Delhi District Court
State vs Inder Mani Maurya on 14 February, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA
SPECIAL JUDGE: (PC ACT): (ACB-01):
RADC: NEW DELHI
CC No.3/2020
CNR No.DLCT11-000015-2020
FIR No. : 02/2016
U/s : 7/13 PC Act
PS : Anti Corruption Branch
State VERSUS Inder Mani Maurya
S/o Sh. Ramadhar Maurya
R/o H. No. 34, Near Bada
Shiv Mandir, Alipur, Delhi.
&
VPO- Baskhari,
Distt. Ambedkar Nagar,
UP-224129
Date of Institution : 07.01.2020
Date of Arguments : 20.01.2023
Date of Judgment : 14.02.2023
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the present case as per the charge-
sheet are that on 22.01.2016 at about 01:30 pm, complainant Rajeev Kumar handed over a written complaint to Insp. Kailash Chand at ACB in the presence of panch witness Fakeer Chand regarding demand of bribe by Mr. Maurya, Junior Engineer of PWD. The gist of the complaint is that complainant is working as a Government Contractor in PWD. He had done the work of boundary wall in Libaspur School in Division no. 333/332(M) vide agreement no. 86/EE/PWD/M-333/2014-15. After ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 1 of 43 completion of work, Jr. Engineer made a demand of bribe of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of release of final payment and he made a false promise that he would pay the bribe amount after the disbursement of final payment. On 22.01.2016, after being pressurized by the JE for payment of bribe amount, the complainant approached the ACB as he was totally against giving and taking of bribe. He had also taken Rs.10,000/- with him for giving bribe to the JE. Complainant has also stated that he has no personal enmity with the JE and action be taken against the corrupt JE.
2. Pursuant to the aforesaid complaint, raid proceedings were initiated and accused Inder Mani Maurya, who was working as JE in PWD was caught red handed while demanding and accepting the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- from complainant in presence of panch witness.
3. After completion of investigation, on 07.01.2020, chargesheet was filed against the accused under Section 7/13 of PC Act. Thereafter, cognizance of offence was taken on 20.01.2020 and charge for the offence under 7/13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act punishable under Section 13(2) of PC Act was framed against accused Inder Mani Maurya on 21.09.2020.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined eighteen (18) witnesses in all. The brief summary of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses is as under:
5. PW-1 is Retd. ASI Khajanchi Lal, who deposed that ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 2 of 43 on 22.01.2016, he joined his duty as Duty Officer at PS ACB from 02 pm to 8 pm vide mamuri DD no. 13 i.e. Ex. PW-1/A. He further deposed that on that day, at about 03 pm, Insp. Kailash Chand called the roznamcha register in his office and recorded DD no.18 dated 22.01.2016 i.e. Ex. PW-1/B. In his cross-examination, he confirmed that in the office of PS ACB, only one roznamcha register is maintained and on asking of IO/Insp. Kailash Chand he had handed over hand written true copy of DD no. 18 dated 22.01.2016 i.e. Ex. PW-1/DA to him.
6. PW-2 is Sh. Rajeev Kumar (complainant), who deposed that he was working as Govt. Contractor in PWD, Delhi since year 2001 and in the year 2015, he was alloted the work of raising the boundary wall of Libaspur Government School by PWD, Delhi through its Div. M- 333, the name of which later on changed as M-332, for a tender amount of around Rs.10-11 lakhs. He further deposed that he started the said work in his name being sole proprietor and the JE and Assistant Engineers of PWD having Sub-Divisional Office in Alipur Delhi, were supervising his work. PW-2 deposed that the JE, who was supervising his work at that time was accused Inder Mani Maurya and the AE, who was supervising his tendered work at that time was Sh. Sumer Singh or Sh. Sunher Singh. He further deposed that after completing part of his work, he requested verbally to accused for clearance of his first running bill in October or November, 2015 and ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 3 of 43 accused initiated the processing of his bill and forwarded to AE. PW-2 deposed that after sometime, the payment of his first running bill for an amount approximately Rs.7-8 lakhs was released by the department/PWD and after 2-3 days of clearance of his first running bill and receiving the amount, when he visited the accused in his office with reference to some of his work, accused asked him to give his commission of his disbursed amount of first running bill which as per accused was 5 % of the total disbursed amount and that he outrightly rejected the demand of accused and told him that he will not pay any amount.
7. PW-2 deposed that after about one month from the said incident, when he completed the work of raising of boundary wall and requested the accused to process the final bill of his work tender, then accused told him " tune pichla hisab mere commission ka nahi kiya, dono billo ka amount jod kar mera total pachas hazar rupay (Rs.50,000/-) banta hai, uska intezam karo, uske bad hi tumhara bill process hoga". He further deposed that he told the accused that he would not pay him any money and requested him to process his final bill, but every time accused used to harp on his demand of Rs.50,000/- and later on, he stopped picking his telephone call. PW-2 deposed that as at that time he was in need of money, he promised the accused that he would give him Rs.50,000/- as demanded and asked him to process his final bill and get it disbursed to him and that he had falsely promised the accused to pay bribe only to get his bill cleared.
