Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Paras Goel on 5 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. HASAN ANZAR,
SPECIAL JUDGE, PC ACT (CBI)-03,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI
Registration/CC No. 62/2021
CNR No. DLCT11-000449-2021
RC No. 32(A)/2019
Under Section 201 IPC and Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption
Act.
Central Bureau of Investigation
Versus
1. Paras Goel
S/o Sh. Narender Kumar Goel
R/o
i) BC-27, Top Floor, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110088.
ii) BL-46, Second Floor, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-88.
(previous address)
Date of Institution : 12.11.2021
Arguments concluded on : 15.12.2025
Date of Judgment : 05.01.2026
Memo of Appearance
1. Ms. Priyanka Soni, Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI.
2. Shri Sanjay Gupta and Shri Raj Kamal Arya, ld. Counsels for Ac-
cused Paras Goel.
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the case are that one handwritten complaint dated 25.09.2019 was given by Shri Anuj Kumar to the SP, CBI, ACB CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 1 of 140 interalia, alleging that he is the proprietor of the firm M/s Vital Enterprises at his residence 8-B, J & K Pocket, Dilshad Garden, Delhi and he received a call from Paras Goel, who asked him to visit the office. It is also alleged that Sh. Anuj Kumar received a show-cause notice from GST Department and a reply of which was sent by him and he received a call from Paras Goel requiring him to visit his office on 24.09.2019. As per the direction, the complainant Anuj Kumar met Paras Goel and Paras Goel told him that if bribe of Rs. 1 lakh is not paid then GST registration of his firm would be cancelled and on further negotiation, the bribe amount was reduced to Rs. 25,000/-. Accused Paras Goel instructed the complainant Anuj Kumar to arrange the bribe money, which he would collect from the office of Anuj on 25.09.2019.
2. After receipt of the complaint Ex. PW1/A, the same was marked to SI Nitin Chaudhary for conducting verification proceedings. Independent witness Sh. Suresh Kumar was asked to join the verification proceedings and Inspector Pawan Lamba also joined the proceedings and for the purpose of verification, a DVR and memory card were arranged and its functioning was explained to the complainant as well as to the independent witness. The contents of the complaint were also explained to all the persons who were present in the office of CBI.
3. For the purpose of the verification, the CBI team alongwith the independent witness and the complainant went to the office-cum- residence of the complainant, where accused Paras Goel met the CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 2 of 140 complainant and during the said meeting, the bribe amount was reduced to Rs. 20,000/-. The conversations between the complainant and Paras Goel were recorded in the memory card through DVR and also confirmed the demand of bribe by accused Paras Goel.
4. After completion of the verification proceedings, a verification memo vide Ex.PW1/B was prepared containing the signatures of the concerned persons and consequent to the verification proceedings, a recommendation for registration of an FIR was made and accordingly, a case u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be called as PC Act), was registered against accused Paras Goel, Inspector, GST, by the CBI.
5. In order to apprehend accused Paras Goel for demanding and accepting an undue advantage of Rs. 20,000/-, a trap team was constituted on 25.09.2019 comprising Sh. Harish Chandra (TLO), apart from two independent witnesses, namely Suresh Kumar and Deepak Kumar Tamta, Doordarshan, Mandi House, New Delhi.
6. In the office of the CBI, the usual pre-trap proceedings such as application of phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes of Rs. 20,000/-, which the complainant had brought (comprising 8 GC notes of Rs. 500/- and 8 GC notes of Rs. 2,000/-), were conducted. The pre- trap proceedings were detailed in Ex. PW1/C.
7. After conclusion of the pre-trap proceeding, the CBI team alongwith the independent witnesses proceeded towards Akshardham CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 3 of 140 Metro Station and thereafter, a call was received by the complainant Anuj Kumar on his Mobile Phone from Paras Goel, in which accused Paras Goel enquired about his whereabouts and during the discussion between accused Paras Goel and the complainant, Paras Goel agreed to come to Akshardham Metro Station. Thereafter, the CBI team and both the independent witnesses left the office of CBI at 06:40 PM and when CBI team including complainant were enroute to Akshardham Metro Station, Paras Goel called on the mobile phone of the complainant to enquire about the time of arrival at the spot. The CBI team alongwith the complainant proceeded to Akshardham Metro Station via Pragati Maidan Metro Station and thereafter, the CBI team alongwith the complainant and the independent witnesses reached Akshardham Metro Station during which calls between Accused Paras Goel and the complainant were exchanged which were recorded in the memory card through DVR. Upon reaching Pragati Maidan, the complainant informed about his arrival to Paras Goel and thereafter, the complainant alongwith the shadow witness Sh. Suresh Kumar, moved towards downstairs leading outside the Akshardham Metro Station and both of them were followed by Deepak Kumar Tamta (independent witness), Trap Laying Officer and other CBI members and after some time, the complainant and Paras Goel met each other and some discussions ensued between them and during the course of discussion, the complainant told accused Paras Goel, that he had brought Rs. 20,000/- and asked him to count the same, however, accused Paras Goel asked the complainant to put/keep the bribe money in his pocket. The said transaction was witnessed by the shadow witness and it was also observed by the CBI team and other CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 4 of 140 persons that both the complainant and accused Paras Goel were speaking to each other and after receiving a signal from the complainant, Insp. Harish Chandra caught hold the left hand wrist and Insp. Nitin Chaudhary caught hold the right hand of accused Paras Goel and accused Paras Goel was challenged for demanding and accepting Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant and it was inquired from the accused Paras Goel about his designation thereafter, the accused Paras Goel got perplexed and started crying and told about his designation. The tainted bribe money was recovered by the independent witness. It is also alleged that at the spot accused Paras Goel disclosed that the bribe amount was being collected on behalf of Sh. Nagesh Kumar Mallah, Asst. Commissioner and Deepak Kumar Tamta from the right side pocket of accused Paras Goel. and thereafter, a call was made to Nagesh Kumar Mallah and the accused sent a Whatsapp Message to Nagesh Kumar Mallah. At about 19:53 Hours accused Paras Goel drafted a message "Sir Vital Enterprises jisne revisit apply kari thi use 20 K aye hai. Kal le aunga", however, no response was received. At about 19:57 Hours, the accused Paras Goel again made a call to N.K. Mallah on his mobile number and during the call, N.K. Mallah showed his unawareness about the matter of Vital Enterprises and he asked Paras Goel to meet tomorrow. The said call was recorded in the memory card through DVR.
8. The recovered bribe amount was tallied with the denominations recorded in the handing over memo dated 25.09.2019 vide Ex.PW1/C and the same was found matched. Wash of the Right Side Jeans Pocket of accused Paras Goel was taken by dipping the inner side of CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 5 of 140 pocket in the Sodium Carbonate solution and the same turned Pink. The glass bottle containing the turned pink solution alongwith jeans and the trap money was seized and sealed. The memory card used for recording the conversation was taken out from the DVR and the same was seized and sealed and kept in an envelope. Thereafter, at about 10:40 Hours the accused Paras Goel was arrested in the present case. It was also noticed that Sh. N.K. Mallah had seen the message but did not reply it. During the personal search of the accused Paras Goel, a copy of the letter dated 20.09.2019 addressed to Asst. Commissioner for stay of cancellation of notice was also recovered. A detailed post- trap memorandum dated 25/26.09.2019 vide ExPW1/D was also prepared.
9. The claim of the accused Paras Goel obtained the bribe money on the direction of N.K. Mallah was not substantiated during the investigation.
10. Investigation further revealed that voice identification-cum- transcription memo dated 14.11.2019 of conversation recorded in Q-1 & Q-2 were prepared and during the proceedings, complainant and Suresh Kumar (independent witness) identified the voice of accused Paras Goel. Sh. N.K. Mallah, Asst, Commissioner and Tilak Raj, LDC posted at Ward No. 77, Deptt. of Trade & Taxes, GNCTD, Vyapar Bhawan, IP Estate, ITO, New Delhi vide voice identification memo dated 27.11.2019 also identified the voice of accused Paras Goel.
CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 6 of 14011. The relevant exhibit i.e. "RSJPW" bottle containing the colour solution was sent to CFSL and same confirmed the presence of Phenolphthalein.
12. Voice examination Report from CFSL also indicates that audio recordings contained the voices of accused Paras Goel and complainant.
13. A supplementary Charge-sheet was also filed in which it is stated that GST Inspectors and other staffs were directed to identify the non-existing tax payers and the accused Paras Goel was required to undertake field inspection, etc. It is also contended that Asst. Commissioner N.K. Mallah directed the accused to conduct field inspection of the defaulters who had not filed GST Returns and in pursuance of the same, accused Paras Goel had visited the spot and furnished report with respect to non functioning of the firm Vital Enterprises.
14. It is also alleged that inspection report was not handed over by accused Paras Goel and due to which the vital evidence was destroyed and thus, Section 201 IPC was invoked. It is also alleged that there are entries with respect to the revisit made by the accused in the diary in handwriting, which were confirmed by Handwriting expert and other persons.
15. After filing of the supplementary charge-sheet on 28.07.2022, the cognizance of the offence was taken and the accused Paras Goel CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 7 of 140 was summoned.
16. After the appearance of the accused Paras Goel, proceedings u/s 207 CrPC (Now Section 230 BNSS, 2023) were undertaken.
17. Vide order dated 15.03.2023, a charge u/s 7 of PC Act as well as u/s 201 IPC was framed against accused Paras Goel .
18. To substantiate its case against the accused Paras Goel, the Prosecution has examined 24 witnesses and their testimonies are being discussed below.
19. PW1 Sh. Anuj Kumar Sharma/complainant deposed that a business in the name of Vital Enterprises is being run from his residence since 2013-14 and around 10/11.09.2019, he received a call from accused Paras Goel about the location of his address who told PW-1 that GST number is to be cancelled as the firm was not found working at the given address. PW1 further deposed that either on 23.09.2019 or 24.09.2019, he received a phone call from Paras Goel on one of his phones i.e. 9818482536/ 9911245555 enquiring from him as to whether PW1 had reached Delhi and asked him to come at Aaykar Bhawan and accused Paras Goel told that GST registration would be cancelled and asked for "Kharcha Warcha" and "Kharcha Warcha" was explained by PW 1 that accused Paras Goel had demanded a bribe of Rs. 1 Lakh for stopping the cancellation of GST Registration including the share of Asst. Commissioner. After due negotiation, the bribe amount was reduced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.
CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 8 of 14025,000/- after several requests. PW-1 further deposed that Accused Paras Goel asked him to make arrangements of Rs. 25,000/- and told PW-1 that accused Paras Goel would collect it from his house on 25.09.2019. PW-1 further deposed that either on 24th or 25th September, 2019, he called CBI and thereafter, visited the office of CBI and gave a written application in Hindi vide Ex. PW1/A to Insp. Nitin. PW-1 further deposed that independent witnesses were arranged for the purposes of verification by CBI officials and in the office of CBI, where memory card and DVR were arranged and he was also explained about the use of chip placed in the recording device. PW 1 further deposed that in the office of CBI, independent witnesses were introduced with each other and upon the direction of the CBI officials in the presence of independent witnesses, he made a call to Paras Goel and after the said call accused Paras Goel reached the home of complainant/PW-1. PW-1/complainant and accused Paras Goel spoke to each other and during the conversation, accused Paras Goel asked whether amount of Rs. 25,000/- was arranged or not and PW-1 told Paras Goel, he could only arrange Rs. 20,000/- and during the conversation, accused Paras Goel told PW-1 that if the amount is not paid then, GST registration would be cancelled. PW-1 further deposed that conversation was also recorded in the memory card through DVR. PW-1 further deposed that in the office of CBI, verification memo bearing his signature as well as signatures of other persons was also taken. PW-1 also stated that he handed over DVR to the CBI officials on reaching the office of CBI.
20. PW-1 further deposed that in the office of CBI, he had handed CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 9 of 140 over amount of Rs. 20,000/- in the denominations of Rs.500/- and Rs.2000/- which were withdrawn by him from ATM to CBI officials and its distinctive serial numbers were noted and some chemical was smeared on the currency notes and demonstration of chemical with solution was also undertaken and his personal search was also undertaken at the office of CBI and independent witnesses Sh. Deepak Kumar Tamta to remain with him whereas Suresh Kumar shall stay with CBI team. Instructions were also given to independent witness Deepak Kumar Tamta to overhear the conversation. PW-1 further deposed that instructions were also given to him not to touch the tainted money before meeting the accused Paras Goel and to give the money on demand of accused Paras Goel. PW-1 further deposed that a DVR containing a memory card in Switched On position, was given prior to reaching Akshardham Metro Station. PW-1 further deposed that in the office of CBI, the handing-over memo vide Ex. PW1/C (D-4) was prepared on which he had signed and the proceedings continued up to 05:30/06: 00 PM on 25.09.2019 prior to leaving for the spot at Akshardham and accused Paras Goel called about the whereabouts of PW-1 which was recorded. PW-1 further deposed that CBI officials decided to alight near Pragrati Maidan Metro Station and decided to leave for the spot i.e. Akshardham through Metro and accordingly, he alongwith both the independent witnesses and CBI officials boarded metro from Pragati Maidan Metro Station and reached Akshardham Metro Station between 07- 08:00 PM. PW-1 further deposed that he was carrying the DVR with him in switch ON position and one independent witness had moved towards him and another independent witness remained at some CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 10 of 140 distance. PW-1 further deposed that he told accused Paras Goel that he had brought the money when asked by accused Paras Goel. PW-1 further deposed that accused Paras Goel had also asked whether PW-1 was having pain (difficulty) in giving the bribe amount and to which PW-1 answered in negative. PW-1 further deposed that on the asking of accused Paras Goel, he put the money in his right side pant pocket of accused Paras Goel. PW-1 further deposed that after completion of the transaction, he gave the pre-decided signal to the CBI team,wq which reached and caught hold the hand of accused Paras Goel and took accused Paras Goel to stairs adjoining to the garment shop and DVR was taken from him and switched it off. PW-1 further deposed that after the apprehension of Paras Goel, he started crying and told that money was accepted by him on behalf of his Commissioner and accordingly, accused Paras Goel made a Whatsapp Call to the Commissioner, which was not picked by the person on the other end. PW-1 further deposed that he as well as independent witness told about the location of the bribe money. PW-1 further deposed that pants of the accused was checked and the tainted money was recovered by members of the CBI team and upon counting, it was found to be Rs. 20,000/- . PW-1 further deposed that the said bribe money was recovered by Deepak from the right-side pant pocket of accused Paras Goel at the instance of the CBI officer. PW-1 further deposed that a pant was arranged from the nearby showroom and the pant which was worn by the accused Paras Goel was seized. PW-1 further deposed that the pant wash of the accused was taken and the colour of the pant as well as solution turned Pink which was transferred into a glass bottle which was capped. PW-1 also identified CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 11 of 140 the GC notes of Rs. 20,000/- vide Ex. PW1/3 after comparing it with handing-over memo. PW-1 identified his signatures on the rough site plan. PW-1 also identified the signatures on the recovery memo vide Ex. PW1/D. PW-1 further stated that recording was done on the date of trap like earlier and the proceedings continued till 26.09.2019. PW-1 further deposed that he visited the office of the CBI for the purposes of voice identification proceedings in which he identified his voice as well as the voice of accused Paras Goel and his signature vide Ex. PW1/E and he also identified the signatures on the transcription vide Ex. PW1/F (D-9) and identified his signatures on various articles. PW-1 identified his voice as well as the voice of accused Paras Goel in the audio files played in the court before him. PW-1 identified his signatures on memory card Ex. PW1/K and also identified the voice of independent witnesses in the audio recordings. PW-1 also identified his photo and signature on Customer Application Form vide Ex. PW2/C (Colly) with respect to his Mob. No. 9818482536 as well as on the Customer Application Form vide Ex. PW6/H with respect to his Mob. No. 9911245555 bearing his photograph and other documents. PW-1 also identified his signature on various documents/memos.
21. PW-2 Sh. Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer of Vodafone Idea Ltd. deposed that on the request of CBI, he handed over the original Customer Application Form (CAF) in the name of Anuj Kumar Sharma s/o Sh. Keshav Kumar Sharma with respect to mobile no. 9818482536 and certified copy of CDR for the period 23.09.2019 to 27.09.2019 and certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act in support CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 12 of 140 of the CDRs as well as Cell ID chart pertaining to aforesaid mobile number vide Production-cum-Seizure Memo Ex.PW2/A, which bears his signature. PW-2 further deposed that original CAF of Sh. Anuj Kumar bearing his photograph and all annexure i.e. mobile number portability form, certified copy of Aadhaar Card were brought on record vide Ex.PW2/C (Colly). PW-2 identified his signatures and stamp of Vodafone on the CDRs in three sheets in respect of Mobile No. 9818482536 vide Ex.PW2/D, Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act and on the Cell ID Chart of Mobile No. 9818482536 vide Ex.PW2/E and Ex.PW2/F. PW-2 further deposed that forwarding letter dated 05.11.2019, the certified copy of CAF, CDR for the period 08.09.2019 to 11.09.2019, Cell ID chart and certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act of Mobile No. 9818482536 to CBI were handed over to the CBI vide Ex.PW2/G (Colly), bearing his signature with stamp.
22. PW-3 Sh. Yatin Chawla was posted as Nodal Officer of Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd., Vikas Puri, New Delhi. PW-3 deposed that on the request of CBI, he handed over original Customer Application Form (CAF) in the name of Paras Goel s/o Sh. Narender Kumar Goel pertaining to mobile no. 8882566678 and certified copy of CDR for the period 23.09.2019 to 27.09.2019 and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act in support of the CDRs as well as Cell ID chart pertaining to aforesaid mobile number through his forwarding letter vide Ex.PW3/A. PW-3 further deposed that the original CAF of Paras Goel bearing his photograph and all the annexures i.e. the Aadhar Card of Paras Goel bears signatures of PW-3 as well as stamp CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 13 of 140 of Reliance Jio Infocomm letters vide Ex.PW3/B (Colly). PW-3 further deposed that he had identified his signatures as well as stamp of Reliance Jio Infocomm ltd. on the two sheets of CDRs vide Ex.PW3/C. PW-3 further deposed that he had also identified his signatures with seal of Reliance Jio Infocomm ltd. on the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as well as on the Cell ID Chart of Mobile No. 8882566678 vide Ex.PW3/D and Ex.PW3/E (Colly) respectively.
23. PW-4 Sh. Ajit Kumar was working as Data Entry Operator on Contract basis with Sale Tax, ITO New Delhi from 2019 to 2021. PW-4 deposed that on 15.10.2019 CBI Officer alongwith two officers from the Vigilance namely Sh. Surender Kumar and perhaps one lady namely Alka arrived in the office of Assistant Commissioner, Ward No. 77. PW4 further deposed that he operated the official computer with the help of Assistant Commissioner Sh. Nagesh Mallah who had provided him the Unique Digital Signature Key and printout of various documents which were seized vide memo Ex.PW4/A (Colly) and identified his signature on the memo Ex.PW4/A.
24. PW-5 Rakesh Kumar, Chartered Accountant deposed that Shri Anuj Kumar, proprietor of M/s Vital Enterprises used to file GST returns of the said firm to the GST Department through Online compliance and he received a call from Shri Anuj that he has received a text message on his phone from GST Department and as per the information/instructions of Shri Anuj Kumar, he logged in on GST portal and extracted that notice on GST portal and shared information CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 14 of 140 with Anuj that he has received the show-cause notice dated 13.09.2019 for cancellation of his firm's registration, and accordingly, he suggested Anuj to file reply to the show-cause notice with a proposal to request the Department to revisit the premises of the firm and as per instruction of him, Anuj Kumar prepared a reply and uploaded the reply online on the GST portal. PW5 further deposed that vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW5/A, he handed over certain documents to CBI bearing his signature, stamp and certification on the documents as well as the Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act vide Ex.PW5/B.
25. PW-6 Shri Rajiv Vashisht, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd, deposed that vide Ex.PW6/A (Colly) (09 pages) he had provided CDR, Customer Application Form (CAF) of mobile no. 9911245555 in the name of Anuj Kumar Sharma alongwith Certified copy of CDR (Ex.PW6/B) and Cell ID chart of mobile number from 23.09.2019 to 27.09.219. PW6 further deposed that vide forwarding letter dated 23.10.2019 Ex.PW6/D, he provided the certified copy of CAF of mobile number 9911245555, 9910877857 alongwith CDR, location chart from 08.09.2019 to 11.09.2019. PW6 further deposed that vide Ex.PW6/F, he provided original application form vide Ex.PW6/H, application form vide Ex.PW6/G for migration and original CAF of Sh. Narender Kumar Goel (Ex.PW6/J) alongwith Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act with CDR, etc.
26. PW-7 Shri Surender Kumar, Section Officer/GST Officer in Vigilance Section, Deptt. Of Trade & Taxes, Vyapar Bhawan, ITO, CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 15 of 140 New Delhi confirmed/identified the generation of document from the computer of Asstt. Commissioner Mr. Nagesh Mallah regarding the firm M/s Vital Enterprises. PW7 further deposed that on 15.10.2019, on the instruction of Alka Choudhary, he alongwith Pankaj Gupta, GST Inspector and other CBI officials went to the office of Asstt. Commissioner Nagesh Mallah to collect the relevant documents as required by the CBI where Nagesh Mallah accessed his computer system through relevant Login IDs and after opening the GST portal, the documents relating to M/s Vital Enterprises having GSTIN AXLPK4549G1Z7 were obtained and printout were taken and the documents were seized through seizure memo vide Ex. PW4/A (colly) (D-12) bearing the signature of PW-7.
27. PW-8 Sh. Nagesh Kumar Mallah, Asst. Commissioner in the Deptt. of Trade & Taxes Vyapar Bhawan was the superior officer of accused Paras Goel. He deposed that accused Paras Goel joined Ward No. 77 in July, 2019 and used to make field visit and assist in official work in Ward No. 77. PW-8 further deposed that the registration of a GST is done through online mode and thereafter, the relevant documents were verified by the Asst. Commissioner. PW-8 further deposed that an Inspector is required to conduct verification with respect to functioning of a firm on his instructions. PW-8 further deposed that Vital Enterprises was registered during VAT period and later on it migrated to GST Regime. PW-8 further deposed CBI officials alongwith two officials from the Vigilance Department visited his office wherein PW-7 accessed his computer system by filling in Log in ID and thereafter, the GST portal was opened and CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 16 of 140 screenshots of the desktop and GST portal was also taken and the documents pertaining to M/s Vital Enterprises such as i. Certified copy of screen shot of desktop and GST website portal, ii. Copies generated through GSTIN Portal of documents related to M/s Vital Enterprises having GSTIN07AXLPK4549G1Z7, iii. Screenshot of mail.in and iv. Receiving email (RED FLAT No. 1- Default by TOP Tax Payers for return period March 2019) vide Ex. PW4/A (colly, D-12) bearing his signature on all the documents as well as signature on the seizure memo and a certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act vide Ex. PW8/A was also furnished in support of the printout of the documents taken out from the computer system. PW-8 further deposed that a show cause notice dated 13.09.2019 vide Ex. PW5/A (colly) was issued to Anuj Kumar (Vital Enterprises) and its reply was given vide Ex. PW4/A contending that the firm is operating and a revisit/inspection could be made. PW-8 further deposed that after the receipt of the reply from Dealer, he made an endorsement "VATI please revisit as requested" on Ex.PW8/C i.e. to the accused Paras Goel. PW8 further deposed that a list of Tax Return Defaulter prepared by Electric Data Processing Unit of the Trade & Taxes Department as well as other information comes in DVAT Module and the information with respect to Ward No. 77 is segregated and thereafter, the defaulting party is approached for paying the tax, etc. and if contact is not made with the defaulter then, VAT Inspector/GST Inspector is asked to verify whether Firm is working or not and if VAT Inspector meets the defaulting party, then Inspector would ask him to file the Return and if the return is not filed then, show cause notice is issued to the defaulter and PW-8 further deposed that when CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 17 of 140 Inspector is unable to contact the tax payer/defaulter then, a report i.e. REG 30 Report is given wherein he informs that the Firm is not functioning and thereafter, the show cause notice is issued to defaulter. PW-8 further deposed that vide Ex. PW8/E, accused Paras Goel joined on 16.07.2019. PW-8 further deposed that he had handed over the list of defaulter vide Ex. PW4/A (Colly) to make phone calls to the defaulters to file their return as well as make a site visit and in the defaulter list, name of Anuj Kumar is mentioned at Point X on Page No. 20. PW-8 further deposed that he issued a show cause vide Ex. PW5/A (Colly) and asked the accused Paras Goel to hand over the Inspection Report to Tilak Chand, however, accused did not hand over the same to Tilak Chand since he was on leave and upon inquiries from Tilak Chand who told that inspection report was not provided by Accused Paras Goel.
