Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Y.S. Chauhan on 14 December, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRADEEP CHADDAH: SPECIAL JUDGE:
CBI01, CENTRAL DISTRICT. DELHI
CC No. 42/06 RC No. 22(A)/05
PS: CBI/ACB/ND
CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan
S/o Sh. S.P.S. Chauhan
R/o 4A, MIG Flats, Rampura,
Lawrence Road, New Delhi.
Date of Institution : 29.03.2006
Judgment Reserved : 07.12.2012
Judgment Delivered : 14.12.2012
J U D G M E N T
1. CBI filed the present chargesheet against accused Y.S. Chauhan u/s 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the P.C. Act.
2. The law was set in motion after Sh. Mangat Ram Khatri proprietor of M/s Khatri Builders Pvt. Ltd. lodged a complaint with CBI. In his complaint dt. 30.4.05, he claimed that he was building house at G1/198 and 199, Sector16, Rohini. On 8.4.05 accused who is Junior Engineer in MCD delivered a notice to him. The notice was to the effect that the construction CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 1 of 40 2 being raised was not in accordance with plan and it should be set right within three days. On 25.4.05 accused came and handed over another notice dt. 20.4.05. He further said that notice was a formality and he would have to pay Rs. 50,000/, otherwise building would be sealed. After bargaining he agreed to accept Rs. 20,000/ and wanted payment of Rs. 20,000/ on 30.4.05. After receipt of complaint, the above mentioned FIR was registered.
3. A trap team was organized which included CBI officers and two independent witnesses namely Mr. Rajesh Ahuja Assistant Value Added Tax Officer and Mr. Birender Kumar Stenographer Sales Tax Department. Complainant produced Rs. 20,000/. The number of GC notes were recorded in handing over memo and they were treated with phenolphthalein powder. Practical demonstration was given by Inspector C.K. Sharma. The treated GC notes were kept in front pant pocket of the complainant and he was asked to deliver on demand. The team members washed their hands and mutually searched each other. Mr. Rajesh Ahuja was directed to accompany the complainant, watch the transaction and give signal by scratching his head by both hands. Mr. Birender Kumar was to remain with the trap party. A digital recorder was arranged. Formal voices of independent witnesses were recorded and it was handed over to the complainant to record conversation CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 2 of 40 3 between him and the accused. The trap team left for office of the complainant and parked vehicles at safe distance, as accused was to collect bribe from there. Complainant received a call from accused who wanted to know his whereabouts. At about 3.45 pm, accused came in Maruti Zen No. DL 8CK 3457 and entered office of the complainant. Lateron complainant, accused and one more person boarded the car. After a while they returned to office of the complainant. Complainant got out and accused left the spot saying that he would collect the bribe later on. At about 5.30 pm complainant called up CBI officer and informed that accused had called him to meet near Taxi stand RUBlock, Pitampura, Delhi. They all reached near taxi stand next to "Food Art " Dhaba and took positions. At about 6.15 pm, complainant was seen talking to the accused and thereafter shadow witness gave agreed signal and CBI team rushed towards him. Upon challenging accused denied and kept mum. Complainant informed that accused had accepted Rs. 20,000/ and handed it over to taxi driver Didar Singh and further told him to hand them over to Gurmail Singh, Proprietor of New Bengal Taxi Service. Gurmail Singh had kept the money in his right side kurta pocket. The money was recovered. The GC notes were tallied with the handing over memo. Hand washes of accused Y.S. Chauhan, Didar Singh, Gurmail Singh were taken. Kurta of Gurmail Singh was also washed in CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 3 of 40 4 separate solutions of sodium carbonate. All the seven solutions were transferred into seven bottles and sealed with the seal of CBI. They were all labeled. The digital recorder was then played which confirmed demand and acceptance of bribe. Recorded conversation was transferred to another audio cassette. Recovery memo, site plan, arrest cum personal memo etc. were prepared. File pertaining to property of the complainant was seized from office almirah of accused. Details of incoming and outgoing calls of the mobile phones of complainant and accused were collected. Investigation did not reveal incriminating role of Didar Singh and Gurmail Singh taxi driver and proprietor of taxi service respectively. Statement of these two were recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. Case against accused Y.S. Chauhan was made out for having demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.20,000/ from Mangat Ram Khatri. It was prayed that he be summoned and tried.
4. After accused put in appearance, he was provided with copies of all the documents. My Ld. Predecessor framed following charge against him.
"That on 25.04.2005 you being a public servant as you were posted as Junior Engineer (Building) MCD Rohini zone, Delhi, initially demanded Rs.50,000/ from complainant Sh. Mangat Ram Khatri Proprietor M/s. Khatri Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. r/o.
CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 4 of 40 5 st G2/6264, 1 Floor, Sector16 Rohini as illegal gratification for not sealing his building under construction at G1/198199, Sector16, Rohini and for showing favour to him in the matter of the notice already served upon him in this regard and that on the request of the complainant you agreed to reduce the demanded bribe amount to Rs.20,000/ and that on 29.4.05 you again demanded the bribe amount of Rs.20,000/ over phone and directed the complainant to pay the bribe amount to you on 30.4.05 as a motive or reward for showing favour in the matter of the notice served upon the complainant and you thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 within my cognizance.
Secondly, on 30.4.05 at about 6.15 p.m. near New Bengal Taxi Service stand RUBlock Pitampura you being a public servant as you were posted as Junior Engineer (Building) MCD Rohini Zone, Delhi obtained Rs.20,000/ from above said complainant Sh. Mangat Ram Khatri as pecuniary advantage for yourself by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise by abusing your position as a public servant and you handed over Rs.20,000/ received by you from the complainant to Sh. Didar Singh taxi driver with a direction to handover the bribe amount of Rs.
20,000/ to Gurmail Singh owner of the taxi stand CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 5 of 40 6 and Gurmain Singh received the above said amount and kept the same in the right side pocket of his kurta which was recovered from his kurta pocket and you thereby committed an offence of a criminal misconduct as specified by Section 13(1) (d) Prevention of Corruption Act, within my cognizance."
5. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined twenty witnesses to establish its case, while accused examined one witness from MCD in his defence.
6. PW1 examined by prosecution was Dr. Rajender Singh from CFSL. He deposed that he had received two sealed parcels connected with this case containing audio cassettes. One cassette was recording of questioned conversation while other one was specimen voice recording of the accused. After examining the two cassettes Q1 and S1, he gave his report Ex.PW1/A. He found that the two voices tallied with each other. In his crossexamination he admitted that in his final opinion he had stated that questioned voice was probable voice of the accused and probability of identification of the voice was more than 99%. He admitted that mimicry CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 6 of 40 7 was possible but it could be identified by spectographic techniques.
7. The second witness to be examined was Mr. Mahesh Kumar from MCD. He deposed that in 2005 he was working as LDC/Store Keeper in the office of Executive Engineer (Bldg.) Rohini Zone. Production cum seizure memo Ex.PW2/A was signed by him and he had handed over original stock register of stationery/printed books which was Ex.PW2/B. He deposed further that FIR book bearing serial No. 20301 to 20400 was issued to the accused Y.S. Chauhan. Show cause notice book bearing serial No. 30126 to 30150 was also issued to accused. Demolition book from serial No. 27576 to 27600 had also been issued to the accused. All these items had been issued by him. They were Ex.PW2/C, PW2/D and PW2/E.
8. PW5 was Mr. Praveen Chaudhary again from MCD. He deposed that he had handed over original FIR book, show cause notice book and demolition order book to CBI. They were seized vide memo Ex.PW5/A. He claimed that accused Y.S. Chauhan was his predecessor . In his crossexamination by Ld. PP, he admitted that his statement Ex.PW5/B had been recorded by CBI. He further admitted that FIR was in two copies. The original is kept in the concerned file and duplicate remains in the FIR book. Demolition order CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 7 of 40 8 and show cause notice consists of four copies, while the original is given to property owner. One copy was kept in the concerned file.
9. The sixth witness who entered the witness box was Capt. Rakesh Bedi, Nodal officer Bharti Airtel. He claimed that he had issued letter Ex.PW6/A along with it, he had enclosed enrollment form in respect of mobile No. 9818136515 which was in the name of Y.S. Chauhan. He had also provided call details Ex.PW6/C.
10. PW8 was Mr. Gulshan Arora Nodal Officer from Hutchinson Essar Mobile Service. He deposed that mobile No. 9811240998 was in the name of Mr. R.K. Khatri of 273, PocketG VII, Sector16, Rohini. He had provided call details to CBI which was Ex.PW8/B.
11. Mr. Ashok Kumar, Vice Chairman DDA was ninth witness to be examined. He deposed that on 22.3.2006 he was posted as Commissioner MCD. He was competent to accord sanction for prosecution of accused Y.S. Chauhan. He perused request made along with copies of FIR, rukka etc. He applied his mind and accorded sanction for prosecution which was Ex.PW9/A. He denied the suggestion that he had not applied his mind while CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 8 of 40 9 granting sanction or was not competent to do so.
12. The tenth witness to be examined by CBI was Mr. S.K. Chauhan, Asstt. Engineer MCD. He deposed that in 2005 accused was working as Jr. Engineer under him. On 2.5.2005, office almirah of accused was searched by CBI officers and file No. 183/B/UC/RZ/05 was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A. The file was Ex.PW10/A1. The property had been booked on complaint which was marked by Executive Engineer to him. The file contained FIR dt. 8.4.05, notice dt. 8.4.05, report of the accused regarding service of notice and notice for demolition dt. 20.4.05. Vide FIR no. 20339 unauthorized construction in G1/198199, Sector16 Rohini was booked. The FIR was Ex.PW10/B. On basis of said FIR, he had issued show cause notice Ex.PW10/C to M.R. Khatri and then notice of demolition Ex.PW10/D. Notice Ex.PW10/D had been pasted at the address mentioned therein. Vide the said notice owner was asked to demolish the unauthorized construction within six days. Upon being crossexamined by Ld. Counsel, he claimed that accused was authorized to deal with the file sent to him in course of official duties. He also had the power to retain the file. He also admitted that complainant Mr. Khatri had never made any complainant against the accused at any time. He also claimed that JE was empowered to CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 9 of 40 10 carry out demolition, but no power to undo the demolition order.
13. PW13 was Mr. Dilip Kumar Gautam from MCD. He deposed that complaint No. 257 dt. 29.3.05 Ex.PW13/A was in respect of unauthorized construction in G1/198199, Sector 16, Rohini. The complaint was registered in the complaint register and forwarded to Executive Engineer (Bldg.). Production cum seizure memo dt. 29.7.05 was Ex.PW13/B. Copy of the complaint register was Ex.PW13/C, while copy of the peon book was Ex.PW13/D.
14. PW14 was Inspector R.C. Sharma. He deposed that he was posted as Sub Inspector in CBI. Complaint of M.R. Khatri was Ex.PW7/A. It was marked to inspector A.K. Pandey by the SP. The FIR register was Ex.PW14/A. It was entrusted to him in May 2005 for investigation. Accused Y.S. Chauhan, Gurmail Singh and Didar Singh were arrested and bribe money had been recovered from them. He carried out investigation, scrutinized the evidence, recorded statement of Gurmail Singh and Didar Singh u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. He got recorded their statements u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. also. The articles were sent to CFSL vide letter Ex.PW14/J. Audio cassettes were sent vide letter Ex.PW14/K. Report of CFSL Ex.PW14/L had been received. He had seized CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 10 of 40 11 various documents and registers. He collected call details, recorded statement of the witnesses u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. After obtaining sanction from the competent authority, filed the charge sheet. Upon being crossexamined, he claimed that he had worked under Sh. S.C. Tiwari for about two years. He had also verified antecedents of M. R. Khatri and did not find anything wrong. He was not aware that M.R. Khatri was involved in a kidnapping case and Gurmail Singh and Didar Singh were running illegal chits. He denied the suggestion that statement of Didar Singh and Gurmail Singh got recorded under pressure.