____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 4 of 43
8. PW-2 deposed that after sometime, his final bill was processed by accused and he received his final bill amount and after that, one day, when he visited the office of accused to enquire about the gate pass, which was required to remove the material lying on the site of work and to know about the status of security amount, accused asked him to give him Rs.50,000/- of his commission. He further deposed that he told the accused that he would be arranging the same and thereafter, on next day, he visited at the office of ACB, Vikas Bhawan, Delhi, where one Inspector met him, who asked him to give his complaint in writing and thereafter, he gave his complaint Ex. PW-2/A. PW-2 deposed that after sometime, one person from Health Department reached to him, about whom the RO told that he is the panch witness i.e. Fakeer Chand and would accompany him and at that time PW-2 was carrying Rs.10,000/- with him (ten notes of Rs.1000/- denomination). He further deposed that the RO applied powder on the said currency notes and told him and panch witness that if any person would touch the said currency notes and the hand of said person is dipped in a liquid, then the colour of the liquid will turn to pink. PW-2 deposed that the RO gave the demonstration about the specialty of the powder to him and panch witness and thereafter, wrapped the currency notes laced with powder in a paper and handed over to him which he kept in front pocket of his shirt. He further deposed that thereafter, they left the ACB office at around 2-3 pm in two vehicles i.e. one Gypsy and another was Maruti Van and while leaving, the ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 5 of 43 RO told him that panch witness would accompany him to the spot and when he meet with accused and demanded amount is paid, the panch witness would give signal to raiding party. PW-2 deposed that they reached in front of office of accused at Alipur in 30-45 minutes and as directed by RO, he and panch witness went inside the office of accused, where accused was found sitting alone on his seat in his room of the office. He further deposed that thereafter, he and panch witness reached to the accused and sat with him and after formal welcome, accused asked him "paise ke intezam ho gaya kya", upon which, PW-2 replied that he could arrange only Rs.10,000/- and would give remaining amount later on and thereafter, he took out currency notes of Rs.10,000/- i.e. ten currency notes laced with the powder from his pocket after leaving the wrapper in his pocket and accused took the said currency notes from him and counted the same and kept in the pocket of his pant. He further deposed that he nudged the panch witness by his left leg to give signal to the raiding party and thereafter, panch witness left the room/office of accused and within 2-3 minutes raiding party entered the room/office of accused and revealed their identity to him. PW-2 deposed that upon pointing out of panch witness, RO asked the accused to show the bribe amount which he had received, upon which, accused took out the currency notes and handed over to the RO and thereafter, RO got dipped hands of accused in a liquid which appeared like water to him and the liquid turned pink. He further deposed that the pant pocket of accused in ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 6 of 43 which he kept the currency notes was also dipped in liquid like water, which turned pink. PW-2 deposed that RO seized the coloured liquid in glass bottles and sealed them and also seized the pant of accused in a separate parcel and the currency notes. He also deposed regarding the seizure of exhibits, preparation of site plan by IO as well as documents related to arrest of the accused.
In his cross-examination, PW-2 deposed that he had completed 8 to 10 contract works in PWD till 2015-16 and that after issuance of the completion certificate, process of final bill starts and admitted that as per measurement book no.536, the date of actual completion of work is 17.08.2015. He further admitted that after seeing the completion certificate in the MB, he can say that he had removed all the scaffolding, surplus materials and rubbish prior to 17.08.2015. He further confirmed that he had received the payment in respect of first running bill through ECS vide voucher no. 109 on dated 27.02.2015 as per MB Ex. PW-2/DB and that he had received the payment of second/final bill through ECS vide voucher no.79 dated 31.01.2016 as per MB record for this contract work. He further admitted that as per clause 6A of the agreement of his contract work i.e. Ex.PW-2/DC, the computerized measurement book is to be prepared by the contractor and he does not know whether the accused had taken permission from his senior to prepare the running account bill in the Red MB manually.
PW-2 denied the suggestion as put by Ld. Defence ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 7 of 43 counsel that they forcibly put the currency notes in the pant of accused or that he had made the false complaint to take revenge from the accused for not giving him the amount for unexecuted work which he wanted or that accused stopped the illegal proceeds from exchequer funds.
9. PW-3 is ASI Ramesh, who deposed that on 22.01.2016, he was posted as Duty Officer at PS ACB and that at around 08:30 pm, he received rukka sent by Insp. Kailash Chand through Ct. Devender. He deposed that he made endorsement on rukka i.e. Ex. PW-3/A and also made DD entry in this regard i.e. Ex.PW-3/B. PW-3 further deposed that he registered the present case FIR i.e. Ex. PW-3/C and handed over the rukka and copy of FIR to Ct. Devender and lodged DD entry in this regard i.e. Ex.PW- 3/D.
10. PW-4 is Sh. Santosh Tripathy, Sr. Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL Rohini, who deposed that on 05.02.2016, two sealed glass bottles marked as LHW-I and LSPW-I were received in FSL. He further deposed that he examined the said bottles and opined that the bottles were found to contain Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate and proved his report i.e. Ex. PW-4/A. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the exhibits were examined by his assistant in his presence and he has mentioned the reference procedure used in the note of the report. To a specific question as put by Ld. Defence ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 8 of 43 counsel, he deposed that he had conducted Thin Layer Chromotography (TLC) test and colour tests.
11. PW-5 is Ex. HC Ashok Kumar, who deposed that on 05.02.2016 he was posted at ACB and on the direction of IO/Insp. Satyender Dhull, he collected the exhibits of present case from the Malkhana of PS Civil Lines and deposited the same at FSL Rohini, Delhi and the receipt of the FSL was given to IO.
12. PW-6 is Sh. Sanjay Kalra, who deposed that in the year 2017, he was posted as Asstt. Engineer, PWD at DTU campus, Bawana Road, New Delhi and on 24.08.2017, on the direction and instructions of Sh. Keshav Ram, who was also posted as Executive Engineer, PWD, he handed over a letter no. 15 (ACB)/2/17-18/1595 dated 22.08.2017 alongwith original agreement running into 158 pages and information regarding bill summary of the work and posting record of Inder Mani Maurya, who was also posted there at the relevant time as JE to the IO at ACB office. He proved the attested copy of agreement no. 86/EE/PWD/M- 333/2014-15 running into 158 pages as Ex. PW-6/A (colly) and the attested copy of information regarding bill summary of work and posting record of Inder Mani Maurya as Ex.PW-6/B, panel list of registered contractor running into six pages as Ex. PW-6/C and letter no. 1595 dated 22.08.2017 as Ex. PW-6/D.
13. PW-7 is ASI Rajesh Kumar, who produced the original log book of government vehicles of ACB bearing ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 9 of 43 registration nos.DL6CJ8290 & DL4CZ0021 for the relevant entry dated 22.01.2016 i.e. Ex. PW-7/A and Ex. PW-7/B pertaining to raid conducted in present case.
In his cross-examination, to a specific question as put by Ld. Defence counsel, PW-7 replied that as a practice, there is only one entry made for going to the spot and returning from the spot. He denied the suggestion that the names of persons who used the vehicles DL6CJ8290 and DL4CZ0021 are not mentioned in the log book. He produced three log books, two pertaining to vehicle no. DL4CZ0021 and one pertaining to vehicle no.DL6CJ8290 and admitted that purpose of journey is not filled in column no.9 and deposed voluntarily that the purpose is mentioned in column no.1 as raid duty.
