice   of   accused   Rakesh Kumar.   The questioned voice of accused Rakesh Kumar and   his   specimen   voice   was   examined   by   PW­4   Dr. Rajender Singh.   He has stated that after examination he CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 86 of 114 found   that   the   questioned   voice   of   accused   Rakesh Kumar   tallied   with   his   specimen   voice   in   respect   of   his linguistic,   phonetics   and   other   general   spectographic parameters.    In his cross­examination, he stated that he has used Computerized Voice  Spectograph, namely SSL (Space Science Laboratory Banglore) to conduct the test. The case of the accused is that no reliance can be placed upon the testimony of PW­4 Dr. Rajender Singh as he has falsely  deposed that he had used   Computerized Voice Spectograph,   namely   SSL   (Space   Science   Laboratory Banglore)   to   conduct   the   test,   as   there   is   no   such instrument available in the CFSL, CBI, New Delhi, where PW­4   Dr.   Rajender   Singh   has   allegedly   conducted   the said test.  To support his contention, the accused Rakesh Kumar   has   examined   DW­7   Sh.   J.G.   Moses   Senior Scientific   Officer   Grade   I,   Central   Public   Information Office, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi.   DW­7 Sh. J.G. Moses has CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 87 of 114 stated that in his capacity   as CPIO, he gave reply Ex. DW­7/A in response to the information sought under RTI Act   vide   application   Ex.   DW­7/B.     The   perusal   of   the application Ex. DW­7/B shows that vide this application, information was sought from CFSL, CBI, New Delhi  under the RTI Act regarding the use of machinery/equipment in Space   Science   Laboratory   CFSL,   Delhi.     The   relevant portion of the said application is reproduced as under :­ "Please provide specific information in respect of Space Science Laboratory Banglore.

1.   Whether   such   machinery/equipment   is   used   in Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Delhi or not?

2.   If   yes,   then   please   provide   the   detail   of   tests conducted by using this." 

  

84.The information sought vide application Ex. DW­7/B was provided by CFSL, CBI, New Delhi vide letter Ex. DW­7/A. CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 88 of 114 The relevant portion of the reply is reproduced as under:­ "This is  to  request you to specify the name of the instrument.  However, CFSL (CBI) does not use any instrument   that   has   use   in   Space     Science Laboratory, Bangaluru." 

 

85.As discussed above, PW­4 Dr. Rajender Singh has stated that for the purpose of voice identification, he has used Computerized   Voice   Spectograph,   namely   SSL   (Space Science Laboratory Banglore).   On the other hand, as per Ex. DW­7/A there is no such instrument used in the CFSL, New Delhi.     The prosecution has not clarified that as to how and from where PW­4 Dr. Rajender Singh has used the said instrument for the purpose of conducting the test on the questioned voice of accused Rakesh Kumar and his specimen voice.    This casts a doubt in the Report of PW­4 Dr. Rajender Singh.

CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 89 of 114  

86.The case of the prosecution is that on the demand by the accused   the   complainant   gave   him   the   bribe   of Rs. 50,000/­.   This bribe was given by the complainant to the   accused   in   the   presence   of   PW­8   Sh.   Som   Nath Luthra.   Admittedly, the bribe amount was not recovered from   the   possession   of   the   accused.   Therefore,   under these   circumstances,   the   question   which   arises   for consideration is that whether the bribe amount was paid by the complainant to the accused or not.  

 

87.The case of the prosecution is that on 08.03.2013, a trap team   was  organized  to  trap the  accused  at  the time  of payment of bribe by the complainant and its acceptance by the accused Rakesh Kumar.  The trap team comprised of the complainant, independent witnesses, namely PW­8 Sh. Som Nath Luthra and PW­9 Sh. Harvinder Singh and CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 90 of 114 CBI officers. 

