Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Rajinder Singh on 27 August, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI B.R. KEDIA, SPECIAL JUDGE07
(CENTRAL), (PC ACT CASES OF ACB, GNCTD), DELHI
C.C.NO. : 43/12
Unique Case ID : 02401R0432262012
STATE VS. 1. RAJINDER SINGH
S/o Sh. Kabul Singh,
R/o Near Chotu Ka tube well
Vill: Kundli PS Kundli Dist: Sonipat
(Haryana).
2. RAM JANAM YADAV,
S/o Sh. Phool Chand Yadav,
R/o 271, Gali No. 3 Jaroda Extn., Pt.1,
Burari, Delhi84.
FIR NO. : 14/2009
U/S : 7/12/13 of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 & 120B I.P.C.
P.S. : Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi
Date of Institution 13.09.2012
Judgment reserved on 12.08.2013
Judgment delivered on 27.08.2013
C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 1 of 55
JUDGMENT
1. The precise case of the prosecution is that on dated 01.07.2009 the complainant Ranjeet Singh S/o Umed Singh came to Anti Corruption Branch and got lodged his Complaint Ex.PW10/A before the Inspector Rajesh Kumar, Raid Officer/PW14 regarding demand of bribe of Rs.500/ by the accused Rajinder Singh who was posted as Veterinary Worker in MCD, Narela Zone, Narela for getting issuance of the Death Certificate of the mother of the complainant.
2. The gist of the said complaint is that the mother of the complainant expired on 29.6.2009 and for getting the Death Certificate of his mother, the complainant went to MCD Office, Narela Zone on dated 01.07.2009 and met accused Rajinder Singh posted there, who after obtaining the Filled Up Application Form from him, demanded bribe of Rs.500/ for getting issuance of the Death Certificate at earliest on the plea that part of the bribe amount would be shared by Computer Operator Ram Janam Yadav who would take out the print of Death Certificate and would issue one Receipt of Rs.20/ towards Death Certificate Fee and said Rajinder Singh asked him to pay said amount of Rs.500/ on that day itself. Since the complainant was C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 2 of 55 against giving of bribe, he went to Anti Corruption Branch and got his complaint lodged before the Inspector Rajesh Kumar, Raid Officer PW14 in presence of Panch witness, Satyavir Singh PW10.
3. The further case of the prosecution is that the complainant has produced 1 GC note of Rs. 500/ before the Raid Officer PW14 who noted down the serial number of said GC note in the preraid proceedings Ex.PW10/B and treated the said GC note with phenolphthalein powder. Thereafter, Raid Officer PW14 gave demonstration to the Panch witness, complainant by getting touched the right hand of the Panch witness with that treated currency note and wash of the right hand of the Panch witness in the colourless solution of sodium carbonate which turned into pink. Thereafter, said GC note was handed over to the complainant and Panch witness was instructed to remain close with the complainant and to overhear the conversation between the complainant and the person demanding the bribe amount and to give signal by waiving his hand twice over his head after being satisfied that the bribe has actually been given.
4. That at about 2:10 p.m., PW14 Inspector Rajesh Kumar along with complainant, Panch witness and other members of the C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 3 of 55 Raiding party left Anti Corruption Branch in a government vehicle and reached near MCD Office, Narela at about 3:20 p.m. Government vehicle was parked at some distance, Inspector B.K.Singh alongwith the Driver remained in the vehicle. Complainant and Panch witness went inside the MCD Office, Narela and the members of the Raiding team took suitable position.
5. The further case of the prosecution is that after sometime, on getting predetermined signal, Raiding team reached at the spot where Panch witness informed that the accused Rajinder Singh had demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.500/ from the complainant andthereafter, delivered said GC note of Rs.500/ to accused Ram Janam Yadav. Thereafter, Raid Officer after disclosing his identity challenged both the accused and offered personal search for which they declined. On his directions, Panch witness recovered 1 GC note of Rs.500/ from the right hand of accused Ram Janam Yadav and compared the serial number of that GC note with serial number mentioned in pre raid proceedings Ex.PW10/B and the same tallied. That recovered GC note was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/C. The wash of right hand of the accused Ram Janam Yadav was taken in colorless solution of sodium carbonate which turned into pink and solution was C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 4 of 55 transferred into two empty small clean bottles which were sealed with the seal of RK and were marked as RHWSI & RHWSII by pasting slips thereon which were signed by Raid Officer, complainant and Panch witness. Similarly, the wash of right hand of the accused Rajinder Singh was taken in colorless solution of sodium carbonate which turned into pink and solution was transferred into two empty small clean bottles which were sealed with the seal of RK and were marked as RHWBI & RHWBII by pasting slips thereon which were signed by Raid Officer, complainant and Panch witness. Those bottles and sample seal were taken into possession vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW10/D. Raid Officer also drawn up the Post Raid Proceedings which is Ex.PW10/J and prepared Rukka Ex.PW14/A and sent the same to PS Anti Corruption Branch for registration of the case and copy of the FIR is Ex.PW8/A.
6. The further case of the prosecution is that the Raid Officer called Inspector B.K.Singh PW 17/IO at the spot and handed over him the custody of both the accused, case property and relevant documents etc. for purpose of Investigation. I.O. took up the Investigation, prepared the Site Plan Ex.PW17/A. IO arrested accused Rajinder Singh vide Memo Ex.PW10/E and accused Ram Janam Yadav vide Arrest C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 5 of 55 Memo Ex.PW10/G and conducted personal search of accused Rajinder Singh vide Memo Ex.PW10/F and personal search of accused Ram Janam Yadav vide Memo Ex.PW10/H. IO recorded the statement of complainant and Panch witness and other relevant witnesses. IO got medically examined the accused persons and put them in the lock up. During the course of Investigation, IO also sent relevant exhibits to FSL for chemical analysis and subsequently obtained the FSL Report Ex.PW17/B. IO also collected the Biodata of the accused Rajinder Singh which is Ex.PW4/A and Original Form for issuance of Death Certificate which is Ex.PW5/B. IO also obtained Sanction Order concerning the accused Rajinder Singh Ex.PW3/A for launching prosecution as against accused Rajinder Singh. IO on recording the statement of the witnesses and after completion of the Investigation, prepared the chargesheet and filed in the court.