14. PW-8 is Sh. Prabhakar Singh, Retd. Director General, CPWD, who deposed that on 17.10.2019, while he was posted as Director General, CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi, the entire file containing copy of complaint, FIR, seizure memo of handwash, sample seal, GC notes, personal search memo, FSL report dated 29.02.2016, site plan and statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was placed before him by the IO for giving prosecution sanction qua Inder Mani Maurya, JE, PWD and after going through the entire case file and applying his mind, he accorded prosecution sanction against accused Inder Mani Maurya i.e. Ex. PW-8/A. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 10 of 43 remained posted as Director General from 01.07.2018 to 31.01.2020. To a specific question as put by Ld. Defence counsel, PW-8 replied that the ACB requested Delhi PWD for sanction of prosecution and the Delhi PWD sent the case file with request letter of IO to CVO, CPWD to obtain sanction from the competent authority i.e. DG, CPWD and therefore, the file was put up before him being the then DG, CPWD. He denied the suggestion that he also received a draft sanction order and deposed that draft sanction order was prepared in his office on his instructions.
15. PW-9 is ASI Vinay Pal Singh, who deposed that on 22.01.2016, he was posted as MHC(M) PS Civil Lines and on that day, Insp. Satyender Dhull deposited the GC notes of Rs.10,000/- (each Rs.1000/- denomination), four sealed bottles, one sample seal and one sealed cloth pulanda alongwith copy of seizure memo as well as personal search articles of accused, which he deposited in the malkhana and made entry in register no.19 at serial no.3/1006/16 i.e. Ex. PW-9/A. He further deposed that on 05.02.2016, on the instructions of IO, sealed exhibits LHW-I and LSPW-I were sent to FSL through Ct. Ashok alongwith forwarding letter vide Road Certificate no. 18/21/16 and he made entry in register no.19 to this effect i.e. Ex. PW-9/B. He proved the copy of RC no. 18/21/16 as Ex. PW-9/C and receipt of FSL as Ex. PW-9/D. He further deposed that on 06.04.2017 the result of the exhibits were received from the FSL and he made entry in this regard in register no.19 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 11 of 43 i.e. Ex.PW-9/E. In his cross-examination, he deposed that entries in register no.19 are in his hand writing.
16. PW-10 is HC Devender, who also joined the raiding team and got the case FIR registered. He deposed that on the direction of Insp. Kailash Chand, he joined the raid and that complainant and panch witness were briefed by RO and after that raiding party left the office of ACB in two vehicles. PW-10 further deposed that they reached at PWD office in front of Shradhanand College where RO again briefed the panch witness and complainant and were directed to go inside the PWD office. As per PW-10 the raiding party took their position and after sometime, panch witness came outside and gave pre-determined signal to the raiding party, thereafter they all entered in the office of PWD and the panch witness pointed out towards one person stating that the said person had taken the bribe. He further deposed that he came to know the name of that person as Inder Mani and the panch witness recovered the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- from the left pocket of the pant of accused on the asking of RO. PW-10 further deposed that thereafter, RO seized the currency notes and prepared the rukka and handed over to him and thereupon, he left the office of PWD and reached at ACB and handed over the rukka to HC Ramesh Chand for registration of present case FIR. He further deposed that after sometime the raiding party alongwith panch witness, complainant and accused came there and he handed over the original ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 12 of 43 rukka and copy of FIR to Insp. Satyender Dhull.
In his cross-examination, he deposed that the raiding team stood outside the PWD office prior to the raid and the distance between the gate of Shradanand College and PWD office is about 50 meters.
In his re-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, he confirmed that IO/Insp. Satender Dhull had not accompanied them during the raid conducted at PWD office, Alipur Sub-Division and due to some confusion, he had stated in his cross-examination that Insp. Satender Dhull had also gone to the spot alongwith raiding team.
17. PW-11 is Fakeer Chand, panch witness, who was working as Pharmacist in Mobile Health Scheme of Delhi Government and deposed that on 22.01.2016, he was assigned the duty of panch witness at ACB. He further deposed that he visited at the office of ACB and at about 01:30 pm, he was called by Insp. Kailash Chand, who introduced him with a person sitting beside the table and was asked to read the complaint of Rajeev Kumar, which was against one PWD Engineer. PW-11 deposed that he had signed the complaint after going through the contents of the same and the complainant handed over 10 GC notes of Rs.1000/- denomination to Insp. Kailash Chand, which were to be paid as bribe to accused. He further deposed that Insp. Kailash Chand applied powder on the GC notes and asked him to touch the notes with his right hand and after that his right hand was dipped in a colourless solution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 13 of 43 which turned pink. PW-11 deposed that serial numbers of the GC notes were mentioned in the pre-raid report by RO Insp. Kailash Chand and powder smeared GC notes were handed over to the complainant who kept the same in his shirt's pocket. He further deposed that RO briefed them and he was instructed to remain with the complainant and to see and hear the dealings of the complainant and that when the accused asked for the bribe, then the amount should be paid and after receiving the same by accused, he was instructed to give signal to the raiding party by waiving his hand over his head two times. He further deposed that complainant was also instructed that the amount of bribe should only be paid when it is demanded by accused and that he should remain with the complainant till the entire dealing. PW-11 deposed that the raiding team was constituted and they all left for PWD office situated adjacent to Shradanand College, Alipur in two vehicles from the ACB office and same were parked 100 meters before the college and Insp. Kailash Chand again briefed him and complainant and they were asked to proceed to the office of PWD.