 

88.As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant PW­5 Sh. Brijesh Garg and independent witness PW­8 Sh. Som Nath Luthra were supposed to go inside the office of the accused  where the complainant PW­5 Sh. Brijesh Garg would   pay   the   bribe   to   the   accused   in   the   presence  of shadow   witness   PW­8   Sh.   Som   Nath   Luthra.   The complainant has stated that he along with Sh. Som Nath Luthra   entered   the  room  of  the  accused  where  he  was sitting.  The accused asked them to come out of the room. The accused then came out of his room on the ground floor   and   the   accused   met   the   complainant   and   the independent witness PW­8 Sh. Som Nath Luthra near the staircase which leads to the office of SDM.       There the accused   accepted   the   money   from   them   near   the staircase.  The accused counted the money and kept the CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 91 of 114 same in the pocket of his pant.     On the other hand, the shadow witness PW­8 Sh. Som Nath Luthra has deposed something different in this regard.  He has stated that he along with the complainant went to the room of accused Rakesh Kumar and Rakesh Kumar told them to sit there and   told   that   he   would   come   within   five   minutes. Thereafter,   the   accused   came   back   after   five   minutes. The complainant has not stated this fact that he and the independent witness Sh. Som Nath Luthra were told by the accused to sit in his room or that the accused left the room   and   came   there   after   five   minutes.     As   per   the version of PW­8 Sh. Som Nath Luthra after the accused came   back   to   his   room,   he   told   the   complainant   to accompany   him.     The   shadow   witness   PW­8   Sh.   Som Nath   Luthra   was   asked   to   sit   in   his   office   room,   but despite that the shadow witness followed them.   As per the version of the complainant PW­5, he along with the CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 92 of 114 independent   witness   PW­8   Sh.   Som   Nath   Luthra   were told by the accused to come out of his room where he accepted money.  In this regard, the complainant and the shadow  witness PW­8 have deposed in contradiction to each other.   As per the version of the complainant, PW­5 Sh. Brijesh Garg at the time of payment of bribe to the accused, the shadow witness PW­8 Sh. Som Nath Luthra was also with him.  This fact is clear from the statement of complainant   where   he   has   stated   that   the   accused accepted the money from "them" near the staircase.   On the   other   hand, PW­8 Sh. Som  Nath  Luthra has stated that he was at a distance of 8­10 steps when the bribe was paid to the accused by the complainant and he had seen the complainant taking out the currency notes and handing   over   the same to the accused.   This is also a contradiction   between   the   statements   of   PW­5   Brijesh Garg and PW­8 Sh. Som Nath Luthra.

CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 93 of 114  

89.The case of the prosecution is that after reaching the spot at the time of laying the trap, the complainant Sh. Brijesh Garg and independent witness Sh. Som Nath Luthra were sent   inside   the   office   of   accused   Rakesh   Kumar.     The other   team   members   including   independent   witness remained outside as the Guard deputed at the gate of the office   did   not   allow   them   to   enter   the   campus   without disclosing their identity.    As per the case of prosecution it was decided that after handing over the bribe money to the accused, the complainant would inform the trap team by giving the pre­decided signal.   

90.The perusal of Handing Over Memo Ex. PW­5/3 shows that   after   the   transaction   of   the   handing   over   the   bribe was over, the complainant was directed to give the signal to the other members of the trap team by rubbing his face CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 94 of 114 by   his   both   hands.     But,  the   complainant   PW­5  Brijesh Garg deposed that after handing over the money to the accused,   he   tried   to   contact   the   CBI   team   on   mobile phone.     Meaning thereby, the complainant was required to inform the trap team by making a phone call. This is in contradiction to Ex. PW­5/3.   PW­8 Sh. Som Nath Luthra who   was   deputed   as   a   shadow   witness   and   in   whose presence the bribe was allegedly paid to the accused has given altogether a different version regarding the mode of information required to be given to the trap team members who were outside,  after the transaction was over.  He has stated   that   after   the   transaction,   the   complainant   might have   communicated   to   the   CBI   officer   about   the transaction   and   the   complainant   ran   to   inform   the   CBI team   and   he   was   behind   him.     As   per   the   version   of complainant PW­5 Brijesh Garg and PW­8 Sh. Som Nath Luthra,   the   complainant   tried   to   contact   the   other CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 95 of 114 members of the trap team who were outside the building by making a phone call from his mobile phone.   But, the call  could   not   be made due to network problem.     But, PW­9 Sh. Harvinder Singh another independent witness, has   stated   that   after   ten   minutes,   the   CBI   Inspector received a missed call of the complainant and thereafter, they all went inside the SDM Office.  