28. PW-8 furnished the copy of casual leave application of Tilak Chand vide Ex. PW8/DA which was seized through seizure memo vide Ex. PW8/F. PW-8 further deposed that letter vide Ex.PW8/C bearing his endorsement was handed over to the accused Paras Goel for making diary entry and the relevant diary entry was made at Entry No. 1028 dated 23.09.2019 by the accused Paras Goel as Tilak Chand was on leave. PW-8 identified the handwriting and signature of the accused on the relevant entry. PW-8 further stated that on 20.09.2019, he was on leave and instructed the accused Paras Goel to submit a leave application vide Ex.PW8/I and he identified the handwriting of accused Paras Goel as well as the relevant entry vide Ex.PW8/J was made in the Dak Register at Sl. No. 1026 dated 20.09.2019. PW-8 CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 18 of 140 further deposed that on 25.07.2019, an application for leave vide Ex.PW8/L was signed by the accused Paras Goel and was forwarded to Assistant Commissioner and the same was seized through Seizure Memo vide Ex.PW8/D. PW-8 provided documents i.e. Minutes of Meeting vide reference F.No. 3(211)/Policy-GST/2018 dated 24.07.2019 vide Mark PW8/C through Seizure Memo vide Ex.PW8/K.
29. PW-8 further deposed that he identified his voice as well as the voice of accused Paras Goel and the same was also transcribed. PW-8 identified the voice of accused Paras Goel from various recordings played in the court since accused Paras Goel was his subordinate as well as his signature on voice identification memo vide Ex.PW8/M.
30. PW-9 Sh. Ramesh Kirad was posted in ward no. 78 as Assistant Commissioner in Department of Trade & Taxes, Vyapar Bhawan and in the year 2019 he visited the Ward no. 78 where three to four officials from Vigilance Department and Sh. Mallah, Assistant Commissioner of Ward No. 77 were present. Sh. Nagesh Mallah accessed his computer with the help of his Unique Digital Signature keys and after accessing the system the printouts of numbers of documents in respect of some firms were taken out from the GSTA Portal. PW9 further deposed that memo regarding accessing computer and seizure of files related to M/s Vital Enterprises and annexed documents vide memo Ex.PW4/A (Colly) was prepared in his presence bearing his signature through which the documents were seized by the CBI Officials. PW9 further deposed that if a firm has CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 19 of 140 committed a default, then show cause notice was issued by Assistant Commissioner/Ward In-charge in respect of the violation committed by a GST holder such as the returns are not filed or the firm is closed or not found working at the address given by the GST Holder and then the show cause notice comes on the portal of concerned firm and the concerned firm sends its reply against the show cause notice through online portal or manually.
31. PW-10 Laxmi Avasthy, Assistant Commissioner, Vigilance Branch. PW10 further deposed that she had provided forwarding letter to the Jr. Engineer/GSTO vide Ex.PW10/A and vide letter dated 06.09.2021 (Ex.PW10/B), she had marked the same to the concerned dealing clerk bearing her signature.
32. PW-11 Deepak Kumar Tamta was posted as an Assistant Section Officer in Doordarshan in the year 2019, visited the CBI Office on the direction of his senior. On 25.9.2019, Shri Suresh Kumar and two officials were present and post 4:00 pm, he was introduced to Sh. Anuj and a complaint given in Hindi by Anuj was shown and FIR was also shown to him. PW-11 further deposed that the complaint was being demanded by one Piyush Goel and the trap is to be laid for Piyush Goel. PW-11 identified the complaint vide Ex.PW1/A as the complaint which was shown to him in the Office of CBI. PW-11 further narrated in detail that the phenolphthalein powder was applied on the currency note in the denomination of Rs. 500 and Rs. 2000. He also deposed that demonstration was also given in which it was explained that some powder is put on the currency note CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 20 of 140 and when someone touches the currency note and his/her hands are dipped in a solution, then the solution would turn pink and its significance was explained. PW-11 further deposed that the details of the currency notes on which powder was applied is mentioned at Point B1 on Ex.PW1/C and he also identified his signature on the handing over memo vide Ex.PW1/C. PW-11 further deposed that after demonstration currency notes were put inside the pocket of the complainant by Suresh Kumar and he was instructed to remain with the complainant Anuj Kumar. The complainant was also directed to give the per-decided signal by calling from a mobile phone after handing over the amount. PW-11 also states that a DVR containing memory card during pre-trap proceedings was handed over to Suresh Kumar for recording the spot conversation. PW-11 further stated that prior to departure from the CBI Office, a phone call was received by PW-1. PW11 heard that the caller on the other end asked complainant/PW1 that he is coming towards Akshardham Metro Station. PW-11 further stated that because of heavy traffic, the CBI team and other persons got down from their vehicle at Pragati Maidan Metro Station and proceeded towards Akshardaham Metro Station through Metro. PW-11 further deposed that DVR containing memory card was given to complainant Anuj and when the CBI team and other persons reached Akshardham Metro Station. PW-11 further deposed that calls for exchange between complainant and suspect. PW-11 further deposed that at the spot he saw that complainant and the person/suspect was having some conversation and thereafter the said person was apprehended and detained and the suspect was taken on the side and complainant Anuj confirmed his identity as Paras Goel.
CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 21 of 140PW11 further stated that PW-1/complainant identified the suspect/ person as Paras Goel and the money kept in the pocket of the said suspect was taken out by Suresh from his pocket and was found to be Rs. 20,000/-. PW-11 deposed that water was poured in the pocket where accused Paras Goel had kept the money and the pant pocket changed its colour to Pink and he handed over the amount recovered from Paras Goel to CBI officials. PW-11 further deposed that amount of Rs. 20,000/- was seized and sealed at Akshardham Metro Station. PW-11 further deposed that DVR was also seized and sealed at Akshardham Metro Station. PW-11 further deposed that in the Office of CBI, documentation was prepared with respect to articles/things seized at Akshardham Metro Station and a voice of accused Suresh Kumar and Paras Goel were recorded in the DVR. PW-11 identified his signature on recovery memo vide Ex. PW1/D and further stated that documents were not read over to him but he had seen the documents. PW-11 identified his signature on arrest cum personal search memo as well as rough site plan vide Ex. PW13/A & Ex. PW13/B respectively. PW-11 identified the currency notes of Rs. 20,000/- vide Ex. PW1/3 after comparing it with the handing over memo vide Ex. PW1/C. PW-11 identified his signature on DVR Make SONY vide Ex. PW13/P2 and he also identified his signature on a brown envelope vide Ex. PW13/P1. Ld. PP for CBI with the permission of the Court queried from the witness whether he had signed only on this DVR and to which witness answered in affirmative and stated that he put his signature on the DVR. PW 11 identified the yellow colour envelope vide Ex. PW1/DB bearing his signature as well as signature on the inner side of right side pant CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 22 of 140 pocket of the said blue Denim Jeans vide Ex. PW1/1. PW-11 identified glass bottle vide Ex. PW1/2 and stated that it was sealed in his presence and he had signed at Point C. PW-11 identified an envelope containing memory card S-1 containing his signature as well as signature of Sh. Suresh Kumar and the brown envelope as well as memory card were exhibited as Ex. PW11/P2 and Ex. PW1/1 respectively. The memory card S-1 was opened in the Court and it was found containing three audio files containing the specimen voices of three persons which was identified by PW-11 as of Suresh Kumar, his voice and accused Paras Goel.
33. Memory Card Q-2 was inserted in the laptop and it was found containing eight files. It is relevant to mention that with respect to file Nos. 190925_1827, 190925_1831 and 190925_1832, the witness identified the introductory voice of Suresh Kumar, his voice and with respect to file No. 190925_1832, the witness was able to identify the voice of complainant Anuj only. The audio file Nos. 190925_1859, 190925_1928, 190925_1931 and 190925_1856 were played in which witness was only able to identify the voice of complainant Anuj Kumar only and with respect to the files purported to be containing the voice of accused Paras Goel, the witness was unable to identify the same and with respect to voice contained in the audio recordings, he was not very sure. PW-11 identified his signatures on voice identification cum transcription vide Ex.PW1/F (Colly) and further deposed that he had appended his signatures on different points on Ex. PW1/F without reading same (contents of Ex. PW1/F), but was told about it (contents of Ex. PW1/F). PW-11 also deposed that seal CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 23 of 140 used during the post trap proceedings was handed over to Suresh Kumar.
34. PW-12 Sh. Tilak Chand, Jr. Asstt., Department of Trade & Taxes deposed that he was the record keeper in Ward No. 77 and during his visit, he handed over certain documents provided by Sh. Nagesh Kumar Mallah to the CBI vide production cum seizure memo Ex. PW12/A (D-15). PW-12 further deposed that he had provided the VAT file of M/s Vital Enterprises vide seizure memo dated 18.10.2019 vide Ex. PW12/B (D-13) and PW-12 further deposed that various letters/Dak were used to maintain in a register vide Ex. PW8/DD and same was in his custody and in his absence, the register is maintained and kept in the almirah of Sh. Nagesh Kumar Mallah. PW-12 upon perusing the entries vide Ex. PW8/H and Ex. PW8/J states that he is not sure about the maker of the said entries, perhaps it could be of Paras Goel. PW-12 deposed that entry at Sr. No. 1024 dated 18.09.2019 vide Ex. PW8/DF is in his handwriting regarding deployment in election duty. PW-12 was not sure whether the recording contain the voice of accused Paras Goel when played before him in the office of CBI and PW-12 identified some of the voices in the audio files as that of accused Paras Goel and voices in some of the audio files were not identified by him in the Court. PW12 identified accused Paras Goel in the Court. PW-12 was cross- examined by ld. PP for CBI in which he stated that his statement was recorded by the CBI and he further denied that he was not intentionally identifying the voice of accused Paras Goel in some files.
CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 24 of 14035. PW-13 Suresh Kumar, Asst. Section Officer, Doordarshan Bhawan deposed that he went to the office of CBI on 25.09.2019 where his attendance was marked and he met Insp. Nitin and other officials of CBI. He further deposed that he alongwith other CBI officials went to the house of complainant on Government vehicle and prior to leaving the office of CBI, a memory card was inserted in the DVR and his introductory voice was recorded. PW-13 further deposed that a phone call was either received or made by complainant which was heard by him since the phone was on speaker mode and during the conversation accused Paras Goel told complainant that he would meet him in his house at Dilshad Garden. PW 13 further deposed that after the conversation, they went to the house of complainant and PW-13 alongwith complainant and Insp. Nitin and other CBI official sat in the Guest room and since the CCTV cameras are installed outside the house of complainant Anuj and if the accused would come then he would be visible in the screen and thereafter, Anuj pointed to the screen and told that the person who is visible on the screen is accused Paras Goel and thereafter, DVR was put in switch On mode and the CBI officials went to the other room in the house of complainant and only Anuj and PW-13 remained in the said Guest Room in the house of complainant. PW-13 further deposed that Paras Goel sat opposite to complainant Anuj and Paras Goel enquired about PW-13 to which complainant told that PW-13 is his brother. During the discussion, Paras Goel made a demand of Rs. 1 Lakh from complainant Anuj, however, Anuj told him that he do not have this amount and he cannot pay Rs. 1 Lakh as he did not earn that much.
CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 25 of 140PW-13 further deposed that Paras Goel signaled the complainant in low voice and thereafter, complainant Anuj asked him/PW-13 to go to other room and thereafter, discussion ensued between Paras Goel and Anuj which PW-13 could not heard and thereafter, Paras Goel went away. PW-13 further deposed that they came to the Guest Room and the DVR was switched off and the two CBI officials, complainant and PW-13 returned back to office of CBI. PW-13 further deposed that after reaching the office of CBI at 02:30 to 03:00 PM, a phone call was received in the mobile phone of complainant and the said phone call was heard as the phone was on speaker mode and during the conversation accused Paras Goel was asking to make an arrangement of money on immediate basis and complainant told him that he is making efforts to arrange the money and thereafter FIR was registered and the trap team was constituted and complainant brought the amount of Rs. 20,000/- and thereafter demonstration of applying some powder on the notes and by touching the powder by hands and dipping it in some solution which turned PINK was given. PW-13 deposed in detail about the pre trap proceedings such as application of phenolphthalein powder on GC Notes of Rs. 20,000/-, noting down of serial number of GC notes, setting up of DVR and other instructions, etc in line with the testimony of TLO and the complainant.
36. After pre-trap proceedings were completed, CBI team left the office of CBI on 25.09.2019 at 05:15 PM for Akshardham Metro Station in two vehicles and a call was received by the complainant Anuj on his phone in which complainant told him that he is coming from NOIDA and then Paras Goel asked him to meet at Akshardham CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 26 of 140 Metro Station which was heard since the phone was on speaker mode and the call was recorded in DVR. Thereafter, the DVR was kept inside the shirt pocket of the complainant Anuj and TLO instructed them to disburse and to remain near each other. PW-13 further deposed that upon reaching Akshardham Metro Station, Paras Goel was waiting for complainant Anuj and Paras Goel asked complainant Anuj to keep him (PW-13) away. PW 13 further deposed that he saw complainant and accused Paras Goel conversing with each other, however, he was unable to hear conversation between them. PW 13 further deposed that he saw complainant/PW-1 Anuj putting money inside the right side pant pocket of Paras Goel and then, CBI team apprehended accused Paras Goel, he further deposed that he is unable to recall as to who apprehended accused Paras Goel for the first time. PW 13 further deposed that accused Paras Goel had started crying and said "Bhaiya you have ditched me". He further deposed that Deepak Tamta took out the money from the right side pant pocket of Paras Goel and the money which was taken out from the pant pocket is cross-checked with the serial number of GC notes recorded in one of the documents. PW-13 further deposed that his signatures was also taken and brass seal was embossed on the paper. The Right Side Pant Pocket wash of accused Paras Goel was taken and the solution turned pink which was later on transferred in the bottle and the said bottle was sealed and he signed the bottle alongwith Deepak Tamta and TLO. PW-13 further deposed that signature of Deepak Tamta, TLO and his signatures were taken on the right side pant pocket and the pant which was worn by Paras Goel was sealed in an envelope. PW-13 further deposed that during inquiry accused stated that tainted CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 27 of 140 money was for his boss i.e. Assistant Commissioner and thereafter, call was made to the boss of Paras Goel but he did not picked up the phone. PW-13 further deposed that accused Paras Goel even sent a message to his boss to Asst. Commissioner that amount of Rs. 20,000/- was received and he also testified that Paras Goel also made a call to his boss i.e. Asst. Commissioner about receipt of Rs. 20,000/- and he further stated that Paras Goel told the caller on the other end that he would meet him on the next day, however, Asst. Commissioner disconnected the said call and the conversation was heard as phone was on speaker mode. PW-13 further deposed that a rough site plan was prepared bearing his signature and number of documents were prepared at the spot and the accused was brought to the office of CBI where number of documents were prepared. PW-13 further deposed that he remained in the office of CBI alongwith accused Paras Goel, another independent witness Deepak Tamta till 02:00 PM on 26.09.2019. PW-13 also deposed that on 14.11.2019, in the office of CBI, apart from him, independent witness Deepak Tamta, complainant Anuj Kumar were present where the voice recordings were played and it was checked as per the version made in the audio recordings and he also heard the sample voice of Paras Goel. He further stated that he, Deepak Tamta and CBI officials signed on the transcripts of the audio recordings vide Ex. PW1/E (Colly) at Point B and voice-identification-cum-transcription memo vide Ex. PW1/F at Point B. In his deposition before the Court, PW-13 identified the case properties i.e. Pant worn by the accused Paras Goel and he also identified the bottle containing the pink colour solution vide Ex. PW1/2 and currency notes vide Ex. PW1/3 after CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 28 of 140 comparing it with handing over memo vide Ex. PW1/C. PW 13 identified his signature on DVR Ex. PW13/P-2. PW-13 identified his signatures on the envelope as well as packing in which Sandisk memory card Q-1 was kept vide Ex. PW1/G, Ex. PW1/H and Ex. PW1/I.
37. The memory card Q-1 was opened which contains eight files, the witness after hearing the voice recordings, identifies his introductory voice and he also identified the voice of accused Paras Goel, Anuj Kumar Sharma in some of the files and one of the files does not contain any voice. PW-13 also referred a female voice in one of the audio recordings from File No. 190925_1339.MP3 perhaps as that of the wife of Anuj Sharma (complainant).
38. The memory card Q-2 was opened which contain eight files and PW-13 identified the voice of Deepak Kumar Tamta in one of the files and with respect to five files Nos. 190925_1832, 190925_1859, 190925_1928 and 190925_1931 , he identified voices of accused Paras Goel and complainant Anuj.
39. One of the voice recordings was also played to which witness stated that accused Paras Goel was speaking to his boss and in one of the files, only ringing of the bell could be heard.
40. PW-13 further deposed that he was handed over the brass seal and asked to produce the same before the competent authority and he produced the CBI brass seal which was taken on record vide Ex.
CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 29 of 140PW13/ZA and ink impression was also taken and kept in the envelope. PW-13 identified his signatures on verification memo, Handing over memo and Recovery Memo vide Ex. PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C and Ex. PW1/D respectively. PW-13 also identified his signatures on arrest-cum-search memo of accused Paras Goel vide Ex. PW13/A.
41. PW-14 Ms. Deepti Bhargava, Assistant Director & Scientist C (Chemistry), CFSL, DFSS Bhopal, MP deposed that vide forwarding letter dated 09.10.2019 Ex.PW14/A, one sealed glass bottle marked as RSJPW was forwarded by the SP, CBI, ACB, ND to the Director, CFSL, ND for laboratory examination and expert opinion and the same was received in Chemistry Division, New Delhi on 10.10.2019 and allotted to her on 18.10.2019 and the exhibit RSJPW was examined by her by PHYSICO-CHEMICAL Methods, Chemical test, UV-Visible Spectrophotometry and thin layer chromatographic technique and opined that the said exhibit gave positive test for the presence of phenolphthalein. PW-14 further deposed that she gave her Chemical Examination Report dated 30.10.2019 vide Ex.PW14/B which bears her signature and also identified her signature on yellow colour envelope as well as on the cloth wrapper vide Ex.PW14/P1 (Colly). PW14 further deposed that the remnants of the exhibits alongwith an envelope and the original report vide Ex.PW14/B were handed over to authorized messenger of CBI on 11.11.2019.
42. PW-15 Shri H. Rajesh Prasad was posted as Commissioner State Taxes, Department of Trade & Taxes, I.P. Estate, New Delhi and CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 30 of 140 accorded prosecution sanction dated 20.12.2019 vide Ex.PW15/A against Paras Goel. PW15 further deposed that prior to granting prosecution sanction, he had considered various material submitted by CBI like copy of complaint dated 25.09.2019 made by the complainant Sh. Anuj Kumar, verification memo, FIR, handing over memo dated 25.09.2019, recovery memo dated 25/26.09.2019, arrest- cum-personal search memo, transcripts of audio recordings, statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., CFSL report (Chemistry Division) etc. and after considering all the material placed before him by the CBI, he carefully scrutinized the same and after due application of mind, he granted the prosecution sanction against Paras Goel vide Ex.PW15/A was forwarded to CBI vide forwarding letter dated 20.12.2019 Ex.PW15/B.
43. PW-16 Ms. Anjana Mahajan GST Officer (Policy Branch), Sales Tax Department of Trade & Practice, ITO, New Delhi deposed that she had issued letter vide Ex.PW16/A dated 12.07.2021 to the Assistant Commissioner, Vigilance Branch and furnished photocopies of minutes of meetings held under the Chairmanship of the Commissioner (Sales Tax) GNCTD dated 18.01.2019, 24.01.2019,14.02.2019, 27.03.2019, 25.04.2019,01.07.2019,24.07.2019 and 04.10.2019. PW16 further deposed that she had also provided attested copies of eight policies bearing his signatures vide Ex.PW16/A after comparing them with the originals.
44. PW-17 Mrs. Lavang Lata, Senior Scientific Assistant, CFSL, CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 31 of 140 New Delhi deposed that vide Ex.PW17/B she has furnished her report containing reasoning and opinion dated 23.01.2020 bearing her signatures on each page. PW17 further deposed that vide Handwriting Examination Report Ex.PW17/B, she opined that the writer of the standard writings marked S-1 to S-20 (D-33) and A-1(D-29(4)), A-2 (vide Ex. PW8/E, D-29(2)) and A-3 (Ex. PW8/L, D-29(3)) attributed to Paras Goel being the person responsible for writing the questioned writings marked Q-1 (backside of Ex. PW8/C, D-30) & Q-2 (Ex. PW8/H, D-13 (2) ).
45. PW-18 Ms. Alka Chaudhary, Sub Divisional Magistrate (Elections), Distt. South-West Delhi deposed that in the year 2021, CBI officials visited her office and asked for certain documents which she had provided vide letter dated 01.08.2021 Ex.PW18/A. PW18 further deposed that she has provided Monthly Biometric Attendance Report for the month of September 2019 of Shri Nagesh Kumar Mallah, the then Assistant Commissioner vide Ex.PW18/B (SD-3), Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act vide Ex.PW18/D. PW18 further deposed that Shri Nagesh Kumar Mallah was absent on 5th, 9th, 10th, 19th and 20th September 2019 and the documents were given through production-cum-seizure memo vide Ex.PW18/F (SD-6). PW18 further deposed that she has provided Monthly Biometric Attendance Report for the month of September 2019 of Paras Goel vide Ex.PW18/C (SD-3), Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act vide Ex.PW18/E. PW18 further deposed that Paras Goel was absent on 10th, 26th, 27th and 30th September 2019 and the documents were provided through CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 32 of 140 production-cum-seizure memo vide Ex.PW18/F (SD-6). PW18 further deposed that she has provided Monthly Biometric Attendance Report for the month of September 2019 of Sh. Tilak Chand, the then LDC vide Ex.PW18/G (SD-5) through production cum seizure memo vide Ex PW-18/I( SD-7)and Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act vide Ex.PW18/H. PW18 further deposed that Sh. Tilak Chand was absent on 10th, 13th, 20th, 23rd, 25th, 27th and 30th September 2019.
