Cbi vs . Chandan Mukherjee on 15 November, 2019

[Cites 38, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Cbi vs . Chandan Mukherjee on 15 November, 2019

                                                        CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee
                                                        C.C.No. 19/19
                                                        Reg.No.353/2019
                                                        RC No. 38(A)/2016




                IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN:
                    SPECIAL JUDGE 03 (P.C.ACT), CBI :
              ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX: NEW DELHI.

                                          CC.No. 19/2019
                                           Registration no. 353/2019
                                          CNR no. DLCT11001427 /2019
                                           RC no. 38(A)/2016
                                           PS: CBI/ACB/New Delhi
                                           CBI Vs Chandan Mukherjee
                                            Under Acts & Sections: 7, 13(2)
                                          read with section 13(1)(d) of the
                                          Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.


CC no.                             :       19/2019
Registration no.                   :       353/2019
Name of the accused and :                  Chandan Mukherjee
parentage                                  S/o Sh. Bireshwar Mukherjee
                                           R/o Qtr.No. 116/11, Railway Colony,
                                           Thomson Road, near Minto Bridge,
                                           New Delhi.


                           Date of institution       :                   25.01.2017
                           Date of judgment reserved :                   25.10.2019
                           Date of decision          :                   15.11.2019




JUDGMENT

1) Prosecution case in brief is that Sh. Rajesh Sharma who was working as Head Constable in Delhi Police gave a complaint to the SP CBI ACB New Delhi on 08.11.2016 alleging that his son was working in Ginger Hotel where he has met one Chandan Mukherjee who introduced himself as a Railway Officer; Mr. Chandan Mukherjee has told his son Mohit Sharma that he will get them service from Rail Minister Quota as LDC and also gave his mobile number 9899069273 to Mohit. The complainant talked to Mr.Chandan Mukherjee accused on the said mobile on 07.11.2016 wherein he told the complainant that he was Railway Officer and would get LDC service in railway for his son and further informed the complainant that Mohit has given his biodata along with biodata of his brother and sister respectively for service to him. The complainant further alleged that the accused told him that verification is required from the railway regarding biodata of his son for which he demanded Rs. 20,000/ as bribe stating that if the said amount was not be paid he would not get service of LDC for his children. Since the complainant did not want to give the bribe, he made a complaint to the CBI. CBI directed the said complaint to be verified by Sh. Raman Kumar Shukla, Inspector, CBI, ACB, New Delhi. Mr. Raman Kumar Shukla arranged one independent witness Sh. Sher Singh Kumawat, Sr. Draftsman, AccttIII, CWC, Sewa Bhawan, R.K.Puram, New Delhi and in order to verify the complaint a DVR make Sony and a new memory card of 4 GB make Simmtronics was arranged. After, ensuring its blankness the C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 2/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 introductory voice of the witness was recorded in the said memory card through DVR. The complainant was asked to call accused on his mobile number 9899069273 from his mobile no. 9910807229 while keeping his mobile in loud speaker mode in the presence of independent witness. The version was recorded in the memory card through DVR and at the same time listened by the verification team. The said call was made at about 15.58 hrs herein the accused told that he will call back within five minutes. After, about 2 minutes at about 16 hrs he called back the complainant which was recorded in the memory card through DVR while keeping the phone of the complainant in loud speaker mode.

2) After listening the conversation it clearly came out that accused Chandan Mukherjee, Railway Officer was demanding bribe of Rs.20,000/ from the complainant for getting verification of the biodatas of his children. The accused asked the complainant to come to meet at Sagar Ratna Restaurant, Connaught Place with the bribe money between 9.00 AM to 11.00 AM on 09.11.2016 and the complainant suggested him that he would come at around 12.00 noon. The verification memo was prepared in CBI office, the memory card was taken from the DVR and kept in sealed cover.

3) After the verification report of Raman Kumar Shukla duly signed by the complainant and independent witness FIR bearing no. RC DAI 2016 A038 was registered on 09.11.2016 under section 7, 13(2) read with C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 3/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as 'the act').

4) The complainant was asked to come on the next date along with trap money. After registration of FIR on 09.11.2016, investigation was entrusted to Sh. Vikas Pannu, Insp. CBI.

5) On 09.11.2016 a trap team was constituted. During pretrap proceedings the complainant produced Rs. 20,000/ (40 GC notes of Rs. 500/ denomination each) for giving the same as bribe to accused Chandan Mukherjee. The distinctive numbers of the said notes so produced by the complainant were mentioned in the Handing Over Memo prepared in the CBI office. The aforesaid amount of Rs. 20,000/ then treated by Smt.Pratibha Singh, Insp. CBI with phenolphthalein powder. A demonstration was also given by her to explain the purpose and significance of use of phenolphthalein powder and its chemical reaction with solution of sodium carbonate and water. After the said demonstration the personal search of the complainant Sh. Rajesh Sharma was conducted by the independent witness Sher Singh Kumawat and nothing was left in his possession except his mobile phone. The tainted bribe amount of Rs. 20,000/ was then put in the right side shirt pocket of the complainant by independent witness Mr. J.P.P. Sinha. After personal search a DVR make Sony and a new memory card make Simmtronics 4 GB were arranged by Sh.Vikas Pannu Insp./TLO and the said memory card was placed in the said C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 4/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 DVR thereafter introductory voices of both the independent witnesses were recorded in it after ensuring its blankness.

6) All the team members except the complainant mutually searched each other to ensure that they are not carrying any incriminating material. A trap kit was arranged and all the necessary articles were kept in the trap bag and entire proceedings were recorded in Handing Over Memo on 09.11.2016 prepared in CBI office. After completion of the pretrap proceedings all the trap team members including both the independent witnesses and the complainant left the CBI office in two vehicles at 1310 hrs. While on the way at about 1328 hrs a call was received on mobile of the complainant from the mobile of accused Chandan Mukherjee. Accused Chandan Mukherjee asked the complainant about his location and the complainant told him that he was at Janpath and will be reaching at the spot. At about 1345 hrs CBI team reached the State Entry Road Red Light at outer circle at Connaught Place, New Delhi and parked the CBI vehicles there.