7. After compliance with the provision U/S 207 of Cr.P.C and after hearing both sides on the point of charge, charge for offence punishable U/S 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed against accused Rajinder Singh and charge for offence punishable U/S 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed as against accused Ram Janam Yadav on 22.11.2012 to which C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 6 of 55 both accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. Thereafter, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined 17 prosecution witnesses namely Dr.Ajay Handa, the then Deputy Health Officer, MCD, Narela Zone, a formal witness as PW1, Joginder Sharma, the then Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Transport Department, Delhi a formal witness as PW2, Sh.Janak Digal, the then Addl. Commissioner, MCD, Sanctioning Authority against the accused Rajinder Singh as PW3, Dr.Narender Dabas, Veterinary Officer, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, a formal witness as PW4, Dr.Kunwar Singh Rawat, the then Deputy Health Officer, Narela Zone, a formal witness as PW5, Suresh Kumar, Assistant Public Health Inspector, Civil Line Zone, a formal witness as PW6, Sh.Satish Kumar, the then Assistant Public Health Inspector, MCD Narela Zone, a formal witness as PW7, HC Sat Dev Singh, the then Duty Officer, PS Anti Corruption Branch, a formal witness as PW8, HC Jitender, the then MHC(M), PS Civil Line, a formal witness as PW9, Satyavir Singh, Panch witness as PW10, ASI Devappa, a formal witness as PW11, Ct.Mohanan, a formal witness as PW12, Ranjeet Singh, complainant who is the star witness of prosecution as PW13, Inspector Rajesh Kumar, Raid Officer as PW14, C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 7 of 55 HC Suraj Pal, a formal witness as PW15, HC Jai Prakash, a formal witness as PW16 and Inspector B.K.Singh/IO as PW17.
9. After closure of the PE, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which the accused persons denied about any demand and acceptance of the bribe from the complainant. Accused claimed to be falsely implicated in this case having no concern with the alleged offence. Thereafter, the accused in their defense got examined 6 DWs namely Suresh Kumar as DW1, Satish Kumar as DW2, Randhir Singh as DW3, Ram Sewak as DW4, Dalvir Singh as DW5 and Baljeet Singh as DW6.
10. I have heard Final Arguments as addressed by Sh.Parvesh Tyagi, Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused Rajinder Singh, Sh.M.Nageshwar Adv. Ld. Counsel for accused Ram Janam Yadav and Sh.Maqsood Ahmed, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and perused the relevant record.
11. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Ram Janam Yadav that this accused who was working as Data Entry Operator in MCD, Narela Zone at the relevant time was hired from outside and was C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 8 of 55 not an MCD employee and therefore, as no case U/S 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is made out against this accused and hence, Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be attracted as against him. It is also added by him that this accused was assigned duty to take out the print of the Birth and Death Certificate and to collect Fee of the same at the time of the delivery of the said Certificates and the Birth and Death Certificates were being issued under the signatures of Sub Registrar and therefore, there was no occasion on the part of this accused to demand any bribe from the complainant. It is also added by him that this accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also added by him that PW13 Ranjeet Singh/complainant is not a reliable witness and therefore, his deposition cannot be treated as trustworthy. It is also added by him that the accused Rajinder Singh had delivered 1 GC note of Rs.500/ to this accused for taking change in order to deliver the same to the complainant and to keep Rs.20/ for the Fee of Death Certificate. It is also added by him that even otherwise, there is no allegation as against this accused to demand any bribe from the complainant for getting preparation of the Death Certificate of his mother. It is also added by him that PW14/Raid Officer is an interested witness for success of the Raid and therefore, his deposition C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 9 of 55 cannot be treated as reliable. Thus, Ld. Counsel for the accused Ram Janam Yadav urged for acquittal of this accused.
12. Similarly, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Rajinder Singh that this accused is Innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the duty of this accused was to provide the Blank Application Form for Birth and Death Certificate and thereafter, to receive the Filled Up Application Form from the Applicants and he had no authority to issue the Death Certificate as the same was being issued under the signatures of the Sub Registrar and therefore, there was no occasion on the part of this accused to demand any bribe from the complainant. It is further added by him that even otherwise the deposition of the complainant cannot be treated as reliable as he is an Accomplice and his deposition also found suffer from inconsistencies. It is further added by him that as PW13/complainant has not stated about submitting Application Form No.2 for issuance of Death Certificate of his mother after filling up the same and therefore, there was no question of demand of any bribe by this accused Rajinder Singh from the complainant. It is also added by him that the Application Form for Death Certificate which is C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 10 of 55 Ex.PW5/B as seized by the police was not submitted by the complainant but by Baljeet Singh, who is the brother of the complainant. It is also added by him that the copy of the Application Form Ex.DW2/A bear the date of Registration as 2.7.2009 and therefore, there was no occasion on the part of this accused to demand any bribe from the complainant on dated 1.7.2009 for getting issuance of Death Certificate of mother of the complainant. It is also added by him that the complainant has falsely lodged the complaint against this accused and in case any demand of bribe was there from the complainant by this accused, then why the complainant had not lodged any complaint against this accused to any Senior MCD Officer at Narela Zone. It is also added by him that there are several contradictions in the deposition of various PWs i.e. PW10 Satyavir Singh, Panch witness, PW13 Ranjeet Singh, complainant, PW14 Inspector Rajesh Kumar, Raid Officer and PW17 Inspector B.K.Singh, IO and pointed out several contradictions in their deposition and added that the same falsify the case of the prosecution. It is also added by him that no Raid Proceedings had taken place at the spot but the same were prepared afterwards at the Office of Anti Corruption Branch and same also falsify the case of the prosecution. It is also added by him that it is clearly admitted by PW10/Panch witness that several MCD officials C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 11 of 55 were available in the said MCD Office but despite the availability of MCD officials near the spot, none of them were joined in the Raid Proceedings and the same also falsify the case of the prosecution. It is also added by him that PW3 the Sanctioning Authority has passed the Sanction Order against the accused Rajinder Singh mechanically without proper application of his mind and therefore, the Sanction Order is legally Invalid. It is also added by him that this accused had received 1 GC note of Rs.500/ from the complainant for the purpose of getting change of said GC note after deduction of Rs.20/ towards fee of Death Certificate and therefore this accused had delivered said GC note of Rs.500/ to accused Ram Janam Yadav to give change after deduction of Rs.20/ towards fee of Death Certificate and not on account of any bribe from the complainant. Thus, Ld. Counsel for the accused Rajinder Singh urged for acquittal of this accused.
13. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution by examining 17 PWs have clearly established its case as against both the accused and therefore, both the accused deserve to be convicted for the charged offence. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the case of the prosecution stands fully established against both the accused persons through the deposition of C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 12 of 55 PW10 Satyavir Singh/Panch witness, PW13 Ranjeet Singh/ complainant, PW14 Inspector Rajesh Kumar/Raid Officer and PW17 Inspector B.K.Singh/IO besides the other PWs. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP that there is no reason as to why PW10 Satyavir Singh/Panch witness, PW13 Ranjeet Singh/ complainant, PW14 Inspector Rajesh Kumar/Raid Officer and PW17 Inspector B.K.Singh/IO would falsely implicate the accused persons specifically when there is no previous enmity as against the accused by them. It is also added by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that PW3/Sanctioning Authority has rightly passed the Sanction Order Ex.PW3/A as against the accused Rajinder Singh after due appreciation of the relevant material and said Sanction Order is legally valid. It is also added by Ld. Addl. PP that certain contradictions in the deposition of PWs as pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the accused Rajinder Singh are merely formal in nature and because of the time gap between the date of incident and deposition of PWs in the court and therefore, same can be of no help for the said accused. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has added that prosecution has been successful in establishing its case as against the accused persons for the charged offence and hence, both the accused deserve to be convicted.