46. PW-19 Sh. Harish Chandra (Trap Laying Officer) deposed that on 25.09.2019, the SP,CBI, ACB, ND entrusted investigation of the present case and he constituted a trap team comprising Insp. Nitin, Insp. Sunil, Insp. Kuldeep, Insp. Vikas, SI Nitish Choudhary and other subordinate staff and two independent witnesses namely Deepak Kumar Tamta and Suresh Kumar and complainant. He further deposed that trap team was apprised about the complaint, FIR and the verification and the contents of the complaint was also perused. From the and from the perusal of verification memo vide Ex. PW1/B that Paras Goel would accept the bribe of Rs. 20,000/- on 25.09.2019. He further deposed with respect to the handing over proceedings in the office of CBI. He further stated that PW-1 Anuj Kumar brought Rs. 20,000/- comprising 8 Notes of Rs. 500/- and 8 notes of Rs. 2000/-. He also stated in detail about the significance of Phenolphthalein and its reaction with solution of Sodium Carbonate. He further deposed that independent witness Deepak Kumar Tamta conducted the personal search of PW-1 and except the mobile phone and connected ear phone, no other thing was permitted to kept by him. PW 19 CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 33 of 140 further deposed that amount of Rs. 20,000/- was kept in the right side of the pant worn by PW-1 and instruction was also given not to touch the same and it was also instructed that PW-1 would hand over the amount only on the demand of accused Paras Goel. He further deposed that independent witness Suresh Kumar was directed to remain as a shadow witness with PW1 to overhear the conversation between accused Paras Goel and the complainant/PW-1 and another witness Deepak Tamta was directed to remain with the trap team. PW-19 further deposed that both complainant Anuj and Suresh Kumar (independent witness) were directed to give pre-decided signal i.e. by calling on the mobile phone of PW-19 and thereafter DVR and CBI brass seal was taken from the possession of Suresh Kumar for further proceeding. PW-19 further deposed that fresh Sandisk Memory card was arranged and inserted in the DVR and introductory voices of both the independent witnesses were recorded and switched the DVR off and the same was handed over to Anuj Kumar (PW-1) for the trap proceedings. PW-19 further deposed that a trap kit comprising bottle, tumblers, Sodium Carbonate powder, sealing material, stationery and paper files ,etc were also taken by the Trap Team and all these proceedings were mentioned in Handing Over Memo vide Ex. PW1/C and PW19 identifies his signature on Ex. PW1/C.
47. PW-19 further deposed that after completion of handing over proceedings, at 18:32 Hours, when the trap team was about to leave the office of CBI, a call was received on the mobile phone of complainant Anuj from accused Paras Goel and during the CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 34 of 140 conversation, both complainant and accused Paras Goel agreed to meet at Akshardham Metro Station and thereafter, the CBI team alongwith complainant and both the independent witnesses left the office of CBI in two CBI vehicles and at about 19:00 Hours, the accused Paras Goel again called complainant on his mobile phone and asked whereabouts of the complainant to which the complainant replied/informed that he would reach in 10-12 Minutes and the above conversations were recorded in the DVR as the phone was on speaker mode in the present of independent witnesses.
48. PW-19 further deposed that in view of the heavy traffic on BRT Road, it was decided that the CBI trap team and other persons would board Metro from Pragati Maidan to Akshardham Metro Station. PW-19 deposed that after reaching Metro Station, PW-1 called accused Paras Goel to inquire about his whereabouts and the call was recorded in the DVR. PW-19 further deposed that DVR was given to PW-1 which was kept by him in his left pocket on switch On mode and thereafter, he gave briefing about pre decided signal to the complainant and shadow witness. PW-1 went towards Gate No.1 and thereafter, outside the gate, complainant Anuj Kumar, Shadow Witness Suresh Kumar were seen meeting a person i.e. accused Paras Goel and after some time i.e. at About 19:40 Hours, the complainant/PW-1 was seen taking trap money from his right pocket and putting inside the right pocket jeans of Paras Goel and then PW-19 further deposed that he alerted the trap team and rushed towards accused Paras Goel and the accused was apprehended by him from his left hand and Nitin Chaudhary caught hold the right CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 35 of 140 hand of accused Paras Goel. PW-19 further deposed that DVR was taken and inquiries were made from the complainant/PW-1 who stated that accused Paras Goel had demanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs. 20,000/- from PW-1/complainant. PW-19 further deposed that he made inquiries from the accused and came to know about his name and the bribe money was recovered from the worn jeans pocket of accused Paras Goel. PW-19 further deposed that on the request of the accused Paras Goel, the accused was permitted to send a message to Nagesh Kumar Mallah, however, no reply was received, however on the request of the accused, he was allowed to call Nagesh Kumar Mallah through Whatsapp which was picked up by Nagesh Kumar Mallah and who showed his unawareness about the matter and asked Paras Goel to meet him on the following day and the said call was recorded in the DVR. PW-19 explained about the tallying of the recovered bribe amount with the handing over memo and he also deposed that complainant/PW-1 narrated about the entire transaction. PW-19 further deposed that track pant was arranged and accused was directed to change his pant at an appropriate nearest place. Pant Wash of the accused was taken and the bribe money was kept in an envelope. The solution was transferred into a clean glass bottle. The recovered bribe amount was kept in an envelope and sealed. PW-19 deposed in detail about other formal aspect of the post trap proceedings and he also stated that accused Paras Goel was once again permitted to make call to Nagesh Mallah but the same was not picked. PW-19 further deposed that rough site plan was prepared and thereafter, the CBI team alongwith accused and other left for further proceedings in the office of CBI. PW-19 further deposed that CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 36 of 140 conversations were also heard in the office of CBI and IO copy of the memory card was prepared with the help of write blocker and further proceedings took place. PW-19 further deposed that introductory voice of independent witnesses as well as the sample voice of accused Paras Goel were recorded. PW-19 further deposed identified his signature on recovery memo, arrest memo, rough site plan. PW-19 also deposed that a reply vide Ex. PW8/C was also seized during the personal search of accused Paras Goel and the said letter was also signed by both Suresh Kumar and Deepak Kumar Tamta at Point B. PW-19 identified his signature on sealed glass bottles and the cloth wrapper containing CBI seal vide Ex. PW1/2 and Ex. PW14/P-1 respectively. PW-19 also identified his signature the currency notes of Rs. 20,000/- vide Ex. PW1/3 from the envelope and on Blue Denim Jeans of accused Paras Goel vide Ex. PW1/1.
49. On playing the Exhibit Q-2, PW-19 identified his signatures on the envelopes and packing of memory card vide Ex PW13/X, Ex. PW13/Y and Ex. PW13/Z respectively and further deposed that the said memory card (Q-2) was used during the trap proceedings and same was seized by him. PW-19 identified memory card (S-1) and stated that same was sealed. PW-19 also identified his signatures on the relevant points of both the memory cards. PW-19 also identified his signature on DVR vide Ex. PW13/P-2. PW-19 also identified the mobile phones vide Ex. PW19/M-1 and Ex. PW19/M-2 seized through arrest cum personal search memo dated 25.09.2019 vide Ex. PW13/A. PW-19 identified the accused Paras Goel in the Court.
CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 37 of 14050. PW-20 Inspector Nitin Kumar Choudhary (Verification Officer) deposed that on 25.09.2019, he received a complaint of Anuj Kumar, Proprietor of M/s vital Enterprises vide Ex.PW1/A (D-1) for verification and it was alleged in the said complaint that Paras Goel has demanded bribe/illegal gratification for disposal of the show cause notice. PW20 further deposed that a DVR and a fresh sealed memory card make SanDisk was arranged in the functioning of the DVR and was explained to all the verification team members and thereafter, the said memory card was inserted in the DVR and introductory voice of the independent witness was recorded. PW20 further deposed that at about 12:30 PM, a call was received by complainant from accused Paras Goel and during the conversation accused Paras Goel asked the whereabouts of complainant and told him to reach his/complainant's office and the said call was recorded in the DVR as the phone was on speaker mode, thereafter, the verification team left the office of CBI and reached the office of complainant at about 01:00 PM and a call was made to accused Paras Goel to inform him about the arrival at complainant's residence/office and the said call was also recorded in the DVR as the phone was on speaker mode. PW20 further deposed that it was decided that independent witness Suresh Kumar would meet accused Paras Goel and rest of the team members would remain in the adjacent room, thereafter, at about 01:40 PM, accused Paras Goel reached at the residence of complainant and had a conversation with the complainant and independent witness Suresh Kumar also came to the adjacent room and accused Paras Geol left the residence of complainant at 2:00 PM and the DVR was taken back from the CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 38 of 140 complainant and switched off.
51. PW-20 further deposed that the CBI team returned to the office of CBI and also made inquiries from PW-1 as to what had transpired in the discussion and he further stated that recorded conversation were also played which confirmed that there was a demand of Rs. 20,000/- by accused Paras Goel. PW-20 further deposed that Q-1 i.e. memory card alongwith packing/wrapper was put in a brown envelope which was signed by him as well as independent witness Suresh Kumar and was marked Q-1 in CO-54/19. PW-20 identified the memory card Q-1 and his signatures appearing on different points. PW-20 also identified the verification memo Ex. PW1/B and also stated that blue ink seal impression was also put on verification memo vide Ex. PW1/B and brass seal and DVR were handed over to independent witness. PW20 further deposed that he identified his signatures on the SanDisk memory card vide Ex.PW-1/H as well as on the transparent envelope vide Ex.PW1/I and on the verification memo vide Ex.PW1/B (D-2).
52. PW20 further deposed that he after due verification, he recommended the registration of FIR against Paras Goel under Section 7 of PC Act.
53. PW 20 further deposed that after registration of the case, a trap team was constituted under the leadership of Sh. Harish Kumar (PW-19). PW-20 further deposed that details of currency notes of Rs. 20,000/- brought by the complainant/PW1 was noted. Introductory CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 39 of 140 voices of independent witnesses were recorded in the memory card through DVR. Demonstration of phenolphthalein and its significance was explained and the solution was thrown after demonstration and the remaining phenolphthalein powder was thrown. The phenolphthalein treated bribe amount of Rs. 20,000/- was put in the right side pant pocket of the complainant and PW-20 further deposed that trap team members washed their hands with soap and briefing ,etc was also given. PW20 further deposed that handing over memo was prepared. PW20 further deposed that calls were received by the complainant from accused Paras Goel and the said calls were recorded in the memory card through DVR. PW-20 further deposed that during conversation between accused Paras Goel and PW-1 Anuj, the trap team proceeded to Akshardham Metro Station by boarding metro as there was heavy traffic jam and upon reaching close to Akshardham Metro Station, conversation took place complainant/PW-1 and accused Paras Goel. PW-20 further deposed that complainant/PW-1 took the DVR in switch On mode to Akshardham Metro Station and it was seen that the complainant/PW-1 and shadow witnesses were engaged in conversation with some person. PW-20 further deposed that he saw Anuj Kumar PW-1 took out the money and handed over to one person who was later on identified as Paras Goel and thereafter, he alongwith TLO Harish Kumar rushed towards Paras Geol and held him by his wrists and the DVR was taken from the complainant and PW-19 Harish Kumar challenged accused Paras Goel that he took bribe of Rs. 20,000/- from complainant Anuj Kumar. PW20 further deposed that sodium carbonate solution was prepared and the right hand finger CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 40 of 140 of the accused was dipped and the solution turned pink which was poured in a bottle and sealed with the CBI seal and signed by the independent witnesses. PW20 further deposed that Deepak Kumar Tamta took out bribe money from right side jeans pocket of accused Paras Goel and the recovered currency amount matched with the description of the distinctive serial numbers of currency notes mentioned in Ex.PW1/C. PW20 further deposed that bribe amount of Rs. 20,000/- was sealed and kept in an envelope. PW20 further deposed that right side pant pocket wash of jeans worn by accused Paras Goel was taken and the solution was transferred in a bottle which was sealed with the CBI seal and signed by the independent witnesses namely, Suresh Kumar and Deepak Kumar Tamta. PW20 further deposed that later on CBI team proceeded towards the CBI Office where further proceedings took place. The investigation copy of the recorded conversation was prepared with the help of write blocker. The memory card Q-2 alongwith its wrapping was signed by independent witnesses and placed in brown colour envelope. After arranging memory card the specimen voice of accused Paras Goel was recorded on memory card S-1 which was sealed after placing it inside its wrapping. PW20 further deposed that seal impressions were taken and the brass seal was handed over to independent witness Suresh Kumar. PW20 further deposed that he identified his signatures on the handing over memo dated 25.09.2019 vide Ex.PW1/C (D-4) as well as on the post-trap/recovery memo dated 25/26.09.2019 vide Ex.PW1/D (D-5). PW20 further deposed that he identified Paras Goel in the Court CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 41 of 140
54. PW21 Shri Narender Kumar Goel deposed that Mobile No. 9910877857 was issued in his name and the said mobile number was used at his home as well as in his shop and was never used by accused Paras Goel. The witness was cross-examined on behalf of ld. PP for CBI and during his cross-examination, PW21 identified his passport size photograph at Point X in the Customer Application form pertaining to Mobile No. 9910877857 vide Ex.PW6/I. PW21 further deposed that he was informed about the arrest of accused Paras Goel by the House Search Team when they visited his house.
55. PW-22 Ms. Madhu Bhatia, Assistant Commissioner (Vigilance), Department of Trade & Taxes, Government of NCT of Delhi deposed that on the request of CBI, she had provided the documents i.e. Letter dated 07.09.2020 vide Ex.PW22/A issued by Shri Nagesh Kumar Mallah alongwith certified copies of enclosures, and had identified the signature of Shri Nagesh Kumar Mallah on Ex.PW22/A (Part of SD-1). PW22 further deposed that the above- said letter is also accompanied with letter vide Ex.PW8/DB i.e. Ex.PW1/DA, Ex.PW1/DC, Ex.PW1/DD and another document dated 13.09.2019 vide Ex.PW8/DE i.e. show cause notice for cancellation of registration. PW22 further deposed that on the request of CBI, she had also provided the document i.e. letter no.
F.4(357)/Vig/DTT/2019/709 dated 10.09.2020 vide Ex.PW22/B, prepared by her on the basis of the inputs given by Shri Nagesh Kumar Mallah which bears her signature alongwith the official stamp. PW22 further deposed that the above-mentioned documents were seized vide seizure memo dated 14.09.2020 Ex.PW22/C which bears CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 42 of 140 the signatures of Shri Pankaj Gupta (Official Messenger). PW22 further deposed that she identified her signature alongwith official stamp on the letter vide Ex.PW22/D and further deposed that vide this letter, copies of the Section 29 of CGST, Powers and duties of officer and employees and Form GST REG-30 were provided. PW22 further deposed that she identified her signature on the letter dated 19.07.2021 vide Ex.PW22/E (SD-3) and deposed that she had provided some documents to CBI i.e. 'Annexure-A' (Ex.PW18/A), 'Annexure-B' (Ex.PW16/A and Ex.PW16/B1 to Ex.PW16/B8), 'Annexure-C' vide Ex.PW22/F, 'Annexure-D' vide Ex.PW18/B and Ex.PW18/C and 'Annexure-E' vide Ex.PW22/G. PW22 further deposed that she had identified the signature of Shri Nagesh Kumar Mallah on Annexure-C and Annexure-E.
56. PW-23 Shri Sandeep Kumar Tiwari, Investigating Officer deposed that he was entrusted with the investigation and the related file was received by him from Inspector Harish Chandra on 04.102019. He identified the signature of concerned SP S.K. Sinha on FIR vide Ex.PW23/A. He also deposed that he obtained verification memo, handing over memo and recovery memo vide Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D respectively. PW23 further deposed that vide voice identification cum transcription memos (Q-1) vide Ex. PW1/E (colly) and Ex. PW1/F (Colly) (Q-2) Anuj Kumar (complainant) and Suresh Kumar identified their voices as well as the voice of the accused Paras Goel and both the independent witnesses Kumar also identified their voices. After identification of the voice, the transcription memo was prepared and signed by the witnesses CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 43 of 140 including PW-23. PW-23 further deposed that voice identification memos Ex. PW8/M and Ex. PW12/C PW-8 Nagesh Kumar Mallah and PW-12 Tilak Chand identifed the voice of accused Paras Goel and signed their respective memos. PW-23 further deposed that vide Ex. PW4/A (Colly) the computer was accessed and file related to M/s Vital Enterprises dated 15.10.2019 was seized alongwith certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act in support of the seized documents bearing the signature of PW-23. PW-23 further deposed that vide production cum seizure memo Ex. PW12/B he seized original receipt and dispatch w.e.f 05.07.2013 to 17.10.2019 and VAT File of M/s Vital Enterprises. PW-23 further deposed that vide Notice u/s 91 CrPC Ex.PW23/B letter dated 18.11.2019 issued by Nagesh Kumar Mallah vide PW 8/G alongwith letter of Tilak Chand vide Ex. PW8/DA was produced by Nagesh Kumar Mallah and seized by PW-23 vide Ex. PW8/F (part of D-14). PW-23 vide Notice u/s 91 CrPC dated 25.11.2019 Ex. PW23/C issued to accused Paras Goel for production of GST Report dated 09.09.2019 mentioned in the show cause notice dated 13.09.2019 and in response to the said notice, letter dated 28.11.2019 vide Ex. PW8/B issued by accused Paras Goel was obtained by PW-23. PW-23 further deposed that vide production cum seizure memo dated 27.11.2019 vide Ex. PW5/A (colly), certified copies of the show cause notice dated 13.09.2019 and other relevant documents as mentioned in the seizure memo vide Ex. PW5/A were seized from Rakesh Kumar (PW-5). PW 23 further deposed that vide forwarding letter dated 09.10.2019 vide Ex. PW14/A through which one sealed bottle marked as "RSJPW" was sent to CFSL for analysis and the article was received in the CFSL on CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 44 of 140 10.10.2019 vide acknowledgment at Point B. PW-23 further deposed that vide forwarding letter dated 11.10.2019 Ex.PW23/D, sealed memory cards Q-1 and Q-2 were sent to CFSL for preparation of copies and same were received in the Photo Division on 14.10.2019 vide acknowledgment at Point B. PW-23 further deposed that vide forwarding letter dated 15.11.2019 Ex. PW23/E, sealed memory cards Q-1, Q-2, S-1 and DVR were sent to CFSL for analysis and same were received in the Physics Division on 15.11.2019 vide acknowledgment at Point B. PW-23 further deposed that the Chemical Examination Report dated 30.10.2019 vide Ex. PW14/B was received from CFSL and same confirms the presence of phenolphthalein in the exhibit.
57. PW-23 further deposed that he seized the CAF, CDR and Cell ID Chart alongwith the ceritificate u/s 65 B of IEA from Sh. Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd vide Ex. PW2/A. PW-23 further deposed that vide Ex. PW2/G (colly), he also seized CAF, CDR and Cell ID Chart issued by Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd alongwith the certificate u/s 65 B of IEA. PW-23 further deposed that vide Ex. PW3/A, he seized CAF, CDR and Cell ID Chart issued by Nodal Officer, Reliance Jio Infocom ltd., alongwith the certificate u/s 65 B of IEA and vide Ex. PW6/E, PW-23 had seized CAF, CDR and Cell ID Chart alongwith the certificate u/s 65 B of IEA issued by Rajiv Vashist, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd.
58. PW-23 further deposed that vide forwarding letter dated 23.12.2019 Ex. PW23/F, questioned (D-30), specimen (D-33) and CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 45 of 140 admitted handwriting (D-29) documents were sent to CFSL for the analysis and it same received in the Document Division on 23.12.2019 vide acknowledgment at Point B. PW-23 further deposed that vide Ex.PW23/G, accused Paras Goel gave specimen signature/handwriting voluntarily in the presence of independent witness Deepak Ambedkar and identified the signature of accused Paras Goel and independent witness Deepak Ambedkar.
59. PW-23 further deposed that after collecting the relevant documents and recording of statements of relevant witnesses alongwith list of articles/witnesses and prosecution sanction against accused Paras Goel, he filed the charge-sheet before the Court.
60. PW-23 further deposed that, in terms of few pointers of the Court, PW-23 further investigated the case and collected relevant documents through various seizure memos/letters vide Ex. PW22/C (SD-1), Ex. PW22/D (SD-2), Ex. PW22/E (SD-3), Ex. PW8/K (SD-4), Ex.PW23/H (SD-5), Ex. PW18/F (SD-6) and Ex. PW18/I (SD-7) and recorded relevant statements of witnesses and filed the supplementary charge-sheet duly signed before the Court.
61. PW-24 Shri Deepak Kumar Tanwar, Deputy Director and Scientist D at CFSL, DFSS, MHA, New Delhi deposed that vide forwarding letter bearing no. RC-DAI-2010-A-0032/DLI 13039 dated 15.11.2019 vide Ex.PW-23/E (D-20), four sealed parcels marked Q-1, Q-2, S-1 (Memory cards) and DVR were forwarded to him by the SP, ACB, CBI, ND in sealed condition and PW 24 further deposed that he CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 46 of 140 after conducting auditory and spectrographic analysis of Q-1, Q-2 and S-1 (all memory cards) he opined that Ex. S-1 contain the specimen voice of speaker namely Paras Goel marked as S-1 (P) and further deposed that questioned voices marked Q-1 (2) (P), Q-1 (3) (P), Q-1(5) (P), Q-1 (7) (P) Q-1 (8) (P), Q-2 (3) (P) to Q-2 (7) (P) contains the probable voice of speaker Paras Goel. PW-24 further deposed that after waveform, spectrographic and critical auditory examination, Micro SD Cards Q-1, Q-2 and S-1 reveal that the audio recordings are continuous and no form of tampering was detected and the above opinion is mentioned in his report dated 19.06.2020 vide Ex. PW24/A alongwith Annexure-A vide Ex. PW24/B and thereafter the report alongwith Exhibit Q-1, Q-2, S-1 (all memory cards ) and DVR in envelopes (bearing his signatures) were sent to SP, CBI, ACB, ND.
62. In his statement under section 313 CrPC (Now Section 351 BNSS,2023), the accused Paras Goel denied incriminating evidence put to him and took the plea that he was falsely implicated in the case without any basis and he did not visit the office/house of complainant/PW-1 Anuj Kumar either on 09.09.2019 or on 25.09.2019 at any point of time and he did not accept or demand any money from the complainant/PW-1 and the trap money and wash were planted upon him. He also stated that the case properties were fabricated and the recordings were tampered/morphed and accused Paras Goel was not competent to withdraw the show cause notice. The accused Paras Goel initially opted to lead the Defence Evidence.
63. Thereafter on 15.09.2025, an application for summoning CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 47 of 140 Defence Witness alongwith requisite record maintained at Ward No. 77, GST Delhi was moved on behalf of Defence Witness and vide order dated 14.10.2025, the said application is allowed and the matter was listed for Defence Evidence, later on the accused Paras Goel did not examine any defence witnesses.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
64. It is contended by ld. Sr. PP for CBI that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is also contended that prosecution has proved that accused Paras Goel has demanded bribe during verification proceedings pursuant to which, FIR was registered and the subsequently at the time of trap, accused had demanded and accepted bribe at Akshardham Metro Station. It is also contended that bribe amount was recovered from the right-side pant pocket of jeans worn by accused Paras Goel in the presence of independent witnesses as well as other members of the CBI team. It is also contended that audio recordings Q-1 and Q-2 confirm the factum of demand as well as the acceptance of bribe. It is also contended that FSL report Ex. PW23/A attributes the voice in the audio recordings as that of accused Paras Goel. It is also contended that the pocket wash of pant shows the presence of phenolphthalein vide CFSL Report Ex. PW14/A and the recovered bribe money matches with the description of currency notes mentioned in Ex PW-1/C. It is also contended that prosecution has successfully established the foundational facts constituting the commission of offence i.e. demand, acceptance and recovery of the tainted money. It is further contended that prosecution witnesses such CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 48 of 140 as PW-1/complainant, PW-8 Nagesh Kr. Mallah, PW-11 Deepak Kumar Tamta, PW-13 Suresh Kumar, PW-20 Nitin Choudhary and other witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. It is contended that considering that the competent authority had granted the valid prosecution sanction against Paras Goel after due application of mind.
65. It is argued that the complaint, verification memo, memory card, and transcripts corroborate the oral evidence of witnesses examined by the Prosecution. It is further contended that the Pant Pocket wash establish that the bribe was accepted by Paras Goel.