7) Inspector Raman Shukla handed over the Digital Voice Recorder to Sh.Rajesh Sharma in a recording mode and which was kept in left side shirt pocket. The complainant and independent witness Sher Singh Kumawat who was asked to act as a shadow witness, were reminded to give missed call on the mobile phone of Insp. Vikas Pannu or to give signal by rubbing their face by their both hands when bribe money is accepted by the C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 5/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 accused. Accordingly, complainant and Sher Singh proceeded towards the spot i.e. Sagar Ratna Restaurant, CP. Other team members including Sh.J.P.P. Sinha followed the complainant and shadow witnesses in discreet manner near Sagar Ratna Restaurant. Before entering Sagar Ratna Restaurant complainant had seen Chandan Mukherjee sitting inside the restaurant and also simultaneously informed Inspector Vikas Pannu. Other team members also entered Sagar Ratna after one minute whereas Inspector. Pratibha Singh and other subordinate staff remained outside the restaurant. Both the complainant accused and Chandan Mukherjee were seen talking to each other and at about 1420 hrs the complainant was seen handing over bribe of Rs. 20,000/ to accused Chandan Mukherjee which he counted with both his hands and put the same in pink colour cloth bag which he had held in his hand. This transaction was seen by both the independent witnesses and trap team members present inside the restaurant. Independent witness also gave also signal by rubbing his by both his hands. Inspector Vikas Pannu after disclosing his identity and other team members challenged the accused on which accused got perplexed and kept mum. Accused Chandan Mukherjee was directed to dip his right hand fingers in a pink colour solution of sodium carbonate; the said solution turned into pink. On the direction of Inspector Vikas Pannu, J.P.P. Sinha independent witness recovered tainted bribe money of Rs. 20,000/ from pink colour bag held by accused Chandan Mukherjee. The recovered tainted bribe money of Rs. 20,000/ was tallied in toto with the denomination as mentioned in the Handing Over Memo. After proceedings Inspector Vikas C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 6/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 Pannu directed the complainant Rajesh Sharma to narrate the incident of handing over the bribe money to the accused. TLO prepared the rough site plan on the spot which was signed by both the independent witnesses and the complainant. Thereafter, the CBI team along with accused returned to CBI office where accused was asked to give specimen voice which he tendered voluntary. Thereafter, accused Chandan Mukherjee was arrested at about 18 hrs. Recovery memo dated 09.11.2016 was prepared regarding entire proceedings. During further investigation all the exhibits RHW1, LHW1 and carry bag BW1 were deposited with CFSL, CBI. Memory Card, Q1 and Q2 specimen voice of accused Chandan Mukherjee S1 was also deposited in CFSL for comparison of voice. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.

CHARGE

8) On the basis of charge sheet and documents filed cognizance of offence u/s 7 & 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 was taken on 14.02.2017. The accused was supplied with copies in compliance of Sec. 207 Cr.PC.

9) After hearing ld. Sr. PP for CBI and Ld Counsel for the accused a charge under section 7 & 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act punishable u/s 13(2) of the P.C Act was framed against the accused Chandan Mukherjee on 19.08.2017 to which he pleaded not guilty and C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 7/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 claimed trial.

PROSECUTION WITNESSES

10) Prosecution in support of its case has examined following witness:

(i) PW1 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Deputy Chief Engineer (Const), State Entry Road, Northern Railway New Delhi has granted sanction to prosecute the accused Chandan Mukherjee. The sanction order is proved as Ex.PW1/1.

(ii) PW2 Sh. Saurabh Aggarwal, Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Service Ltd has proved the call details of CDR of mobile no. 9899069273 running into 11 pages Ex.PW2/3.

(iii) PW3 Sh. Mohit Sharma is son of the complainant Sh. Rajesh Sharma.

(iv) PW4 Rajesh Sharma is the complainant who is the star witness of the prosecution and on whose complaint Ex.PW4/1 the FIR was registered.

(v) PW5 Sh. Roop Singh Meena was working as Officer Superintendent in the office of Deputy Chief Engineer Northern Railway, New Delhi and handed over certified copy of service record, attendance register and work allotment certificate of accused Chandan Mukherjee. He has proved the production cum seizure memo dated 028.12.2016 Ex.PW5/1 (D16 Page 1).

(vi) PW6 Sh. Pawan Singh was working as Nodal Officer, IDEA Cellular Ltd. He had handed over the call record, CAF, certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act and Cell ID chart to the IO, CBI. He proved the production cum seizure memo dated 19.12.2016 Ex.PW6/A.

(vii) PW7 Insp. Raman Kumar Shukla, ACB, CBI has verified the complaint of the complainant Sh. Rajesh Sharma. He arranged an independent witness Sh. Sher Singh Kumawat for joining the proceedings of verification of the complaint. On the basis of the verification report Ex.PW4/B, he has recommended for registration of the FIR in this case.

(viii) PW8 Sh. Sher Singh Kumawat is an independent witness to the trap proceedings.

(ix) PW9 Ms. Deepti Bhargava, Sr. Scientific Officer, GradeII, CFSL has proved her report dated 22.12.2016 with respect to chemical examination of three glass bottles PX2, PX3 and PX4 (RHW1, LHW1 and BW1).

(x) PW10 Insp. Vikas Pannu is TLO. After completion of trap proceedings he has arrested accused Chandan Mukherjee vide memo Ex.PW 8/1.

(xi) PW11 is Sh. H.V.Attri, Inspector, ACB, CBI, Delhi. He recorded the statement of the verifying officer Insp. Raman Kumar Shukla and also investigation was marked to him from Insp. Vikas Pannu.

(xii) PW12 Sh. Deepak Kumar Tanwar, Principle Scientific Officer (Physics), CFSL, New Delhi. He also proved his report regarding specimen voice of accused Chandan Mukherjee and proved his report Ex. PW 12/A with respect to Q1 and Q2 with comparison with S1.