15. Inspector A.K. Pandey thereafter entered the witness box. He deposed that he was posted as Inspector CBI in 2005. On 30.4.05, SP had called him and introduced to complainant. Complaint Ex.PW7/A was marked to him for investigation. He took complainant to his room and verified the facts mentioned therein. A trap team was organized. Complainant produced Rs. 20,000/ in denomination of Rs.100/ each. The notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and demonstration was given. Digital tape recorder was arranged and voice of independent witnesses was recorded. Independent witness Mr. Rajesh Ahuja was directed to act as shadow witness and over hear conversation. The team had left in two government vehicles and they CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 11 of 40 12 reached near office of the complainant at about 3.30 pm. At about 3.40 p.m., a car stopped near office of the complainant. Two persons came out and entered complainant's office. Soon thereafter they came out alongwith complainant and sat in the car and went towards main road. They were followed in discrete manner. The car came back to office of the complainant. Complainant got down. Complainant telephonically informed him (Insp. A.K.Pandey) that accused along with another person had come to his office. He had demanded bribe and told complainant that he would collect it later on. Team waited till 5 pm, but accused did not turn up. They then left for CBI office. On the way he received telephone call from the complainant. Complainant told him that accused had called him to place near Pitampura Court. Upon meeting complainant informed him that accused had asked him to meet at Bengal Taxi Stand, RUBlock, Pitam Pura. CBI team at about 6.30 pm., upon reaching taxi stand took positions and saw complainant talking to the accused. After 10 minutes preappointed signal was given by the shadow witness. Complainant and shadow witness informed that bribe amount had been handed over to taxi driver Didar Singh by the accused and who had then handed over to Gurmail Singh. All three of them were caught and their hand washes were taken one after another. The GC notes were recovered from kurta pocket of Gurmail Singh. They were recovered and CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 12 of 40 13 tallied with the handing over memo. Inner part of Kurta pocket was also dipped in solution of sodium carbonate and it turned pink. The digital recorder was played which confirmed demand of bribe. Conversation was transferred to two audio cassettes. The accused were arrested. Car of Y.S. Chauhan was searched and some documents were seized. Office of Y.S. Chauhan was also searched and statement of few witnesses was recorded and investigation was then transferred to R.C. Sharma. Specimen voice of Y.S. Chauhan had been taken by him. Documents were seized from R.B. Sharma's office. Upon being crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for the accused, witness claimed that he did not make efforts to verify antecedents of the complainant. The demonstration had been given by inspector C.K. Sharma. He could not recollect registration number of maruti gypsy and maruti van in which they had gone to lay the trap. He also did not seize their log books. At the relevant time there were 45 taxis present at the spot and 23 more persons were sitting at the taxi stand . They were not joined in the investigation. Pant of the complainant was not washed in the solution of sodium carbonate. The cassette had been prepared at the spot. He admitted that no recovery had been affected from Y.S. Chauhan. However, he denied the suggestion that Y.S. Chauhan had not demanded Rs.20,000/ or that he had not given any money to Gurmail Singh and Didar Singh.
CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 13 of 40 14
16. Mr. D.S. Danda was the next witness to be examined. He deposed that he was given additional charge of Rohini Zone as Executive Engineer in March 2004. Accused Y.S. Chauhan was working under his control and S.K. Chauhan was incharge of Ward No. 27 & 33. FIR Ex.PW16/A was contained in file Ex.PW10/A1. The said FIR was made by accused Y.S. Chauhan JE and approved by S.K. Chauhan AE. It was regarding unauthorized construction. Ex.PW16/B was show cause notice issued by S.K. Chauhan AE. It had been issued to M.R. Khatri for removal of unauthorized construction. Ex.PW16/C was approval letter for issuing demolition notice. Ex.PW16/D was copy of the demolition notice prepared by accused in his own handwriting. It had been approved by S.K. Chauhan. He further deposed that accused Y.S. Chauhan had been arrested by CBI on 20.04.2005 at taxi stand RUBlock Pitampura. No intimation had been received regarding his arrest. He had received information through his office. Upon being crossexamined, he admitted that accused was empowered to get FIR registered for unauthorized construction and also issue subsequent notices. Once demolition notice is issued, it cannot be revoked. If a party refuses to accept the notice, it is pasted at the site.
17. Sh. R.P. Sharma was the next witness to be examined by CBI. He CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 14 of 40 15 deposed that in May 2005 he was posted as office Incharge (Bldg.). Ex.PW10/A was office search cum seizure memo which had been prepared in his presence and he had signed it. CBI had seized various documents vide the memo. Vide memo Ex.PW15/A he had handed over documents to CBI. Missal band register and original attendance register Ex.PW15/B & PW15/C were the documents handed over by him. On being crossexamined, he claimed that JE had to make report regarding illegal constructions and AE never visits the site of an unauthorized construction and he acts upon the report forwarded by the JE.
18. PW18 Mahesh Chand deposed that he was working as Beldar in Zonal Office MCD and his duty was to receive complaints regarding unauthorized construction. At S. No. 257 of Ex.PW13/C he had made an entry regarding receipt of a complaint of Town Hall regarding unauthorized construction in G1/198199, Sector16, Rohini. He referred the same to Executive Engineer. Attested copy of the peon book was Ex.PW13/D.
19. PW19 was Mr. Bhagat Singh, again from MCD. He deposed that on 30.04.2005 he had gone to the office of the accused. There he saw a person intimidating the accused. The witness was crossexamined by ld. PP CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 15 of 40 16 wherein he initially admitted that his statement was recorded by CBI and subsequently he claimed that his signatures were obtained on blank papers also. He totally denied having made statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. which was put to him. Upon being crossexamined by ld counsel for the accused he claimed that there was no complaint against accused regarding corrupt practices and the person sitting in the office was telling his name as Khatri.