66. It is also contended that the Call Detail Records between Paras Goel and PW-1/complainant Anuj Kumar indicate that both were in contact with each other. It is also contended that prior to meeting with each other at the house of PW-1/complainant Anuj Kumar as well as at Akshardham Metro Station both of them were in conversing with each other and the said calls were also recorded.
67. It is contended that vide Ex.PW8/C, accused Paras Goel was directed by PW-8 Nagesh Kumar Mallah to make a revisit on the premises of PW-1/Complainant Anuj Kumar.
68. The Ld. PP for the CBI has relied following judgments, (i) Dashrath vs. State of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 654 (ii) State of Karnataka vs. Chandrasha 2024 2024 INSC 928 (iii) Basavaraj vs. State of Karnatak 8776 of 2024 (iv) Neeraj Dutta vs. State 4 SCC CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 49 of 140 731(v) Mukhtiar Singh vs. State of Punjab 2016 CRI L.J. 4191(Supreme Court of India) (vi) State of Maharashtra vs. Mahesh G.Jain (2013) 8 SCC 119 (vii) Raj Singh vs. State of Haryana 2002 (2) Cri. L.J. 337 (viii) Kommaraju Gopala Krishna Murthy (2000) 9 SCC 752 (ix) State of H.P vs. Jai Lal and Ors (1999) 7 SCC 280 (x) Sarup Chand vs. State of Punjab 1987 SC 1441(Supreme Court of India) (xi) Mubarak Ali vs. State of AIR 1958 MP157 (xii) D Sebstian vs. State 1988 CrLJ 1150 (xiii) Madhukar Bhaskararao vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2001 SC 147 (xiv) Inder Dayaldas Advani vs. State of Bombay AIR 1952 Bom 58.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED
69. It is contended by the Ld. Counsel for Accused Paras Goel that prosecution sanction was not granted by the competent authority i.e. PW15 since Accused Paras Goel was dismissed by the Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi. It is contended that prosecution has failed to prove the visit of PW-1 to the office of accused Paras Goel on 24.09.2019. It is also contended that PW-13 Suresh Kumar was unable to over hear the conversation between Paras Goel and complainant/PW-1 Anuj Kumar. It is further contended that PW-1 had admitted that no money discussion had taken place in two calls held with accused which took place prior to meeting the accused at Akshardham Metro Station. It is also contended that the Shadow witness was unable to hear the conversation at Akshardham Metro Station or that the accused had not make any specific demand of Rs. 25,000/- or Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant at Akshardham Metro CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 50 of 140 Station. It is further contended that PW-1/Complainant was instructed during pre-trap proceedings to handover the bribe to the accused on his specific demand and acceptance and in the absence of the demand, mere recovery of bribe amount without demand is not sufficient to convict the accused. It is also contended that no offence is made out as accused person has no capacity to favour or disfavour the accused in cancellation of the show cause notice issued against complainant/PW-1. It is further contended on behalf of accused that there are material contradictions with respect to recovery of currency notes in the testimonies of witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-13 and PW-20 that bribe money was recovered by Deepak Kumar Tamta, however, PW-11 deposed that bribe amount was recovered by PW-13 Suresh Kumar. It is contended that in view of the material contradictions, the recovery of the so-called bribe amount is liable to be discarded. It is further contended by ld. Counsel for accused Paras Goel that there are contradictions with respect to the duration of pre trap proceedings as every witness had given different time line about the conduct of proceedings. It is contended that verification memo vide Ex. PW1/B mentions the name of two persons from Doordarshan being called for verification whereas Deepak Kumar Tamta (PW-11) was not present in the proceedings in the morning hours. It is also contended that PW-1 had stated that when his voice was recorded during the verification proceedings, he uttered the voice of 'Hello' but no such voice is found in Q-1 and even there is no demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the recording and the above discrepancies cast shadow of doubt on the case of prosecution and proceedings were being manipulated by PW-20. It is also contended that the Handwriting Expert Report vide CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 51 of 140 Ex. PW17/A is inadmissible as the specimen signature/writings of accused were not taken by IO with the permission of the Court and the witness regarding obtainment of specimen handwriting was not cited as witness by the IO and the Report Ex. PW17/B is otherwise not admissible because PW-17 did not possess any specific qualification in the field of handwriting, therefore, handwriting report be discarded. It is also contended that there are contradictions with respect to washes as PW-20 Nitin Kumar Chaudhary (Verification Officer) deposed that Right Hand Wash of accused was taken, poured in a glass bottle; sealed with CBI seal and marked as RHW and paper label of bottle was signed by TLO and both independent witnesses and moreover, PW-1 had also spoken about hand wash of accused being taken, later he stated that pant wash is taken but he was not suggested that hand wash was not taken, however, TLO had denied the said fact. PW-11 and PW-13 (both independent witnesses) about stated about hand wash proceedings being undertaken. It is also contended that these contradictions are enough to discard the case of prosecution. It is also contended that the voice examination report vide. Ex. PW17/A is liable to discarded as CFSL Lab is not notified u/s 79 (A) Information Technology Act. It is also contended that voice examination report cannot be taken into consideration as expert is not qualified and moreover, he knew about the name of the speakers as copy of transcripts were already provided. It is also contended that the case properties were tampered and the prosecution failed to prove the chain of custody. It is also contended that no recovery was made from accused Paras Goel. It is also contended that since prosecution has failed to prove the foundation fact consisting of demand and CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 52 of 140 acceptance, therefore, accused Paras Goel is liable to be acquitted.
70. Ld. Counsel for Accused also relied upon on the following judgments, (i) Jahan Singh Vs. CBI, 2020(2) RCR (Cr.) 794 (ii) Tirath Prakash Vs. State, 2001 (59) DRJ 619 Delhi (iii) Dinshaw Rusi Mehta Vs. State of M.P., AIR 2017 SC 1557 (iv) Joginder Singh Malik Vs. CBI, Crl. A. 1302/10, DOD 08.12.2022 (v) State Vs. Surya Sankaran Karri, 2006 (4) RCR (Cr.) 53 SC (vi) State Vs. Ameer Jaan, AIR 2006 SC 108 (vii) Mukhtiyar Singh Vs. State, 2017 (3) RCR (Cr.) 694 SC
(viii) Ayyasami Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 182, (ix) Sita Ram Vs. State, 2020 (2) RCR (Cr.) 801 Delhi (x) Satpal Singh Vs. State, 2016 (2) RCR (Cr.) 969 Delhi (xi) Jagtar Singh Vs. State, 2023 (2) RCR (Cr.) 499 SC (xii) State Vs. C.B. Nagaraj, 2025 (3) RCR (Cr.) 249 SC (xiii) Sumit Kumar Verma Vs. State, 2014 (3) LRC 377 Delhi (xiv) Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi Vs. State, 2024 (3) RCR (Cr.) 562 SC (xv) Rakesh Kumar Vs. State, 2004 (1) JCC 110 Delhi (xvi) P. Parasurami Reddy Vs. State, 2011 (3) CCC (SC) 313 (xvii) Sukhedo Singh Vs. State, 1993 (1) CCC 557 SC (xviii) Ajay Gupta Vs. State, 2018 (3) JCC 1709 Delhi (xix) P.C. Mishra Vs. CBI, 2021 (1) LRC 301 Delhi (xx) Ram Singh Vs. Colonel Ram Singh, AIR 1986 SC 3 (xxi) State Vs. Sohan Singh, 2009 (3) RCR (Cr.) 971 SC (xxii) Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar Vs. State, (2011) 4 SCC 143 (xxiii) K. Santhamma Vs. State (2022) 4 SCC 574 (xxiv) M. Sambasiva Rao Vs. State of AP (SC), Crl. A No.391/2017, DOD 17.07.2025 (xxv) Ashwani & Ors. Vs. State, Crl. A 323/1 & 412/2018 DOD 8.10.2018 (DB, DHC) (xxvi) D.K. Basu Vs. State, AIR 1997 SC 610 (xxvii) Karnail Singh Vs. State, 2009 (1) RCR (Cr.) 406 (P & H) (xxviii) CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 53 of 140 S.K. Bhatia Vs. State, 2019 (4) JCC 3424 Delhi (xxix) Pyare Lal Vs. State, 1 (2008) DMC 806 Delhi (xxx) Kailash Gaur Vs. State, 2012 (1) LRC 81 SC (xxxi) Narayan Yadav Vs. State of CG, 2025 (3) RCR (Cr.) 706 SC (xxxii) P. Somaraju Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Crl. Appeal No. 1770 of 2004 SC.
71. I have heard the arguments advanced by both the sides as well as the respective written submissions and record of the case.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
72. The first issue is whether prosecution sanction was validly granted against the accused Paras Goel.
73. PW-15 H Rajesh Prasad, Commissioner State Taxes, Department of Trade & Taxes, IP Estate had accorded prosecution sanction vide Ex PW-1/A against the accused Paras Goel. PW-15 deposed that Insp. GST is Group C employee and he is competent to appoint and remove the said category of employees and being the disciplinary authority, he was competent to accord the Prosecution Sanction u/s 19 of PC Act. During his cross-examination, some questions were asked with respect to the competency of PW-15 to accord prosecution sanction against Paras Goel. The witness denied the suggestion that he was not competent to accord prosecution sanction and it was also queried whether Paras Goel is Group'B' " Grade II employee". PW-15 further deposed that GST inspectors are Group C employees and there are some instances wherein Group B officers are also appointed as CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 54 of 140 Inspectors.
74. During cross-examination of PW-15, the ld. PP for CBI was permitted to put question to the witness whether accused Paras Goel was Gazetted or Non-Gazetted employee and to which the witness had answered that Paras Goel was non-Gazetted officer.
75. The submission of ld. Counsel for the accused was to the effect that Commissioner of Sales Tax is not competent to accord Prosecution Sanction against the accused Paras Goel. Chief Secretary, NCT of Delhi is the competent authority to accord prosecution sanction under section 19 of PC and therefore, prosecution sanction under section 19 of PC is invalid. Ld. Sr. PP for CBI submits that Prosecution Sanction was validly granted.
76. Ld. Sr. PP for CBI has filed some documents at the stage of arguments and submitted that judicial notice of the same may be taken and contended that Prosecution Sanction u/s 19 of PC Act against accused Paras Goel was validly granted. The ld. Defence Counsel has also referred to the dismissal order passed by Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi and submitted that it may be taken into consideration/ judicial notice may be taken into consideration. The judicial notice of the documents or any documents which are not proved by the parties cannot be considered as the documents had to be proved in accordance with the law.
CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 55 of 14077. At the stage of Defence Evidence, an application for summoning Defence Witnesses by filing the copy of the dismissal order of Paras Goel was filed and it was contended that since Paras Goel was dismissed by Chief Secretary and therefore, PW-15 cannot accord the prosecution sanction Relevantly, application for summoning the record from vigilance department along with personal file was summoned, however, when the record was produced, it was submitted that defence does not wish to examine defence witness and no material was produced by the accused that PW-15 was not competent to grant prosecution sanction.
78. A perusal of cross-examination of PW-15 would indicate that he had clearly stated that he was competent to grant prosecution sanction against the accused.
79. Commissioner of Sales Tax being the disciplinary as well as appointing authority is very well competent to accord prosecution sanction u/s 19 of PC Act. The accused had not place on record any document or circular or notification that Commissioner sales tax was not the authority to accord prosecution or is inferior in rank to the Deputy Secretary, Services or that commissioner of sales tax is not the appointing authority.
80. Moreover, if the accused contends that competent authority to grant prosecution sanction was some other authority, he could have produce his appointment letter but he had failed to do so and raised objection without any substantial basis and therefore, it can be safely CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 56 of 140 said that competent authority to grant prosecution against the accused Paras Goel is Commissioner, Sales Tax, Delhi and accordingly, no error is found with respect to the competence of authority in granting prosecution sanction under section 19 of PC Act against the accused.
81. The broad and specific challenges were also raised by the ld. Counsel for the accused contending that competent authority did not apply its mind while granting the prosecution sanction and the order for prosecution sanction vide Ex. PW15/B was reproduction of draft sanction order vide Mark PW15/DA. The copy of the audio recording was not furnished provided alongwith voice examination report. Number of judgments were relied to the effect that order of sanction should reflect application of mind.
82. It would be appropriate to refer and rely upon "Vinod Kumar Garg Vs. State", (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 2 SCC 88 in which it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under :-
"25. On the said aspect, the later decision of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Mahesh G. Jain, (2013) Part 8 SCC 119 has referred to several decisions to expound on the following principles of law governing the validity of sanction:
"14.1. It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out.
14.2. The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before it and, after consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction for prosecution.
14.3. The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and its CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 57 of 140 satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the material placed before it.
14.4. Grant of sanction is only an administrative function and the sanctioning authority is required to prima facie reach the satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute the offence.
14.5. The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order.
14.6. If the sanctioning authority has perused all the materials placed before it and some of them have not been proved that would not vitiate the order of sanction.
14.7. The order of sanction is a prerequisite as it is intended to provide a safeguard to a public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigants, but simultaneously an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hypertechnical approach to test its validity." The contention of the appellant, therefore, fails and is rejected.
28. This Court in Ashok Tshering Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim, (2011) 4 SCC 402 referring to the earlier precedents has observed that a defect or irregularity in investigation however serious, would have no direct bearing on the competence or procedure relating to cognizance or trial. Where the cognizance of the case has already been taken and the case has proceeded to termination, the invalidity of the precedent investigation does not vitiate the result, unless a miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby. Similar is the position with regard to the validity of the sanction. A mere error, omission or irregularity in sanction is not considered to be fatal unless it has resulted in a failure of justice or has been occasioned thereby. Section 19(1) of the Act is matter of procedure and does not go to the root of the jurisdiction and once the cognizance has been taken by the court under the Code, it cannot be said that an invalid police report is the foundation of jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance and for that matter the trial.CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 58 of 140
83. In Kalpnath Rai Vs. State (through CBI)1997 (8) SCC 732 to the effect that sanctioning authority is only required to consider whether prima-facie case disclose the commission of offepnce or not. The actual production of tapes etc. is a matter of trial and not necessarily to be undertaken at the time of consideration for the grant of prosecution sanction.
84. PW-15 had explained that he accorded prosecution sanction after considering various material such copy of complaint, verification, copy of FIR, handing over memo, recovery memo, transcripts etc. It is apparent that PW-15 accorded prosecution after due application of mind and had not merely appended his signature on the draft sanction. Even otherwise, the grant of sanction is an administrative function and if the order of sanction discloses the application of mind, then no further enquiry is necessary. Administrative authority such as sanctioning authority are not mandated to peruse the material in the same manner as if they are conducting the criminal trial. The essential purpose of exercising power under section 19 of PC Act is to ensure that no public servant should suffer from vexatious prosecution and accordingly, it is held that the prosecution sanction u/s 19 of PC Act vide Ex. PW15/A against accused Paras Goel is validly granted after due consideration of material available on record.
PROVISIONS & CASE LAWS.
85. In order to properly appreciate the respective contention of the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to the provision invoked CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 59 of 140 against the accused.
7. Offence relating to public servant being bribed.
- Any public servant who,-
(a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such duty either by himself or by another public servant; or
(b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage from any person as a reward for the improper or dishonest performance of a public duty or for forbearing to perform such duty either by himself or another public servant; or
(c) performs or induces another public servant to perform improperly or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear performance of such duty in anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an undue advantage from any person, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1. - For the purpose of this section, the obtaining, accepting, or the attempting to obtain an undue advantage shall itself constitute an offence even if the performance of a public duty by public servant, is not or has not been improper.Illustration. - A public servant, 'S' asks a person, 'P' to give him an amount of five thousand rupees to process his routine ration card application on time. 'S' is guilty of an offence under this section.
Explanation 2. - For the purpose of this section,- i) the expressions "obtains" or "accepts" or "attempts to obtain"
shall cover cases where a person being a public servant, obtains or "accepts" or attempts to obtain, any undue advantage for himself or for another person, by abusing his position as a public servant or by using his personal influence over another public servant; or by any other corrupt or illegal means; (ii) it shall be immaterial whether such person being a public servant obtains or accepts, or attempts to obtain the undue advantage directly or through a third party.CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 60 of 140
86. Section 2 (b) of PC Act defines public duty "means a duty in the discharge of which the State, Public or the community at large has an interest.
87. Section 2(d) of PC Act defines undue advantage as any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration. The explanation to Section 2(d) provides that gratification is not limited to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications estimable in money and word " legal remuneration" includes all remuneration which is received by the public servant after he is permitted by the government or organization.
88. Section 20 of the PC Act reads as under:-
"20. Presumption where public servant accepts any undue advantage - Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under section 7 or under section 11, it is proved that a public servant accused of an offence has accepted or obtained it is proved that a public servant accused of an offence has accepted or obtained or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any undue advantage from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or attempted to obtain that undue advantage, as a motive or reward under section 7 for performing or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly either by himself or by another public servant or, as the case may be, any undue advantage without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate under section 11."
89. The Prevention of Corruption Act (Amendment Act 2018) came into effect on 26.07.2018 and perusal of the amended Act would reflect CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 61 of 140 that by way of amendment, number of provisions were amended by the Parliament. The present case relates to the offence committed post 26.07.2018 and hence, amended PC Act is applicable to the present case. An offence under section 7 of PC Act is said to be committed when a public servant does any act which falls within sub clause a, b or c of Section 7 of PC Act.
90. Section 20 of PC Act provides that during the trial if it is proved public servant accused of an offence has accepted, obtained or attempted to obtain any undue advantage either for himself or for any public servant as a motive for the performance of public duty, it shall be presumed that undue advantage of pecuniary advantage has been obtained or attempted to obtain by the public servant as a motive or reward under section 7.
91. Section 20 of PC Act covers the situation where a public servant accepts undue advantage (Section 2 d) other than remuneration and has purposely used the expression "it shall be presumed, unless contrary is proved" The expression shall be presumed is a legal presumption is attracted when foundational facts constituting demand and acceptance are proved during the trial. As held in Neeraj Dutta (Constitution Bench) that Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of motive or reward and the presumption is rebuttable.
92. The demand of undue advantage is a sine qua non for making out an offence under section 7 of PC Act. In order to arrive at the conclusion whether all the ingredients of the offence viz. demand, CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 62 of 140 acceptance and recovery of amount of illegal gratification have been satisfied or not, the entire facts and circumstances are to be considered in its entirety. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence with respect to demand and acceptance is shaky and the evidence must indicate in a clear manner that public servant had obtained the bribe voluntarily. Prior to invoking the presumption under Section 20 of the P C Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt. However, before the accused is to call upon to explain as to how the amount in question was found in his possession and presumption in respect of demand and acceptance or obtainment of undue advantage/illegal gratification could be invoked only, if the prosecution has established the foundational facts by way of evidence which is subject to the rebuttal and rebuttal could either by pointing out the inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution or bringing to the fore material or relevant facts during the cross-examination.
93. It would be appropriate to reminisce the principle of the criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be an innocent unless proven guilty and the suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "P. Sathyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State AP and Anr. (2015) 10 SCC 152" after relying upon the judgment Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406 held that "suspicion, however, grave cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 63 of 140 cannot afford to rest its case in the realm of "may be" true but has to upgrade it in the domain of "must be" true in order to steer clear of any possible surmise of conjecture. It was held that the court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if in the facts and circumstances, two views are plausible, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. The prosecution is required to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, but this doctrine cannot be stretched to such an extent that prosecution is required to prove the impossible in respect of the facts and issues before the court and, therefore, in accepting the version given by the prosecution witnesses, the question is whether the witnesses are able to pass the test of the credibility vis- a-vis to the case of the prosecution.
94. In trial of offences under PC Act where the allegations are that bribe was attempted to be obtained or obtained or accepted by a public servant, which in usual parlance are called as the "Trap Case", the complainant/the bribe giver is perhaps one of the most material witnesses apart from other witnesses. In appreciating the testimony of the complainant or any other witness, the credibility and the manner in which he or she narrates the facts during the trial is critical in adjudicating the case of the prosecution. When the court is considering the inter se testimonies of the witnesses, the minor contradictions and slight exaggerations in the testimonies of the witnesses are liable to be ignored and what is to be considered whether the version given by the witness(s) is consistent.
CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 64 of 14095. In Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, (2012) 7 SCC 646, it was observed as under ;
68. From the above discussion, it precipitates that the discrepancies or the omissions have to be material ones and then alone, they may amount to contradiction of some serious consequence. Every omission cannot take the place of a contradiction in law and therefore, be the foundation for doubting the case of the prosecution. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies or embellishments of trivial nature which do not affect the core of the prosecution case should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence in its entirety. It is only when such omissions amount to a contradiction creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvements or contradictions before the court in order to render the evidence unacceptable, that the courts may not be in a position to safely rely upon such evidence. Serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the prosecution have to be understood in clear contra-distinction to mere marginal variations in the statement of the witnesses. The prior may have effect in law upon the evidentiary value of the prosecution case; however, the latter would not adversely affect the case of the prosecution.
69. Another settled rule of appreciation of evidence as already indicated is that the court should not draw any conclusion by picking up an isolated portion from the testimony of a witness without adverting to the statement as a whole. Sometimes it may be feasible that admission of a fact or circumstance by the witness is only to clarify his statement or what has been placed on record. Where it is a genuine attempt on the part of a witness to bring correct facts by clarification on record, such statement must be seen in a different light to a situation where the contradiction is of such a nature that it impairs his evidence in its entirety.
CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 65 of 14096. In Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2024) INSC 503: (2023) 4 SCC 731, it was held by the Apex Court that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is sine-qua-non for establishing the guilt under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The Constitution Bench after surveying number of judgments was pleased to hold as under: -
68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under:
(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and(ii) of the Act.
(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.
(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 66 of 140 a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13(1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act.
Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13(1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
(f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 67 of 140 the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13(1)(d)
(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature."
97. PW-1/complainant deposed that he was running a business in the name of M/s Vital Enterprises and used to file GST Return and somewhere around 10th or 11th September, 2019, he received a call from accused Paras Goel who introduced himself as GST Inspector and told that since firm was found locked during the visit and hence GST Number is liable to be cancelled. PW-1/complainant provided further background that he even visited the accused in his office on 24.09.2019 where demand of Rs.1,00,000/- was made and thereafter the same was reduced to Rs 25,000, the accused Paras Goel further told him to arrange the amount of Rs. 25,000/- during the of visit of accused Paras Goel to his house on 25.09.2019. PW-1 stated that he obtained the number of CBI on 24.9.2019 again said 25.09.2019.
98. PW-1/Complainant in his complaint vide Ex PW1/A dated 25.09.2019 had alleged that on 09.09.2019 that he received a call from Mob. No. 8882566678 on his mobile connection 9818482536 and accused Paras Goel instructed him to visit his office. PW-1 also deposed that he also conversed with Paras Goel on 23.09.2019 on his mobile phone connection No. 9818482536/9911245555.
CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 68 of 140PW-1/Complainant also stated that he went to the office of accused Paras Goel where demand of Rs. 1 Lakh was made and accused Paras Goel had told in the amount of Rs. 1 Lakh, Asstt. Commissioner Nagesh Mallah also had a share. PW-1/Complainant also stated that accused Paras Goel after negotiation reduced the same to Rs. 25,000/- and also told him that he would visit his house on the following day i.e. 25.09.2019.
99. The allegations in complaint Ex. PW1/A were also made to the effect that that accused Paras Goel had told that PW-8 Nagesh Kumar Mallah also had a share. During the course of the trial, it had not come in the testimony of PW-1/complainant that any bribe was demanded by Nagesh Kumar Mallah or any material suggesting the involvement of Nagesh Kumar Mallah surfaced and whatever interaction was in between PW-1 and accused Paras Goel and ostensibly for this reason, the verification of Complaint is undertaken by law enforcement agency.