(xiii) PW13 Sh. Jai Prakash Prasad Sinha is another independent witness to the trap proceedings.

STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C.

11) After the evidence of the prosecution was completed, the accused Chandan Mukherjee was confronted with the evidence when examined under Sec. 313 Cr.PC. on 27.09.2019. The accused has denied having made any demand and acceptance of bribe. He has stated that the witnesses are false witnesses and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has further stated that he was working in Indian Railways for the last about 32 years. In the year 2016, he was working as G. Operator and in the month of May 2016, he was staying in Hotel Ginger, Ajmeri Gate, New Delhi. Mr. Mohit Sharma who was working in said hotel, came to know that he was working in Indian Railways. Mr. Mohit Sharma approached him and came close to him during his said stay in said hotel. He was very much frustrated with his job in ginger hotel. He requested him to help him to get any better job. He took his residential address and after some days he started coming frequently at his residence. He further stated that during C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 10/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 those days his mother became seriously sick and he was in dire need of some finances. He discussed about it with Mr. Mohit Sharma, who of his own offered a loan of Rs 25,000/. He accepted the amount of Rs 25,000/ as loan and in order to discharge his liability he gave him a cheque of Rs.25,000/ in the name of his father namely Mr. Rajesh Sharma. He had to incur huge expenses for the treatment of his mother and was therefore unable to repay the said loan amount. Due to abovesaid reason, the cheque amounting to Rs 25,000/ was dishonoured. Father of Mohit Sharma i.e Sh.Rajesh Sharma contacted him and told me that he was a police official and if the amount of Rs 25,000/ was not paid back to him, he would take stern action against him. On being told entire actual position and circumstances by him, Sh. Rajesh Sharma had shown sympathy and remained with him into a cordial/ Friendly relations. After few days, he again required a financial assistance of Rs 20,000/ and for sake of same he asked Mr. Rajesh Sharma to help him at such crucial time. He also told him that in so far as Rs 25,000/, he could not return the same as he had spent huge amount upon the treatment of his mother but he undertook to return the sum of Rs 20,000/ to him within a period one week. He further told him that he should promise to the person from whom he will borrow Rs 20,000/ that he can return to him within a week's time. He also told him that for this loan amount he would issue a bearer cheque of Rs 20,000/ and he can withdraw the same from the bank, immediately on its presentation. Mr.Rajesh Sharma had made a false complaint against him by falsely alleging that he had demanded bribe. The allegation are totally false and he C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 11/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 have been falsely implicated in this case. He never demanded any such alleged bribe amount and he is innocent.

DEFENCE EVIDENCE

12) The accused has denied to lead any evidence in his defence.

ARGUMENTS

13) I have heard the arguments by Ld. Public Prosecutor and Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused and also perused the written arguments submitted by the accused.

14) The accused has been put to trial for the offences punishable under Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. To understand the requirement of evidence to prove the allegations under these provisions, it is necessary to go through the provisions.

12.1 Sec. 7 . Public Servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as 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, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 12/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 State Government or Parliament or Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of Section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

12.2 Sec. 13- Criminal misconduct by public servant. (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,

(a) .

(b) .

(d) if he,

(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtain for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest.

(e) . 12.3 Sec. 13 (2) Any public servant who commits misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

WRITTEN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

15) Ld. Sr. PP for CBI in his written arguments has submitted that:

(i) PW4, PW7, PW8, PW10 & PW13 have proved that C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 13/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 accused Chandan Mukherjee and complainant were having conversation for the demand of bribe by accused Chandan Mukherjee.

(ii) Secondly, it stands proved from the deposition of these witnesses that complainant PW4 Rajesh Sharma took out the bribe amount ExP6 from his pocket and handed over to accused Chandan Mukherjee which he accepted by counting with his both hands and kept the bribe amount in pink colour cloth bag ExP2.

(iii) Thirdly, when PW8 S.S. Kumawat immediately gave signal to trap team by rubbing his both hands on his face, accused Chandan Mukherjee was encircled by the trap team and PW10 Vikas Pannu (TLO) challenged accused Chadan Mukherjee that he had demanded and accepted the bribe amount on which accused Chandan Mukerhjee kept mum. Thereafter, PW 10 Vikas Pannu and PW7 Insp. Raman Kumar Shukla caught hold his right and left hand respectively. It stands proved from the deposition of various witnesses that after apprehension of accused Chandan Mukherjee his right and left hand finger were dipped in fresh solutions prepared with Sodium Carbonate and water. The said solution turned pink.

(iv) The bribe amount Rs. 20,000/ (ExP6) was recovered in a pink colour cloth bag (ExP2) from the possession of accused Chandan Mukherjee by PW13 J.P.P. Sinha, independent C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 14/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 witness.

(v) The requirement to prove the demand of bribe by the accused Chandan Mukherjee to establish the charge U/s 7 of the provisions of PC Act, the evidence led by prosecution sufficiently proved the said ingredient i.e. demand of bribe by the accused and acceptance of it coupled with recovery from the person of the accused. He further argued that the accused demanded the bribe of Rs. 20,000/ from PW3 Mohit Sharma for getting Govt. job in Railway department under Minister/ GM quota and he had also obtained the CV/ resume of his brother Gaurav Sharma and Sister Jyoti Sharma. Accused has demanded bribe in the garb of verification for the purpose of getting Govt. Job. PW4 Rajesh Sharma, complainant and father of PW Mohit Sharma had proved that the accused had taken the documents for getting job in Railway Department and for the purpose of verification the amount of Rs. 20,000 has to be given as bribe to the concerned department. The ld. Sr. PP specifically pointed out that these talks were happened in the conversation on 07.11.2016 in which accused demanded Rs. 20,000/ as bribe for getting verification of documents of complainant's children.