C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 13 of 55
14. The first and foremost question having significant bearing on the fate of this case is whether prosecution has proved that valid Sanction has been accorded by the Competent Authority as against the accused Rajinder Singh as per Section 19 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. During course of argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Rajinder Singh that PW3 Sanctioning Authority has passed the Sanction Order against the accused Rajinder Singh mechanically without proper application of his mind and therefore, the Sanction Order is legally Invalid. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP on behalf of the State that PW3/Sanctioning Authority, has rightly passed the Sanction Order Ex.PW3/A as against this accused Rajinder Singh after due appreciation of the relevant materials and said Sanction Order is legally valid.
15. That in order to prove the Sanction concerning this accused Rajinder Singh, the prosecution has examined PW3 Sh.Janak Digal, the then MCD Addl. Commissioner (Education) and also Incharge of Narela Zone, Delhi who has categorically deposed that on 7.2.2010 he was posted as MCD Addl. Commissioner (Education) and also Incharge of Narela Zone, Delhi and on going through the File containing Report, Statement of witnesses and Memos alongwith the C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 14 of 55 request for tendering Sanction as against the accused Rajinder Singh, Veterinary Worker, who had demanded Rs.500/ as illegal gratification from the complainant Ranjeet Singh for himself and for Supervisor CSB Sh.Ram Janam Yadav and after applying his mind and examining the facts and circumstances of the case and being the Authority competent to remove the accused Rajinder Singh from service, he accorded Sanction for launching prosecution as against the accused Rajinder Singh, vide Sanction Order Ex.PW3/A bearing his signature at point A. In the cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused Rajinder Singh, said PW3 has denied the suggestion that he was not competent to remove the accused Rajinder Singh from service or that he did not apply his mind before according the Sanction.
16. Furthermore, in the case reported as 2011 V A.D. (Delhi) 1 Kiran Pal Singh Vs. State while dealing with the similar aspect relating to Sanction, in Para 6 of the Judgment, it was observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court as under:
"It is settled legal position that draft sanction order can be placed before competent authority along with the material and if the competent authority after perusing the material signs the draft sanction order, it cannot be C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 15 of 55 said to suffer from nonapplication of mind. In Indu Bhushan Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1958 SC 148, wherein the sanction order was prepared by the police and put before the sanctioning authority by the personal branch of his office and that before according the sanction he went through all the relevant papers put before him, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to be a valid sanction".
17. In the case reported as State of Maharashtra and ors V/s Ishvar Piraji Kelpatri & ors 1996 Cri.L.J.1127, where Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down that if the Authority according Sanction makes statement that while signing the order of Sanction, it had personally scrutinized the file and had arrived at required satisfaction, it is not necessary to look for, that there was application of mind or not or that material on record was examined by the concerned officer or not before according sanction, especially when order prima facie shows that, he had done so.
18. Furthermore, in the case reported as 2004 (13) SCC 487, C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 16 of 55 Shankar Bhai Lalji Bhai Vs. State of Gujrat, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "So far as the question of Sanction is concerned, in the absence of anything to show that any defect or irregularity therein caused failure of justice, that plea is without substance."
19. In the case reported in 2011 I AD (CRI.) (S.C.) 1, Kootha Perumal Vs. State (through) Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption, it was held in Para 14 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "Keeping in view the aforesaid statement of law, it would not be possible to conclude that the sanction order in the present case was not valid. Ex.P2 with the present appeal is the copy of the sanction order. A perusal of the same would show that the sanctioning authority has adverted to all the necessary facts which have been actually proved by the prosecution in the trial. Upon examination of the material facts, the sanctioning authority has certified that it is the authority competent to remove the appellant C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 17 of 55 from the office. It is specifically stated that the statements of the witnesses have been duly examined. Sanction order also states that the other materials such as copy of the FIR as well as other official documents such as the different mahazars were carefully examined. Upon examination of the statements of the witnesses as also the material on record, the sanctioning authority has duly recorded its satisfaction that the appellant should be prosecuted for the offences, as noticed above. We, therefore, find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel that the sanctioning order to prosecute the appellant was not legal".
20. By taking cue from the aforesaid judgment and applying the same to the facts of the present case, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused Rajinder Singh to the effect that Sanction Order Ex.PW3/A has been passed mechanically and without application of mind. I am of considered view that the Sanction concerning the accused Rajinder Singh has been validly granted by PW3 Sh. Janak Digal, the then MCD Addl. Commissioner (Education) C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 18 of 55 and was also Incharge of the Narela Zone, Delhi who was competent to do so.
21. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Ram Janam Yadav that this accused who was working as Data Entry Operator in MCD, Narela Zone at the relevant time was hired from outside and was not an MCD employee and therefore, as no case U/S 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is made out against this accused and hence, Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be attracted as against him. It is also added by him that this accused was assigned duty to take out the print of the Birth and Death Certificate and to collect Fee of the same at the time of the delivery of the said Certificates and the Birth and Death Certificates were being issued under the signatures of Sub Registrar and therefore, there was no occasion on the part of this accused to demand any bribe from the complainant. It is also added by him that this accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also added by him that PW13 Ranjeet Singh/complainant is not a reliable witness and therefore, his deposition cannot be treated as trustworthy. It is also added by him that the accused Rajinder Singh had delivered 1 GC note of Rs.500/ to this accused for taking change C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 19 of 55 in order to deliver the same to the complainant and to keep Rs.20/ for the Fee of Death Certificate. Similarly, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Rajinder Singh that this accused is Innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the duty of this accused was to provide the Blank Application Form for Birth and Death Certificate and thereafter, to receive the Filled Up Application Form from the Applicants and he had no authority to issue the Death Certificate as the same was being issued under the signatures of the Sub Registrar and therefore, there was no occasion on the part of this accused to demand any bribe from the complainant. It is further added by him that even otherwise the deposition of the complainant cannot be treated as reliable as he is an Accomplice and his deposition also found suffer from inconsistencies. It is further added by him that as PW13/complainant has not stated about submitting Application Form No.2 for issuance of Death Certificate of his mother after filling up the same and therefore, there was no question of demand of any bribe by this accused Rajinder Singh from the complainant. It is also added by him that the Application Form for Death Certificate which is Ex.PW5/B as seized by the police was not submitted by the complainant but by Baljeet Singh, who is the brother of the C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 20 of 55 complainant. It is also added by him that the copy of the Application Form Ex.DW2/A bear the date of Registration as 2.7.2009 and therefore, there was no occasion on the part of this accused to demand any bribe from the complainant on dated 1.7.2009 for getting issuance of Death Certificate of mother of the complainant. It is also added by him that the complainant has falsely lodged the complaint against this accused and in case any demand of bribe was there from the complainant by this accused, then why the complainant had not lodged any complaint against this accused to any Senior MCD Officer at Narela Zone. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the case of the prosecution stands fully established against both the accused persons through the deposition of PW10 Satyavir Singh/Panch witness, PW13 Ranjeet Singh/ complainant, PW14 Inspector Rajesh Kumar/Raid Officer and PW17 Inspector B.K.Singh/IO besides the other PWs. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP that there is no reason as to why PW10 Satyavir Singh/Panch witness, PW13 Ranjeet Singh/ complainant, PW14 Inspector Rajesh Kumar/Raid Officer and PW17 Inspector B.K.Singh/IO would falsely implicate the accused persons specifically when there is no previous enmity as against the accused by them.