100. A reference to the allegation made in the complaint Ex. PW1/A and the testimony of PW-1 in so far as, the circumstances and the justification to approach CBI with respect to his grievance of demand of bribe by accused Paras Goel is sufficiently and suitably grounded inviting the CBI to undertake the verification in pursuant to written complaint vide Ex PW1/A. A perusal of the deposition of PW-1/Complainant would indicate that he had substantially narrated/stated on similar lines with respect to the facts mentioned in his complaint vide Ex. PW1/A. CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 69 of 140
101. It is vehemently contended on behalf of the ld. Counsel for accused that there was no material or evidence to the effect that accused had visited the office of GST on 24.09.2019 and no other witness was examined by the prosecution to the effect that on 24.09.2019, PW-1 had visited the office of GST and even no register or corroborative material was placed on record to substantiate that PW-1 had visited the office of GST on 24.09.2019 about his visit to the office of CBI.
102. The visit dated 24.09.2019 by PW-1/complainant Anuj Kumar to the office of GST provides the background circumstances compelling PW-1 Anuj Kumar to approach CBI. PW-1 has reiterated about the demand and the resulting negotiation in his deposition before the Court and mere absence of any documentary evidence with respect to the Office of GST is not a circumstance to doubt on the veracity of deposition of PW-1/Complainant.
103. Any informal or formal interaction between public servant and PW-1/Complainant, preceding the lodgment of the complainant in close door settings when during such conversations, the demand of bribe is discreetly made would hardly leave a trail of tangible evidence and in such cases, it is the statement of complainant/PW-1 apart from other information which provides basis for verification of the complaint for demand of bribe.
104. In trap cases, specialized agency such as CBI does not CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 70 of 140 mechanically proceed to lodge an FIR or undertake formal process of investigation and rather such complaint is verified to ascertain the genuineness of the allegation of demand of bribe.
105. The background talk or previous reference that bribe was demanded, are the driving force which motivates the complainant/PW-1, to approach the investigating agency to be understood to the extent with respect to justification for approaching he CBI and to verify the demand and lay the trap after successful verification of the demand by the public servant. The exercise of conducting verification of the complaint instead of causing any prejudice rather comes to the aid of duty driven Public Servant that he need not be worried as any complaint making allegations of demand of bribe would be properly verified by the Investigating Agency!
106. Ex. PW1/A Complaint dated 25.09.2019 was marked to PW-20 Insp. Nitin Choudhary for verification in the office of CBI. PW-13 Mr. Suresh Kumar was joined as an independent witness to the verification proceedings. DVR and memory card were arranged for putting in clandestine manner with PW-1 for recording the conversation between PW-1/Complainant and accused Paras Goel, the CBI team including independent witness as well as other CBI officials decided to proceed for conducting verification of the complaint vide Ex PW1/A in the house of PW-1/complainant Anuj Kumar.
107. Prior to leaving the office of CBI to the residence cum office of CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 71 of 140 PW -1/complainant, telephonic calls were exchanged between PW-1/Complainant Anuj Kumar and Accused Paras Goel which were duly recorded in the memory card through DVR.
108. PW-1/complainant Anuj Kumar deposed that after he had furnished the complaint vide Ex. PW1/A, DVR, memory card, etc were arranged and he was also introduced to independent witnesses and prior to leaving the office of CBI to his house, a call was received by him from accused Paras Goel which was recorded in the DVR through memory card in the office of CBI and thereafter, they left for his house at Dilshad Garden.
109. Perusal of statement of PW-13 Suresh Kumar is on similar lines that he was present in the office of CBI on the direction of his Senior Officer. He had also stated that either in the office of CBI, a call was made or received in which the topic of the discussion was that accused Paras Goel would meet complainant Anuj in his house at Dilshad Garden. PW-20 Insp. Nitin Choudhary had deposed that after receipt of the complaint Ex. PW1/A, he proceeded for the verification of the complaint and explained in detail about the contents of the complaint vide Ex. PW1/A. He also stated in detail that he arranged DVR, memory card, etc.
110. It is vivid from the testimonies of PW-1 Anuj Kumar, PW-13 and PW-20 Nitin Choudhary (Verification Officer) that the complaint vide Ex. PW1/A was undertaken for verification and pursuant to the same, all the above mentioned persons left to the CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 72 of 140 residence cum house of the PW-1 and call was also exchanged between PW-1/Complainant Anuj Kumar and accused Paras Goel from mobile Nos. 8882566678 to 9818482536/9911245555 prior to the departure from the office of CBI to the house of PW-1/Complainant.
111. PW-1, PW-13 and PW-20 stated that that they alongwith CBI team reached the house of complainant/PW-1 Anuj Kumar. PW-1 Anuj Kumar stated that he informed about his arrival to accused Paras Goel through mobile phone and the said call was also recorded in the memory card through DVR. PW-1 had also stated that when doorbell rang, he turned on the DVR and he was sitting with the person from Doordarshan when accused Paras Goel came to his house whereas other CBI officials were sitting in the inner room of his house. PW-1 also stated that he introduced independent witness i.e. person from the Doordarshan as his cousin (Mama's son). During the course of the discussion, PW-1/complainant further stated that accused inquired from him whether he had made any arrangement of Rs. 25,000/- and to which he had told that he would only able to arrange Rs. 20,000/-. Accused Paras Goel had told that (his firm) GST Registration would be cancelled if money (bribe) is not paid and after conversation, accused Paras Goel had left the residence cum office of PW-1/complainant Anuj Kumar. PW-1/Complainant Anuj Kumar further stated that after Paras Goel had left his house, he had switched off the DVR.
112. PW-13 Suresh Kumar stated that accused Paras Goel made a CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 73 of 140 demand of Rs. 1,00,000/-, however, PW-1 had told that he did not have the said amount as he did not earn that much and thereafter, Paras Goel signaled in low voice and thereafter, PW-1 asked him to go to another room and thereafter, discussion took place between accused Paras Goel and PW-1/complainant Anuj Kumar which could not be heard by him and after some time Paras Goel went away. He further stated that DVR was switched off.
113. A perusal of the testimony of PW-13 would reveal that after accused Paras Goel had come to the house of PW-1/complainant Anuj Kumar, PW-1 introduced PW-13 as his cousin to accused Paras Goel. PW-1 had forgotten the name of the witness from Doordarhan i.e. PW-13 Sh. Suresh Kumar, however, testimonies of PW-13 and PW-20 would indicate that during the course of discussion, PW-13 was present with PW-1. In his examination in chief, PW-1/complainant stated that in the office of CBI, two independent witnesses i.e. Deepak Kumar Tamta and another person were present. He had also stated that other independent witness had went to the office cum residence of PW-1. It appears that PW-1 had forgotten the name of other independent witness Suresh Kumar. Ex.PW-1/B (Verification Memo) records the signature of PW-13 Suresh Kumar, hence, it can be said with reasonably degree of certainty when accused Paras Goel visited the residence cum office of PW-1, independent witness PW-13 Suresh Kumar was also present. Both PW-1 and PW-13 had interacted and met Paras Goel in one of the room o the house of PW-1.
CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 74 of 140114. PW-20 Nitin Choudhary (Verification Officer) did not hear any conversation which took place between PW-1 and accused Paras Goel as he was sitting in another room in residence cum office of PW-1. He also stated that it was decided that independent witness PW-13 Suresh Kumar shall remain present with PW-1/complainant in his drawing room and after some time, PW-13 Suresh Kumar came to another room in which other members of CBI team were present.
115. It is reflected from the testimony of PW-1 Anuj Kumar that accused Paras Goel had made demand of Rs. 25,000/- and to which he had stated that he cannot arrange an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and can arrange Rs. 20,000/- whereas independent witness Suresh Kumar had stated accused Paras Goel had made a demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- and to which PW-1 had told him he did not have that amount and thereafter, he/PW-13 came to the adjacent room.
116. The visit of Accused Paras Goel is confirmed through the testimony of PW-1 and PW-13 whereas PW-20 Nitin Choudhary could only say that some person had visited the house of accused Anuj Kumar/PW-1. PW-1 had detailed about the discussion which he had made with accused Paras Goel and during the course of the discussion, PW-13 Suresh Kumar had left the room.
117. It appears that the version of PW-13 that Paras Goel made a demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- during his visit to the house of accused Paras Goel, when PW-1 told Accused Paras Goel that he did not have much money is slight exaggeration as he was not present in the room CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 75 of 140 when incriminating conversation relating to the demand of bribe was made. As stated earlier, PW-13 Suresh Kumar did not remain present in the room throughout the conversation between PW-1 and accused Paras Goel, when the conversation relating to the negotiation part of demand of bribe between PW-1 and accused Paras Goel had begun, PW-13 was asked to leave the said room. However, discussion did happen with respect to the payment of bribe etc, when accused Paras Goel had stated that others pay One Lakh, it appears that PW-13 had picked short strand of the entire conversation.
118. Without going into the admissibility of the recorded conversations, the relevant part of the transcriptions vide Ex. PW1/E (colly) is being reproduced below:-
A अब ये मेटर है उस दिन आप यह बात बोलने ना कि आप कल आ जाओ तो आपकी बात, आनी नही थी मै अपने end पे ये एडजस्ट कर सकता हूँ ठीक है आज नहीं मैं कल आ जाऊं गा और कोई बात नही आपने मुझे फोन पर यह बोला कि 5:00 बजे से पहले आया करो ये है वो है आपको जो लिखना है वह लिख दो....
C मैनें यह वर्ड यूज नही किया A आपने मुुझे ये बाला फोन पे इस वजह से तो आपकी चली गई आप बताओ वरना एक बात बताओ मेरे पास 500 डीलर है मैं ऐसे ही एडजस्ट करता हूँ कोई बात नहीं कोई आज नहीं मिला कल परसों जरूरी थोडी न है 500 डीलर आज ही होने हैं कि पांच बजे तक आज ही होना है C सर मैने के वल यह बोला था कि आपको टाइम पर टाइम आना चाहिए आप लेट हो गई बंदे निकल गए बंदे बैठते हैं अब यह बैठे है एक दो बंदे बैठे रहते है A यह होता न मैं आपका मैं अगले दिन कर जाता तो CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 76 of 140 ठीक है तो आपके और मेरे बीच की बात रह जाती अब उसके बाद चले गए नोटिस उसने भेजा उसका हाथ और मुंह बहु त बडा है जी सीधी सी बात है, ये देखो या भी नोटिस C अब सोल्यूशन क्या है मेरे को यह बताओ सीधा क्योकि कं पनी तो मैं नहीं चाहता बंद हो जाए दोखो A सोल्यूशन तो मैं ने आपको कल बता दिया और यह मैं ने सिर्फ उसी की वजह से बताई मैं ने तो अपनी बताई नहीं थी A हम भी परे शान है देखो हमारा भी मन नहीं करता किसी को परे शां करने का मजबूर है क्योंकि ये उसके सिस्टम पे चढ गया और कोई बात नहीं मैं तो इसमें यही कर सकता हूँ अपनी फीस छोड सकता हूँ आप १५ नहीं २० करा देना बस सीधी सी बात है मैं अपनी हूँ मैं वो किसी को वो नहीं चाहिए किसी को दु:ख देके भाई सीधी सी बात है C ठीक है A वो तु म्हे कभी फले नहीं मुझे बस इतना पता है २५ में उसने मुझे ५ ही देने थे कोई बात नहीं C मतलब पांच आपके हिस्से के होते हैं और २० उसके A उसकी मर्जी है कभी दो दे दे लेकिन मैं २५ में से ५ ये हैन C हाँ A २५ आपको मैने बोला लोगो को ५० हजार रूपये लाख रूपये बोलता है C हाँ लाख रूपये है सही बात है A वो बोलता है क्योकि उसे पता है ये बोलूँगा तो लोग उसे दे के जायें गे इतने C हाँ A मैं तो आपको बोल ही रहा हूँ शुरू से कि ठीक है --
चलो कोशिश करना अगर आप आज ही CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 77 of 140 C ठीक है सर शाम तक हो गए तो मैं आपको फोन कर दूँगा A शाम तक ही कोशिश करना C नहीं तो कल सुबह तो 100 % A ठीक हैं C ठीक हैं फोन कर लेना सर कल A शाम को ही कर लूँगा
119. A careful perusal of transcript and the relevant portion thereof would clearly indicate that there is sufficient corroboration to the version of PW-1/complainant Anuj Kumar that bribe was demanded from him and even if excludes the transcript, the version of PW-1 is clear, unambiguous on the point of demand. PW-1 had identified his voice as well the voice of accused Paras Goel in the recorded conversation when it was played in the court including the above portion.
120. It is evident from the testimony of PW-1 that he had brought all the background circumstances or the manner in which he was being cornered by the accused Paras Goel in demanding bribe from him. A perusal of testimony of PW-1/Complainant discloses that demand of bribe reduced from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs 20,000/- is not without substance and the testimony of PW-1 on the aspect of demand of bribe had remained untainted despite elaborate cross-examination. PW-1 had admitted in his cross-examination that no pre appointed time was fixed for meeting on 25.09.2019. Visit of accused Paras Goel to the house of PW-1/Complainant was not shattered despite CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 78 of 140 assiduous cross-examination except for the bald suggestion that accused Paras Goel had not visited the house of PW-1/complainant Anuj Kumar on 25.09.2019. The cross-examination is mostly confined to the fact whether certain facts which were stated by the witness were recorded in the DVR or not and not much material has surfaced in favor of the accused Paras Goel.
121. It is apparent from the broad reading of the transcript vide Ex. PW1/E (Colly) as well as from the recorded conversations that after accused Paras Goel came into the house of Anuj Kumar(PW-1) and the discussion took place between them in which accused was telling about the necessary formalities that are required to be completed and he was repeatedly assuring that he would do the necessary work. The conversation further indicates that a day prior to the conversation both accused and complainant/PW-1 met each other in which some demand was made. PW-1/complainant was disclosing about the difficulties faced by him and despite the fact that documents and GST Return was filed/in order, he received the notice for cancellation. During the course of discussion, the accused told that this is the system, he cannot do much about it and he could only leave his fees/share of Rs. 5,000/- and the complainant/PW-1 should instead of paying Rs. 25,000/- should only pay Rs. 20,000/- and he does not want anybody should be hurt and to which the complainant/PW-1 responded in affirmative. On further query of complainant/PW-1, accused Paras Goel that out of Rs. 25000/-, the accused Paras Goel was having share of Rs. 5000/-. The accused Paras Goel further told that he is only demanding Rs. 25,000/- from him whereas, from CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 79 of 140 others Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- is asked (demanded).
122. The recorded conversation clearly indicates that after negotiation accused Paras Goel had agreed for Rs. 20,000/-. The recorded conversation is also very clear that demand for bribe is made in relation to the fact that GST notice was to be cancelled and for which every possible thing need to be done. The accused was repeatedly assuring that this was the system. The minute detail with respect to the conversation between Accused Paras Goel and PW-1/complainant is more or less expressed in PW-1/E (Colly).
123. In so far as the testimony of PW-1 is concerned, it is evident that he had clearly brought out all the background circumstances as to how he was being cornered by the accused Paras Goel while demanding bribe from him.
124. Narrating or detailing about the facts by a witness during criminal trial varies from person to person. Some witnesses/persons would depose about the minutest things in a detailed manner whereas, some witnesses would not be able to narrate the things in a detailed manner or are not able to recall any fact in relation to the events witnessed by them. At times, it could be because of limitation of human memory or a witness not able to recall the complete turn of events. There are some witnesses who are able to narrate the facts and incidents but at times, they mixed up some events or dates, etc. A witness deposing before the Court after a long interval usually would be able to tell the main part of the story. For instance, if an incident CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 80 of 140 had occurred on a particular day and on the subsequent day, a witness would be able to recount the exact time, date and events and the minute details as to how he had reached a particular place, mode of transport or anything worthy to be noticed. In Trap Cases, the witness would be able to depose about the facts, however, it would be foolish to expect that his conversation which was recorded in the electronic medium should completely matched with the version given by the witness in the court. A recorded conversation records the conversation to the extent of audibility. The deposition before the Court happens after interval of time and therefore, some minor inconsistencies are going to surface in the deposition of the witness and what is required to be considered whether due to the long passage of time, the witness is able to depose in logical, consistent and truthful manner. In reference to the present case, conversation took place in September, 2019 whereas deposition was made by PW-1 in the year 2023.
125. It has come in the testimony of PW-1/Complainant and other witnesses that after accused Paras Goel had left the house of PW-1/Complainant, some telephonic discussion took place between the Accused Paras Goel and PW-1 Anuj which centered about the place of meeting and ultimately Akshardham Metro Station was fixed as meeting point for the delivery of bribe amount as agreed in the house of the PW-1. The CBI team alongwith the independent witness including Verification Officer reached the office of CBI.
126. The above sequence of events as well as the verification of the complaint Ex PW-1/A through verification proceedings vide Ex CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 81 of 140 PW-1/B which emerged during the verification proceedings, an FIR was registered vide Ex. PW23/A and pursuant to which a handing over memorandum was prepared vide Ex. PW1/C in the office of CBI.
127. A trap team was constituted under the leadership of PW-19 Harish Chandra. As usual the pre trap proceedings were carried out by smearing the phenolphthalein powder on the GC notes of Rs. 20,000/- as produced by the complainant/PW-1, DVR and memory card were also arranged. Recording of introductory voices etc. The distinctive serial numbers of the smeared currency notes were also mentioned in the handing over memorandum vide Ex. PW1/C. The search of the members of the trap team was also conducted. The demonstration of phenolphthalein powder and its reaction with sodium carbonate solution was carried and the usual instructions that bribe amount is to be delivered on the demand of the accused and the independent witness to overhear the conversation between the Public Servant and PW-1/Complainant.
128. Testimonies of PW-1, PW-11, PW-13, PW-19 and PW-20 were to the effect that the CBI team along with complainant and independent witnesses decided to leave from the office of CBI to Akshardham Metro Station to trap/apprehend the accused Paras Goel and during the transit, calls were exchanged between PW-1/Complainant and accused Paras Goel which were duly recorded in the memory card through DVR.
CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 82 of 140129. It is further revealed from the testimonies of PW-1 and other witnesses that they left the CBI Office at about 6 pm in two separate vehicles towards Akshardham Metro Station, however due to a very heavy traffic, the CBI team decided to alight at Pragati Maidan Metro Station and accordingly, PW-1and independent witnesses and some CBI officials boarded Metro train for proceeding towards Akshardham metro station.
130. PW-1 stated that he alongwith both the independent witnesses and other CBI officials reached Akshardham Metro Station between 07-08 PM and a call was also received inquiring about his whereabouts which were also recorded. He also stated that he along with independent witness and other CBI team proceeded and PW-1 also stated that " I met with Paras Goel. Paras Goel asked me whether I brought the money. I told him that I have brought the money " and PW-1 stated in the volunteered portion that " He asked me whether if I have any pain in giving the bribe amount and I said no. Thereafter, Paras Goel asked me to put the money in his (Paras Goel) right side pant pocket. I put the said money in the right side pant pocket of Paras Goel". PW-1 also stated that after signal was given by independent witness/PW-11 Deepak Kumar Tamta, accused Paras Goel was apprehended and was taken to stairs adjacent to a garment shop towards the mall.
131. PW-11 Deepak Kumar Tamta deposed that at Akshardham Metro Station he saw that PW-1 was speaking to suspect i.e. Paras Goel and Complainant PW-1 indicated by way of facial gesture and CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 83 of 140 later on he saw that Suspect i.e. Paras Goel was apprehended and he was taken on side and the identity was confirmed as Paras. He further deposed that the said suspect was keeping the money in his pocket and was given to him for counting and he counted the money and found to be Rs. 20,000/-. The pant which was worn by Paras Goel was taken and water was poured in the pocket from where the money/amount was kept by Paras Goel and he had also noticed that pant pocket of paras Goel had changed its colour to PINK and he had handed over the amount/money recovered by CBI official. He had also stated that the pant worn by the accused Paras Goel was seized.
132. PW-13 Suresh Kumar deposed at about 05:15 PM on 25.09.2019, they left towards Akshardham Metro Station in two vehicles and upon reaching the Akshardham metro station Paras Goel and complainant met each other and then Paras Goel asked that he PW-13 be kept away/aside by saying "Bhaiya ko side kr do" and accordingly, PW-13 maintained some distance from both of them. He also stated that and he was unable to hear the conversation between both Paras Goel and complainant/PW-1. PW-13 further deposed that complainant Anuj put money into the right-side pant pocket of Paras Goel and then, CBI team apprehended accused Paras Goel from the spot and accused Paras Goel started crying and said to him/PW-13 "Bhaiya tumne mujhe dhokha diya" (Brother you have ditched me).
133. PW-19 Harish Chandra (TLO) stated that the CBI team reached Akshardham Metro Station at 19:25 Hours and thereafter, call was exchanged between PW-1/complainant and accused Paras Goel in CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 84 of 140 which PW-1/complainant apprised about his position and thereafter, the DVR was handed over to the complainant/PW-1 in switch on mode and he apprised the complainant and shadow witness Suresh Kumar about predefined signal and then both the complainant and shadow witness proceed towards Gate No. 1 whereas, the remaining trap team members were following in discreet manner and then he saw that complainant Anuj Kumar and shadow witness Suresh Kumar were seen meeting Accused Paras Goel in check shirt and jeans and wearing spectacles and the shadow witness moved at little distance from them. He also stated that at about 19:40 Hours the complainant was seen taking out the trap money and was seen putting it in the right side pant pocket of worn jeans of Paras Goel and he/PW-19 immediately alerted the team and the team rushed towards Paras Goel and apprehended him and he/PW-19 caught hold the left hand of Paras Goel and PW-20 SI Nitin Choudhary caught hold the right hand of the accused Paras Goel.
134. PW-20 Nitin Choudhary stated that on 25.09.2019, he went to Akshardham Metro Station where he saw that complainant and shadow witness were meeting some person and thereafter, complainant was seen taking out bribe money and handing over the same to some person who was later identified as Accused Paras Goel.
135. It is debouched from the testimonies of PW-1, PW-11, PW-13, PW-19 and PW-20, that they were in close proximity from Accused Paras Goel and PW1 after reaching Akshardham Metro Station on 25.09.2019. PW-1 Anuj Kumar. PW-11, PW-13, PW-19 and PW-20 CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 85 of 140 had seen both accused Paras Goel and PW-1/Complainant Anuj Kumar interacting/conversing with each other. The conversation between PW-1 and accused Paras Goel could not be overheard by PW-13 and other witnesses. PW-13 and PW-19 had stated that they saw PW-1/complainant putting money inside the pant pocket of accused Paras Goel. PW-1/Complainant Anuj Kumar had already stated that he put the bribe money in the pant pocket of the accused Paras Goel (as asked by him). PW-20 had also stated that the bribe amount was handed over to the accused Paras Goel. It can be said that so far as the delivery of the tainted bribe amount is concerned, PW-1, PW-13 and PW-19 had stated in chorus that bribe amount was put in the pant pocket of Accused Paras Goel which was witnessed by them.