(vi) During the verification of the complaint done by PW7 Insp. Sh. Raman Kumar Shukla and witnessed by PW8 S.S. Kumawat, the demand of Rs. 20,000 was made by accused Chandan Mukherjee. Ld. Sr. PP further argued that the demand C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 15/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 of bribe of Rs. 20,000 (ExP6) is proved from the conversations between the complainant PW4 Rajesh Sharma and accused recorded on DVR Ex.P4 in a memory card (Ex.Q1) Ex.P1 and its transcription Ex.PW7/DX1.

(vii) It stands proved from the evidence that the accused has accepted the amount of Rs. 20,000/ bribe amount (ExP6) in the Sagar Ratna Restaurant and the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses PW4 Rajesh Sharma the complainant, PW7 Inspr, Raman Kumar Shukla both independent witnesses, PW8 S.S. Kumawat and PW13 JPP Sinha and TLO PW10 Sh. Vikash Pannu regarding the recovery of amount of Rs. 20,000 (ExP6) from accused in the pink colour cloth bag (ExP2) is consistent and reliable.

(viii) Ld. Sr. PP has further argued that the recovery of amount of Rs. 20,000 (ExP6) from the possession of the accused has been corroborated and further proved from the hand washes marked RHW1, Ex. PX2, LHW1, PX3 and the bag wash1 Ex. PX4. It is proved that the accused has handled the bribe amount, which proved that he has accepted the bribe amount and thereafter the said bribe amount was recovered from the accused.

(ix) Ld. Sr. PP further argued that the conversations between complainant PW4 and the accused at the Sagar Ratna Restaurant recorded in DVR Ex. P4, memory Card, Q2, Ex. P8, C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 16/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 its transcription Ex. PW4/14, has proved that the accused has demanded bribe from PW4 complainant.

(x) Ld. Sr. PP further argued that the demand of bribe amount has been corroborated from the evidence of PW2 Saurav Aggarwal and the CDR of Mobile No. 98990679273 (Ex. PW 2/3) of accused and PW6 Pawan Kumar Singh and CDR of Mobile No. 9910807229 of complainant, it has been corroborated from the above conversation that the demand of bribe was made by the accused during the recorded conversations.

(xi) Ld. Sr. PP further argued that the evidence of voice expert PW12 Deepak Tanwar through his report Ex. PW12/A corroborated and proved that the conversation recorded by the CBI contains the voice of accused which elaborates the consistent demand of Rs. 20,000/ (ExP6) on the part of accused from PW 3 Mohit Sharma and PW4 Rajesh Sharma the complainant.

(xii) The case of the prosecution is further corroborated and proved from the evidence of chemical examiner, PW9 Deepti Bhargav, SSO, CFSL vide her report Ex.PW9/2 which has given positive test for phenolphthalein and has corroborated the version of PWs regarding acceptance and recovery of bribe amount from the accused.

(xiii) Ld. Sr. PP further argued that since the bribe amount was recovered from the accused therefore the presumption is to C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 17/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 be raised U/s 20 of PC Act 1988 that the accused has demanded the said bribe/ illegal gratification. He further argued that the said presumption is legal presumption and rebuttable by defence of the accused and the accused has failed to lead any such legally admissible evidence in defence. Ld. Sr. PP further argued that if the defence fails to rebut this legal presumption, then the court can safely convict the accused U/s 7 of PC Act 1988.

(xiv) Lastly, it is argued that since the offence U/s 7 of PC Act proved, then the criminal misconduct of the accused is also proved and court can safely convict the accused for the said offence U/s 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act.

WRITTEN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED

16) In addition to the oral arguments accused has placed on record written arguments assailing the prosecution case on the following grounds:

(i) In the entire complaint filed before the CBI, the complainant has not at all mentioned about the amount of Rs. 25,000/ given by his son Mohit Sharma to the accused as loan and that the accused with a view to return the amount of Rs. 25,000/ had issued a cheque of Rs. 25,000/ in the name of complainant and the said cheque on its presentation by the complainant had been dishonored and that the accused failed to return the said amount C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 18/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 of Rs. 25,000/ to the complainant or to his son inspite of their repeated request.

(ii) Secondly, the complainant has concealed these facts at the time of verification of his complaint dated 8/11/2016 by the CBI officers. Due to the said concealment Insp. Raman Kumar Shukla could not appreciate the facts before verification / truthfulness of the complaint because accused had demanded Rs. 20,000/ from the complainant as loan which he promised to return to the complainant within one week but the CBI officers wrongly interpreted the demand of Rs. 20,000/ of loan by the accused as bribe amount. In order to support this point the ld. Defence counsel has relied upon the conversation dated 08.11.2016 Ex.PW7/DX1 which was reproduced in verbatim as under; " Page 2 line 12: Accused : Kisi tarah se sir jaise taise kar ke dekh lo Kisi tarah se or apko to main de dooga ye to main de dooga apko paisa, Aap uske tension kyo le rahe ho, Main ek hafte ka jo hai na cheque de dooga, self ka dooga cheque, Apko wo hi bas khali usi din ja kar ke nikalwa lena wah se bank se, or jis se liya hai pakda dena.

Complainant : Nahi par Accused: Eske sir apko woh wala chakar nahi padega ke apko pahele jaise, uska bola tha pachis woh to mera kharach ho gaya nahi to who bhi mai apko de deeta, woh to chalo bimari me mera lag gaya, is leye mere ko nahi tha woh apko de deta, yeh ho gai dikath, ab yeh jo hai na apko yeh jis se bhi loge usko bolana ek hafte mai tere ko bhaiya mai wapis kar dooga."

(iii) The above said conversation could not be properly appreciated by the verification officer and independent witness because they were not told by the complainant about their previous transaction of giving loan to the accused.

(iv) That during cross examination dated 24.11.2018 of the complainant as PW4, the complainant deposed that after receipt of cheques from his son he had started talking to accused on Telephone and he had talked with the accused for the first time on 07.11.2016. The said deposition undoubtedly establishes that the complainant never interacted with the accused prior to 07.11.2016 and subsequently made a false complaint against the accused.