18. PW-11 deposed that they both entered in the office of PWD, where one person was sitting in the office and the complainant stated that he is Inder Mani Maurya, who asked regarding his identity from the complainant, to which complainant replied that PW-11 was his relative. He further deposed that after some time talks started between the accused and complainant regarding some contract and ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 14 of 43 they discussed some amount of the contract and the accused stated "hamne aapka kaam kara diya, ab hamara kaam kara do", thereafter the complainant took out the powder smeared GC notes from his shirt's pocket and handed over the same to accused, who took the amount with his left hand and kept the same in left side pocket of his wearing jeans and he came outside and gave the pre- determined signal to the raiding party by waiving his hand over his head two times. PW-11 deposed that Insp. Kailash Chand alongwith his team came inside the office and shown his I-Card to the accused and gave the introduction of the raiding party and also offered his search prior to the search of accused, but he refused. He further deposed that he was asked regarding the bribe taken by the accused on which he apprised the RO regarding the entire facts and also told that the accused had kept the bribe amount in his jeans pant's left pocket and he was asked by Insp. Kailash Chand to take out the money from the pant of accused, which he took out from his right hand and handed over the same to Insp. Kailash Chand. PW-11 deposed that left hand wash of accused was taken in colourless solution, which turned pink and the serial numbers of recovered GC notes were tallied with the serial numbers mentioned in pre-raid report by the RO and same were found to be correct. He further deposed that accused was provided with a payjama and the pocket wash of the jeans pant of the accused was taken into a colourless solution, which turned pink. He further deposed regarding the sealing and seizure of hand wash, pant wash, GC notes etc. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 15 of 43 In his cross-examination, PW-11 deposed that in January, 2016 he was posted in Mobile Health Scheme of Delhi Government in Prashant Vihar office and that on 22.01.2016, he reached at the office of ACB at about 09 am. To a specific question as put by Ld. Defence counsel, PW-11 deposed that he and complainant both proceeded together to the office of PWD. He further confirmed that when he and complainant reached into the room of accused, no other person was sitting and accused was alone at that time in the said room. During his examination, on 21.05.2022, the witness submitted that some persons on behalf of accused were approaching in order to win over him.
19. PW-12 is Insp. Kailash Chand, who deposed that on 22.01.2016 he was performing the duty of Raid Officer at ACB and at about 01:30 pm, complainant Rajeev Kumar, who is a contractor in PWD met him on the direction of senior officer and handed over one hand written complaint Ex.PW-2/A to him. He further deposed that he went through the complaint and called panch witness Fakeer Chand and the complaint Ex. PW-2/A was shown to the panch witness, who read the same and also verified the facts from the complainant and after satisfying himself, the panch witness signed the complaint. PW-12 deposed that the complainant handed over him the amount of Rs.10,000/- which is to be paid as bribe and he mentioned the serial numbers of GC notes in pre-raid report and gave demonstration to the panch witness and complainant about ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 16 of 43 the specialty of phenolphthalein powder and directed the panch witness to remain present with complainant and when accused accepts the bribe, he should give signal to raiding party by waiving his right hand twice over his head. He further deposed that at about 03:00 pm, he alongwith Insp. Satender Dhull, SI Surender, HC Mohnan, Ct. Devender, complainant and panch witness left the ACB and reached the office of PWD near to Sharadanand college, Alipur where complainant and panch witness were again briefed and asked to leave for the PWD office and the raiding team took their positions in a scattered manner outside the office. PW-12 deposed that at about 04:20 pm, panch witness came outside the office and gave pre- determined signal and the raiding party rushed inside the office alongwith panch witness and accused was apprehended, who disclosed his name as Inder Mani Maurya, JE, PWD. He further deposed that he gave his introduction and offered his search and the search of raiding team members, but accused refused to take the search and thereupon he directed the panch witness to take the search of accused, upon which the panch witness took the search of accused and recovered Rs.10,000/- from the left pocket of his wearing pant. PW-12 deposed that he tallied the serial numbers of recovered GC notes from the pre-raid report and found correct and thereafter the left hand wash of accused was taken in colourless sodium carbonate solution which turned pink. PW-12 further deposed regarding the sealing and seizure of hand wash, pant wash, GC notes, pant of the accused and that he ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 17 of 43 prepared the rukka and sent Ct. Devender to get the case FIR registered and thereafter, he handed over the sealed exhibits, complainant, accused and panch witness to Insp. Satender Dhull.
In his cross-examination, he deposed that at the time of raid, no other officer of PWD came in the room where accused was apprehended. He further deposed that he had not given the powder smeared GC notes to the complainant after putting in any wrapper/paper. He further deposed that the logbook was completed after returning to ACB office after the raid and the filling of column in the logbook is the job of driver. He further deposed that he cannot comment whether the entries in the logbook should have been made after arrival at the place of raid and returning to the office of ACB as per procedure.
20. PW-13 is Sh. Dev Raj Sharma, who deposed that in the year 2016, he was posted as Executive Engineer, North-West Building, Division-2, Delhi, PWD, DTU campus, Bawana CPWD Road, Delhi. He further deposed that a notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. was received in their office from ACB and he prepared reply and also annexed the documents alongwith the reply i.e. Ex. PW-13/A. He also proved the attested copy of final bill running into 13 pages, placed on judicial file as Ex. PW-13/B and MB no.478 placed on judicial file as Ex. PW-13/D. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he passed the second/final bill Ex. PW-13/B and same was paid to ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 18 of 43 the contractor through ECS on 13.01.2016. He further deposed that he was not supposed to verify previous bills and if it comes to the knowledge of the officer who passed the final bill that some excess payment was made to the contractor by the predecessor/other officer, then he can deduct the excess payment from the final/second bill. He further deposed that he had gone through the agreement Ex. PW-6/A before processing the final/second bill. He further admitted that the first running bill was passed and paid by Sh. Mahender Ram, Executive Engineer and not by him. He further confirmed that as per Ex.PW-6/A, it was agreed that the contractor had to give all measurements having financial value in the shape of computerized measurement book. He also admitted that recovery amount for deficient work is estimated as Rs.11,843/- as per document Mark-X and that the contractor had executed deficient work for the item of cement concrete at the ratio 1:4:8 in place of 1:2:4 as mentioned in Mark-Y and for that purpose he was paid less amount of Rs.73,354/-. He further confirmed that security deposit amount i.e. Rs.27,249/- of the contractor regarding the questioned work was released on 30.08.2016 and that for old bricks/dismantled steel got from the work site i.e. an amount of Rs.39,895/- was recovered from contractor on the recommendation of accused.
21. PW-14 is Sh. Keshav Ram, who deposed that in the year 2017, he was posted as Executive Engineer, North- West Building, DTU Campus, Delhi. He further deposed ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 19 of 43 that a notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. dated 17.08.2017 was received in the office from ACB and he prepared the reply Ex. PW- 6/D and submitted the original agreement i.e. Ex. PW- 2/DC, posting record of accused i.e. Ex. PW-6/B (colly), panel list of registered contractors i.e. Ex.PW-6/C and original measurement book containing first running bill and second/final bill i.e. Ex. PW-2/DB.