 

91.PW­11   Inspector   Manish   Upadhyay     has   deposed contradictory to the contents of Ex. PW­5/3 i.e. Handing Over   Memo,   wherein,   it   was   directed   that   after   the transaction   was   over,   the   complainant   would   give   the signal by rubbing his face with his both hands.     PW­11 Inspector   Manish   Upadhyay   has   stated   that   the complainant   and   Independent   witness   Sh.   Som   Nath Luthra were directed to give the signal by giving missed call to him or to the TLO.   

CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 96 of 114  

92.Thus,   from   the   above   discussion   it   is   clear   that   the prosecution witnesses are in contradiction with each other regarding   the   mode   by   which   the   complainant   was required to give signal to the members of the trap team who were outside the campus.  Now, the question is that as to how the members of the trap team who were outside the   campus  came to know  about the  transaction  of  the bribe.  The complainant PW­5 Sh. Brijesh Garg has stated that he tried to contact CBI team on mobile phone, but due to poor network the call could not be made, then he along   with   PW­8  Sh.   Som   Nath   Luthra  went   outside   to inform the CBI team.   

 

93.The shadow witness who was along with the complainant at the time of payment of bribe to the accused and as per prosecution case the shadow witness PW­8 Sh. Som Nath CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 97 of 114 Luthra   had   seen   the   complainant   paying   bribe   to   the accused.  PW­8 Sh. Som Nath Luthra has stated that after the transaction was over, he made a call on the phone of Inpsector Sri Bhagwan, but call could not be made due to network problem.  Then, the complainant told the shadow witness PW­8 not to make call to the trap team unless the accused   brings   the   document.     PW­8   Sh.   Som   Nath Luthra stated that he did not agree with this proposal of the complainant and he considered it proper to inform the CBI officials.  Then, he started going towards CBI officials and the complainant also followed him.  CBI officials saw them   and   they   immediately   came   in   the   office   of   SDM Alipur.     It is important to note that PW­8 Sh. Som Nath Luthra     in   his cross­examination has given altogether  a different   version   regarding   the   presence   of   the   other members of the team and the mode by which information was   given   to   them   regarding   the   transaction.     He   has CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 98 of 114 stated that "CBI team was in the Hall when the transaction took   place."     No   explanation   has   been   given   by   the prosecution to clarify this major contradiction.   PW­9 Sh. Harvinder Singh has stated that CBI Inspector received a missed   call   of   complainant   and   thereafter,   they   went inside the Office of SDM.   

 

94.Admittedly,   in   this   case   the   bribe   amount   was   not recovered from the accused.  The case of the prosecution is that after accepting the bribe from the complainant, the accused   had   gone  upstairs  where  he  had  thrown away the bribe amount after coming to know regarding the raid. Therefore,   under   these   circumstances,   it   is   very necessary for the prosecution to prove that the bribe was paid  by  the   complainant to the accused.   As discussed above,   there   are   major   contradictions   regarding   the payment of bribe to the accused and regarding giving pre­ CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 99 of 114 determined signal to the other members of the trap team. There are also contradictions regarding as to how the trap team came to know about the transaction and when they come inside the Office campus of the SDM.

 

95.The   case   of   the  accused is  that  he  had  not  taken  any bribe from the complainant and in case he had accepted any   bribe   from   the   complainant,   the   same   would   have been recorded in the CCTV Camera installed in the Office of the SDM and in the campus thereof.   The case of the accused   is   that   the   Investigating   Officer   has   not intentionally   collected   the   footage   of   CCTV   Camera   for the reason that it would have disclosed that the accused was innocent.