20. Mr. P. Nath thereafter entered the witness box. He was from CFSL CBI. He deposed that he had examined seven sealed bottles which had been received in this case. All the seven exhibits gave positive tests for presence of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate. This report was Ex.PW14/L. Upon being crossexamined, he claimed that all the tests had been conducted in separate test tubes. As there was no such practice, he did not send those test tubes along with name of the chemicals used or remnants of the chemicals. He had personally performed the tests. The witness further admitted that if hands of 'A' were smeared with powder and he shakes hands with 'B', the powder may get transferred to hands of 'B'.
21. Star witness of the prosecution was Mr. Mangat Ram Khatri complainant in the case. He claimed that he was owner of house No. G1/198199 CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 16 of 40 17 Sector16 Rohini. In 2005, he was raising construction. While construction was in progress accused inspected the site. He also sent his persons and demanded Rs.50,000/. Accused threatened to demolish the construction if Rs.50,000/ was not given to him. On bargaining, accused agreed to accept Rs.20,000/ and the balance amount later on. Telephone No. 27890113 was installed at his office. Accused rang up this number. Call was attended by his employee. Accused threatened to demolish in case bribe was not paid. He (complainant) then contacted accused on his mobile phone. Accused reiterated his demand and threatened to demolish the construction. He (complainant) then lodged complaint Ex.PW7/A with CBI. He took Rs. 20,000/ to CBI office. In the CBI office, his GC notes were exchanged with new notes of Rs.20,000/. Some colour was applied to the notes and they were returned to him. He was also provided with recording instrument. The handing over memo was Ex.PW3/A. They then left CBI office and came to his office at G7/273, Sector16, Rohini. He along with one independent witness sat in his office while other team members took position outside. Thereafter, accused came to his office accompanied by one more person and told him to get money within an hour. After about half an hour, accused made a telephone call and told him that he was sitting at a taxi stand near court at Pitampura. Upon reaching there, he handed over tainted GC notes CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 17 of 40 18 to the accused. Accused accepted them with both the hands and handed it over to a non Sikh (mona) person from taxi stand. The said non Sikh person handed over the notes to one Sikh gentleman wearing kurta payjama. He kept those notes in pocket of his kurta. CBI team officers thereafter apprehended all three of them and questioned the accused about the tainted money. The GC notes were recovered from the pocket of the kurta of that Sikh gentleman. Hand washes of all the three persons were taken separately. The solutions turned pink. They were poured in bottles and labeled. The digital recorder was then played and heard by all. All other proceedings took around 34 hours at the spot. Recovery memo was Ex.PW3/B while production cum seizure memo was Ex.PW7/B. They contained his signatures. He also handed over show cause notice and demolition notice Ex.PW7/C and PW7/D to CBI. They had been issued by the accused. The GC notes were Ex.P1/1 to P1/200. The witness was crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he claimed that he had constructed 45 houses and never received any notice from DDA or MCD prior to 2005. He denied the suggestion that he had received notices regarding his other constructions or that he had moved civil court against them. He volunteered that he had filed a suit before a civil court regarding notice received for the present construction. Further he claimed that accused was known to him CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 18 of 40 19 since JanuaryFebruary 2005. He denied the suggestion that accused used to warn him against raising unauthorized construction. He had 23 employees working for him but he could not recollect name of the employee who had received telephone call from the accused. He could not remember the floor/wing of the building where he had gone to lodge his complaint with CBI. It had taken them about 45 hours to complete the proceedings at the spot. He could not remember name of the officer who had affected recovery from the pocket of Sikh gentleman, but he reiterated that GC notes were recovered from the pocket of Sikh gentleman. He also claimed that accused was apprehended by CBI officers from his arms and made to sit. They did not call any other independent witness from court or nearby places. No alteration was done in the documents prepared at the spot. His antecedents were not enquired into. The person who had accompanied him in the car was present just in front of him at the spot. The Sikh and the non Sikh individuals of the taxi stand were not known to him prior to the incident. He denied the suggestion that he (complainant) had gone to taxi stand and requested for 34 vehicles to go for religious tour and the money handed over by him was for the said purpose.
22. CBI had also examined the independent witnesses. The first independent CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 19 of 40 20 witness was Rajesh Ahuja from Delhi Government. He deposed that in April 2005 he was posted as Assistant Value Added Tax Officer. On 30.4.2005, on directions of his seniors he along with Birender Kumar Steno went to CBI office. He was shown the written complaint which was regarding illegal gratification of Rs.20,000/. Complainant produced the trap money. The notes were treated with phenolphthalein and they were handed back to the complainant with direction to deliver on demand to the accused. He (PW Rajesh Ahuja) was directed to act as shadow witness and give signal on completion of transaction. A digital recorder was handed over to Mr. Khatri after introductory voices of him (Rajesh Ahuja ) and Birender Kumar were recorded. They left for office of the complainant at Sector16 Rohini. He along with the complainant went inside complainant's office and waited. Shortly, thereafter accused came in the office. He took complainant to a vehicle parked outside. He (Rajesh Ahuja) wanted to accompany but accused did not allow him to accompany them. In his presence complainant had offered the GC notes and accused had told him that he would accept afterward. After some time complainant came back, but accused did not come. They decided to go back to CBI office. While they were proceeding to CBI office, a telephone call was received by a team member that accused had agreed to accept the money and they reassembled CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 20 of 40 21 at petrol pump on outer ring road. He again sat with the complainant in his car while team followed them. They stopped outside a taxi stand where accused was waiting. Complainant and accused started having conversation. Thereafter, he saw complainant and accused going inside taxi stand and after some conversation, complainant handed over the tainted GC notes to accused. After accepting the money, accused extended those notes towards a Sardarji, that Sardarji in turn extended them to another Sardarji. The second Sardarji after accepting the money kept it in pocket of his kurta. He (Rajesh Ahuja) then gave preassigned signal. CBI team members then rushed inside and challenged the accused. He (Rajesh Ahuja) then explained the situation. Search of second Sardarji was taken and the tainted GC notes were recovered. They were tallied with handing over memo Ex.PW3/A and they tallied fully. Thereafter, hand washes of all the three persons and kurta pocket wash was taken. All the solutions turned pink. The digital recorder was taken back and played. The conversation was transferred into two audio cassettes of which one was sealed. All three were arrested. Site plan Ex.PW3/D was prepared. Car of the accused was also searched. In August, they were called to CBI office to confirm voice recording and transcripts. The witness was crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he claimed that his statement was recorded by CBI at the spot. The CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 21 of 40 22 complainant was not known to him prior to 30.04.2005. When he reached CBI office, complainant was already present. He could not remember if any member of trap team had signed the GC notes. He claimed further that he had sat with complainant Mangat Ram Khatri in his vehicle. No other person was present in the vehicle. CBI team had followed them in two vehicles. He further claimed that after they left complainant's office that had travelled 2 ½ /3 k.m. when telephone call from complainant was received and then they diverted. The taxi stand was not pakka one. It was situated in a park and it was not covered. Accused had come on his own at the taxi stand. He admitted that CBI officers had prepared the documents while sitting at the spot and obtained his signatures at one go. He claimed that he was at a distance of about 1011 feet from the Sardarji who had taken money. Complainant Mangat Ram was standing with the accused at that time. They had finally left the spot at about 9.30 p.m. and lastly he claimed that he was not informed by the taxi stand Sardarjis that accused used to have committee with them.