C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 21 of 55
22. In order to prove that the accused have demanded and accepted the bribe amount from the complainant, the prosecution is found to have examined PW10/Satyavir Singh, Panch witness, PW13/Ranjeet Singh, complainant, PW14/Inspector Rajesh Kumar, Raid Officer and PW17 Inspector B.K.Singh/IO. PW10 Satyavir Singh, Panch witness has clearly deposed before the court that on dated 01.07.2009 he was on duty as a Panch witness in the Anti Corruption Branch and complainant Ranjeet Singh got lodged his Complaint Ex.PW10/A bearing his signature at point A. Said PW10 has also narrated about the Pre Raid Proceedings Ex.PW10/B which bears his signatures at point A. He further deposed that he alongwith the complainant and other members of the raiding team left Anti Corruption Branch in a Government vehicle at about 2:00 p.m. and parked the vehicle at a distance from MCD Office, Narela. Thereafter, he alongwith the complainant proceeded towards the MCD Office and the members of the Raiding team took suitable position. As regards the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused said PW10 Satyavir Singh, Panch witness has deposed in this respect as under: "The complainant indicated towards the accused Rajinder who was present in the said MCD Office. The accused Rajinder stated to the complainant that he has to C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 22 of 55 pay total amount of Rs.500/ which includes the share of Computer Operator as well as Rajinder and the fee of Rs.20/ as charge for the Computer Operator for issuance of Death Certificate of his mother. Thereafter, the complainant took out one GC note of Rs.500/ from his pocket and delivered the same to accused Rajinder. Thereafter, the accused Rajinder along with said GC note went to the Computer Room and delivered the said GC note of Rs.500/ to the Computer Operator and stated that in the said amount including the fee for issuance of Death Certificate, the Death Certificate of mother of the complainant is to be prepared immediately and to be given and the remaining amount will be shared by them in the evening. Thereafter, I gave the predetermined signal on which the Raid Officer along with the Raiding Team reached the spot. I told the Raid Officer that the said bribe amount is in the hand of the Computer Operator."
23. Said PW10 Panch witness has further deposed that said GC C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 23 of 55 note was recovered from the Computer Operator and was taken into possession vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW10/C which bears his signatures at point A. He also deposed regarding the taking of the right hand wash of accused Ram Janam Yadav and accused Rajinder Singh with colourless solution of sodium carbonate which turned into pink colour and the same were transferred into four bottles Marked RHWSI & RHWSII, RHWBI and RHWBII which were sealed with the seal of IO and pasted with the slips containing his signatures and that of complainant and IO and said bottles were taken into possession vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW10/D bearing his signatures at point A. He has also deposed that Raid Officer had prepared Post Raid Proceedings Ex.PW10/J which bears his signatures at point A. Said PW10 has also deposed that both the accused were arrested vide Arrest Memo Ex.PW10/E and Ex.PW10/G and their personal search was conducted vide Personal Search Memo Ex.PW10/F and Ex.PW10/H bearing his signatures at point A. Said PW10 has duly identified 1 GC note of Rs. 500/ as Ex.P1 as recovered from accused Ram Janam Yadav and the bottles mark RHWSI and RHWSII as Ex.P2 and P3 and the bottles mark RHWBI and RHWBII as Ex.P4 and P5.
24. Said PW10 Panch witness in his cross examination by Ld. C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 24 of 55 Counsel for the accused Ram Janam Yadav has denied various suggestions as put to him as he has deposed in this respect as under: "It is wrong to suggest that the accused Rajinder Singh had not demanded bribe of Rs.500/ from the complainant in my presence. It is wrong to suggest that the complainant has forcibly thrusted Rs.500/ in the hand of accused Rajinder Singh to falsely implicate him. It is wrong to suggest that as the accused Rajinder Singh was not having the exchange for said Rs.500/ and therefore, demanded the exchange for said Rs.500/ from accused Ram Janam Yadav. It is wrong to suggest that the accused Ram Janam Yadav had received the said Rs.500/ for giving the exchange to the complainant through accused Rajinder Singh. It is wrong to suggest that there was no demand for bribe of Rs.500/ or that there was merely demand of Rs.20/ towards fee only. "
25. Similarly, said PW10 Panch witness has denied various C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 25 of 55 suggestions as put to him by Ld. Counsel for the accused Rajinder Singh during his cross examination as he has deposed in this respect as under: "It is further wrong to suggest that the accused Rajinder Singh had not demanded any bribe from the complainant nor had accepted any bribe from him. It is further wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely against the accused Rajinder Singh being an interested witness qua success of the raid. It is wrong to suggest that my signatures were obtained on the raid documents afterwards by the police and not on the date of the raid. It is wrong to suggest that since the raid documents were prepared by the police later on and therefore, no MCD officials was joined as witness in the said raid proceedings. It is wrong to suggest that the hand wash of accused Rajinder Singh was manipulated at the office of AC Branch."