22. PW-15 is Insp. K. K. Mishra, to whom investigation was assigned on 24.03.2018. He deposed that he issued notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C. to witnesses Sunehar Singh, AE, PWD, complainant Rajeev Kumar and panch witness Fakeer Chand to join the investigation and recorded their statements/supplementary statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and applied for prosecution sanction against accused.
In his cross-examination, he deposed that notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C. was served upon the complainant through Whastapp by HC Inder Singh and a report in this regard is mentioned on the copy of the notice. He denied the suggestion that the panch witness Fakeer Chand was never called for joining further investigation as to why the copy of notice is not lying in the police file or judicial file.
23. PW-16 is Sh. Raghuvir Singh, ACP, to whom investigation was assigned on 17.02.2017. He deposed that during investigation on 17.08.2017, he served a notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. to Sh. Keshav Ram, Executive Engineer, PWD for supplying some documents and pursuant to the notice, he received a reply of Sh. Keshav Ram alongwith the ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 20 of 43 required documents and he placed the same on the file.
24. PW-17 is Insp. Sanjay Kumar Singh, to whom investigation was assigned in July, 2019. He deposed that the draft charge-sheet was already prepared by previous IO/Insp. K. K. Mishra and he prepared the charge-sheet and filed it in the Court.
In his cross-examination, he confirmed that he himself prepared the final charge-sheet on the computer.
25. PW-18 is Insp. Satender Dhull, who deposed that after the raid was successful, he was called by the Raid Officer at the spot, who apprised him regarding the facts and also handed over the exhibits alongwith the relevant documents. PW-18 deposed that he again interrogated panch witness and complainant and prepared site plan Ex. PW-2/D at their instance. He further deposed that he returned alongwith accused to the office of ACB where copy of FIR alongwith rukka was handed over to him and he arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW-2/E and conducted personal search of accused vide memo Ex. PW- 2/F. PW-18 deposed that during investigation, he send the exhibits to FSL and also issued a notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW-18/A to Sh. Devraj Sharma, Executive Engineer, PWD asking him to supply all the documents relating to the project and received reply alongwith certified copies of documents i.e. Ex. PW-13/A. In his cross-examination, he deposed that it is the duty of the driver to fill the log book of the vehicle used ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 21 of 43 for the raid and he himself had not filled the log book. He further confirmed that they reached ACB office after the raid at about 08:30-09:30 pm. To a specific question as put by Ld. Defence counsel, PW-18 replied that there is indication mark of zig zag regarding doors in the site plan Ex. PW-2/B and that the door of the room of the accused was opening towards outside. He further confirmed that when he went inside the room of accused, at that time, no public person or other official was present there. To a specific question as put by Ld. Defence counsel, PW-18 replied that it did not come to his notice whether there was any other dispute/enmity between complainant and accused.
26. After completion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence was put to him which he denied as false and incorrect and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has taken a plea that complainant was having grudge against him as his acts had caused financial loss to the complainant. It is also submitted by the accused that it was the duty of the complainant to prepare and submit his bill on the computerized measurement book, but on the direction of his seniors, he made two bills of the accused in the conventional measurement books i.e. in Red MB and the complainant received first running account bill on 27.02.2015 through ECS and second final bill on 13.01.2016 through ECS. It is also submitted by accused ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 22 of 43 that complainant has no reason to visit his office after passing and payment of the second/final bill as a security was to be released after one year of the completion of work. He opted to lead evidence in his defence.
27. In his defence, accused examined only one witness i.e. Sh. Krit Pal Singh, UDC, CPWD, Haldwani, Uttrakhand as DW-1, who brought the original file of Haldwani Division, CPWD containing two letters dated 08.04.2016 and 13.04.2016 which were marked as Mark K-1 and K-2 and after those letters were compared with the originals, same were exhibited as Ex. DW-1/A and DW-1/B. He also brought the copy of letter no. 15(PF)/EE/SDO-2/E-1/467 dated 27.05.2016 and marked the same as Ex.DW1/C.
28. Arguments have been advanced by Sh. Vikash Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and by Sh. Devi Krishan Sharma, Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused. I have also perused the written submissions as filed on behalf of accused.
29. Ld. Addl. PP for State argued that accused was caught red handed while accepting bribe of Rs.10,000/- pursuant to his demand of Rs.50,000/- as a reward for the amount of bills disbursed to the complainant regarding the work done by him. It has been submitted that complainant as well as panch witness both have supported the case of prosecution. Ld. Addl. PP for State further argued that PW- 11 i.e. panch witness Fakeer Chand has specifically informed the Court during his deposition that the accused ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 23 of 43 tried to win over him. It has been submitted that as prosecution has proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused who was working as public servant, the Court has to raise the presumption that the said illegal gratification was as a motive or reward as provided u/s 20 of PC Act.
30. Per contra, Ld. Defence counsel argued that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. It has been submitted that the complainant/contractor was expecting some wrongful gain by manipulating some figures in the MB which were curtailed by the accused by pointing out deficient work/statement and due to this, the complainant was having grudge against him. Ld. Defence counsel further argued that the first running bill and second running bill (final bill) were to be submitted by the complainant on the computerized measurement book, which he had not submitted and therefore, accused as per directions of his seniors, prepared two bills of complainant through the conventional measurement books i.e. in Red MB and that passing and payment authority of the bills of the contractor is Executive Engineer and not the Junior Engineer. It has been submitted that completion certificate regarding the work in question was issued on 17.08.2015 and thereafter, there was no occasion for the complainant to visit at the office of accused. Ld. Defence counsel further argued that the complainant inserted the money in the pocket of accused and it is a settled law that demand and acceptance ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 24 of 43 should be conscious demand or acceptance. It has been submitted that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of complainant and panch witness regarding the pocket from which the alleged recovery was affected and with regard to the site plan of the spot. Ld. Defence counsel further argued that the log books of the vehicles which were allegedly used for going to the place of raid are forged and fabricated.
31. Before appreciating evidence in this case, it is important to note that even in a case under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the onus is on the prosecution to prove the fundamental requirement of criminal law viz., the guilt of an accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. In this regard, reliance is placed upon State of Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede (supra) and State of Punjab Vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma 2013 (7) LRC 34 (SC). In both these cases, it was held that the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. It was also held that even while invoking the provision of section 20 of PC Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touch stone of preponderance of probability and not on the touch stone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt.