(v) Both the verification team as well as the trap lying team without going into the depth of the case simply accepted the verification report by noticing that the complainant and the accused i.e. Chandan Mukherjee were familiar to each other and the amount of Rs. 20,000/ demanded by the accused must be a bribe amount and did not bother to meticulously examine the conversation between the complainant and the accused which clearly reveals that the accused requested for a loan from the complainant as earlier taken by him from the son of the complainant and the amount of loan of Rs. 20,000/ was assured C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 20/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 by the accused to be returned to the complainant within a period of 7 days.

(vi) During cross examination dated 15.12.2018, the complainant (PW4) deposed that "It is correct that on 09.11.2016 accused told me that he will give the cheques of Rs 20,000/ and the same will not be dishonoured". It is to state that such deposition itself creates doubt on the alleged complaint preferred as on one hand the complainant allege the accused for asking the bribe amount of Rs 20,000/ and on the other hand, deposed the alleged amount of Rs 20,000/ was to be returned by the accused lateron. Therefore, the alleged amount of Rs 20,000/ cannot be construed as bribe or illegal gratification and the same can only be interpreted to be a loan transaction with assurance of return.

(vii) Neither independent witnesses nor official witnesses could hear or had heard the conversation between the complainant and the accused at the time of alleged handing over of Rs. 20,000/ by the complainant to the accused at about 14.20 hrs in Sagar Ratna Restaurant. The accused was apprehended only on the presumption that the amount of Rs. 20,000/ which the complainant had handed over to the accused was the bribe money. The accused was apprehended at Sagar Ratna restaurant without there being proof that the amount of Rs. 20,000/ was a bribe amount.

(viii) The fact that Rs. 20,000/ was demanded as loan C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 21/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 amount by the accused is evident from the following conversation dated 09.11.2016 Ex. PW4/14 between the accused and the complainant during trap proceedings:

"In reply the accused stated that 'Aap ek hafte ke bad woh nikal kar de dena, kis se le kar aye ho kitne paise' . The accused also stated that 'kuch nahi to unko bol diya na, ek hafte mai de dege, apko nikalwana padega'. To which the complainant replied 'arre koi nahi woh to main kar doga ab salary milegi, salary tak maine kar diya, apki koi tension nahi hai es mai.' It is submitted that the transaction alleged to be bribe or demand of illegal gratification is an absolute false and fabricated as is evident from the cross examination of the complainant (PW4).

(ix) The accused simply wanted to help Mohit Sharma in getting employment in Railways therefore he did not ask for any bribe form Mohit Sharma. The amount of Rs. 25,000/ given by Mohit Sharma to the accused was as a loan. The accused honestly with a view to discharge his liability gave a cheque Ex. PW 3/1 dated 25/6/2016 in the name of the complainant. Mohit Sharma repeatedly demanded from the accused to return Rs. 25,000/ to him but due to unavoidable circumstances the accused could not return the said amount to Mohit Sharma. Mohit Sharma therefore informed his father i.e. complainant about the above facts. The complainant then presented the cheque which was dishonored.

(x) It is an admitted fact that despite friendship of 56 months and after having taking loan of Rs. 25,000/ from the son of the complainant, accused had never demanded any bribe from the son of the accused for facilitating their employment in Railway. The complainant had for the first time met the accused on telephone on 07.11.2016 and the accused in all probabilities cannot demand the bribe from the complainant without fully knowing him.

(xi) The following conversation between the accused and the complainant makes it clear that accused has not demanded any bribe from him. The said conversation is as under:

Accused : Kisi tarah se sir jaise taise kar ke dekh lo Kisi tarah se or apko to main de dooga ye to main de dooga apko paisa, Aap uske tension kyo le rahe ho, Main ek hafte ka jo hai na cheque de dooga, self ka dooga cheque, Apko wo hi bas khali usi din ja kar ke nikalwa lena wah se bank se, or jis se liya hai pakda dena.

Complainant : Nahi par Accused : Eske sir apko woh wala chakar nahi padega ke apko pahele jaise, uska bola tha pachis woh to mera kharach ho gaya nahi to who bhi mai apko de deeta, woh to chalo bimari me mera lag gaya, is leye mere ko nahi tha woh apko de deta, yeh ho gai dikath, ab yeh jo hai na apko yeh jis se bhi loge usko bolana ek hafte mai tere ko bhaiya mai wapis kar dooga."

The complainant also admitted during cross examination the following facts : C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 23/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 Accused : 'Aap ek hafte ke bad woh nikal kar de dena, kis se le kar aye ho kitne paise'.

The accused also stated that; 'kuch nahi to unko bol diya na, ek hafte mai de dege, apko nikalwana padega'.

(xii) PW3 Mohit Sharma during his crossexamination has admitted that the accused has never demanded any money from him or in his presence from his father. From the testimony of complainant PW6 and Mohit Sharma PW3 it is clear that accused had requested for a loan of rs. 20,000/ from the complainant and the accused has never asked for bribe from the son of the complainant and the complainant for getting employment. Further complainant has admitted during cross examination that the accused asked for loan of Rs. 20,000/ from the complainant which the accused promised to return within a week.

(xiii) All the other witnesses have simply noticed the accused accepting amount from the complainant which they presumed to be illegal gratification and as such demand for bribe by the accused is not established in evidence.

(xiv) Reliance has been placed by the accused on the following case:

S. Shanmugraj Vs State Crl A. no. 65 of 2016 decided by High Court of Madras on 28/7/2017, it is has held in para no. 23 as under: C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 24/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016

23. "The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under section 7 & 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act an din absence thereof unmistakably the charge therefore, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof dehors the proof of demand ipso facto would thus, not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction there under."