23. Sh. Birender Kumar second independent witness was also examined. His testimony is on the lines of testimony of other independent witness Rajesh Ahuja. He claimed that complainant had produced Rs.20,000/ in the CBI CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 22 of 40 23 office. He deposed that phenolphthalein powder was applied on the GC notes and demonstration was given. His and Rajesh Ahuja's introductory voices were recorded in the digital recorder. Rajesh Ahuja was directed to remain with the complainant. Upon reaching office of the complainant, he was asked to remain in the park in front of office of the complainant alongwith one CBI officer. After waiting sometime, they were called inside the office of the complainant and told that trap could not be completed. They then left for CBI office. On their way back, a phone call was received and they returned to the office of the complainant. He was informed that they were to reach a petrol pump. There they were told to reach a taxi stand. He remained present with the member of CBI team near taxi stand. At the taxi stand, he was asked to recover tainted GC notes from a sardarji present at the taxi stand. He then recovered Rs. 20,000/ from his kurta pocket. He also tallied their numbers with the memo and found them to be tallied. The witness then deposed about hand washes and kurta wash which were taken, transferring of the solution in bottles. Next day he visited CBI office and the cassette was played and he confirmed the transcription. Upon being cross examined, he admitted that his statement was recorded by CBI. Two CBI officers had caught hold of the accused from his both hands. The site plan had been prepared at the spot. He had remained at the spot till about 12.00 CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 23 of 40 24 mid night.
24. CBI also examined the two taxi drivers to whom tainted money was handed over, in support of its case. PW Didar Singh deposed that he used to stay at Taxi stand of Bengal Taxi Service. The taxi service belonged to his maternal uncle Gurmail Singh. Accused used to visit their taxi stand occasionally and ask him to get liquor. On 30.4.05 he had returned after his duty. He used to drive vehicle. Accused was sitting at the taxi stand and he asked him to bring liquor. He brought a liquor bottle for him and went to take a bath. The accused then called him and told him to take cash and hand it over to Gurmail Singh. He did as asked. He was not aware as to how much money it was. He was then caught by CBI. They took his hand washes and that of Gurmail Singh. The colour changed to pink. Later on he and Gurmail Singh were sent to Jail. Upon being cross examined, he claimed that Gurmail Singh used to have committee but he did not know if accused Y.S. Chauhan was also contributor. He denied the suggestion that he was threatened by CBI. His uncle's washes were taken after about 23 mins. of his wash. He admitted having made his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. before Ld. MM.
CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 24 of 40 25
25. Gurmail Singh uncle of Didar Singh also similarly testified . He claimed that he was owner of Bengal Taxi Service at RU Block, Pitampura. He knew the accused and used to provide vehicles to him. At times, accused used to take liquor at his taxi stand. On 30.4.05, his nephew Didar Singh handed over Rs. 20,000/ to him and asked him to keep it as it belonged to Y.S. Chauhan. He kept the tainted money in kurta pocket. Thereafter CBI officers caught him. He informed them that money had been given by Didar Singh. Accused was also present at the spot. CBI arrested all three of them and took their hand washes. His kurta pocket was also washed. The tainted GC notes were also seized. On being cross examined, he claimed that he was in taxi business since 1993 and also used to run committee. Accused used to hire taxis from him. His statement had been recorded by the CBI. Lastly he denied the suggestion that he had made statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. at instance of CBI officers.
26. Thereafter, statement of accused was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he claimed to be innocent. He claimed that complainant used to pressurize him to allow his illegal construction while he wanted to take legal action against him. He denied the entire version of prosecution and admitted that phone No. 9818136515 was in his name. He claimed that he was against CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 25 of 40 26 builders in the area. He found complainant raising illegal construction. His objection annoyed Mangat Ram Khatri who falsely implicated him by colluding with CBI officers. Nothing had been recovered from him. Rather as soon as he reached taxi stand, he was immediately taken to CBI office and falsely implicated.
27. He examined one V.K. Tyagi Asstt. Engineer from MCD in his defence. V.K. Tyagi deposed that upon noticing unauthorized construction, JE lodges an FIR and puts up before AE. AE then passes order to issue notice. Three working days time is given to the person. In case no reply is received, then JE obtains demolition notice from the AE. Notice is served and in case of refusal, it is pasted at the site of illegal construction. There were no anamolies in Ex.PW2/C, PW10/B, PW10/A1, PW10/C, PW10/D. Upon being crossexamined by Ld. PP, he claimed that he could not say if notices were actually pasted on the property or not.