26. PW13/Ranjit Singh, complainant has clearly deposed before C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 26 of 55 the court that on 01.07.2009 he had gone to MCD Office, Narela for applying the Death Certificate of his mother and met accused Rajinder Singh who got filled up the required Form from him and demanded Rs. 500/ for the said Death Certificate and on his stating that he was not having the said amount at that time he asked him to bring said bribe amount after lunch. He further deposed that he went to Anti Corruption Branch and got lodged his Complaint Ex.PW10/A which bears his signature at point B before Inspector Rajesh Kumar in presence of one Panch witness/Satyavir Singh who also signed the Complaint at point A. He also deposed that he had handed over 1 GC note of Rs.500/ to the Raid Officer and narrated about the Pre Raid Report Ex.PW10/B bearing his signature at point B. He also deposed that he along with the Panch witness, Raid Officer and other members of the raiding team left Anti Corruption Branch at about 2:10 p.m. for MCD Office, Narela and reached there at about 3:10 p.m. He further deposed that he along with the Panch witness went inside the MCD Office and members of the raiding team took suitable position. Said PW13 regarding demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused has specifically deposed as under: "Thereafter, I met accused Rajinder Singh in the Office who stated that unless Rs.500/ is paid to him, my work of C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 27 of 55 death certificate will not be done. He stated that out of said Rs.500/, the share of bribe will also be given to Computer Operator as the Computer Operator has to take out the print out of the death certificate. Thereafter, on demand by the accused Rajinder Singh, I handed over him said GC note of Rs.500/ but I do not remember as to by which hand he had received the same. Panch witness was with me at that time. Thereafter, accused Rajinder Singh went inside the Computer Room and I along with Panch witness Satyavir Singh also followed the accused to the said Room and accused Rajinder Singh delivered said GC note of Rs.500/ to the said Computer Operator and stated that the said Rs.500/ has been received from me for preparation of the death certificate and both of them will settle the said amount in the evening. Thereafter, on giving the signal by the Panch witness, the Raiding team reached there."
27. Said PW13/complainant has also deposed about the Post Raid Proceedings Ex.PW10/J bearing his signature at point B. He has C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 28 of 55 also deposed regarding the recovery of the said GC note from the accused Ram Janam Yadav and said GC not was taken into possession vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW10/C bearing his signatures at point B. He has also deposed regarding the taking of the right hand wash of accused Ram Janam Yadav and accused Rajinder Singh with colourless solution of sodium carbonate which turned into pink colour and the same were transferred into four bottles Mark RHWSI & RHWSII, RHWBI and RHWBII which were sealed with the seal of IO and pasted with the slips containing his signatures and that of Panch witness and IO and said bottles were taken into possession vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW10/D bearing his signatures at point B. He has also deposed that Raid Officer had prepared Post Raid Proceedings Ex.PW10/J which bears his signatures at point B. Said PW13 has also deposed that both the accused were arrested vide Arrest Memo Ex.PW10/E and Ex.PW10/G and their personal search was conducted vide Personal Search Memo Ex.PW10/F and Ex.PW10/H bearing his signatures at point B. Said PW13 has duly identified 1 GC note of Rs. 500/ as Ex.P1 as recovered from accused Ram Janam Yadav and the bottles mark RHWSI and RHWSII as Ex.P2 and P3 and the bottles mark RHWBI and RHWBII as Ex.P4 and P5.
C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 29 of 55
28. Said PW13 in the cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused Ram Janam Yadav has denied the suggestion that accused Rajinder Singh has delivered one GC note of Rs.500/ to accused Ram Janam Yadav for taking exchange from him and not on account of bribe. He also denied the suggestion that accused Ram Janam Yadav had no role in the aforesaid incident and has been falsely implicated in this case. Similarly, said PW13/complainant has also denied the various suggestions as put to him by Ld. Counsel for the accused Rajinder Singh as he has deposed in this respect as under: "It is wrong to suggest that I had delivered one GC note of Rs.500/ to accused Rajinder Singh only for the purpose of taking the exchange or that I had been asking for the exchange to other persons nearby. It is wrong to suggest that the accused Rajinder Singh had neither demanded any bribe nor accepted any bribe for getting issuance of death certificate of my mother. It is further wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely in this respect to falsely implicate the accused Rajinder Singh in this case. It is wrong to suggest that the entire raid proceedings were manipulated and were prepared at the C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 30 of 55 office of AC Branch."
29. The material part of the deposition of PW10/Panch witness and PW13/complainant also found corroborated from the deposition of PW14 the then Inspector Rajesh Kumar, Raid Officer. PW14 Inspector Rajesh Kumar, Raid Officer is found to have deposed regarding lodging of the complaint Ex.PW10/A by the complainant in the presence of Panch witness Satyavir on dated 01.07.2009 and thereafter, the preraid proceeding Ex.PW10/B was carried out by him. Said PW14 further deposed that at about 2:10 p.m. he alongwith the complainant, Panch witness and other members of raiding team left Anti Corruption Branch and reached near MCD Office,Narela at about 3:20 p.m. and parked vehicle at a distance and Inspector B.K. Singh and Driver remained in the vehicle. He further deposed that complainant and Panch witness went inside the MCD Office, Narela and other members of raiding team took suitable position. He further deposed that on receiving the predetermined signal given by Panch witness, he alongwith raiding team reached the spot and was informed regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe money by the accused Rajinder Singh and thereafter, handing over the said bribe amount of Rs.500/ to accused Ram Janam Yadav. He also deposed that on his C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 31 of 55 instruction Panch witness recovered the bribe amount of Rs. 500/ from the accused Ram Janam Yadav and on checking, the number of the recovered GC note of Rs.500/ found tallied with the number as noted in preraid report. He also deposed that GC note was seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW10/C bearing his signature at point C. He also deposed about the postraid proceeding Ex.PW10/J bearing his signature at point C and seizure memo of the two bottles containing right hand wash of both the accused Rajinder Singh and Ram Janam Yadav and sample seal vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW10/D bearing his signatures at point C. He has clearly identified the said recovered GC note as Ex.P1, four sealed bottles mark RHWSI & II as Ex.P2 & P3 and mark RHWB1 & II as Ex.P4 & P5.
30. From the perusal of the deposition of PW13/complainant, PW10/Panch witness and PW14/Raid Officer, it is clearly reflected that the Raid Officer, PW10 the then Inspector Rajesh Kumar has drawn the Post Raid Proceedings Ex.PW10/J which found bear the signature of the PW10/Panch witness at point A and that of PW13/complainant at point B and that of the PW14/ Raid Officer at point C.
31. I am of the considered view that said Post Raid Proceedings C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 32 of 55 Ex.PW10/J being in the nature of Panchnama which is duly signed by the complainant and Panch witness is duly admissible and reference can be made to the case of Santa Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1956 Supreme Court 526 wherein it was held that mere presence of the police officer when a statement is made does not by itself render such a statement inadmissible. So long as a panchnama is a mere record of the things heard and seen by panchas and does not constitute a statement communicated to a police officer in the course of investigation by him and it would not fall within the mischief of section 162 of the Code.