(xv) Further reliance has been placed on Chandulal @ Chandrakant vs State of Gujrat, R/ Criminal Appeal no. 1335/2006 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat on 9/4/2018 wherein Hon'ble high court has relied upon the following judgments of Hon'ble Apex court: A. Subair Vs State of Kerala ( 2009) 6 SCC 587, 2009 AIR SCW 3994. The Hon'ble apex court while dwelling on the purport of the statutory prescription of section 7 & 13(1)(d) of the Act ruled that the prosecution has to prove the charge thereunder beyond reasonable doubt like any other criminal offence and that the accused should be considered to be innocent till it is established by proper proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification which are vital ingredients necessary to be proved to record a conviction.

C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 25/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 (xvi) State of Kerala and another Vs C.P. Rao ( 2011) 6 SCC 450; (AIR 2012 SCS Supp) 393), the Hon'ble Apex court reiterating its earlier dictum visa vis the same offence, held that mere recovery by itself, would not prove the charge against the accused and in absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused had voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe, conviction cannot be sustained.

In B. Jayaraj (AIR 2014 SC (Supp) 1837) it was held that "mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under section 7 as well as (13)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. It has been propounded that in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be proved. The proof of demand, thus has been held to be an indispensable essentiality and of permeating mandate for an offence under section 7 and 13 of the Act."

(xvii) The sanction has been granted without application of mind because alleged sanction order was admittedly provided by the CBI to PW1. Various contradictions in the deposition of PW1 makes it clear that there is no application of mind because the witness made contradictory depositions during his cross C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 26/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 examination dated 07.10.2017 because on one hand, he submitted that the file was sent directly by chief engineer and there was no dispatch number. On the other hand, he deposed that some files were put up before him without dispatch numbers and subsequently, he deposed that he is not aware whether any dispatch number was there or not. The Witness could not provide any provision empowering him to dismiss the accused from official capacity, whereas he had categorically deposed that the appointment of Group C and D employees is being done by Personnel Branch headed by Chief Personnel Officer. The witness, who claimed himself to be the dismissal authority of the accused as well as to grant the sanction for prosecution, deposed that he is not aware of the fact that whether the accused is the employee of Group C or Group D. Even the said witness failed to identify the transcription on court record, which he had considered for according of alleged sanction. Further, the said witness (PW1) had made contradictory deposition by deposing that he had received the copy of sanction order alongwith alleged forwarding letter from Chief Engineer and subsequently, he deposed that he does not remember. The Witness deposed that he even does not remember the name of official, who prepared the draft of sanction letter.

(xviii) Further, the said alleged document is impermissible as per the provision of Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. During C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 27/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 his examination dated 23.10.2017, the Witness (PW1) deposed that the alleged documents EXPW1/1 was prepared electronically by one Office Superintendent namely Mr. Gautam on one computer and he does not know that how many other persons were using the said computer. Also, no certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act has been provided alongwith such electronically made document. Therefore, the said document EX PW1/1 cannot be read in evidence during adjudication of present matter. Hence, alleged sanction order established to be unlawful and has no relevance for consideration.

17) The Ld. Sr. PP on the other hand submitted that the alleged contradictions in the deposition of this witness are minor contradictions and he has successfully withstood the piercing cross examination. His deposition is consistent and reliable and there is nothing to show that the sanction was granted in mechanically manner as the same has been granted by the competent authority after due application of mind.

SANCTION

18) Sanction under Sec. 19 of the PC Act is the sine qua non for prosecution of a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A valid Sanction under Sec. 19 of the Act envisage grant of Sanction C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 28/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 by a Competent Authority and due application of mind to the facts of the case. Needless to say that a grant of Sanction is not an idle formality and the Competent Authority has to give due consideration to the material placed before it before grant of Sanction.

19) It has been argued on behalf of the accused that the Sanctioning Authority has accorded sanction in mechanical manner without application of mind because it is admitted in cross examination that the sanctioning order was received from the Chief Engineer along with forwarding letter and the documents provided by the CBI. Ld. Counsel has pointed out various contradictions in the decision of PW1 in cross examination on 07.10.2017 wherein he has submitted that the file was directly sent by Chief Engineer and there was no dispatch number and later on he deposed that some urgent files were put up before him without dispatch numbers and subsequently he deposed that he was not aware whether any dispatch number was there or not. It is further argued that witnesses could not provide any provision empowering him to have power to dismiss the accused and it is not established that PW1 was the Chief Personnel Officer empowered to appoint and dismiss the GroupC and GroupD employees. It is further submitted that PW1 has admitted in cross examination that he was not aware of the fact that whether accused was employee of GroupC or GroupD. It is further argued that witness has deposed that he even does not remember the name of the official who prepared the draft of sanctioning letter. It is also argued that the sanctioning C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 29/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 order Ex.PW1/1 was prepared electronically by one of his superintendent namely Mr. Gautam on one of the computer and the Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act has not been filed and as such the sanction order Ex.PW1/1 is not legally admissible in evidence.

20) Ld. Sr. PP on the other hand submitted that the contradictions are irrelevant because PW1 has clearly deposed that he was competent to accord sanction with respect to the accused and he has issued the sanction order after perusal of the entire material submitted to him.

21) I have carefully examined the evidence of PW1 who deposed that the sanction order Ex.PW1/1 (running into four pages) was bearing his signature and seal impression. He further deposed that he has gone through the CBI report as well as documents and the submissions of the witnesses and after applying his mind he found that there was prima facie case made out against accused Chandan Mukherjee for grant of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He has deposed that he being competent authority to give the sanction has accordingly accorded sanction. In his cross examination by accused he has categorically deposed that the Chief Engineer has sent him all the necessary documents along with his forwarding and covering letter. He further deposed in his crossexamination that he being Deputy Chief Engineer was competent to remove GroupC and GroupD employees from the service in accordance with the powers conferred to him under the Railway Establishment Schedule. In his cross C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 30/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 examination carried out on 23.10.2017 he has stated that he had made some changes in the draft sanction order while finalizing it. The witness has very fairly deposed in his cross examination that the draft sanctioning order having certain columns blank and without signature was forwarded to him and that sanctioning order Ex.PW1/2 was clearly the same except filling his name, designation, date and signature. Thus, it is clear from the deposition of PW1 that he has successfully withstood the test of cross examination carried out on behalf of accused. The contradictions and the deficiencies pointed by the ld. Defence counsel are of no importance because the witness has remained consistent in his deposition that he has accorded sanction after applying his mind and he was competent to accord sanction in case of the accused and that he was competent authority to dismiss and appoint group C and D employees including the accused.