28. I have heard Ld. PP and Ld. Counsel for the accused very extensively. I have also gone through the file. Ld. Counsel for the accused had strong objections to examination of PW Didar Singh and Gurmail Singh by the prosecution. His objection was recorded by my Ld. Predecessor even at the CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 26 of 40 27 time of recording of their testimonies. Initially when the accused Y.S. Chauhan was arrested, Didar Singh and Gurmail Singh were also arrested alongwith him. After accepting tainted GC notes, Y.S. Chauhan had handed them over to Didar Singh who then passed them on to Gurmail Singh. The actual recovery was effected from Gurmail Singh. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed only against Y.S. Chauhan and not against remaining two. They were cited as a witness. Their statement was got recorded before Ld. Magistrate U/s 164 Cr.P.C. and thereafter they were examined in the court. Ld. Counsel claimed that prosecution should have got these two persons discharged and then sought permission before citing them as witness. He further claimed that IO should have given reasons for letting off Didar Singh and Gurmail Singh before citing them as witness. If we got thorugh testimony of IO inspector R.C. Sharma, we find that he had deposed that he could not come across any incriminating material against Gurmail Singh and Didar Singh. They were not aware about history of the money they had handled. I find corroboration to this averment from testimony of Didar Singh who had claimed that accused had handed over GC notes to him and asked him to pass them over to Gurmail Singh. He did as he was ordered to. He had claimed that he did not know as to what was the amount of money which had been handed over to him. This makes it very clear that Didar CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 27 of 40 28 Singh and Gurmail Singh did not have the knowledge. Didar Singh and Gurmail Singh had not been charge sheeted because there was no mens reas. Moreover if we go through Sec. 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, we find that accomplice is a competent witness. Even if for sake of argument, we consider Didar Singh and Gurmail Singh as accomplice of Y.S. Chauhan, still they were competent witnesses and could depose against Y.S. Chauhan. Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with similar situation in Laxmipat Choraria and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra: 1968 Cri. L.J. 1126 in that case smuggling racket was in operation which involved few Indians and Chinese personnels. They used to smuggle gold by BOAC flights. One Yau Mockchi approached one Sophia Yong of BOAC. She informed police. A trap was laid and Yau Mockchi was caught with suit case with gold in it. On search, visiting cards and photographs of several persons including Ethyl Wong were found. Ethyl Wong was examined as a witness in the case. The convicted accused persons challenged her examination. They claimed that she could not be examined as a witness. Hon'ble Supreme Court after examining the matter observed:
"The position that emerges is this: No pardon could be tendered to Ethyl Wong because the pertinent provisions did not apply. Nor could she be prevented CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 28 of 40 29 from making a disclosure, if she was so minded. The prosecution was not bound to prosecute her, if they thought that her evidence was necessary to break a smugglers' ring."
Thus to my mind, there was no harm in citing these two persons as witnesses in the matter and also examining them.
29. Ld. Counsel for the accused also pointed out few contradictions in evidence of witnesses. A contradiction in the testimony has emerged regarding involvement of two Sikhs or one Sikh and one Mona (Clean Shaven) in the case. PW3 in his testimony had claimed that after accepting tainted GC notes, accused handed them over to a sardarji. That sardarji in turn extended those notes towards another sardarji who kept them in his kurta pocket. Complainant Mangat Ram Khatri had claimed that after accepting tainted GC notes, accused handed them over to a mona and that mona handed over the money to a sikh gentleman wearing kurta. The Sikh gentleman kept those GC notes in pocket of his kurta. This contradiction is hardly of any significance. It is not worth taking note of. What matters is that accused handled the tainted GC notes and passed them on to a taxi driver who gave it to owner of the taxi stand from whom they were CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 29 of 40 30 recovered. The GC notes finally indeed were recovered from kurta of sardarji at taxi stand. Now if one taxi driver is Sikh or clean shaven does not matter. I would refer to a judgment titled as State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master: AIR 2010 SC 3071. Hon'ble Apex court had held:
"Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by IO not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of evidence as a whole.....
........Minor omissions in the police statement are never considered fatal....small trivial omissions would not justify a finding by the court that the witnesses concerned are liars........."
30. In a very recent decision in case titled as Sayed Ahmed Vs. State of Karnataka : 2012 AIR SCW 4389 my Lord Mr.Justice M.B. Lokur held:
"In over opinions, the discrepancy with regard to the attire of Syed Ahmed the Rs. 10/ currency note and the forensic examination of the wallet are rather minor discrepancy? This has been the subject matter of discussion in Abdul Nawaz Vs. CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 30 of 40 31 State of West Bengal, 2012 (5) SCALE 357 and Judgendra Singh: AIR 2012 SC 2254. After referring to a few earlier decisions of this court, it was held that discrepancy would be minor if it did not affect the substratum of the prosecution's case or impact on the core issue. In such an event the minor discrepancy could be ignored"
So we should over look this contradiction which is of insignificant nature. PW11 Didar Singh very categorically claimed that on 30.4.05 he was about to take his bath. Accused who was sitting at the taxi stand asked him to bring liquor bottle. He brought liquor for him and went on to take bath. Before he could start washing his clothes, accused called him again and told him to take the cash and hand it over to Gurmail Singh. He then took the money from accused Y.S. Chauhan and hand it over to Gurmail Singh. What more glaring evidence can be there to show acceptance of bribe amount by the accused.