 

96.The prosecution has examined Sh. Ajay Arora as PW­10. On the day of the raid, he was posted as SDM Narela and CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 100 of 114 in his Office campus the Office of SDM Alipur was also functioning.  The accused was working as Naib Tehsildar in   Sub­Division   Alipur.     He   has   stated   that   Sh.   Rajnish Singh   was   SDM   Alipur.       He   has   stated   in   his   cross­ examination that CCTV Camera was installed in his Office / Court Room and another CCTV Camera was installed immediately outside his Office in the varanda adjoining his Office and the Office of SDM Alipur.   He has also stated that   on   08.03.2013   i.e.   the   date   of   raid,   both   the   said CCTV Cameras were in working condition.   The case of the prosecution is that the bribe was paid to the accused in the varanda and the staircase outside the Office.  PW­ 10 Sh. Ajay Arora has also stated in his cross­examination that   the   CCTV  Camera  which  was  installed outside  the Office and in the varanda was covering the entire varanda and the staircase leading to varanda.   He has also stated that there was only one staircase leading to varanda.    He CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 101 of 114 deposed that the preservation capacity of the footage was only for a period of seven­eight days and thereafter, the old data was automatically replaced by new data.   

97.Thus, from the statement of the prosecution witness i.e. PW­10   Sh.   Ajay   Arora,   it   is   clear   that   on   the   day   of incident the CCTV Cameras were installed and the same were   functioning   at   the   place   where   the   bribe   was allegedly paid by the complainant to the accused.  In the present case as the bribe amount could not be recovered from   the   accused,   therefore,   it   was   the   duty   of   the Investigating   Officer   to   collect   footage   of   the   CCTV Cameras   which   would   have   shown   the   complainant paying   the   bribe   to   the   accused   and   the   accused accepting the bribe. No explanation has been given by the prosecution   as   to   why   the   CCTV   footage   was   not collected.  

CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 102 of 114

98.PW­10 Sh. Ajay Arora has stated that CBI officials had enquired about the working of the CCTV Cameras and he told   them   that   the   CCTV   Cameras     might   be   in   the working condition.     PW­10 Sh. Ajay Arora further stated that the CBI did not ask him for the CCTV footage of the CCTV Cameras.

 

99.Thus,  it  is  clear from the statement of PW­10 Sh. Ajay Arora   that   CCTV   Cameras   were   installed   in   the   Office campus   of   SDM   and   the   SDM   told   the   CBI   officials regarding the functioning of CCTV Cameras. Even then the   CBI   did   not   take   the   footage   of   CCTV   Cameras despite its availability and also knowing the fact that the CCTV footage could have thrown light on the issue as the bribe amount was not recovered from the accused.     CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 103 of 114

100.The case  of the accused is that the footage of CCTV Cameras in the present case is a best piece of evidence which   has   been   withheld   by   the   CBI   and   therefore, adverse inference has to be drawn against the CBI.    To support   his   contention,   reliance   was   placed   upon   a judgment dated 20.01.2015 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of  Tomaso Bruno and Another Vs. State of U.P.   Criminal   Appeal   No.   142   of   2015  (arising   out   of SLP (Crl.) No. 1156/2013), wherein, it was held as under:

"22.   .......   CCTV   footage   is   a   strong   piece   of evidence which would have indicated whether the accused  remained   inside  the   hotel  and   whether they   were   responsible   for   a   commission   of   a crime.   It would have also shown whether or not the   accused   had   gone   out   of   the   hotel.     CCTV footage being a crucial piece of evidence, it is for the   prosecution   to   have   produced   the   best CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 104 of 114 evidence which is missing.   Omission to produce CCTV   footage,   in   our   view,   which   is   the   best evidence,   raises   serious   doubts   about   the prosecution case."