136. All the above-mentioned witnesses had stated that when pre- decided signal was given, accused Paras Goel was apprehended and the bribe amount was recovered from pant pocket of accused Paras Goel and PW 11 had even specified from the pocket of the pant from which the bribe amount was recovered from accused Paras Goel. There are some minor contradictions as to who took out the bribe money from the pocket of Accused Paras Goel, some of the prosecution witnesses stated that it was taken out PW-11 Deepak Tamta whereas Deepak Tamta (PW 11) states that bribe money was recovered by CBI officials and he alongwith other independent witness had matched with the description of the recovered bribe amount from handing over memo vide Ex. PW1/C and the slight contradiction in any manner does not in any manner affects the case of prosecution as the recovered currency notes had matched with the CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 86 of 140 description of the currency notes recorded in Ex PW-1/C. The composite reading of the testimonies of the witnesses would make it clear that after the delivery of bribe amount, all of them rushed towards accused Paras Goel and PW-1 Anuj Kumar and Paras Goel was being apprehended by the CBI officials. There are some minor variations as to which witness was instructed in the office of CBI to overhear the conversation between PW-1 and accused Paras Goel. PW-1 had stated that on the date of trap, he was moving with Mr. Tamta whereas, Suresh was at some distance from us. In the cross- examination, a specific question was put about the position of PW-11 on the date of trap at Akshardham Metro Station to which he had stated that he was about 20-22 steps from Anuj and accused Paras Goel. PW-11 had specified that he and Suresh Kumar (PW-13) were at a distance of about 10-15 steps. Ex. PW13/B i.e. rough site plan of the spot was objected on behalf of the Defence on the ground that same was hit by Section 162 CrPC and even if it is accepted that site plan vide Ex. PW13/B is hit by section 162 CrPC. The answer given by PW-11 corroborates the position of PW-1/complainant, PW-13 as well as the accused Paras Goel were in close proximity with each other at the spot at Akshardham Metro Station and are in a good position to witness the transaction.
137. Without going into the admissibility of the recorded conversations, the relevant part of the transcriptions vide Ex. PW1/F (colly) (Q-2) is being reproduced below:-
C साँरी सर लेट हो गया
A बहु त इंतजार कर दिया आपने बस
CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 87 of 140
C पैसे का जु गाड करते करते लेट हो गया था
A आपका चेहरा न मेरे दिमाग मे घूम रहा है जब से
आपको मैं ने---
C अब तो मैं ने कर लिया पूरा 20000 रूपये का जुगाड
हो गया
A पूरा जुगाड हो गया
C हां
A कोई दिक्कत तो नहीं आपको
C अब कोई नही है
A है
C अब कोई नहीं है
A आपको दिल दुख रहा होगा
C न न कोई दिक्कत नहीं है
A है
A पक्की बात बताओ
C पक्का गिन लो
A रूको रूको जेब में रख दो ये पैं से
A मन दुख रहा है आपको तो बता दो
C नहीं नहीं मन वन कोई नहीं दुख रहा बट देखो ये है
न मन्थ का एण्ड है तो 20000 रूपये जु गाड करने में
टाइम तो लगता है न थोडा
A नहीं वो बात तो ठीक है आपकी मेरे को यही था कि
यार आपका मन दुख रहा है आपका रात को मेरे को
नींद नहीं आयगी
C नहीं कोई नहीं देखो जो चीज लगनी है वो जानी है
बस कम्पनी बंद न हो यही सीन है न
A वो नहीं होगी उसकी टें शन आप मत लो
C और तो कोई दिक्कत नहीं होगाी न
A वो कोई दिक्कत नहीं है कोई गलत काम तो नहीं
कर रहे आप
C ना कोई गलत नहीं कर रहा सारी चीज जेनूअन है
CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 88 of 140
टै क्स वेस्ट टाइम पे दे देता हूं
A गलत काम नहीं होना चाहिए--- ये आपके साथ
बिजनस में ही है क्या
C नहीं भाई है रिलेटिव है
A है
C भाई है
A दोनों साथ ही जाते है---
C आ रखे है मैं ने कहा चलो साथ ही चलो यहां क्या
करोगें --- के लिए
A अच्छा अच्छा अच्छा
C बुआं के लडके
A कोई और तो नहीं है ये
C न ऐसा कोई न है यहां कौन होएगा दोनो ही तो आये
है, फोन आ रहा है, बस ध्यान रखना-- इसकीन न
A नहीं दिक्कत नहीं होगी नोटिस तो मैं अपने घर ले
जाउंगा
C पकडो फिर गिन लो
A नोटिस तो मैं वो क्लीयर कर दूंगा
C पूरे 20000 है
A जेब मे डाल दो कोई बात नहीं, नोटिस ------ नोटिस
C गिन लो न एक बार पूरे 20000 रूपये ह, अरे गिन
फिर भी दिक्कत हो
A नोटिस --- वाइस नाँट क्लीयर
C नोटिस हटना चाहिए बस टें शन न हो
A हैं
C नोटिस हटना चाहीए
A नोटिस मैं कल आपका हटवा दूंगा, आपके दिल को
कु छ दुख रहा हो तो ले लो बस मेरे को ये है मेरे को
नींद नहीं आयगी
C न न कोई दिक्कत न थोडे जरूरी जरूरी है न जब
आपको अपने पास तो रखने नहीं आपको भी देने है
CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 89 of 140
A मेरे को नहीं रखने मेरे को नहीं रखने-- और मेरे का -
-
C आपने भी तो अपने बाँस को देने है
A मेरे को नहीं रखने मेरे को नहीं रखने- - और मेरे
का---
C आपने भी तो अपने बाँस को देने है - -
A मेरा नहीं है जी ये काम इन्होंने जबरदस्ती जेब में
डाले है जी
अनजान-गवाह कहां है आ जाओ --- वाइस नाँट क्लीयर बस यहीं रूक जा ----
138. The recorded conversation as well as the transcription vide Ex. PW1/F (Colly) (Q-2) reveals that PW-1 offered apologies for coming late at the spot and told that he was making an arrangement for the money of Rs. 20,000/-. It also revealed that the accused asked the complainant/PW-1 Anuj Kumar if he was facing any difficulty and asked him to count the money. Accused asked the complainant to keep money with him (complainant). Further discussion also ensued between them, in which the complaint enquired whether everything is being done in proper manner or not. During conversation, the accused also enquired about one of the persons who was present near the spot and PW-1 told him that he was his relative. PW-1/complainant once again asked the accused to count the money and told him that the total amount is Rs.20,000/-. The accused then directed PW-1/Complainant to put in his pocket (pocket of the accused). The complainant/PW-1 also requested to get the notice removed and accused Paras Goel also assured that he would get the notice removed. After the money was put into the pocket of accused Paras Goel, the accused even went to CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 90 of 140 say "Aap ke dil ko kuch dukh raha ho toh le lo, bas mere ko yeh hai ki mere ko neend nhi aaegi".
139. The contention of the ld. Defence Counsel that at the spot there was no demand of bribe by accused Paras Goel by submitting that PW-1 had stated that no money related talk took place at Akshardham Metro Station. Ld. Defence Counsel has picked up a single sentence in the cross-examination by simply putting words into the mouth of the witness that no money related talk took place at Akshardham Metro Station without specifying what he meant by the money related talks. The origin and basis of demand is firmly rooted during verification proceedings when accused Paras Goel had demanded the bribe after negotiation and on the date of the final trap at Akshardham Metro Station, he had asked the complainant to put the money in his pant pocket and which in itself is complete to indicate that there was a demand of bribe and in pursuance of the same, the tainted bribe amount was put in the pocket which further fulfills the ingredient of obtainment. The conversation at the time of final trap as well as initial verification are required to be considered both conjunctively as well as disjunctively which clearly indicates that there was a demand of bribe by accused on both the occasions. Both the conversation during initial verification as well as the conversation at the time of final trap are continuous and spanning with in the interval of few hours.
140. It is also evident from the circumstances from 25.09.2019 neither the CBI team nor complainant had stopped independent CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 91 of 140 witness from overhearing the conversation between PW-1 and accused Paras Goel.
141. The testimony of PW-1 was also challenged on the ground that it did not bear the signature of PW-1 on the inner line of the pant, although, he had stated that he signed on all the relevant exhibits of the day. This cannot be said as a major contradiction which creates dent on the testimony of PW-1. Notably, during cross-examination ld. Defence Counsel even took the measurement of the blue jeans produced in the Court possibly to indicate that same does not match with the waist size of accused Paras Goel and after measurement no questions were put and the only suggestion given to PW-1 was that accused has nothing to do with the pant. PW-1 had clearly stated that no discussion with respect to money talk took place during two telephonic conversations prior to reaching Akshardham Metro Station which was admitted by the witness. Relevantly, the call detail record as well as testimonies of other witnesses accompanying the complainant on the date of the final trap at spot i.e. Akshardham Metro Station would indicate that none of the witnesses had indicated that when calls were exchanged between the accused Paras Goel and PW-1, prior to reaching the spot where bribe related transaction took place at Akshardham Metro Station and same also provides an assurance that there was no error in the audio recording.
142. PW-1/Complainant Anuj Kumar had clearly denied the suggestion that accused did not ask him to put money in his pant CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 92 of 140 pocket or that no money was put in the pant pocket of accused Paras Goel. As discussed earlier, other witnesses had consistently deposed about the recovery of the bribe amount which matched with the distinctive serial number of mentioned in the handing over memo Ex. PW1/C.
143. The case of prosecution as per charge-sheet and unfolded during trial from the testimonies of different witnesses that PW-1 had kept the bribe amount in the pocket of accused Paras Goel. PW-1 had stated in no ambiguous term that the bribe money was put into the pocket of Paras Goel as demanded by him. Perusal of his cross- examination would reveal that not much challenge was put on this statement by the Defence. Other witnesses had also seen that bribe money was put by PW-1 into the pocket of accused Paras Goel. Not a single witness was questioned or cross-examined that bribe money was thrusted into the pocket of accused Paras Goel and the only defence was that the recovery was planted. The substantial part of the case of the prosecution that blue jeans pant wash was taken which turned Pink and its solution was transferred at the spot further corroborates and confirms about the acceptance as well as recovery of Rs. 20,000/- from the pant pocket of accused Paras Goel which perfectly matches with the description of distinctive number of currency notes. One of the contentions of the ld. Counsel for accused was that PW-20 Nitin Choudhary (Verification Officer) had stated that he had seen the bribe money being handed over to Paras Goel and hand wash of accused Paras Goel was taken. It is true that PW-20 had stated in his deposition that hand wash of the accused was taken CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 93 of 140 however, deposition of other witnesses clearly states that no hand washes was taken on that day which clearly shows that it appears to be a classic case of mix up by Verification Officer/PW-20 speaking about the hand wash, moreover, it was never the case of prosecution that accused Paras Goel took bribe money in his hand. The consistent testimonies of the witnesses apart from PW-1 was that blue jeans pant was seized and sealed at the spot i.e. At Akshardham Metro Station and accused Paras Goel was provided with a new pant.
144. PW-1 Anuj Kumar Sharma is proprietor of M/s Vital Enterprises and he used to file GST Returns, etc. It appears from various documents brought on record that GST Department was compiling the list of defaulters/various persons who had not paid the GST or business/work is not being conducted at the premises/office is being maintained in the record of GST Department. The web portal contains the name of dealers who are registered under GST/VAT Regime alongwith their documents, etc and it appears that interaction is also made between GST Department as well as GST holders through web portal, etc.
145. During the course of investigation, a memo vide Ex. PW-4/A (Colly) in the presence of witnesses regarding accessing computer and seizure of file related to M/s Vital Enterprises maintained in the electronic form at the office of Asst. Commissioner was prepared. PW-4 before whom the proceedings relating to the above memo was undertaken had stated that the documents were extracted/taken out from the computer system maintained at Ward No. 77 with the help of CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 94 of 140 PW-8 Nagesh Kumar Mallah provided the unique digital signature key and printout of the documents were taken on which he appended his signature at Point A and other persons had also appended their signatures on different points. PW-8 Nagesh Kumar Mallah had furnished certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act vide Ex. PW8/A. The following documents were seized and made part and parcel of Ex. PW4/A (Colly):-
i. Certified copy of screen shot desktop and GST website portal. ii. Copies generated through GSTIN Portal of documents related to M/s Vital Enterprises.
iii. Screenshot of mail.in.
iv. Receiving E-mail (Red Flag No. 1).
v. Default by top tax payers for Return Period March 2019. vi. A certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act was also made part and parcel of Ex. PW4/A (Colly).
146. The above-mentioned documents were downloaded from the website portal of GST Department in the presence of witnesses and the printout of all the above documents were taken and signed by the persons who were present at the time of seizure/operation on 15.10.2019. PW-23 Sandeep Kumar Tiwari (Investigating Officer) had stated that after accessing the computer system, the seizure of the file containing total 59 pages (55 pages of documents, three pages of memo of operation and one page is certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act).
147. Perusal of cross-examination of PW-4 Ajit Kumar and PW-9 CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 95 of 140 Ramesh Kirad would reveal that their testimonies with respect to the manner in which the printout of the documents were obtained is not substantially challenged except the bald suggestion that no computer was operated by him or that they signed in a mechanical manner.
148. PW-8 Nagesh Kumar Mallah deposed in similar line with PW-4, PW-9 and PW-23 and therefore, it can be safely concluded that printout of the documents were taken out from the official website from the computer system maintained during the discharge of official duties maintained by GST Department.
149. It is further the case of Prosecution that a show cause notice vide Ex. PW5/A (Colly, Page No. 2) ( corresponding to Ex. PW8/DE) was issued by PW 8 Nagesh Kumar Mallah, Asst. Commissioner GST after receipt of report in the prescribed format REG 30 from GST Inspector i.e. Accused Paras Goel that no business was being conducted at the premises of PW-1 Anuj. PW-8 Nagesh Kumar Mallah, Asstt. Commissioner deposed that after receiving the report in prescribed format, he issued Show Cause notice to PW-1 Anuj Kumar Sharma, Prop. M/s Vital Enterprises interalia informing that no business was being carried out from the said premises. The show cause notice dated 13.09.2019 vide Ex. PW5/A (colly, at Page No. 2) was uploaded on the GST portal and which was supposed to be replied by GST Holder i.e. PW-1 Anuj Kumar, Prop. M/s Vital Enterprises. PW-1 filed response/reply to the Show Cause Notice vide Mark PW1/1 (Mark PW1/1 is part of the document whose printout was taken vide Ex. PW4/A (Colly) and certificate u/s 65 B of Indian CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 96 of 140 Evidence Act was also filed to indicate the documents were taken out from the computer system of PW-8 maintained at Ward No. 77, GST Department.
150. PW-1/Complainant had stated that he had received a call from accused Paras Goel that his GST Number is liable to be canceled as his firm was not found working at the given address. PW-1/Complainant also stated that he had received a show cause notice (GST Department) and he filed the reply through his Chartered Accountant (CA) and identified the reply vide Mark PW1/1 (which is same as Ex. PW5/DA provided by PW-5 Chartered Accountant of PW-1) although he was unable to recall the exact date of the show cause notice.
151. PW-5 Rakesh Kumar (Chartered Accountant) used to file GST Return of M/s Vital Enterprises. PW-5 stated that he was informed by PW-1/complainant Anuj Kumar with respect to the show cause notice (Ex. PW8/DE, Page No. 47 of Ex. PW4/A (Colly, D-12)) (Page No. 2 of Ex. PW5/A (Colly, User End) from GST Department through Text Message and as per instruction, he logged in to GST Portal from Login credentials of Anuj Kumar/PW-1 and after logging into the GST Portal he downloaded the copy of the show cause notice dated 13.09.2019 and on the instruction of PW-1/Complainant, he filed reply to the show cause notice with the request the Department for a revisit of firm and uploaded the reply online to the portal of GST.
152. PW-5 provided the copy of the show cause notice dated CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 97 of 140 13.09.2019, online reply as well as the request to stay on cancellation of notice of M/s Vital Enterprises vide Ex. PW5/A (Colly) through seizure memo, a certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act vide Ex. PW5/B was also furnished. The manner in which document was attempted to be brought on record as well as Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act was objected by the ld. defence counsel on the ground that the same was a leading question. The objection deserves to be rejected as number of documents were seized from the said witness and the witness had completely provided the background in the manner in which he provided the documents vide Ex. PW5/A (colly) to the CBI. The witness had clarified that the printout of the documents vide Ex. PW5/A (colly) were taken out from the GST Portal. The objection was raised that signatures on Ex. PW5/DA was not made by PW-1 before him. A careful perusal of his testimony would reveal that the witness is basically referring the show cause notice appearing at Page No. 2 of Ex. PW5/A (Colly) which corresponds of Page No. 47/Ex. PW8/DE (part of Ex. PW4/A (D-12) (Colly)). The reply to the show cause notice (dated 13.09.2019) which is available at Page No. 49 (Mark PW1/1) of Ex. PW4/A (Colly) is same as Ex. PW5/DA (available at page No. 5 (D-17). It is also relevant to mention that in cross-examination, PW-5 had further clarified that show cause notice dated 13.09.2019 at Page No. 2 of D-17 was taken out from the GST Portal. PW-5 had denied anything to do with E-mail available at Page No. 9 of D-17 ( It appears that it was taken from Mobile Phone of complainant/PW-1 Anuj Kumar and same is not being read in evidence as this witness has nothing to do with the said E-mail).
CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 98 of 140153. It is therefore apparent from the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-5 that show cause notice was received which was duly replied by PW-1 and the reply of Anuj Kumar was uploaded by the concerned Chartered Accountant and the document was provided with certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act vide Ex. PW5/B.
154. Any public websites such as GST or Income Tax Department portal, operates through two interfaces. One interface is accessible to the public and other form part of the secured back end. Persons/individuals operating from either interface, in order to carry out any official transaction, ordinarily requires Login ID/Digital Keys or passwords as the case may be. PW-8 was accessing the interface from the GST Department site and had access to the documents uploaded by a user/ private person from the public end who is a registered GST holder. GST holder in possession of valid login ID as well as Password can access the GST website to carry out the transaction/work. Since both individuals accessed the portal using by using authorized credential in an authorized manner, it can be safely inferred that documents uploaded at end accessed other end corroborate and validate each other. Therefore, show cause notice (Ex. PW8/DE, Page No. 47 of Ex. PW4/A (Colly, D-12)) (Page No. 2 of Ex. PW5/A (Colly, User End) and its online reply as well as printout of the reply is available on both ends i.e. user end as well as end of GST Department and therefore, any challenge on whatsoever that the documents were not uploaded, etc were liable to be rejected.
CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 99 of 140155. In view of the above discussion, it is clearly established that a show cause notice dated 13.09.2019 issued by PW-8 Nagesh Kumar Mallah, Asstt. Commissioner was acknowledged by PW-1 and on his instruction his CA/PW-5 had filed its reply along with supporting documents including the handwritten reply.
156. PW-8 Nagesh Kumar Mallah stated that when a defaulting party does not file tax return or tax then VAT Inspector is sent to check whether unit/business is working or not, if the contact is made (concerned party) then, VAT Insp. suggest him to file the return and if the return is not filed, despite follow up then, show cause notice is issued to such party, GST Inspector furnished report (REG 30) with respect to the functioning of firm. PW-8 deposed that he asked Paras Goel who had joined Ward No.77 as GST Inspector on 16.07.2019 vide Ex. PW8/E. PW-8 further stated that after receiving the reply on behalf of the dealer in the official E mail ID on the said reply dated 20.09.2019, he made an endorsement by way of direction " VATI please revisit as requested" and identified his initial at Point C on Ex. PW8/C. PW-8 also clarified that Paras Goel was VATI and the word "VATI" and "GSTI" are used synonymously as the case may be.
157. The prosecution is essentially trying to establish that after receiving the reply dated 20.09.2019 vide Ex. PW8/C to the show cause issued to PW-1, PW-8 directed accused Paras Goel to undertake the visit. Accused Paras Goel had denied that notice Ex. PW8/C bearing his endorsement was marked to him or that he was instructed to carry out the revisit.
CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 100 of 140158. PW-8 had also stated that he had instructed Paras Goel to diarize the letter Ex. PW8/C on which he had made endorsement as Tilak Chand was not available because of Election Duty and the relevant entry was made on Dak Register vide Ex. PW8/DD (D-13) and he referred to the entry No. 1028 dated 23.09.2019 at Page No. 271 and identified the handwriting of accused Paras Goel vide Ex. PW8/H ( The relevant Entry vide Ex. PW8/H was referred is referred as Q-2) and also stated that he is acquainted with handwriting and signature of accused Paras Goel. Objection was raised by the ld. Defence Counsel about the manner in which the document was put to the witness. The objection is not sustainable as witness had provided the complete background as to how the entries were being made in the register Ex. PW8/DD and the witness clearly identified the handwriting and signature of accused Paras Goel.
159. Ex. PW8/C was stated to have been recovered from the pant pocket of accused Paras Goel and the reference of the same is mentioned in recovery memo vide Ex. PW1/D at the earliest point of time soon after the apprehension of Accused Paras Goel.
160. The prosecution in order to establish that Ex. PW8/C was entrusted to accused Paras Goel had relied upon Ex. PW8/H as well as the writings made overleaf Ex. PW8/C i.e. Q-1 (Ex.PW8/C was also mentioned in recovery/trap memo having name and address and mobile number of PW-1 i.e. "Anuj Kumar Sharma Mr. Kishan Kumar Sharma 8B J & K 9911245555" to establish that accused Paras Goel CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 101 of 140 was assigned the job to make field visit to see whether business was in operation or not and "VATI please revisit as requested" is also made.
161. The Prosecution in order to establish that Paras Goel was assigned the task by Nagesh Kumar Mallah as recorded in register vide Ex. PW8/DD containing the handwriting at Q-2 (PW-8/H) as well as handwriting at Q-1 of Paras Goel. In order to connect the Mark Q-1 & Q-2 with Paras Goel, Prosecution has relied upon three undisputed documents containing the handwriting of Paras Goel i.e. Joining Report vide Ex. PW8/E and Casual Leave Application vide ExPW8/L. Nothing has been shown to dispute the genuineness of the admitted documents A-1, A-2 & A-3 containing the hand writings and signatures of accused Paras Goel.
162. Specimen handwriting of accused Paras Goel vide Ex. PW23/G was also obtained during the course of investigation by Insp. Sandeep Kumar Tiwari in the presence of witnesses on 05.12.2019.
163. The Specimen hand writings, admitted hand writings as well as questioned writings of the accused Paras Goel were sent to CFSL for analysis and the CFSL Report vide Ex.PW17/B imputes that both questioned and standard hand writings were similar in both general and individual writing characteristic and no fundamental difference was observed between questioned and standard writings and nothing material had surfaced in the CFSL Report to doubt about the same and had denied all the suggestions that report was prepared in a casual CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 102 of 140 basis or that she was not qualified to examine the questioned and specimen documents.
164. It is relevant to mention that admitted documents were joining reports dated 02.07.2019 and 16.07.2019 and casual leave application dated 25.07.2019 (for casual leave dated 24.07.2019) vide Ex. PW8/E and Ex. PW8/L respectively seized vide Ex PW-8/0 seizure memo dated 16.12.2019. The date of admitted documents, specimen documents as well as questioned documents were of contemporaneous period and therefore, one can say it with degree of certitude that there could not be much variation or change either in the handwriting or signature in such short duration.
165. It is contended by the Ld. Counsel for accused Paras Goel that specimen handwritings of Accused were taken without permission of the Ld. Magistrate and hence, the FSL Report, prepared on the basis of comparison of specimen and questioned handwritings is liable to be discarded. Ld. Counsel has relied upon Rakesh Kumar Vs. State 2004 Part-(1) JCC 110 Delhi.
166. In Santosh @ Bhure Vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi, Criminal Appeal No. 576 of 2011, decided on 28th April 2023, it was observed by Supreme Court of India in relation to Handwriting taken during the investigation;
65. The above view has been consistently followed by this Court in several decisions i.e. State of U.P. v. Sunil; Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P. & Another'; and, State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu"." 1 (2010) 7 CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 103 of 140 SCC 263, 15 (2017) 14 SCC 516, 16 (2013) 2 SCC 357, 17 (2005) 11 SCC 600.