31. PW19 was Mr. Bhagat Singh from MCD. He was subordinate of the accused, so he had to stand by his senior through thick and thin. He claimed that on 30.4.05 he had gone to the office of the accused Y.S. Chauhan. There he saw a person intimidating the accused. The witness claimed that the CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 31 of 40 32 person who was intimidating, was giving his name as Khatri. This just is not acceptable. Witness claimed that he did not know M.R. Khatri. It is difficult to believe that a person who is intimidating an MCD engineer in MCD's office is also uttering his name as Khatri. Where was the need for him to utter his name? Thus testimony of this witness does not go to aid of the accused in any manner. No sane person while threatening and intimidating a government officer in his own office would have to utter his own name. There was simply no need for him to utter his name.
32. Accused in statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. had claimed that he was called to the taxi stand and falsely implicated. A person may speak lie but computerized call records will not. If we take a look at the call records which are Ex. PW8/B and PW6/C, we find that it was accused who had telephoned M.R. Khatri at 3:31 pm and thereafter at 5:33 pm. So there was no way for the complainant to have lured the accused to the taxi stand to falsely implicate him.
33. The substance of the complaint Ex. PW7/A also find corroboration from the call records. In the complaint, complainant had claimed that he had telephonic conversation with accused Y.S. Chauhan on 29.4.05 when CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 32 of 40 33 accused agreed to accept Rs. 20,000/ on 30.4.05. The call records support this part of the complaint.
34. Statement of Didar Singh and Gurmail Singh had been recorded by Ld. MM u/s 164 Cr.P.C. The statements were on oath and they were to the effect that accused had come to the taxi stand on 30.4.05. He used to visit the taxi stand and consume liquor over there. He procured a bottle of liquor. Thereafter he had handed over two bundles of currency notes of Rs.100/ each to Didar Singh and told him to pass it on to Gurmail Singh. Rather Gurmail Singh also deposed in his statement that he did not refuse to keep the money as he feared that MCD might remove his taxi stand. All this clearly points out that indeed accused had called the complainant to the taxi stand and accepted GC notes which he passed on to Didar Singh.
35. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that accused was within his powers to issue notice for unauthorized construction and also retain the files. He further submitted that CFSL expert PW1 Sh. Rajender Singh did not say that voice of complainant M.R. Khatri was also recorded in the cassettes.
36. Even if the witness did not talk about voice of M.R. Khatri in the CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 33 of 40 34 cassettes and even if the recordings were not played in the court and transcriptions not proved, the records of the mobile company clearly indicate that they had been conversing with each other.
37. Ld. Counsel further submitted that PW3 Rajesh Ahuja claimed that sample voices of himself Birender were recorded in the CBI office. He did not say that sample voice of complainant M.R. Khatri was also recorded. TLO Inspector A.K. Pandey also did not talk about recording of sample voice of M.R.Khatri. I would like to submit that there was no requirement of recording specimen sample voice of M.R. Khatri in the DVR and other recording devices in which conversation between accused and complainant was proposed to be recorded.
38. Ld. Counsel further pointed out few contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses. He claimed that according to PW3 Rajesh Ahuja, while he was sitting in office of the complainant accused came with two persons in his car. TLO inspector A.K. Pandey had claimed that accused had come with one person. He further submitted that according to PW3, washes were taken in separate glass bottles but in cross examination witness claimed that a jug was used for taking of washes. PW4 Birender Kumar had claimed that he CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 34 of 40 35 could not tell as to who had brought water at the spot for taking of hand washes. He also claimed that water was there in a bucket. To my mind, this is totally insignificant as to who had brought the water for taking of hand washes. Ld. Counsel also claimed that different witnesses have contradicted themselves while talking about the order in which washes were taken. This again is totally insignificant and does not affect the case of prosecution regarding demand and acceptance of bribe.
39. Regarding contradictions which have been brought in, I would like to submit that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kulesh Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal: 2008 Cri. L. J. 325 had held:
" As observed by this court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Kalki normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there, however, honest and truthful a witness may be material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized.
While normal discrepancies do not corrode the CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 35 of 40 36 credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so."
40. In still another case Rammi @ Rameshwar Vs. State of M.P.: AIR 1999 SC 3544 Hon'ble Apex Court held that no true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Hon'ble court held that probably an untrue witness who is properly tutored can make his testimony non discrepant.
41. Now coming back to facts in hand, the core issue is whether Y.S. Chauhan had accepted money or not from the complainant. All other facts are not of that importance as to in which order hand washes were taken or who had procured water for taking of hand washes.
42. Ld. Counsel also claimed that PW3 Rajesh Ahuja could not have heard the demand in the taxi stand. At the most, he had seen handing over of money. I would submit that demand had been made much earlier and not at the taxi stand. It can be assumed from the telephone records which indicate conversation between accused and the complainant, conduct of the accused in coming to office of the complainant and taking him away in his car. He CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 36 of 40 37 had certainly not taken complainant away for a joy ride. He had come there for a purpose and he completed that purpose by taking away complainant in his car.
43. I would like to refer to case decided by our own Delhi High Court titled as Ram Chander Vs. State : 2009 Cri. L.J. 4058. His Lordship had held:
"A presumption as to the demand of bribe can also be drawn if the tainted money i.e. the money tendered as bribe money is recovered from the possession of the accused, which presumption of course is rebuttable.
However if the explanation given by the accused about recovery of such money is false, it may be taken as an adverse circumstance against the accused"
44. His Lordship had further held that if explanation given is false, it can be used adversely against the accused and can strengthen the presumption u/s 20 of the Act. In B. Noha Vs. State of Kerala : 2006 (VI) AD Cri. 465, Hon'ble Apex Court had held that when there was voluntary and conscious acceptance of money, there was no further burden cast on the prosecution to prove by direct evidence the demand or motive. Thus I do not find any merit in the submission made by Ld. Counsel that there was no demand of CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 37 of 40 38 bribe. It has amply been proved that there was demand of bribe and certainly accused had not taken complainant with him in his own car for an ice cream or a joy ride.