32. It is well settled that it is one of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved to be guilty. It is also well settled that suspicion however strong can never ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 25 of 43 take the place of proof. There is a long distance between the fact that accused 'may have committed the offence' and 'must have committed the offence', which is to be proved by the prosecution by adducing reliable and cogent evidence. Presumption of innocence is recognized as human right which cannot be wished away. (Refer; Narender Singh & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (2004) 10 SCC 699; Ranjtsingh Brahamjeet Singh Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2005) 5 SCC 294; Ganesan Vs. Rama S. Raghuraman & Ors. (2011) 2 SCC 83 and; State of U.P. Vs. Naresh & Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 384).
33. The Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta vs. State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Crl. Appeal no. 1669 of 2009 with regard to the nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for offences under Section 7 or 13 (1) (d) (i) &
(ii) of the PC Act, summarized as under :-
" 68. (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.
____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 26 of 43
(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 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 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 27 of 43 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 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) (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(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."
34. With these principles in mind, let me examine as to what extent prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge against the accused:-
Preliminary Enquiry.
35. It is submitted by the accused in written submissions that as per CBI/Vigilance Manual, a preliminary investigation/verification has to be made to verify the truth of the allegations made in the complaint and to prevent the innocent public servant from harassment and insults,which has not been done in present case.
36. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Central ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 28 of 43 Bureau of Investigation vs Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi, Criminal Appeal no. 1045/2021, held as under:-
34. "Therefore, we hold that the preliminary inquiry warranted in Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] is not required to be mandatorily conducted in all corruption cases. It has been reiterated by this Court in multiple instances that the type of preliminary inquiry to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. There are no fixed parameters on which such inquiry can be said to be conducted. Therefore, any formal and informal collection of information disclosing a cognizable offence to the satisfaction of the person recording the FIR is sufficient."
(emphasis supplied)
37. It was also contended by Ld. Defence counsel that the Raid Officer did not conduct preliminary enquiry to know whether any bill of complainant was pending for which alleged demand of bribe was made. It was submitted that both the bills i.e. first running bill and final bill of the complainant were processed and disbursed in the account of the complainant and therefore, there was no reason with the complainant for making the complaint. In this regard, complainant in his complaint Ex. PW-2/A has stated that after completion of the work when he raised the bill regarding final payment, accused who was posted as JE made a demand of Rs.50000/- and he made a false promise to pay the bribe after the final bill is processed. The complaint was made by the complainant as also mentioned therein that accused was putting pressure upon him to pay the bribe as a commission for the bills regarding which ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 29 of 43 payment had already been disbursed. Thus, if the averments made in the complaint Ex. PW-2/A itself disclose commission of cognizable offence i.e. demand of bribe as commission/reward for the bills which have been passed/disbursed, there was no need to conduct any preliminary enquiry.
Demand and Acceptance of bribe.
38. PW-2 i.e. complainant Rajeev Kumar and PW-11 i.e. panch witness Fakeer Chand are the star witnesses of the prosecution regarding demand and acceptance of bribe by accused. Complainant i.e. PW-2 Rajeev Kumar, who was working as Government Contractor in PWD was allotted the work of raising boundary wall of Libaspur Government School vide agreement Ex. PW-6/A (colly) and accused, who was posted as JE in PWD was supervising the work of the complainant. PW-2 Sh. Rajeev Kumar has specifically deposed that after completing part of his work, he requested the accused for clearance of his first running bill in October or November, 2015 and accused initiated processing of his first running bill. He further deposed that after sometime the payment of his first running bill approximately Rs.7-8 lac was released by the PWD, but after 2-3 days of clearance of his first running bill, when complainant visited the accused in his office, the accused asked him to give his commission of 5% of disbursed amount of first running bill, which was rejected by the complainant.
39. When the complainant completed his work of ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 30 of 43 raising the boundary wall i.e. after about one month from initial demand of 5 % commission by the accused and requested the accused to process his final bill, the accused again made a demand while saying that he had not given last due of his commission and on calculating both the bills, his share of commission comes to Rs.50,000/- and asked him to make arrangement of the same and thereupon, his second bill will be processed. As per complainant, he refused to pay the demand, but the same situation continued for 2-3 days and whenever he visited at the office of the accused and requested him to process his final bill and get it disbursed, every time the accused used to harp on his demand of Rs.50,000/- and on some occasion when he called the accused and requested him to process his final bill, accused did not pay any heed and later on stopped picking up his telephone calls. As per testimony of complainant as he was in need of money, he made a false promise to accused that he would give him Rs.50,000/- as demanded when the final bill is disbursed to him. Thereafter, as per complainant his final bill was processed and after receiving the final bill amount, when he visited in the office of accused to enquire about the gate pass for removing the material lying on the site and to know about the status of his security amount, accused asked him to give him Rs.50,000/- of his commission and on the next day i.e. on 22.01.2016, he visited at the office of ACB and made a complaint. Pursuant to which, a raid was conducted and in the presence of panch witness i.e. PW-11 Fakeer Chand, accused made a demand and ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 31 of 43 accepted Rs.10,000/- from the complainant, which were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and was caught red handed.
40. Thus, as per complainant, there was continuous demand of bribe, which ultimately resulted into the trap proceedings and bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- was recovered from the accused. Ld. Defence counsel cross examined the complainant at a length but nothing came on record which may diminish the evidentiary value of the testimony of the complainant regarding the fact of demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.10,000/- by the accused. The testimony of the complainant appears to be reliable and trustworthy.