32. From the perusal of the said Post Raid Proceedings Ex.PW10/J, it is clearly reflected that the accused Rajinder Singh had demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.500/ from the complainant by his right hand and thereafter, delivered the said bribe amount to accused Ram Janam Yadav and said amount has been recovered by the Panch witness from the right hand of the accused Ram Janam Yadav and the serial number of said GC note found tallied with the serial number as mentioned in the Pre Raid Proceedings Ex.PW10/B and said recovered GC note was seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW10/C. C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 33 of 55
33. It is also revealed from the record that right hand wash of accused Rajinder Singh and Ram Janam Yadav with colourless solution of sodium carbonate were taken and the same turned into pink colour and said wash vide Ex.RHWSI and RHWBI gave positive test for the presence of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate as per FSL Report Ex.PW17/B which establish that the said treated currency note of Rs.500/ was initially handled by the accused Rajinder Singh and thereafter, accepted by the accused Ram Janam Yadav from whom it was recovered.
34. In view of the above material as available on record, I am of the considered view that the factum regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe of Rs.500/ by the accused Rajinder Singh and thereafter, handing over of the same by accused Rajinder Singh to accused Ram Janam Yadav have been found established from the deposition of PW13/complainant, PW10/Panch witness, PW14/Raid Officer coupled with the content of Complaint Ex.PW10/A, Seizure Memo of the GC notes Ex.PW10/C, Seizure Memo of four bottles marked as Ex.RHWSI&II and RHWBI & II and sample seal vide Ex.PW10/D, Post Raid Proceedings Ex.PW10/J. C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 34 of 55
35. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Rajinder Singh that duty of this accused was to provide Blank Application Forms for Birth and Death Certificate and thereafter, to receive the Filled Up Application Forms from the applicants and he had no authority to issue the Death Certificate as the same was being issued under the signatures of Sub Registrar and therefore, there was no occasion on the part of this accused for demand of bribe from the complainant. Similarly, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Ram Janam Yadav that this accused was assigned the duty to take out the print of Birth and Death Certificate and to collect the Fee for the same at the time of delivery of the said Certificates and Birth and Death Certificates were being issued under the signatures of Sub Registrar and therefore, there was no occasion on the part of this accused to demand any bribe from the complainant. I do not find any force in the said submissions of Ld. Counsel for the accused persons as PW13 complainant has specifically deposed regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused as under: "Thereafter, I met accused Rajinder Singh in the Office who stated that unless Rs.500/ is paid to him, my work of death certificate will not be done. He stated that out of said C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 35 of 55 Rs.500/, the share of bribe will also be given to Computer Operator as the Computer Operator has to take out the print out of the death certificate. Thereafter, on demand by the accused Rajinder Singh, I handed over him said GC note of Rs.500/ but I do not remember as to by which hand he had received the same. Panch witness was with me at that time. Thereafter, accused Rajinder Singh went inside the Computer Room and I along with Panch witness Satyavir Singh also followed the accused to the said Room and accused Rajinder Singh delivered said GC note of Rs. 500/ to the said Computer Operator and stated that the said Rs.500/ has been received from me for preparation of the death certificate and both of them will settle the said amount in the evening. Thereafter, on giving the signal by the Panch witness, the Raiding team reached there."
Similarly, PW10/Panch witness has deposed in this respect as under: "The complainant indicated towards the accused Rajinder who was present in the said MCD Office. The accused Rajinder stated to the complainant that he has to pay total C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 36 of 55 amount of Rs.500/ which includes the share of Computer Operator as well as Rajinder and the fee of Rs.20/ as charge for the Computer Operator for issuance of Death Certificate of his mother. Thereafter, the complainant took out one GC note of Rs.500/ from his pocket and delivered the same to accused Rajinder. Thereafter, the accused Rajinder along with said GC note went to the Computer Room and delivered the said GC note of Rs.500/ to the Computer Operator and stated that in the said amount including the fee for issuance of Death Certificate, the Death Certificate of mother of the complainant is to be prepared immediately and to be given and the remaining amount will be shared by them in the evening. Thereafter, I gave the predetermined signal on which the Raid Officer along with the Raiding Team reached the spot. I told the Raid Officer that the said bribe amount is in the hand of the Computer Operator."
Furthermore, the factum regarding the turning of right hand wash of accused Rajinder Singh as well as accused Ram Janam Yadav in colourless solution of sodium carbonate into pink colour C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 37 of 55 and the factum regarding the recovery of the tainted GC Note of Rs.500/ from the right hand of the accused Ram Janam Yadav is found corroborated from the deposition of PW13/complainant, PW10/Panch witness & PW14/Raid Officer and I do not see any reason to disbelieve the same.
36. Besides this, law is well settled that it does not matter whether the public servant was competent to do the work or not and reference can be placed in the case reported as Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel Vs. State of Gujrat, 1976(3) SCC 46 as referred in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. C. Uma Maheshwar Rao and Anr. 2004, V AD (SC) 176, wherein it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the question whether a person has an authority to do the act for which bribe is accepted, is of no consequence. In the case reported as Gopal Singh Vs. CBI, ILR (2005) II Delhi 35, It was observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Para 22 as under: "It has to be added that in cases under PC Act, the prosecution is under no obligation to prove that a public servant demanding bribe was in a position to help the person from whom the bribe was being demanded. The prosecution succeed the moment it is shown that a public C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 38 of 55 servant had accepted some money from someone which was not legal remuneration. The presumption U/S 20 of the Act comes into play shifting the burden upon the public servant to explain as to why he had received the money. A public servant may misguide, mislead or befool his victim to pay him illegal gratification knowing fully well that he is not in a position to help him and as such it can be no defence for him to say that since he was not in a position to help the complainant/victim the money received by him does not amount to illegal gratification."
37. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that the complainant had falsely implicated the accused persons and even otherwise, as the complainant is an accomplice and therefore, his statement cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable. I do not find any force in the said submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused persons. In the case reported as Dewan @ Vasudeva and etc. V/s The State 1988 Crl. L.J. 1005 where it was held by Hon'ble High court of Kerala as under : ''True, the person who pays the gratification is, in a C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 39 of 55 way, an accomplice in the offence, when his role is viewed from a wide angle. But before his evidence is dubbed as unworthy of credit without corroboration, a pragmatic or realistic approach has to be made towards such evidence. If the bribegiver voluntarily goes to the offender and persuades him to accept the bribe, his position is that of an undiluted accomplice and it is a rule of prudence to insist on independent corroboration such evidence. On the other hand, if the giver of gratification was persuaded to give it, he actually becomes a victim of persuasion by the offender. To name him an accomplice and to reject his testimony due to want of corroboration, would sometimes, be unrealistic and imprudent. The court must always bear in mind that insistence on corroboration for the evidence of accomplice is not on account of any rule of law, but is a caution of prudence. The density of the stigma to be attached to a witness as an accomplice depends upon the degree of his complicity in the offence. Suspicion towards his C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 40 of 55 role as an accomplice should vary according to the extent and nature of his complicity. It must be considered in each case whether the bribe giving or payment of gratification was done in such a way that independent persons had no occasion to witness such acts.''
38. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M.O. Shamshuddin V/s State of Kerela 1995 (2) Crimes 284 considered the aspect and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 11 has held as under : "Now confining ourself to the case of bribery it is generally accepted that the person offering a bribe to a public officer is in the nature of an accomplice in the offence of accepting illegal gratification but the nature of corroboration required in such case should not be subjected to the same rigorous tests which are generally applied to a case of an approver. Though bribe givers are generally treated to be treated in the nature of accomplices but among them there are various types and gradation In case under the C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 41 of 55 Prevention of corruption Act the complainant is the person who gives the bribe in a technical and legal sense because in every trap case whereever the complainant is filed there must be a person who has to give money to the accused which in fact is the bribe money which is demanded and without such a giving the trap cannot be succeed. When there is such a demand by the public servant from a person who is unwilling and if to do public good approaches the authorities and lodges complaint then in order that the trap succeeds he has to give the money. There could be another type of bribe giver who is always willing to give money in oder to get his work done and having got the work done he may send a complaint. Here he is a particeps criminis in respect of the crime committed and thus is an accomplice. Thus there are grades and grades of accomplices and therefore a distinction could as well be drawn between cases where a person offers a bribe to achieve his own purpose and where one is forced to offer bribe under a threat or loss or harm that is to say under coercion. A person who falls in this category and who becomes a party C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 42 of 55 for laying a trap stands on a different footing because he is only a victim of threat or coercion to which he was subjected to. Where such witnesses fall under the category of "accomplices' by reason of their being bribe givers, in the first instance the court has to consider the degree of complicity and then look for corroboration if necessary as a rule of prudence. The extent and nature of corroboration that may be needed in a case may vary having regard to the facts and circumstances".
39. From the deposition of PWs, it is reflected that the deposition of complainant/PW13 regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused Rajinder Singh from the complainant and subsequently delivery of said bribe amount to accused Ram Janam Yadav also found corroborated from the deposition of PW10/Satyavir Singh, Panch witness. Furthermore, the deposition of PW13/complainant regarding recovery of the tainted GC Note of Rs. 500/ from the right hand of the accused Ram Janam Yadav and Seizure of the said GC Note vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW10/C are found corroborated from the deposition of PW10/Panch witness as well as PW14/Raid Officer. In view of the same, I do not find any force in the C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 43 of 55 submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused persons for not relying upon the deposition of the complainant in this respect.
40. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Ram Janam Yadav that the Raid Officer is a Police Official and interested witness for the success of Raid and therefore, his deposition cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable. I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused in this respect. Reference is placed on case of Hazari Lal V/s State ( Delhi Admn ) AIR 1980 Supreme Court 873. In that case the allegations against the accused who was a police officer was that he demanded bribe from the complainant for release of his scooter rickshaw which was seized by the police. The trap was laid and the accused was caught red handed. However, during trial complainant turned hostile and deposed that when he went to the police station on first occasion to obtain delivery of his scooter rickshaw it was not the accused that was present but one Hawaldar was present and it was not the accused but that Hawaldar who demanded bribe of Rs. 60/ from him and when he went to the police station along with punch witness he found accused there and asked him to take a sum of Rs. 60/ and return the scooter rickshaw. He stretched his hand with the money C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 44 of 55 towards the pocket of accused 's trouser but accused said the money might be paid to the person for whom it was meant for. He refused to receive the money and jerked complainant's hand with his hand as a result of which the notes came to be flung across the wall into neighboring room. He deposed that accused neither demanded the amount from his nor accepted the amount. The punch witness who went along with the complainant could not be examined as he became insane and other punch witness turned hostile. The conviction was based on the statement of trap officer and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "We are not prepared to accept the submission of Shri Frank Authony that he is the very Police Officer who laid the trap should be sufficient for us to insist upon corroboration. We do wish to say that there is no rule of prudence which has crystallized into a rule of law, nor indeed any rule of prudence, which requires that the evidence of such officers should be treated on the same footing as evidence of accomplices and there should be insistence on corroboration. In facts and circumstances of a particular case a Court may be disinclined to act upon the evidence of such an officer without corroboration, but, C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 45 of 55 equally, in the facts and circumstances of another case, the Court may unhesitatingly agent the evidence of such an officer."
Besides that in the case reported as AIR 1998 SC 1474 State of U.P. Vs. Zakullaha it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the evidence of trap officer in a bribe case can be acted upon even without the help of any corroboration and similar view was held in the judgment "Prakash Chand vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1979 SC 400".
41. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused Rajinder Singh that it is clearly admitted by PW10/Panch witness that several MCD Officials were available in the said MCD Office but despite the availability of MCD Officials near the spot, none of them joined in the Raid Proceedings and same falsify the case of the prosecution. I do not find any force in the said submission of Ld. Defence Counsel in view of the fact that since an independent witness i.e. PW10/Satyavir Singh, Panch witness had already been joined in the proceedings by the PW14/Raid Officer, nonjoining of any other MCD Official available at the spot cannot be over emphasized. My said view is also found supported from the judgment C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 46 of 55 reported as 2011 V AD (DELHI) 500, Anna Wankhade Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (Through State), wherein it was held in Para 21 as under: "21. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition regarding desirability of association of independent witnesses by the police so as to lend more credence and authenticity to the case, but there is also no dispute that nonassociation of the independent witnesses per se for any reason whatsoever was in itself not enough to discard the prosecution witnesses or throw away the case as a whole. In the present case, CBI associated two independent witnesses on the written requisition made to the office of NDMC. Since the prosecution/CBI already had two independent witnesses, who had been informed and apprised about the technicalities involved in the procedure during the trap proceedings, it was not necessary for the IO to have joined other public witnesses at the time of apprehension. May be to avoid the risk C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 47 of 55 of such a raw public person getting won over or being unable to understand the proceedings at the last moment of raid, that the IOs usually avoid associating public witnesses at that stage in such type of cases."
42. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Rajinder Singh that there are several contradictions in the deposition of PWs which falsify the case of the prosecution and have pointed out the following contradictions : (1) PW8 stated that as per DD No.6 the Panch witness had arrived AC Branch at 9:30 a.m. but PW10/Panch witness stated that he reached AC Branch at about 1:20 p.m. (2) PW10/Panch witness stated that Raiding team left AC Branch in a government vehicle whereas PW13/complainant stated that they left AC Branch in two vehicles.