 

101.In view of the law laid down in the  judgment of  Tomaso Bruno and Another (Supra),  a doubt is created in the prosecution   story   for   not   producing   the   vital   piece   of evidence in the Court.

102.The case of the accused is that Phenolphthalein test is not   conclusive   proof   to   prove   the   offence   against   the accused.   To support his contention the Ld. Counsel for the accused has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 29.01.2015 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Inida in the case of  C. Sukumaran Vs. State of Kerala  Crl. Appeal No. 192 of 2015.  The case of the accused is that the washes CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 105 of 114 were   not   taken   in   the   presence   of   the   SDM   who   was examined as PW­10 Sh. Ajay Arora.   The perusal of the statement of PW­10 Sh. Ajay Arora reveals that the hand wash of the accused were taken in his absence. He stated that   when   he   had   gone   to   hear   some   case   in   his Chamber, in the meanwhile the hand wash of the accused had been collected and he was told by the CBI officials that the hand wash of the accused had been collected. No explanation has been given by the prosecution as to why   the   hand   wash   of   the   accused   were   taken   in   the absence of SDM PW­10 Sh. Ajay Arora who had already joined the post trap proceedings.   It has not been clarified as to what was the urgency in taking the hand wash of the accused in the absence of SDM PW­10 Sh. Ajay Arora while   he   was   in   his   Chamber.     Therefore,   under   these circumstances and keeping in view the law laid down in C. Sukumaran Vs. State of Kerala (Supra), on the basis CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 106 of 114 of   the   Phenolphthalein   test   it   cannot   be   said   that   the accused has accepted the bribe.  PW­2 Sh. V.B. Ramteke has conducted the test on the hand wash of the accused. He has stated in his cross­examination that he was asked only   to   give   report   with   regard   to   the   presence   of Phenolphthalein powder in the solutions, whereas, he has also   deposed   with   regard   to   the   presence   of   Sodium Carbonate in the said solutions and he has stated this fact with regard to the presence of Sodium Carbonate only on the basis of his memory.   Therefore, in my view it is not safe to rely upon the Report Ex. PW­2/A to establish that accused has accepted the bribe.

 

103.The Ld. Counsel for accused has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 09/2003 decided on 02.07.2013  titled as Hem Chander Vs. State of Delhi, wherein, it was held that the CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 107 of 114 conviction cannot be based on the basis of inference and the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.     It   was   also   submitted   that   when   two   views   are possible,   the   view favourable to the accused has  to  be accepted.  To support his contention, the defence counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 25.03.2011 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of  Prem Singh Yadav   Vs.   Central   Bureau   of   Investigation  in   Crl. Appeal No. 206/2002, wherein, it was held as under:­ "16.........It is also well settled principle of law that where it is possible to have both the views, one in favour of the prosecution and the other in favour of the accused, the latter should prevail." 

104.In  Prem Singh Yadav (Supra)  case,  two judgments of Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   of   India   reported   as  Dilip   Vs. State of M.P. (2009) 1 SCC 450 and Gagan Kanejia Vs. CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 108 of 114 State of Punjab (2006) 13 SCC 516 were relied upon by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.

 

105.The Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that the investigation has been done in an unfair manner as the Investigating   Officer   has   not   followed   the   Rules   as mentioned   in   the   CBI   Crime   Manual.     The   case   of   the accused is that as per Rule 14.16 it is mandatory for the Investigating   Officer   that   the   pre­trap   and   post­trap proceedings   are   to   be   photographed   as   well   as videographed.   Admittedly, in the present case, the pre­ trap   and   post­trap   proceedings   have   neither   been photographed   nor   videographed.     PW­11   Inspector Manish   Upadhyay   has   admitted   this   fact   in   his   cross­ examination.     Similarly   the   Investigating   Officer   PW­13 Inspector Sri Bhagwan has also admitted that he is aware about the Rules mentioned in the CBI Crime Manual.  He CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 109 of 114 also   admitted   that   in   this   case   no   videography   or photography   was   done   in   the   pre­trap   or   post­trap proceedings.   The   case   of   the   accused   is   that   the   said instructions mentioned in the CBI Crime Manual are biding and are required to be followed necessarily.   To support this   contention   reliance   was   placed   upon   the   judgment dated   18.12.1997  of  Hon'ble Supreme Court of India  in the case of  Vineet Narain & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr. (1998) 1 Supreme Court Cases 226, wherein it was directed as under:­ "58.  As a result of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby direct as under:­

1. ..........................................................................