41. PW-11 i.e. Fakeer Chand, who was working as Pharmacist in Mobile Health Scheme of Delhi Government and assigned duty on 22.01.2016 as a panch witness at ACB has also deposed the entire incident in a cogent manner. He explained the pre-raid proceedings in details and specifically deposed that after the demonstration was given by the RO, he was briefed by the RO to remain with the complainant and to see and hear the dealing of the complainant and accused and that when the accused asked for the bribe, then the amount should be paid and after the amount is received by the accused, he was directed to give signal to the raiding party by waiving his hand above his head two times. As per testimony of PW-11, he alongwith complainant entered in the room of accused, who was sitting in his office and he asked about his identity from ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 32 of 43 the complainant, who replied that he was his relative and after some talks between them they discussed some amount of the contract and the accused made a demand while saying "hamne aapka kaam kar diya, ab hamara kaam kara do" and thereupon, complainant handed over the powder smeared notes to the accused, who took the amount with his left hand and kept the same in his left side pocket of wearing jeans. Pursuant to which, he gave predetermined signal to raiding party and on asking of the RO, he took out the bribe amount from the pant of accused and handed over the same to Insp. Kailash Chand and thereupon the left hand wash and left side pocket wash of the accused was taken in the colourless solution, which turned pink. Thus PW-11 Fakeer Chand, who is an independent witness of the raid has corroborated the version of the complainant regarding demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.10,000/- by the accused.
42. Accused has taken a plea as also put to the complainant that they forcibly put the currency notes in the pocket of accused. It was contended by Ld. Defence counsel that demand of bribe and acceptance thereof should be conscious demand and acceptance on the part of accused. Complainant i.e. PW-2 has specifically deposed that firstly the accused made a demand of bribe when the payment of his first running bill was disbursed and thereafter, accused again demanded bribe of Rs.50,000/- before processing his second/final bill and later on, when he visited at his office a day before the raid. Thus demand ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 33 of 43 of bribe of Rs 50,000/- was not only conscious demand but also continuous demand of bribe by accused. Panch witness i.e. PW-11 Fakeer Chand has also corroborated the version of the complainant that when they both entered in to the room of accused, after some formal talks, complainant and accused discussed some amount of the contract and the accused made a demand while saying "hamne aapka kaam kar diya ab hamara kaam kara do ", pursuant to which, complainant handed over the bribe amount i.e. 10 GC notes of Rs.1000/- denomination i.e. Ex.P7 (colly) to accused, who took the same with his left hand and kept in left side pocket of his wearing jeans. No suggestion was given to panch witness that he and complainant forcibly put the GC notes in the pocket of wearing jeans of accused. Even otherwise, it is highly improbable that the complainant and panch witness forcibly put the currency notes in the pocket of wearing jeans pant of accused while he was sitting in his office and accused did not raise any objection or made any complaint at the first available opportunity. The fact that accused made demand of bribe from complainant and accepted Rs.10,000/- in presence of panch witness has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether complainant was having grudge against accused
43. Ld. Defence counsel argued that as accused had pointed out deficiencies and manipulation done by the complainant to increase the measurement of work, qua ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 34 of 43 which, recovery of Rs.11,843/- and Rs.73,254/- was recommended by him, therefore, complainant was having grudge against him. In this regard, complainant in his cross-examination has deposed that he had no grievance regarding the measurement done by the accused at the site of the work and same has been accepted by him in his first running bill as well as second running bill. With regard to plea of manipulation in the MB, complainant in his cross- examination deposed that measurements are entered in the measurement books by the accused and no question arises of any manipulation being done by him as the measurement books remains in the custody of accused. This fact is not disputed by the accused. Even a suggestion was not given to the complainant that the measurements were not recorded in MB by the accused or that MB at any point of time remained in the custody or control of the complainant. Complainant has also admitted that he had put his signature in token on the MB for acceptance of measurement at point A i.e. page no.70 of Ex. PW-2/DB and that he had received the payment in respect of first running bill through ECS vide voucher no.109 on 27.02.2015 and the payment of second/final bill through ECS vide voucher no.79 dated 13.01.2016. If the measurements and bill amounts were accepted by the complainant while making endorsement on the Measurement Book, there was no reason for complainant to have a grudge against accused on the said account.
Computerized Measurement Book/Red Measurement ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 35 of 43 Book
44. It was argued by Ld. Defence counsel that as per agreement it was the duty of the complainant to prepare and submit his bills on the computerized measurement book, but he had not submitted the same accordingly. In this regard, complainant i.e. PW-2 in his cross-examination has admitted that as per clause 6A of the agreement Ex.PW-2/DC regarding the work in question, the computerized measurement book was to be prepared by the contractor and that he does not know whether the accused had taken the permission from his seniors to prepare the running account bill in the Red MB manually. It is not in dispute that both i.e. the first and final bills of complainant regarding the work in question were processed in Red MB Ex. PW-2/DB by the accused. Clause 6A of general conditions of contract for Central PWD works which is part of the record shows that all measurements of all items having financial value shall be entered by the contractor and compiled in the shape of computerized measurement book having paper of A4 size and whenever bill is due for payment the contractor would initially submit draft computerized measurement sheets and these measurement books got checked from the Engineer Incharge. Thus, the Red MB are basically printed books in which all measurements of all the items having financial values are entered manually and signed by the contractor and JE for processing the payment of bills regarding the work done. If the accused processed the bills ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 36 of 43 of the complainant on the direction of his senior officers in Red MB and did not ask the complainant to give the computerized measurement book, it does not have any impact on the grievance of the complainant, for which he made complaint to ACB for demand of bribe by the accused. Further, if the first running bill and final bill of the complainant was approved for disbursement of the payment by senior officers of the accused, it does not mean that he had no concern regarding the payment of bills of complainant, when admittedly he prepared the Red Measurement Book and was supervising the work of the complainant regarding the contract for raising the boundary wall of Libaspur Government School.
Whether after issuance of Completion Certificate, there was no occasion for complainant to visit at the office of accused
45. It was also argued by Ld. Defence counsel that the completion certificate regarding the completion of work was issued on 17.08.2015 and therefore, there was no occasion for complainant to approach the accused for the purpose of issuing gate pass to remove the malwa/filth from the site. In this regard, PW-2 Sh. Rajeev Kumar in his cross-examination deposed that at the time of preparation of final bill, he came to know from accused that his completion certificate was recorded in the MB and he was shown the same and volunteered that completion certificate was recorded in the MB and he was not given the same. Even a suggestion was not given to complainant ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 37 of 43 that the completion certificate was provided or informed to him prior to preparation of his final bill. The final running bill was paid to the complainant through ECS vide voucher no. 79 dated 13.01.2016 as also mentioned at page no. 97 of Measurement Book i.e. Ex. PW-2/DB. The complainant went to ACB and filed the complaint Ex.PW-2/A on 22.01.2016 i.e. after about 8 days of payment of his final bill. As per complainant, there was continuous demand of bribe by the accused from the time his first running bill was processed and he made false promise to the accused that he will pay the bribe of Rs.50,000/- as demanded after his final bill is processed and disbursed as he was in need of money. The security deposit of the complainant was released on 30.08.2016. If the complainant came to know about the completion certificate at the time of preparation of his final bill, although it was recorded by the accused in Measurement Book as 17.08.2015, it cannot be said that complainant had no occasion to visit at the office of accused after 17.08.2015.