45. PW12 Gurmail Singh seems to be over enthusiastic to save the accused. Initially in his examination in chief, he supported prosecution by saying that accused used to take liquor at their taxi stand and on 30.05.05, Didar Singh his nephew handed over Rs.20,000/ and asked him to keep the cash which belonged to the accused. In his crossexamination, he claimed that CBI officer had threatened him . Statement of Gurmail Singh was recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. by Ld. MM. He made no claim before Ld. MM about the threats. Ld. MM would have recorded his statement only after satisfying himself of it's voluntary nature. Moreover, Gurmail Singh after being threatened did not make any complaint to any individual or Body about the threats. So, his statement indeed was voluntary. He claimed in his cross examination that some powder was applied on the hands of the accused and then his hand wash was taken. In his over enthusiasm he made such a statement, because even accused did not make such a claim in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. Rather in answer to question No. 17 which pertained to his hand wash, he simply claimed that evidence was incorrect. Even in CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 38 of 40 39 statement to the Ld. MM u/s. 164 Cr.P.C., he did not make any claim that any powder was sprinkled on the hands of the accused before taking wash.
46. PW Gurmail Singh in his crossexamination had claimed that he used to run committees and accused was participant in one of them. No document of any kind was placed on record regarding the said committees. Accused did not make any such claim of being member of committees in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. And even if for sake of argument, we accept his claim as correct that he was member of a committees, there was no occasion for complainant M.R. Khatri to make payment of Rs.20,000/ on his behalf to any body. Here hand washes of accused show that he had handled the tainted money.
47. Even in statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. accused did not make any claim that he had shaken hands with complainant or anybody else and thus there is no possibility of hands of accused getting smeared with phenolphthalein powder on the day of trap. No such claim was made in statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. If he had handed over money as taxi fare then there was no way in which hands of Y.S. Chuahan could have got smeared with phenolphthalein powder because there was no reason to hand over money for the taxi tours to CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 39 of 40 40 MCD Engineer.
48. It is a settled law that duty is a court to separate grain from the chaff. After separating the chaff, it emerges from testimony of Gurmail Singh that indeed accused Y.S. Chauhan had visited the taxi stand on 30.4.05. It is also clear that he had accepted tainted GC notes from the complainant and handed them over to Didar Singh who in turn handed them over to Gurmail Singh from whom they were recovered. Testimony of other remaining witnesses also point towards guilty of the accused.
49. Thus, I hold that prosecution has been successful in making out its case u/s. 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act against accused Y.S. Chauhan. He stands convicted accordingly U/s 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act.
Announced in open Court
on December 14, 2012. ( PRADEEP CHADDAH )
Special Judge:CBI01
Central District. Delhi
CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 40 of 40
41
CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 41 of 40
42
CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 42 of 40
43
CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 43 of 40
44
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRADEEP CHADDAH:
SPECIAL JUDGE: CBI01, CENTRAL DISTRICT. DELHI
CC No. 42/06 RC No. 22(A)/05
PS: CBI/ACB/ND
CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan
S/o Sh. S.P.S. Chauhan
R/o 4A, MIG Flats, Rampura,
Lawrence Road, New Delhi.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. This Court had vide its judgment dated 14.12.12, found the
convict guilty U/s. 7 and 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act.
2. I have heard Sh. Praneet Sharma, Ld. PP for CBI and Sh. Sanjay Suri, Ld. Counsel for convict at length.
3. Sh. Praneet Sharma, Ld. PP prayed for taking of strict view of the matter and granting of exemplary punishment to the convict. He further prayed that sentences which should be awarded to the convict should run consecutively. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the convict prayed for CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 44 of 40 45 taking of lenient view. He claimed that convict faced agony of trial for 6 years. He was 54 years old and had a medical history of heart disease.
4. I have given my considered thought to the submissions made.
5. Convict Y.S. Chauhan was posted as Junior Engineer in MCDIt was his duty to keep an eye on illegal construction being carried out in his area and to check it. Instead of doing his duty diligently, he did exactly the opposite. Complainant who was raising construction was threatened with sealing and demolition in case he did not cough up money. Complainant instead of complying with the illegal and illegitimate extortion, made a complaint to CBI and got the convict trapped while accepting Rs.20,000/.
6. My Lord Mr. Justice Krishna Iyer in Som Prakash Vs. State of Delhi : AIR 1974 SC 989 held:
"Bribes are paid not only to get unlawful things done but to get lawful things done promptly since time means money."
7. In the instant case also convict had demanded bribe for looking the CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 45 of 40 46 other way. Instead of taking action against alleged illegal construction which was part of his duty, he tried to extract his pound of flesh. He was being paid by the state exchequer for doing his job. He could not resist greed of making easy money and demanded bribe.
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raman Lal Vs. State of Bombay :AIR 1960 SC 961 had held:
" For a public servant to be guilty of corruption is a very serious matter and the Courts would not look upon it with undue leniency."
9. The menace of corruption has entered into each and every segment of society. Because lenient views have been taken in past, we have reached the present hopeless situation. The entire city of Delhi bears signs of illegal unauthorized constructions. Where 2 ½ floors are permitted, 4 to 5 floors have come up with blessings of MCD officials. Having given my considered thought, I am of the view that convict does not deserve any CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 46 of 40 47 leniency. However, keeping in mind his age and back ground, I sentence convict Y.S. Chauhan to undergo three years R.I. U/s 7 of P.C. Act . In addition, he shall be paying fine of Rs. 1,00,000/ and in default of payment of fine, he shall be undergoing S.I. for six months. I also sentence him to undergo RI for three years U/s 13 (1) (d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act. In addition, he shall be paying fine of Rs. 1,00,000/ and in default of payment of fine, he shall be undergoing S.I. for six months.
10. The request made by Learned Special PP to the effect that sentences be ordered to run consecutively is declined. All the sentences of the convict shall run concurrently. He shall also be given benefits of period undergone as under trial (if any).
Announced in open Court
on December 14 , 2012 ( PRADEEP CHADDAH )
Special Judge:CBI01
Central District. Delhi
CC No.42/06 CBI Vs. Y.S. Chauhan pg 47 of 40