66. A conspectus of the decisions above would indicate that since specimen signatures and handwriting samples are not incriminating by themselves as they are to be used for the purpose of identification of the handwriting on a material with which the investigators are already acquainted with, compulsorily obtaining such specimens would not infringe the rule against self-incrimination enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
67. In the instant case, the suicide letter was already seized by the investigating agency and therefore, obtaining specimen signatures and handwritings of Neeraj was with a view to enable a comparison for the purposes of identifying the signature/writing on the suicide letter. As such an exercise does not infringe the mandate of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, the defence argument that use of specimen signatures of Neeraj, forcibly obtained during investigation, would violate rule against self- incrimination is worthy of rejection and is, accordingly, rejected. We therefore hold that the specimen signature/handwriting of Neeraj obtained by the investigating agency could not have been discarded merely because of allegations that they were forcibly obtained during investigation without permission of the Magistrate/ Court. The view to the contrary taken by the High Court is erroneous and is, accordingly, set aside.
68. We shall now examine whether the specimens used for comparison were duly proved to be that of Neeraj. In the instant case, according to the prosecution evidence, the specimen signatures and handwritings of Neeraj were obtained during investigation. Memorandum/ documents in connection therewith including the specimens were produced, proved and marked exhibits thereby proving that they were properly kept and dispatched to FL along with the disputed suicide letter for obtaining expert CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 104 of 140 opinion. Genuineness of those specimens have not been questioned by Neeraj. The only defence taken is that the specimens of handwriting and signature were obtained by compulsion.As we have already found that such objection was unsustainable therefore, once genuineness of the specimens was not disputed, the specimens were available for comparison and were rightfully used for obtaining expert report. In such a scenario, the net result would be that the FSL report, which was provided by a government scientific expert specified in Section 293 of the Code, was admissible regardless of the fact that the expert was not examined as a witness. More so, when the defence filed no application to summon the expert for cross-
examination.
167. The police for the purposes of investigation can take hand writing or specimen signature of any person subject to just and proper reason. Since the term 'investigation' as defined u/Section 2(h) of Code of Criminal Procedure includes the collection of all the material which are required for the purposes of investigation.
168. It is necessary to observe that objections with respect to specimen handwriting/signature were taken only at final stages specially, when specimen handwriting/signatures were given voluntarily by the accused. The CFSL handwriting report has taken into consideration the specimen handwriting/signatures while opining about the questioned writings i.e. Q-1& Q-2. Even, if one excludes the specimen hand writing as well as the manner in which specimen handwriting is obtained then, it would also not make much gives to the prosecution as admitted hand writing matches perfectly with Q-1 and Q-2.
CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 105 of 140169. In view of the above discussion, the CFSL Report vide Ex. PW17/B can be very well taken into consideration. Moreover, the handwriting of accused Paras Goel was also identified by PW-8 Nagesh Kumar Mallah. Therefore, it can be safely said that Q-1 and Q-2 i.e. Ex. PW8/H as well as backside of Ex. PW8/C were in the handwriting of accused Paras Goel.
170. In light of the fact that entry No. 1028 vide Ex. PW8/H marked as Q-2 was in the handwriting of accused Paras Goel, the accused in order to dislodge the said entry in the handwriting of accused Paras Goel, certain questions were put to PW-12 Tilak Chand during cross-examination. In his cross-examination, he stated that 23.09.2019 at Point X (on the last column of entry no. 1028) was in his handwriting and made by him on the following day perhaps on the direction of Nagesh Kumar Mallah on 24.09.2019 and further elaborated next entry No. 1029 was in his handwriting. It appears that defence is trying to create confusion and has no answer to the writing made in Ex.PW8/H(Q-2). The entry No. 1028 i.e. portion marked as Q-2 contains the date as 23.09.2019 in the handwriting of accused Paras Goel. Moreover, PW-12 himself had clarified in his cross- examination that he dated 23.9.2019 entry at Point X i.e. disposal entry on 24.09.2019 and the suggestion of the ld. Defence Counsel that he made entry at Point X between 18.10.2019 to 18.11.2019 was denied by the witness and even otherwise, it would not make difference as it is proved beyond doubt that accused Paras Goel made CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 106 of 140 entry on 1028 on the portion marked Q-2(PW-8/H) in his handwriting and it was up to him to explain as to how the writings of Accused Paras Goel were on Ex PW8/H.
171. It is contended by the ld. Defence Counsel that accused Paras Goel was not in a position to favour or disfavour the complainant/PW-1 as he was not competent to withdraw show cause notice and which power exclusively lies in the hands of PW-8 Nagesh Kumar Mallah, Assistant Commissioner, Ward No. 77 and therefore, question of demand and acceptance of bribe does not arise. The submission of the ld. Defence Counsel with respect to lack of capacity to favour or disfavour cannot be put in any straight jacket formula since it varies from case to case.
172. In the instant case, the prosecution has sufficiently explained that the duty was cast on Paras Goel to undertake the visit in pursuance to the lawful order of his superior and the said assignment or job by a public servant on the direction of his superior to undertake would be a public duty. The lawful direction of a superior to his CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 107 of 140 subordinate to perform the duty either on oral or written direction squarely comes within the scope of public duty by directing him to undertake the visit. The contention of ld. Defence Counsel that since accused was not competent to withdraw the show cause or anything to do with the show cause and therefore no offence would make out. The submission is myopic as show cause was issued to PW-1 by PW-8 on the GST Portal and pursuant to which PW-1 had requested for the revisit and the superior officer i.e. PW-8 directed accused Paras Goel to undertake the said visit. A bureaucracy works on hierarchal basis and the superior officer taking an independent decision has to act on the report or submission of his Junior Officer either to accept it or to reject it. Mere fact that the public person who demanded the bribe was not in a position to favour or disfavour is not the criteria to determine the applicability of Section 7 of PC Act.
173. Section 2 (b) defines "public duty" means a duty in the discharge of which the state, the public or the community at large has an interest. The performance of duties by a person who holds an office to perform a public duty is a public servant u/s 2 (c) of PC Act. In paragraph No. 34 of State of Gujarat Vs. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai (2020) 20 SCC 360, it was observed " On a perusal of Section 2 (c) of the PC Act we may observe that the emphasis is not on the individual, rather it is the public duty performed by him/her."
174. Moreover, in Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel Vs. State of Gujarat (1976) 3 SCC 46, it was observed in Paragraph No. 21 that Section 161 of the Penal Code does not require that public servant must be in CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 108 of 140 a position to do the official act, favour or service at the time of demand or receipt of the gratification. It was further observed to constitute an offence, it is enough if the public servant who accepts the gratification, takes it by inducing a belief or by holding out that he would render assistance to the giver. Similar view was also held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ram Sarup Gupta Vs. Delhi Administration, Criminal Appeal No. 2015 of 1966 dated 30.10.1968.
175. In Gopal Shivhare Vs. State of M.P., Crl. Appeal No. 5460 of 2018 dated 31.07.2024, Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court was pleased to observe in Paragraph No. 27, " whether accused was capable of showing any favour to the bribe giver is not of very important but the important thing is that whether the accused had induced the bribe giver to give illegal gratification by making demand of the same or not? The impression in the mind of bribe giver is very more important".
176. It is evident from the testimony of PW-1 as well as other attending circumstances, it is clearly reflected that accused Paras Goel was demanding bribe from PW-1/Complainant Anuj Kumar and was inducing a belief that he was capable enough to get the official work in exchange of bribe by getting the show cause withdrawn. The contention of ld. Counsel for the accused that accused Paras Goel was not competent to withdraw the show cause and therefore, no offence is made out is rejected in light of the judgments of the Superior Court, as any public servant demanding any undue favour for getting the official work done either by himself or from some other public CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 109 of 140 servant in exchange of undue advantage would come with in the sweep of Section 7 of PC Act.
177. The prosecution has relied audio recordings in two memory cards Q-1 & Q-2 recorded through DVR to establish that voices in audio recordings contain conversation relating to demand and acceptance of the bribe between PW-1 Anuj & Accused Paras Goel. In order to appreciate the identification of a voice in the audio recording, it would be appropriate to take note of the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Ram Singh Vs. Col. Ram Singh, 1985 Supp SCC 611" a tape-recorded statement is admissible in evidence, subject to the following conditions: -
(1) The voice of the speaker must be identified by the maker of the record or other persons recognizing his voice. Where the maker is unable to identify the voice, strict proof will be required to determine whether or not it was the voice of the alleged speaker.
(2) The accuracy of the tape-recorded statement must be proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory evidence:
direct or circumstantial.
(3) Possibility of tampering with, or erasure of any part of, the tape-recorded statement must be totally excluded. The tape- recorded statement must be relevant.
(4) The recorded cassette must be sealed and must be kept in safe or official custody.
(5) The voice of the particular speaker must be clearly audible and must not be lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbance.CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 110 of 140
178. In Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 4 SCC 143, Hon'ble Apex Court considered the judgment of Ram Singh (supra) as well as the judgments of foreign jurisdiction and the minimum safeguards which are be observed at the time of appreciation of evidence of voice identification, the relevant paragraphs are as follows: -
The Court of Appeal in England in R Vs. Chenia and R. Vs. Flynn and St. John has reiterated the minimum safeguards which are required to be observed before a Court can place any reliance on the voice identification evidence, as follows:-
"(a) the voice recognition exercise should be carried out by someone other than the officer investigating the offence;
(b) proper records should be kept of the amount of time spent in contact with the suspect by any officer giving voice recognition evidence, of the date and time spent by any such officer in compiling any transcript of a covert recording, and of any annotations on a transcript made by a listening officer as to his views as to the identify of a speaker; and
(c) any officer attempting a voice recognition exercise should not be provided with a transcript bearing the annotations of any other officer.
In America, similar safeguards have been evolved through a series of judgments of different Courts. The 9 [2003] 2 Cr. App. R. 6 CA 10 [2008] 2 Cr.APP.R.20, CA principles evolved have been summed-up in American Jurisprudence 2d (Vol. 29) in regard to the admissibility of tape recorded statements, which are stated as under:-
"The cases are in general agreement as to what constitutes a proper foundation for the admission of a sound recording, and indicate a reasonably strict adherence to the rules prescribed CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 111 of 140 for testing the admissibility of recordings, which have been outlined as follows :
(1) a showing that the recording device was capable of taking testimony;
(2) a showing that the operator of the device was competent;
(3) establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the recording;
(4) a showing that changes, additions, or deletions have not been made;
(5) a showing of the manner of the preservation of the recording;
(6) identification of the speakers; and (7) a showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made without any kind of inducement. ... However, the recording may be rejected if it is so inaudible and indistinct that the jury must speculate as to what was said.
179. In Mahabir Prasad VermaVs. Dr. Surender Kumar, (1982) 2 SCC 258, it was held that a tape recorded conversation can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence.
180. As discussed earlier, both during verification proceedings as well as trap proceedings, PW-1/Anuj Kumar was carrying DVR along with memory card in a clandestine manner for recording the conversation between him and accused Paras Goel in memory cards Q-1 & Q-2. The prosecution examined two sets of witnesses to establish that recorded conversations contain the voice of accused Paras Goel and PW-1 Anuj. One set of witnesses are acquainted with the voice of accused Paras Goel whereas second category of the CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 112 of 140 witness is CFSL Expert.
181. PW-1/Complainant Anuj Kumar identified his voice as well as the voice of accused Paras Goel in both the memory cards Q-1 & Q-2 in the court. PW-1/Complainant Anuj Kumar had also identified his signature on the transcription memo vide Ex. PW1/E (Colly) and Ex. PW1/F (Colly) and denied the suggestion that he had signed transcripts in a mechanical manner without actually participating in proceedings dated 14.11.2019.
182. The witness had also stated that his specimen voice was also taken and except for some suggestion that recorded conversation had nothing to do with the recordings played in the Court which was denied by PW-1. Nothing much has been elicited in the cross- examination of PW-1 on the aspect of voice identification of accused Paras Goel and even, PW-1/Complainant had stated that prior to reaching Akshardham Metro Station, no money related talks took place during discussion which is confirmed in the audio recordings. After accused Paras Goel has left the house of PW-1 in the noon time, two calls were exchanged for fixing the place of meeting. No substantial disparity between audio recordings as well as transcripts had emerged and even otherwise, when transcripts are prepared after hearing the conversation, it is only transcribed to the extent of audibility, and if the transcripts omit relevant part of the conversation, then depending on the facts of the case, such transcripts are to be appreciated and what is of utmost significance whether memory cards indeed contained the recorded conversation of the speakers as CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 113 of 140 asserted by the Prosecution. If the recorded conversation and transcripts show great differences, which cannot be reconciled, then depending on the facts of the case, such recorded conversation and transcripts are required to be appreciated.
183. It is evident from the testimony of PW-1/complainant that he was speaking and interacting with accused Paras Goel either by making the visit to the office of GST and both of them had exchanged calls with each other and therefore, in relation to the present case, PW-1 was very well acquainted with the voice of Paras Goel and only suggestion given was that accused had nothing do with the conversation which were played in the court. The contention of the ld. Counsel for the accused that in the cross-examination PW-1 had stated that memory cards were taken out from the sealed packet and therefore there are chances of tampering. Voice identification memo clearly records proceedings were carried out from the investigation copy and hence the use of word "sealed packet" would not mean that it was taken out from the sealed envelope in which memory cards were put after the proceedings dated 25.9.2019. PW-1 had identified his voice as well as the voice of Accused Paras Goel which matches with the transcripts vide Ex PW-1/E and PW-1/F.
184. PW-8 Sh. Nagesh Kumar Mallah identified the voice of accused Paras Goel in the audio recordings from memory cards Q-1 & Q-2 when played in the Court. PW-8 further deposed that he was well acquainted with the voice of accused Paras Goel as he used to work under him in Ward No. 77 and used to converse with him on CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 114 of 140 daily basis. PW-8 Nagesh Kumar Mallah had also stated that he had identified the voice of accused Paras Goel in the office of CBI and also identified his signature on voice identification memo vide Ex. PW8/M. During his cross-examination, he had stated that his signatures were not obtained on the transcripts and he had also stated about the existence of the transcripts. The prosecution has also not asserted that any signature of PW-8 was taken on transcripts. PW-8 being the superior officer was making regular interaction with the accused Paras Goel and is in a good position to identify the voice of Accused and both during the investigation as well as in the court and nothing material has surfaced to clearly indicate that he could not have identified the voice of Accused Paras Goel.
185. PW-12 Tilak Chand was unable to identify the voice of accused Paras Goel in some of the audio recordings as played before him in the Court from Q-1. He was only able to identify the voice of accused Paras Goel in two files namely 190925_1437 as well as 190925_1729. PW-12 identified the voice of accused Paras Goel from two files of Q-2 190925_1832, 190925_1959 and 190925_1931 whereas he was unable to identify any voice in 190925_1928 on the ground that the said file was having disturbance. He had identified his signature on the voice identification memo vide Ex. PW12/C. The voice recording in File No. 190925_1931 contains the incriminating conversation on the spot at Akshardham Metro Station and the possibility that PW-12 is not deliberately identifying the voice of accused Paras Goel being is not ruled out specially when he is identifying the voice of accused Paras Goel in other audio files.
CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 115 of 140186. PW-11 Deepak Kumar Tamta had identified his signature on the transcripts vide Ex. PW1/F at Point C. PW-11 Deepak Kumar Tamta had stated that he had merely signed the transcript without reading the same. Moreover, he was not very sure whether the recordings contained the voice of accused Paras Goel or not. Although, he was able to identify the voice of complainant Anuj Kumar.
187. PW-13 Suresh Kumar identified his signature on the transcripts vide Ex. PW1/E and Ex. PW1/F. PW-13 had identified the voice of accused Paras Goel in the audio recordings (contained in Q-1 & Q-2) played in the Court.
188. Considering the statements of PW-1, PW-8 and PW-12, the prosecution is successful in establishing that voices in the audio recordings were of Paras Goel and complainant/PW-1 Anuj Kumar even if, one ignores the statement of PW-13 Suresh Kumar with respect to voice identification being associated only on 25.9.2019 for some duration.
189. It is also contended on behalf of ld. Defence Counsel that CFSL Report vide Ex. PW 24/A is not admissible as CFSL is not notified under section 79 A of Information & Technology Act by the Central Government for the purposes of examination of electronic record and PW-24 is also not an examiner u/s 45 A of Indian Evidence Act.
CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 116 of 140190. In order to consider the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the accused, Section 79 A IT Act is being quoted below: -
79A. Central Government to notify Examiner of Electronic Evidence.- The Central Government may, for the purposes of providing expert opinion on electronic form evidence before any court or other authority specify, by notification in the Official Gazette, any Department, body or agency of the Central Government or a State Government as an Examiner of Electronic Evidence.
Explanation. For the purposes of this section, "electronic form evidence" means any information of probative value that is either stored or transmitted in electronic form and includes computer evidence, digital audio, digital video, cell phones, digital fax machines.
191. Section 79-A of IT Act, uses the word "may" for providing an expert opinion with respect to electronic form of evidence and the Central Government could specify or designate a particular authority or Department as an examiner of Electronic Evidence in the Official Gazette. Meaning thereby that a discretion is vested with the Central Government to designate any lab/expert as an expert to examine electronic form of evidence. However, the same does not mean that if an expert has examined the electronic record and furnished his opinion, the report filed by such an expert is to be rejected since the laboratory from which such expert has conducted the examination of electronic form Evidence was not designated by Central Government under section 79 A of I T Act. Acceptance of such an argument would make the expert evidence obtained from examination of electronic record/document redundant. Words in a statute should be interpreted/ understood in a meaningful manner, and the word used CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 117 of 140 i.e. 'may' indicates it is directory. There is nothing in Section 79 A of IT Act which bars the admission of a report given by an expert who had examined the electronic record. The provision does not say that in the absence of notification an opinion given by a person cannot be admitted in evidence.
192. Recently Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ravi Mohan Sharma vs. CBI Crl. MC No. 7 of 2025 (dated 20.03.2025) observed that: -
"there is no infirmity with the finding of the learned Trial Court that Section 79 A of Information & Technology Act uses the word 'may' which means that a discretion is vested with the Central Government to designate any authority as an expert of electronic evidence. However, the same cannot be construed to mean that in the absence of the notification in respect of a laboratory - such as CFSL- opinion based on scientific examination given by a person well versed or skilled in such science is not admissible in evidence, and there is nothing in Section 79 A which bars the admission of a report given by an expert who had examined the electronic record".
193. Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act itself permits the acceptance of an opinion of an expert in the court proceedings. It is altogether a different matter that certain precautions and checks are followed while appreciating the electronic evidence. In the present case, objection has no force as PW-24 examined the electronic record and therefore, the report filed by him can be very well taken into CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 118 of 140 consideration and cannot be rejected on the ground that CFSL was not notified under Section 79A of IT Act or PW- 24 was not notified as examiner under section 79 A of IT Act.
194. One of the submissions of ld. Defence Counsel for the accused Paras Goel is that Prosecution had not explained as to where memory cards Q-1 & Q-2 as well as DVR remained after 25.09.2019 till it had reached the CFSL. The memory cards Q-1 & Q-2 were received in sealed condition at CFSL and the independent witness had produced the seal in the court which was taken on record vide Ex PW-13/ZA. PW-23 had stated that the exhibits were deposited in Malkhana, however, the date of deposit of Malkhana was not indicated or stated by PW-23 or PW-20 and both of them did not elaborate in their testimonies about the exact date of deposit of exhibits in Malkhana, however, it is reflected from the perusal of forwarding letter vide Ex PW-23/D for preparing five copies of the memory cards and a request was also made for providing investigation copy of the IO on 14.10.2019. Vide Ex. PW23/E, the relevant exhibits were sent to the Physics Division, CFSL on 15.11.2019. PW-24 Deepak Tanwar has explained in his cross-examination that he had explained that the seal in the Parcel Q-1 & Q-2 were tallied with the specimen seal of Photo Division, CFSL sent by the Forwarding Authority. He had also stated that he is very well aware about the sample seal of Photo Division as expert was known to him. PW-24 in his cross-examination had stated that in his internal file vide Ex. PW24/C-1 he had mentioned about the specimen seal of Photo Division at Page No. 26 and had denied the suggestion that he made deliberate improvement in the testimony.
CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 119 of 140The above sequence of facts would indicate that exhibits containing the memory cards were sent to photo division for the preparation of five copies including the investigation and thereafter seal was put by the expert from photo division and when the exhibits were again received in the physics Division, it contained the seal of photo division without any form of tampering and therefore, it can be seen that relevant exhibits remained in proper custody without any tampering.
195. PW-24 Deepak Kumar Tanwar in his Voice Examination Report vide Ex. PW24/A detailed the various tests performed on DVR as well as memory cards. PW 24 also examined the DVR as well as memory cards and he had also stated that he did not notice any form of tampering on memory cards and DVR which could have been used for the purposes of audio recordings in memory cards Q-1 & Q-2. PW-24 had also explained that the meta data of the test recordings and the exhibits were mentioned in his internal file and the same is duly mentioned in Ex. PW24/DB which was taken on record during the cross examination of PW-24 and to this extent, Ex PW-24/A as well as the testimony of PW-24 provides an assurance that DVR and exhibits were not tampered or manipulated and recordings were made from the Exhibit DVR. Nothing substantial was elicited in the cross examination of PW-24 to doubt about the testimony of PW-24 that he there was no tampering in the files relating to audio recordings in the memory card Q-1 or Q-2.
196. The CFSL report vide Ex. PW24/A was also challenged on the CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 120 of 140 ground that photocopies of the transcripts containing the contents of audio recordings in the memory Cards Q-1 & Q-2 including the name of speakers were already furnished to the expert prior to undertaking the examination of the exhibits i.e. Memory Cards. It is noteworthy to mention that during cross examination PW-24 had stated that transcripts containing the name of speakers were provided along with forwarding letter and unfortunately forwarding authority had not disclose that in forwarding letter vide Ex PW-23/E that it was also sending photocopies of the transcripts of the audio recording. PW-24 had justified his Voice Examination Report Ex PW-24/A as based on independent analysis, however, once the voice examination report averring that questioned voice in recordings were the probable voice of speaker and the expert was already having prior knowledge about the about the name of speakers in the transcripts, prior to the examination, it would have significant bearing on the mind of expert and therefore, it is not possible to rely the report Ex PW-24/A to the extent of attributing questioned voice as that of Accused Paras Goel.
197. PW-14 Ms Deepti Bhargava in her Chemical Examination Report vide Ex PW-14/B (D-21) stated that the exhibit was subjected to various tests which showed the presence of phenolphthalein. The chemical examination report vide Ex PW-14/B was questioned on the ground that expert has not furnished the reasons in support of her report. The perusal of deposition as well as chemical examination report vide Ex PW-14/B indicate that details of the various tests performed by the expert while giving her opinion with respect to the presence of phenolphthalein in the washes were furnished. The CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 121 of 140 witness has stated that conclusions were detailed in her worksheet, mere absence of the worksheet alongwith the Report would not diminish the value of such report and if the defence has doubt on the report, it would have called for placing the worksheet in the report. Moreover, a perusal of her cross examination would unveil that she was able to completely justify her report and had detailed about each and every aspect including the methodology in the conducting the test. Further challenge to the report on the ground of safe custody of exhibit after it was received in the FSL. PW- 14 has assiduously explained on the chain of custody of exhibits in her cross examination by detailing about the movement of the exhibits after it was received in the FSL, she had explained that exhibits were received in the FSL ON 10.10.2019 which was received by Ms. Geeta vide Acknowledgment Ex PW-14/DA and thereafter the case was filed marked to her on 18.10.2019 and referred to the signature of her director and from 18.10.2019 to 29.10.2019, the exhibits remained in her custody and to the court question, she had fully explained that exhibits remained in her custody as per the standard procedure and denied the suggestion that exhibits did not remain in her custody from 18.10.2019 to 29.10.2019 and in so far as the question of opening the internal note sheet is concerned, it is quite obvious that same would be opened on the date, when expert undertakes examination or necessary action, internal note sheet would be opened on that day and the internal time taken by CFSL Expert after receipt of the exhibits would not be a ground to cast doubt on the report of such independent expert specially in a situation when CFSL and its expert examine number of exhibits sent for examination which are received much CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 122 of 140 prior to the exhibits of the present case or some priority based cases.