(3) PW14/Raid Officer stated that one GC note of Rs.500/ was recovered by Panch witness from the hand of the accused Ram Janam Yadav whereas PW13/complainant stated that one Police Official had recovered the GC note from accused Ram Janam Yadav. (4) PW10/Panch witness stated that he remained at the spot for about C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 48 of 55 34 hours but PW13/complainant stated that he remained at the spot for about 2 hours.
(5) PW13/complainant stated that Raiding team took position inside the MCD Office whereas PW14/Raid Officer stated that they had taken position outside the said MCD Office.
I am of the considered view that the aforesaid contradictions in the deposition of various PWs cannot be treated as fatal for the case of the prosecution as such discrepancies in the deposition of PWs appears to be natural and formal in view of the time gap between the date of incident and the date of deposition in the court and therefore, said variation cannot be overemphasized. My said view is also found supported from the Law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India regarding contradictions in case of Bharuda Broginbhai Harjibhai V/s State of Gujrat AIR 1983 SC 753, wherein it was held that discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution should not be attached undue importance. Furthermore, in the case reported as Krishna Pillai Sree Kumar Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1981 SC 1237, it has been held that Inconsistencies here and discrepancies there are the shortcoming from which no criminal case is free. The main thing to be seen is whether the inconsistencies etc. go the root of the matter. C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 49 of 55
43. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Ram Janam Yadav that this accused who was working as Data Entry Operator in MCD, Narela Zone at the relevant time was hired from outside and was not an MCD employee and therefore, as no case U/S 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is made out against this accused and hence, Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be attracted against him. From the perusal of the deposition of PW1 Dr.Ajay Handa, it is reflected that the accused Ram Janam Yadav, Data Entry Operator was not an MCD employee but was hired from outside and therefore, he was not a public servant. Furthermore, there is no allegation of any demand of bribe by the accused Ram Janam Yadav from the complainant and therefore, no charge for offence punishable U/S 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been framed as against the accused Ram Janam Yadav. However, from the deposition of PW13/complainant, it is reflected that the accused Rajinder Singh had demanded Rs.500/ from the complainant on the plea that out of said amount of Rs.500/, the share of bribe would also be given to Ram Janam Yadav, Computer Operator as he has to take out the print of Death Certificate and after receipt of Rs.500/ from the complainant, the accused Rajinder Singh has delivered the same to the Computer Operator stating him that said C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 50 of 55 amount has been received from the complainant for preparation of Death Certificate of his mother and both of them would settle the amount in the evening. In view of the aforesaid material available on the record, the accused Ram Janam Yadav has been correctly charged for offence punishable U/S 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and therefore, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused Ram Janam Yadav in this respect.
44. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Rajinder Singh that as PW13/complainant has not stated about submitting Application Form No.2 for issuance of Death Certificate of his mother after filling up the same and therefore, there was no question of demand of any bribe by the accused Rajinder Singh from the complainant. I do not find any force in the said submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused Rajinder Singh as PW13/complainant has clearly deposed in this respect as under: "On 01.07.2009 I had gone to the Office of Regional MCD Office, Narela Zone for applying the death certificate of my mother where Rajinder Singh met me who got filled up the required Form from me and demanded bribe of Rs.500/ for the said death certificate."
C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 51 of 55
Furthermore, even in the Complaint Ex.PW10/A, the complainant Ranjeet Singh has clearly stated that on 01.07.2009 when he had gone to MCD Office, Narela Zone and met accused Rajinder Singh, said accused obtained the Filled Up Application Form for the Death Certificate of the mother of the complainant and accused had demanded bribe of Rs.500/ for getting issuance of the Death Certificate at earliest. The copy of the Application for Death Certificate as submitted by the complainant has been proved as Ex.DW2/A and said Application Form for Death Certificate found bear the date of the Application as 01.07.2009 but the date of Registration as 02.07.2009 and the same corroborate the deposition of the complainant that he had submitted the Filled Up Application Form for obtaining the Death Certificate of his mother on dated 01.07.2009 to the accused Rajinder Singh in his Office and the accused had demanded Rs.500/ for getting issuance of said Death Certificate at earliest. Therefore, the mere fact that said Application Form Ex.DW2/A bear the date of Registration as 02.07.2009 specifically when said Application Form is of dated 01.07.2009 does not falsify the stand of the complainant regarding the demand of bribe of Rs.500/ by the accused Rajinder Singh from the complainant on dated 01.07.2009 for getting issuance the Death C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 52 of 55 Certificate of mother of the complainant at earliest and therefore, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused Rajinder Singh in this respect.
45. During the course of argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Rajinder Singh that the accused had received one GC note of Rs.500/ from the complainant for the purpose of getting change of said GC note after deduction of Rs.20/ towards Fee of Death Certificate and therefore, this accused has delivered the said GC note of Rs.500/ to accused Ram Janam Yadav to give the change after deduction of Rs.20/ towards Fee of Death Certificate and not on account of any bribe from the complainant. I do not find any force in the said submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused in view of the fact that PW13/complainant has clearly deposed that the accused Rajinder Singh had demanded and accepted Rs.500/ towards bribe from the complainant for getting issuance of the Death Certificate of the mother of the complainant and thereafter, he has delivered the said amount to accused Ram Janam Yadav, Computer Operator stating him that both of them would share the said amount in the evening and said fact also found corroborated from the deposition of PW10/Satyavir Singh Panch witness. Furthermore, PW13/complainant has clearly denied the C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 53 of 55 suggestion of Ld. Counsel for the accused Ram Janam Yadav as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused Rajinder Singh in this respect. As in the cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused Ram Janam Yadav, PW13/complainant has deposed as under: "It is wrong to suggest that accused Rajinder Singh had delivered the said GC note of Rs.500/ to accused Ram Janam Yadav for taking exchange from him and not on account of bribe."
Similarly, said PW13/complainant in the cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused Rajinder Singh has deposed in this respect as under: "It is wrong to suggest that I had delivered one GC note of Rs.500/ to accused Rajinder Singh only for the purpose of taking the exchange or that I had been asking for the exchange to other persons nearby. It is wrong to suggest that accused Rajinder Singh had neither demanded any bribe nor accepted any bribe for getting issuance of Death Certificate of my mother."
46. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation to C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 54 of 55 safely conclude that the prosecution has successfully established its case as against both the accused persons for the charged offence and therefore, accused Rajinder Singh is held guilty and convicted for offence punishable U/S 7 and 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the accused Ram Janam Yadav is held guilty and convicted for offence punishable U/S 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
47. Let both these accused persons be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open court on this 27th day of August, 2013 (B.R. Kedia) Special Judge07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC, Delhi C.C. No. 43/12 Page No. 55 of 55