...........................................................................

12. The CBI Manual based on statutory provisions of   the   Cr.P.C.   provides   essential   guidelines   for the CBI's functioning.  It is imperative that the CBI CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 110 of 114 adheres   scrupulously   to   the   provisions   in   the Manual   in   relation   to   its   investigative   functions, like raids, seizure and arrests.  Any deviation from the   established   procedure   should   be   viewed seriously   and   severe   disciplinary   action   taken against the concerned officials."

 

106.In   the   present   case,   the   Investigating   Officer   has   not followed the CBI Crime Manual which he was required to follow necessarily.  No explanation has been given by the prosecution   as   to   why   the   directions   of   the   Hon'ble Supreme Court have not been followed  in this case. This also creates a doubt in the prosecution story.  

107.Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that the tape recorded   conversation   is   not   a   proper   evidence.   To support   this   contention   reliance   was   placed   upon   the CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 111 of 114 judgment dated 07.04.1982 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Inida   in   the   case   of  Mahabir   Prasad   Verma   Vs.   Dr. Surinder  Kaur  reported  as 1982 AIR 1043,  wherein it was held as under:­ "....Tape recorded conversation can only be relied upon   as   corroborative   evidence   of   conversation deposed by any of the parties to the conversation and   in   the   absence   of   evidence   of   any   such conversation,   the   tape   recorded   conversation   is indeed no proper evidence and cannot be relied upon............" 

108.The   case   of   the   Ld.   P.P.   for   CBI   is   that   in   this   case demand has been proved and which alone is sufficient to prove the offence.   In support of his contention, he has placed   reliance   upon   the   judgment   of   Madhya   Pradesh High Court reported as Mubarak Ali Vs. State AIR 1958 CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 112 of 114 M.P. 157.   But this judgment is of no help for the CBI in view of the law laid down in  Satvir Singh (Supra), M.K. Harshan (Supra) and K.S. Paduranga (Supra).  

109.The Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that no recovery has been made from the accused.     Even the prosecution   witnesses   i.e.   PW­8   Sh.   Som   Nath   Luthra, PW­9 Sh. Harvinder Singh, PW­10   Sh. Ajay Arora, PW­ 11 Inspector Manish Upadhyay and PW­13 Inspector Sri Bhagwan in their statements have deposed that the bribe amount   could   not   be   recovered   despite   the   thorough search   of   the   entire   Office   campus   of   SDM   and   its surroundings, conducted by the CBI team.     It is strange that the bribe amount has been paid by the complainant to the accused and the same has not been recovered from the   accused   and   also   from   the   search   of   the   campus. This   also   creates   a   doubt   in   the   prosecution   story   that CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 113 of 114 complainant has paid bribe to the accused.

110.In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the  ingredients essential for the offences punishable u/s 7 of   P.C.   Act   r/w   Section   13(1)(d)   r/w   Section   13(2)   of P.C.Act, 1988, beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is accordingly acquitted of the charges.  

111.The bail­bonds of the accused are cancelled.   His surety is discharged.   The accused has been asked to furnish bail­bonds u/s 437 A Cr.P.C. for a period of six months. The file be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the Open Court today i.e. 02.12.2016            (Surinder Kumar Sharma)                            Special Judge, P.C. Act                (CBI) ­ 09, Central District,       Tis Hazari, Delhi.

CC No. 07/15                                                                                                       Page 114 of 114