22) For the above reasons the sanction granted by PW1 for prosecution of the accused is held to be valid and legally granted sanction.

23) During the trap the alleged bribe amount was transferred to the accused and it was recovered from his possession. So the facts which need to be proved by the prosecution are that accused made a demand of bribe; he accepted the bribe consciously on 09.11.2016 and the bribe amount was recovered from his conscious possession. Let us now examine the evidence of the prosecution to find out whether it has proved those facts beyond reasonable doubt.

24) The accused has faced the trial for the offences punishable under Sec. 7 & Sec. 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The essential ingredients of Sec. 7 of the Act are i) the accused must be public servant, ii) he must accept, obtain or agree to accept or attempt to obtain gratification other than legal remuneration, iii) as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act etc, iv) showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to any person in the exercise of his official function. 24.1) Section 13(1)(d) define criminal misconduct by public servant. A public servant commit offence of criminal misconduct if i) by corrupt or illegal means, ii) by abusing his position as a public servant or iii) while holding office a public servant iv) obtains for himself or any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. 24.2) The evidence on the record needs to be evaluated to ascertain if the necessary ingredients of the offences under Sec. 7 & 13(1)(d) of PC Act stand proved or not.

25) It has been strongly argued on behalf of the accused that the basic ingredients of demand of bribe / gratification is not established from the evidence on record because accused has never demanded any bribe and he has merely demanded a further loan of Rs. 20,000/ from the complainant. It is further argued that the conversation at the time of C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 32/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 verification between the complainant and the accused and the subsequent conversation at the time of handing over of the alleged money of Rs.20,000/ by the complainant to the accused shows that accused has asked the complainant to arrange Rs. 20,000/ from someone and he will return the same by way of cheque within a week. Ld. Counsel in that regard has relied upon portion A to A and B to B at page 2 of Ex.PW7/DX1 i.e. the transcription of conversation recorded on 08.11.2016. Ld. counsel for accused has further relied upon the conversation portion X to X and X1 to X2 at page 7 of Ex.PW4/14 i.e. transcription recorded on 09.11.2016. Ld. defence counsel further relied upon the crossexamination of complainant (PW4) carried out on 15.12.2018 wherein the complainant had admitted that the accused has told him that he will give the cheque of Rs. 20,000/ and the same will not be dishonoured. It is further vehemently argued that acceptance of Rs. 20,000/ and recovery of the same from the accused at the time of trap proceedings is of no relevance because the said amount was not bribe amount and the amount was accepted and received by the accused from the complainant as loan and further accused has agreed to return the same within a week.

26) Ld. Sr. PP on the other hand submitted that deposition of PW4, PW7, PW8, PW10 and PW13 has proved that accused Chandan Mukherjee and complainant were having conversation for the demand of bribe by accused. It is further proved that PW4 Rajesh Sharma took out the bribe amount from his pocket and handed over to the accused and he C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 33/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 accepted the same by counting with his both hands and put the same in a pink colour cloth bag Ex.P2. In the written arguments it has been argued on behalf of the prosecution that to establish charge under Section 7 of the PC Act it is essential ingredient that there must be demand of bribe by the accused and his acceptance coupled with recovery from the person of the accused. It is argued that in the present case accused has demanded bribe of Rs. 20,000/ from PW3 Sh. Mohit Sharma for getting railway job in railway department under Ministry and General Manager Quota and had also obtained the CV/resume of his brother Gaurav and sister Jyoti. It is further argued that accused has demanded bribe in the garb of verification for the purpose of getting government job. It is further argued that during verification of the complaint which was done by PW7 Insp. Raman Kumar Shukla and PW8 Sh. Sher Singh Kumawat, the demand of Rs. 20,000/ was made by accused Chandan Mukherjee. It is argued that from the conversation between the complainant and PW4 Sh. Rajesh Sharma recorded on DVR (Ex.P4) in a memory card (Ex.Q1) Ex.P1 and transcription Ex.PW7/DX1, the demand of bribe of Rs. 20,000/ is proved. It is further argued that demand of Rs. 20,000/ and its acceptance and recovery is also proved from the testimony of the complainant, independent witnesses PW S.S.Kummawat and J.P.P. Sinha and evidence of PW10 TLO. It is also argued by ld. Sr. PP that conversation between the complainant and the accused at Sagar Ratna Restaurant recorded in DVR Ex.P4, memory card, Q2, Ex.P8, its transcription Ex.PW4/14 has sufficiently proved that accused has demanded Rs. 20,000/ as bribe from the complainant. Lastly, it C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 34/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 is argued that the said demand as recorded in conversation has been corroborated by other testimony of PW2 Sh. Saurav Aggarwal and also proved from CDR of mobile no. 98990679273 (Ex.PW2/3) of accused and from the testimony of PW6 Sh. Pawan Kumar Singh who has proved CDR of mobile no. 9910807229 of the complainant. Further the testimony of prosecution witnesses has been corroborated by the expert witness PW12 Sh. Deepak Tanwar vide his report Ex.PW12/A. The evidence of Chemical Examiner PW9 Deepti Bharga vide her report Ex.PW9/2 has corroborated the prosecution version with respect to the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused.