Entries in the Log Books of official vehicles used for raid
46. The log book of the Government vehicles of Anti Corruption Branch i.e. bearing registration no. DL6CJ8290 and DL4CZ0021 which were used for conducting raid on 22.01.2016 was produced by PW-7 ASI Rajesh Kumar and the relevant entries were proved as Ex. PW-7/A and Ex. PW-7/B. As the log book i.e. Ex. PW-7/B was cancelled, the witness produced the another log book of vehicle ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 38 of 43 bearing registration no. DL4CZ0021 and proved the relevant entries as Ex.PW-7/DA. Ld. Defence counsel argued that as per financial rules, the proforma for the log book is mandatory to be complied with, but the entries in the log books shows that the time column, the period for which the vehicle remained stationed at a particular point are not filled and the signature of the Incharge at column no.12 were not taken, which shows that the entries are forged and fabricated. PW-7 in his cross examination though admitted that the time column is not filled, but he deposed that purpose of the journey is mentioned as raid duty in column no.1 and signature of the concerned officer who used the vehicle are also appearing at point A on these log books. If certain columns such as time and period of detention is not filled in the log books Ex. PW-7/A and 7/DA, but entries in the other columns i.e. purpose of journey, meter readings, place visited and signature/initial of the concerned officer are filled, it can not be said that the entries in the log books are forged and fabricated.
Contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses
47. Ld. Defence counsel argued that there are major contradictions in the testimonies of complainant and panch witness. It is submitted that PW-2 Rajeev Kumar deposed that accused took the GC notes and after counting the same, kept the same in the pocket of his pant, while the panch witness deposed that accused took the amount with his left hand and kept the same in his left side pocket of ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 39 of 43 wearing jeans. It is further pointed out by Ld. Defence counsel that complainant had stated that RO wrapped the currency notes laced with powder in a paper, which he kept in his pocket, but the RO stated that he had not given any wrapper to the complainant for keeping the powder smeared GC notes.
48. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as State of U.P. vs. Naresh & Ors., (Crl. Appeal no. 674 of 2006), 2011 (2) ACJ 076 (SC), differentiated between normal discrepancies and the contradictions, held as under:-
25. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence. "Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility." Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 40 of 43 case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution's case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited. [Vide: State Represented by Inspector of Police v.
Saravanan & Anr., AIR 2009 SC 152;
Arumugam v. State, AIR 2009 SC 331;
Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 11 SCC 334; and Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, JT 2010 (12) SC 287].
49. The fact that accused made a demand of bribe from complainant and accepted Rs.10,000/- i.e. 10 GC notes of Rs.1000/- denomination which were recovered from the wearing pant of the accused has been proved by complainant as well as panch witness beyond reasonable doubt. The facts whether the accused counted the currency notes or put the same in his pocket without counting or the complainant kept the powder smeared GC notes wrapped in a paper in his shirt or not do not create any doubt regarding the recovery of GC notes from the pocket of wearing jeans of the accused. Even otherwise, accused has not disputed the fact that powder smeared GC notes were recovered from his wearing pant as a defence was taken that same were forcibly put in his pocket. There are no major contradictions in the testimonies of complainant and panch witness regarding the fact of demand and recovery of bribe from the accused on the day of raid.
FSL result and Sanction u/s 19 of PC Act.
50. PW-4 Sh. Santosh Tripathy, Senior Scientific Officer (Chemical), FSL, Rohini, who examined the left hand wash and left side pocket wash of the wearing pant of accused, proved his report as Ex. PW-4/A, according to ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 41 of 43 which, phenolphthalein was found in the left hand wash i.e. LHW-I and in left side pocket wash of wearing pant of accused i.e. LSPW-I, which also corroborates the fact regarding acceptance of bribe by accused.
51. PW-8 Sh. Prabhakar Singh, Retd. Director General, CPWD being competent authority accorded sanction u/s 19 of PC Act against the accused. He deposed that he had gone through the entire case file and the relevant documents annexed with the case file and after applying his mind, being the competent authority accorded sanction u/s 19 of PC Act and proved the sanction order as Ex. PW-8/A. He was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel at a length but nothing came on record which may diminish the evidentiary value of sanction order granted by him.
Presumption u/s 20 of PC Act
52. Section 20 of the PC Act mandates the Court to raise a presumption against a public servant that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show in the exercise of his official functions. The fact of demand of bribe of Rs.50,000/- by the accused and acceptance of Rs.10,000/- pursuant to said demand has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, presumption under Section 20 of Act is drawn against the accused that he accepted bribe of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant as a reward for processing the first running bill and second/final bill regarding the awarded ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 42 of 43 work of raising the boundary wall of Libaspur Government School. However, the plea of accused that the GC notes i.e. Rs.10,000/- were forcibly put in his pocket is not appealable even on the touch stone of preponderance of probability.
Conclusion
53. In view of above reasons and discussions, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has proved the charge of criminal misconduct under Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act punishable u/s 13 (2) of PC Act against the accused beyond reasonable doubt i.e. obtainment of bribe of Rs.10,000/- by the accused being a public servant pursuant to demand of Rs.50,000/- from complainant as a reward for processing first running bill and second/final bill of the complainant regarding the awarded work of raising boundary wall of Libaspur Government School by the PWD, GNCT of Delhi. Accordingly, accused is held guilty for the offence under Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act punishable u/s 13 (2) of PC Act and stands convicted Digitally thereunder. signed by SANJEEV SANJEEV KUMAR KUMAR MALHOTRA MALHOTRA Date:
2023.02.14 16:15:22 Announced in the open court +0530 on 14 th February, 2023 (Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra) Special Judge (PC Act) (ACB-01) Rouse Avenue District Courts New Delhi ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 02/2016, PS ACB State vs. Inder Mani Maurya Page 43 of 43