198. Four mobile connections were referred and relied in the present case i.e. Mob. Nos. 9818482536 and 9911245555 belongs to PW-1 Anuj Kumar Sharma. Mob. No. 9910877857 is subscribed in the name of father of accused Paras Goel and Mob. No. 8882566678 (subscribed in the name of accused Paras Goel). The respective mobile numbers along with CAFs, CDRs, etc were brought into record in the testimonies of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-6 from the respective Telecom Companies. Complainant/PW-1 Anuj Kumar and father of Paras Goel Sh. Narender Kumar Goel (PW-21) were also examined qua the Mobile connections issued in their names.
199. The respective CDRs and CAFs were challenged on the ground that witnesses do not have requisite proficiency in the operation of computers or that certificates u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act were based on proforma in which relevant details, etc were filled or that Master Server is located in some other place or CDRs, etc were in Excel Format which can always be edited or deleted. Ld. Defence Counsel has relied upon Ashwani & Ors. Vs. State, Crl. A No. 323/2018 (dated 08.10.2018) of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and contended that CDR and CAFs were inadmissible and not proved in accordance with law. The referred judgment is not applicable in reference to the present case as all the witnesses PW-2, PW-3 and PW-6 had testified that they themselves took out the printout of CDRs and CAFs as maintained in the server of the company and they also took out the print out the certificate by filing in the requisite CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 123 of 140 information i.e. Mobile Number. The witnesses had explained that they accessed the server and got the printout of the relevant record. The witnesses had logged into the server in an authorized manner to obtain the CDR, etc. The witnesses had explained that CDRs used to exist in Excel Format. Mere contention that it can be tampered is no answer as the relevant record, maintained during the ordinary course of business were proved and therefore, the relevant CDRs and CAFs can be very well taken into consideration in the present case.
200. The reference to location in cell ID Chart vide Ex. PW2/F, Ex. PW3/E and Ex. PW6/M are only a computer printout and are explanatory in nature basically to explain the location and the same was not the automatic output from the generated computer printout.
201. The relevant analysis of the CDR between Mobile Numbers would indicate that on the date of trap on 25.09.2019 calls were exchanged between Mobile Numbers 8882566678 and 9911245555 which were subscribed in the name of accused Paras Goel & PW-1 Anuj Kumar Sharma respectively. During verification proceedings as well as at the time of trap proceedings, the duration of calls approximately corresponds with the recorded conversations. One of the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel is that Mob. No. 8882566678 was referred in the complaint Ex. PW1/A in which it is alleged that complainant had received the calls from said mobile number between 09th to 11th September, 2019 whereas, the actual date of activation of said mobile number was on 21.09.2019. It is correct that in Ex. PW1/A there is a reference of Mob. No. CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 124 of 140 8882566678 (subscribed in the name of Paras Goel) which was activated on 21.09.2019, however, if one looks into the testimony of PW-1 he had clearly stated that he had received calls from Paras Goel in or around 10th or 11 September, 2019. Since both accused and PW- 1 were having two different mobile connection and it appears that due which some mixup had occurred in mentioning mobile number in the complaint Ex PW-1/A.
202. PW-21 Narender Kumar Goel had stated that Mob. No 9910877857 was issued in his name and as per him Mob. No. 9910877857 was taken into custody by CBI from him on 26.09.2019. Although, he had denied that the mobile number was being used by his son. PW-21 had identified his photograph on Customer Application Form on Ex. PW6/I. Interestingly, Mob. No. 9910877857 was mentioned by accused Paras Goel in the Joining Report vide Ex. PW8/E dated 16.07.2019 bearing his signature at Point B. It is evident that prior to 21.09.2019 accused was using Mob. No. 9910877857 and used to converse with accused PW-1.
203. The perusal of the Call Detail Record of complainant/PW-1 9818482536 dated 11.09.2019 as well as Mob. No. 9910877857 (in the name of father of accused) would indicate that call was exchanged between accused Paras Goel and PW-1/Complainant Anuj Kumar. It appears that the complaint Ex PW-1/A, the complainant had inadvertently mentioned Mob. No. 8882566678 from which he had received call from accused Paras Goel whereas calls were actually exchanged between 9910877857 and 9818482536 on 11.09.2019.
CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 125 of 140Neither accused nor his father Narender Goel stated that they used to speak to PW-1 in any manner, the defence version was of total denial. Numbers of calls were also exchanged between PW-1/ complainant and accused Paras Goel on 24.09.2019 and even on 23.09.2019.
204. Ex. PW13/A i.e. arrest cum personal search memo records at Srl. No. 10 that a silver Samsung Mobile IMEI No. 357215061503176/01 containing Airtel SIM Mob. No. 9910877857 and Black Colour Jio Mobile having IMEI No. 911661802110707 bearing Mob. No. 8882566678 were found during the search and seized. Both the mobile phones were exhibited as Ex. PW19/M-1 and Ex. PW19/M-2 respectively. The arrest cum personal search memo vide Ex. PW13/A records the timing of the arrest as 10:40 PM and both the mobile phones were already seized and Silver Samsung Mobile Phone was having connection No. 9910877857 and the same leaves no room of doubt that actual user of connection No. 9910877857 was accused Paras Goel.
205. The Call Detail Record of accused Paras Goel and complainant/PW-1 Anuj Kumar Sharma would further indicate that on the date of seven calls were exchanged between both Paras Goel and complainant from Mob. No. 8882566678 and 9911245555 which corresponds with the calls made during the Verification Proceedings as well as during the trap proceedings indicate that both of them were in constant touch and engaged in conversation with each other.
206. In so far as the submission of the ld. Defence Counsel that CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 126 of 140 Prosecution has failed to prove that there is no corroboration of the so-called demand by accused Paras Goel by independent witness that there was any demand of Rs. 25,000/- which was reduced to Rs. 20,000/-. While analyzing the testimony of any witness specially PW-1, the required care is to be taken that it should find some corroboration. The rule to seek corroboration is only a rule of precaution. If the testimony of the witness is truthful or cogent then it can be sufficiently believed and acted upon. A Perusal of the deposition of PW-1 and PW-13 would reveal when accused Paras Goel visited the house of PW-1 and in the drawing room/living room, PW-13 was also present and after some time when accused Paras Goel had signaled in a low voice then, PW-13 went to another room. Audio Recording as well as the transcript vide Ex PW-1/E Colly would reveal that accused was taking some precaution in discussing in open manner about the bribe in the presence of PW-13 and moved out of the room due to the accused Paras Goel.
207. The initial demand of Rs. 25,000/ which was reduced to Rs 20,000 - was proved by the Prosecution and in furtherance of the same, further proceedings were undertaken leading to the lodgement of FIR and laying a trap. The final trap took place at Akshardham Metro Station wherein pursuant to the demand, on the direction of the accused Paras Goel, the bribe money was placed by PW-1 into the pocket of accused Paras Goel. The possession of undue advantage with the accused Paras Goel is sufficient to trigger the presumption u/s 20 of PC Act which provides that if it is proved that accused had accepted an undue advantage, it shall be presumed that same was CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 127 of 140 obtained as a motive of reward unless, the contrary is proved. During the trial accused failed to rebut the presumption.
208. It is also contended by the ld. Counsel for the accused Paras Goel that prosecution had suppressed material fact that the complainant/PW-1 had visited the office of CBI on 24.9.2019 and had made complaint on 24.9.2019 which was clearly surfaced in the cross examination of the complainant and the copy of the said complaint was not provided an adverse inference is required to be drawn. The perusal of the cross examination dated 24.9.2019 would reveal that witness had stated that he visited the office of CBI on 24.9.2019 and gave the complaint on 24.9.2019 but he did not ask the CBI to take action on the complaint, the witness had denied that the complaint was made against Nagesh Kumar Mallah. It's not clear from the cross examination that he made the complaint dated 24.9.2019 against which person, it is evident that only complaint dated 25.9.2019 vide Ex PW-1/A is on record on the basis of which action was taken, nothing much has come on record to show as to how the said complaint could be linked with the present case and during cross examination, the suggestion was given to the witness that he made complaint against Nagesh Kumar Mallah and his Tout Rajesh which was denied by the witness and is not of much help to the accused Paras Goel. This line of defence neither helped the accused Paras Goel nor dented the case of prosecution in any manner.
209. It is also argued by the ld. defence counsel that source of money in relation to the present case was not explained by the CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 128 of 140 prosecution. In this regard, it is necessary to note that PW-1 Anuj Kumar is the businessman and demand of bribe was for Rs 20,000 and such amount can be easily produced by PW-1 and even otherwise during the cross examination, PW-1 had explained the source of money i.e. by withdrawing from the ATM. Moreover, all the witnesses had consistently stated that bribe money was produced by PW-1 which accords with the answer given by PW-1 in his cross examination.
210. One of the submissions of ld. counsel for the accused that PW-13 had stated that he saw accused Paras Goel as well as other persons in the CCTV footage during the visit dated 25.9.2019 and if Accused Paras Goel had visited the house of PW-1 then CCTV footage should have been made as part of the chargesheet. PW-1 Anuj Kumar in his cross examination has also stated about the installation of CCTV in camera in his house in 2019, it would have been better for the prosecution to place on record the CCTV footage dated 25.9.2019, however, the absence of CCTV footage would not make any difference as the presence of Paras Goel is narrated by PW-1 and PW-13 in their testimonies.
211. Most of the witnesses such as PW-1, PW-13 and PW-19 had stated after apprehension the accused started crying/pleaded and told bribe money was for Nagesh Mallah. PW-19 TLO, that accused was permitted to send WhatsApp message and Whats App Call Nagesh Mallah. PW-8 Nagesh Kumar Mallah did not speak about the same in his examination chief. As per the case projected by the prosecution in CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 129 of 140 the chargesheet is to the effect that after accused Paras Goel told that bribe money was meant for Nagesh Kumar Mallah. Even otherwise, for the purposes of the present case, an offence under section 7 of PC is complete when a public servant accepts, obtain or attempt to obtain undue advantage for himself or any other public servant and moreover, soon after the transaction, the investigating agency had afforded an opportunity to the accused Paras Goel to present his version and in consequence of which accused Paras Goel had made calls/Whatsapp messages to PW-8 Nagesh Kumar Mallah. It is also relevant to mention that defence has given suggestions to PW1/Complainant and other witnesses that no calls were made by accused Paras Goel to Nagesh Kumar Mallah.
212. The plea of the accused on all factual aspects relating to the present case was of absolute denial and is attempting to draw its strength from the minor inconsistencies and some contradictions in the deposition of the witnesses. The stand of the accused with respect to his visit dated 25.09.2019 in the morning to the house of accused Paras Goel was of total denial and had even denied that he had earlier made visit to the house of PW-1/Complainant Anuj Kumar. The accused Paras Goel had not explained under what circumstances and manner he reached Akshardham Metro Station in the evening of Metro Station and was able to come in contact with PW-1/Complainant of the present case. Only version which came from the accused was that washes and recordings were planted upon him. If the accused had never interacted or spoken to PW-1/Complainant at any point of time, then, how he reached CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 130 of 140 Akshardham Metro Station and failed to explain in convincing manner of being in possession of Rs. 20,000/- in his pant pocket.
213. In Neeraj Dutta (Constitution Bench) (Supra) observed in Paragraph No. 55 that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the accused offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same become additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. It was also observed that if the combined effects of all the proven facts together is conclusive and establishing the guilt of the accused, a conviction would be justified even though, one or more of those facts by itself is not decisive.
214. In Chetan Vs. State of Karnataka, 2025 INSC 793 (Paragraph No. 10.16) it was observed that the significance of Section 313 CrPC was highlighted and it was observed that incriminating evidence is put to the accused to enable the accused to explain the facts and circumstances which points to his guilt and accused is not obliged to answer the questions put to him and can maintain silence and a silent or evasive or wrong answers provide a perspective to the Court in properly evaluating the incriminating material brought by the Prosecution.
215. Perusal of reply/answers to the questions under section 313 CrPC (Corresponding to section 351 BNSS) would reveal that accused had denied incriminating circumstance or that it he was not aware about the same or that it was a matter of record. The accused CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 131 of 140 Paras Goel has failed to explain whether he was in contact with the complainant/PW-1 at any point of time or not and his explanation with respect to the call exchanges made by him with the complainant on 25.9.2019 and what motivated him to reach in the evening of 25.9.2109 at Akshardham Metro Station and the purpose of his visit and what discussion transpired at Akshardham Metro Station. The accused has also not explained under what circumstances and conditions, he made entry No. 1028 vide Ex. PW8/H in Register vide Ex. PW8/DD and rather in response to Question No. 118, accused Paras Goel had stated that it is a matter of record.
216. The defence in order to impeach the credibility and trustworthiness of PW-1 had contended that PW-1 was a GST Defaulter and paid the penalty after the present case. It was not the stand of accused Paras Goel that since penalty was levied on him and due to anger, he had implicated accused Paras Goel. Moreover, payment of penalty to a tax authority cannot be termed as an abnormal stance or which could not have any impact on the creditworthiness of such witness as it is usual for any citizen, if any penalty was imposed on him, he or she would either pay the penalty or take appropriate recourse in accordance with law.
217. Some questions were also put to PW-8 Nagesh Kumar Mallah that he did not follow the instruction of covering 25 Defaulters as per list Ex. PW8/DB. PW-8 had clearly explained as to why the directions/guidelines could not be complied, moreover, any official dealing as to how an official work is to be performed is between the CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 132 of 140 Department and PW-8 and moreover, same has no bearing or impact in the present case.
218. It is contended that by Ld. Counsel for the accused PW-13 cannot be termed as an Independent since he was shown the CVC circular wherein it was stated that if a public servant turns hostile, then action would be taken against him, in this regard, PW-13 in his cross examination had denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely due to the fear of CVC circular, the perusal of his testimony in his examination in chief and cross examination did not reflect the same. The criticism of PW-13 that he is a stock witness since he had been deputed for the CBI duty. Merely deputing for the CBI would not make the witness as stock witness, unless it is shown that witness is regularly deposing as witness on behalf of the prosecution in some cases.
219. The criticism of ld. Counsel that FIR was not proved in accordance with law is misplaced as FIR vide Ex PW-23/A was proved by IO, since PW-23 had identified the signature of concerned SP on Ex.PW-23/A (FIR) during the course of discharge of official duties. Some other contention was also advanced that PW 11 had stated that two lowers were arranged, one for the complainant other one for the Accused, in this regard, it is already noted that during cross examination measurement of the pant was taken and nothing is shown that pant was not of Accused Paras Goel. It is contended that PW-11 in his cross-examination stated that hand wash was also taken. In this regard PW-11 Deepak Tamta in his examination-in-chief had CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 133 of 140 stated that Pant Wash was taken however, in his cross-examination he had stated about handwash as well as pant wash. It is pertinent to mention on the direction of accused Paras Goel, the bribe money was put in the pant pocket of accused Paras Goel and supposing any handwash was taken, it would not have any value and moreover, PW-11 had maintained that pant wash was taken which is in consonance with the case of prosecution.
220. It was also contended that crime manual was not followed by TLO PW-19 by not getting the pre and post trap proceedings videographed and photographed. In this regard the guidelines formulated in Crime Manual are required to be followed but it would not mean that those guidelines are mandatory in nature and in the absence of the same, the entire proceedings can be thrown out.
221. In so far as the submission of ld. Defence Counsel that guidelines of Hon'ble Apex Court in D.K. Basu (Supra) were violated in the present case as the information with respect to the arrest of the accused Paras Goel was not conveyed. The submission is too late at the end of the day to be considered, moreover, PW-21 Narender Kumar Goel had stated that he had received the information with respect to the arrest of his son and Srl. No. 6 of the Arrest Cum Personal Search Memo vide Ex. PW13/A records that grounds of arrest were furnished and explained to accused. The arrest memo was signed and received by accused Paras Goel on 25.09.2019.
222. The accused Paras Goel was charged u/s 201 IPC on the CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 134 of 140 premise that report dated 09.09.2019 which was submitted by him to PW-8 Nagesh Kumar Mallah, Asstt. Commissioner, Ward No. 77 was destroyed by him in order to screen himself from legal punishment.
223. PW-8 Nagesh Kumar Mallah deposed that after accused Paras Goel had joined Ward No. 77, he had handed over the list of defaulters and to make site visit to the defaulters if they do not respond to the call. He had also deposed that accused Paras Goel gave an inspection report intimating that M/s Vital Enterprises is not functioning at the given address and pursuant to which he had issued a show cause notice to PW-1/Complainant Anuj Kumar on 13.09.2019 and on the said day, PW-8 also stated that he had instructed accused Paras Goel to hand over the Inspection Report (REG 30) to Tilak Chand (PW-12). PW-8 also stated that on 13.09.2019, PW-12 Tilak Chand was on leave and therefore, on the next working day he inquired from Tilak Chand about inspection report being handed over to him and thereupon, he had spoken to both accused Paras Goel as well as Tilak Chand and directed accused Paras Goel to hand over the Inspection report to Tilak Chand (PW-12) and after about two-three days, PW-12 Tilak Chand told him that accused Paras Goel had not furnished the Inspection Report to him.
224. PW-12 Tilak Chand in his deposition before the Court did not whisper that PW-8 Nagesh Kumar Mallah had made any inquiries about the inspection report or that both he and accused Paras Goel were called by PW-8. PW-12 also did not tell that any subsequent inquiry after two-three days from 14.09.2019 was made by Nagesh CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 135 of 140 Kumar Mallah (PW-8) from him with respect to the inspection report.
225. The Prosecution in order to establish that on 13.09.2019 PW-12 Tilak Chand was on leave had relied upon Mark PW8/A which was subsequently put during the cross-examination by the Defence and in which PW-8 identified his signature. The casual leave application bears Diary Entry No. 1643 which was disputed by the Defence on the premise that PW-12 Tilak Chand was on Election Duty since 20.08.2019 and therefore, he could not have sent an application for leave on 12.09.2019 for 13.09.2019. Moreover, PW-18 had brought on record the biometrics attendance report vide Ex. PW18/G w.e.f 01.09.2019 to 30.09.2019 alongwith certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act clearly indicating that on 13.09.2019, PW-12 Tilak Chand was absent from his duties. Notably, PW-12 denied making any statement u/s 161 CrPC that Paras Goel had submitted field visit on 13.09.2019 and he had also stated that he had not seen any such report.
226. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that the submission of the ld. Defence Counsel overlooks the Entry No. 1024 dated 18.09.2019 where information was received that Tilak Chand would be deployed to Election Duties from time to time and therefore, prior to 18.09.2019, PW-12 Tilak Chand would be attending his duties in Ward No. 77. It is also relevant to mention that Entry No. 1024 in Register vide Ex. PW8/DD indicates that Election Duties for the person from time to time, not on continuous basis.
CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 136 of 140227. PW-12 Tilak Chand might be on leave on 13.09.2019, however, nothing had come in his deposition that any discussion with respect to Inspection Report was held by PW-8 Nagesh Kumar Mallah with him at any point of time or that PW-8 Nagesh Kumar Mallah had asked accused Paras Goel to hand over the Inspection report to him.
228. It can be very well gathered from the totality of the facts and circumstances that there is no clinching evidence that accused Paras Goel was responsible for the loss or destruction of Inspection Report, if any. It is noteworthy to mention that PW-8 Nagesh Kumar Mallah being the supervisory officer had not inquired about the report or had served any show cause notice to accused Paras Goel. The possibility of the so-called Inspection Report being misplaced by PW-8 Nagesh Kumar Mallah is altogether not ruled out. In Dinesh Kumar Kalidas Patel Vs. The State of Gujarat, Crl. Appeal No. 265-266 of 2018 , it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that a charge u/s 201 IPC can be laid and conviction can be maintained if the Prosecution is able to establish that an offence has been committed and the person charged had a knowledge or reason to believe that an offence has been committed, the said person who has caused disappearance of evidence should have intention to screen the offender from the legal punishment. It must be proved that accused knew or had a reason to believe that an offence has been committed and yet he caused the evidence to disappear to screen the offender. The offender may be either himself or any other person ( vide Paragraph No. 15 of the judgment).
CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 137 of 140229. In view of the above discussion, no offence u/s 201 IPC is made out against accused Paras Goel.
230. The ld. Defence Counsel has relied upon M. Sambasiva Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Crl. Appeal No. 391 of 2017 dated 17.7.2025 2025: INSC 868, it was an appeal against the judgment passed by High Court, wherein acquittal was converted to conviction. Moreover, the facts of the said case are entirely different as in the said case no documentary evidence was prepared showing the presence of SP or his participation in the trap proceedings and even Shirt produced was different and other discrepancies were also noted and there were serious procedural lapse since inception and the allegation of demand was missing since inception and therefore, the cited judgment is not of much help to the accused.
231. Ld. Defence Counsel has also relied upon P. Somaraju Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Crl. Appeal No. 1770 of 2014 dated 28.10.2025; 2025 INSC 1263 which was an appeal wherein HC had set aside the acquittal judgment of Trial Court and contended that statutory presumption under section 20 PC Act would only arise once the foundational facts of demand and acceptance are proved. There is no cavil to the proposition of law, reference to the present case, foundational fact relating to demand and acceptance were proved and accused failed to rebut the presumption under section 20 of PC Act. In so far as the principles of law as expounded in the judgment, it is most respectfully submitted that principles was followed by the court. The cited judgment in relation to the present case is distinguishable CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 138 of 140 which is revealed from reading of the paragraph 15 in which charge was framed to the extent of demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs 3,000/-, whereas the remaining payment of Rs 6,000/- which was to be paid pursuant to the demand was not framed. In the cited case, there were material discrepancies in relation to the complaint and moreover, the accused has examined defence witnesses and was able to establish that in the absence of the accused, the witness heard that drawer was opened and there were peculiar and distinguishing feature suggesting implication. In reference to the present case, the pant wash of the accused tested positive for the presence of phenolphthalein and moreover, the acceptance and recovery of the bribe money took place at Akshardham Metro Station on 25.09.2019.
232. Number of judgments were cited on behalf of the accused relating to the demand, acceptance and recovery as well as appreciation of statement of complainant and independent witnesses in trap cases, the cited judgments are not fully applicable to the present case in view of the evidence produced by the prosecution which clearly establish that offence under section 7 of PC Act is made out against the accused. Some inconsistencies and contradictions are bound to emerge in any criminal case and if one takes into consideration the cumulative material/evidence produced by the prosecution, the core of the prosecution case remain unshattered.
233. It is a well settled law that in offences involving Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (As amended) and if the prosecution alleges that there was a demand and acceptance of bribe CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 139 of 140 by the public servant, the acceptance of bribe by a public servant has to be established beyond doubt. The prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt the factum of demand, acceptance and consequent recovery from the Accused Paras Goel. The prosecution has also proved that Accused Paras Goel was directed by PW-8 vide Ex. PW-8/C to undertake the visit and the accused Paras Goel used to his advantage for demanding and accepting the bribe.
234. In view of the above mentioned discussion, considering the oral and documentary evidence as well as circumstances of the case, prosecution has successfully proved that accused Paras Goel had demanded and accepted bribe of Rs 20,000 from PW-1/Complainant on 25.09.2019 and accordingly, Accused Paras Goel is found guilty and convicted under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (As amended in 2018). The prosecution is unable to prove the commission of offence under section 201 IPC and accordingly, the accused Paras Goel is acquitted of the charge under section 201 IPC.
235. To come up for arguments on the point of sentence on 06.01.2026.
Digitally
signed by
HASAN
(Announced in the open Court HASAN ANZAR
today i.e. on 05.01.2026) ANZAR Date:
2026.01.05
15:54:45
+0530
(Hasan Anzar)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-03,
RADC, New Delhi/05.01.2026
CBI Vs. Paras Goel Page 140 of 140