27) In order to appreciate the arguments of defence as well as of the prosecution with regard to the proof of demand of bribe, I proceed to analyze the evidence of the complainant and other material witnesses. PW3 Mohit Sharma, who is the son of the complainant in his examination in chief deposed that he met Chandan Mukherjee at Ginger Hotel where accused told him that he can get government job through General Manager quota as three posts in the above said quota were lying vacant. He and accused exchanged mobile numbers. One day he received a call from the accused who told him about the ill condition of his mother and demanded Rs. 25,000/ from him for the treatment of his mother. He had given the amount of Rs. 25,000/ to the accused in cash who in return gave a cheque of Rs. 25,000/ in the name of his father Sh. Rajesh Sharma as security. He further deposed that accused did not return the amount of Rs. 25,000/ to C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 35/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 him and demanded Rs. 20,000/ on the pretext of getting him government job. He further deposed that the cheque given by accused was dishonoured and thereafter his father spoke to the accused on telephone. In his cross examination PW3 has admitted that accused had met him 34 times and that he was having good relations in railway department and he will help him in procuring employment for him and his brother and sister and that the accused had taken a loan from him as he was facing financial hardship due to illness of his mother. He further admitted that accused had never demanded any money from him or in his presence from his father.

28) PW4 Rajesh Sharma complainant in his examinationinchief has deposed that accused told his son that he will get employment for his son in Railway Department in Minister Quota. He further deposed that after one month his son has asked the accused to return the loan amount but accused has avoided the payment on one pretext or the other. He further deposed that after about 20/25 days accused has called him to meet him personally at Sagar Ratna Restaurant, Connaught Place, Delhi where he met the accused who conveyed him about his inability to arrange the fund of Rs. 25,000/ and assured that he will return the amount of Rs. 25,000/ as soon as possible. PW4 further deposed that thereafter on 07.11.2016 he had talked to the accused on his mobile number wherein accused told him that his son Mohit Sharma had given documents regarding employment of his two sons and daughter and the verification is to be conducted by the Railway Department for their employment and accused had demanded C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 36/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 Rs.20,000/ to be paid to the staff of railway department. He however again said that accused demanded Rs. 20,000/ as bribe for getting verification of his children but he was not willing to pay the bribe of Rs. 20,000/. On 08.11.2016 he went to CBI office and submitted one complaint to SP CBI. He further deposed that during verification of his complaint on 08.11.2016 Insp. Raman Kumar Shukla directed him to make a call to accused Chandan Mukherjee while having the speaker mode of his phone in on condition. Insp. Raman Kumar Shukla had switched on the DVR. At about 4.00 PM PW 4 received a call from accused Chandan Mukherjee and the entire conversion was recorded in the DVR. He further deposed that accused Chandan Mukherjee has told him if he gave Rs. 20,000/ to him then he will get verification of his children on 10.11.2016. He further deposed that despite showing his inability to the accused in making arrangement of Rs. 20,000/ accused has insisted him to give Rs. 20,000/ and accused Chandan Mukherjee asked him to come at Regal Cinema, Connaught Place or at Sagar Ratna Restaurant along with the amount of Rs. 20,000/ from 9.00AM to 11.00 AM on 09.11.2016. He further deposed that from the conversation it emerges that accused was demanding Rs. 20,000/ from him as bribe. He further deposed that during trap proceedings he along with independent witnesses Sher Singh Kumawat entered in the restaurant where accused was sitting. After exchange of greetings accused asked him to sit at the wall side and he inquired about the status of his children recruitment. He further deposed that accused has asked him as to how much money he had brought and in what denominations. He told that he had brought Rs.

C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 37/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 20,000/ in denomination of Rs. 500/ each as demanded by him. He further deposed that thereafter Chandan Mukherjee has told him to give the amount to him which he asked to arrange by extending his hands towards him. He inquired from the accused whether that place was appropriate place to deliver the amount and accordingly he took the money from the right side pocket of the safari suit and gave the same to the accused. He further deposed that accused has accepted the same by his right hand and counted the same with his both hands and kept the same in a small pink colour cloth bag which he was having. Thereafter, as directed by TLO he gave signal by rubbing his both hands on his face and TLO Vikas Pannu caught hold of accused by his right wrist and Insp. Raman Shukla caught hold the accused by his left wrist. Accused kept quiet and became calm. He further deposed that on the directions of TLO, independent witness Sh. J.P.P. Sinha recovered the bribe amount of Rs. 20,000/ from the pink colour bag. The witness has further identified the said currency Ex.P6 stating that those were the notes which were handed over to accused Chandan Mukherjee at Connaught Place which were kept in pink colour bag and these were the same notes which were recovered from the said bag from the possession of accused Chandan Mukherjee. In his crossexamination on behalf of the accused complainant has deposed that his son Mohit Sharma knew the accused since May/June, 2016. In his crossexamination carried out on 24.11.2018 the complainant has admitted the transcription of telephonic conversation on 8.11.2016 and 09.11.2016 between him and accused and the cross examination in that regard is relevant and is reproduced as under:

C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 38/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 "It is correct that in the transcript of telephonic conversation dated 08.11.2016 between me and the accused which is Ex.PW7/DX1 accused in the 2nd page has spoken the words at point A to A that "kisi tarah se sir jaise taise karke dekh lo kisi tarah se aur apko to mai de donga, ye to de hi dung apko paise aap uski tension kyo le rahe ho. Mai eik hafte ka to hai na vaha cheque de dung self ka dunga cheque abko vo hi bus khali usi din jakar ke nikalwa lena vaha se cehque se aur jise liya hai pakra dena".

29) In his cross examination dated 15.12.2018 the complainant has admitted that accused told him that he will give the cheque of Rs.

20,000/ and the same will not be dishonoured. Relevant cross examination is reproduced as under:

"It is correct that the accused had also told me that he was having good relations in the Railway Department and he will approach his Superiors for the employment of his son."

30) PW7 Insp. Raman Kumar Shukla who verified the complaint has admitted in cross examination that accused has uttered those words in the recorded conversation which are mentioned at point A to A in Ex.PW7/DX1 and also uttered the words as mentioned at portion B to B in Ex.PW7/DX1 in the recorded conversation.

31) PW8 Sh. Sher Singh Kumawat has also admitted in cross examination that accused has uttered the words in portion X18 to X19 and C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 39/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 portion Y26 to Y27 in Ex.PW7/DX1. He also admitted portion X and X1 to X2 on page 7 of the transcription Ex.PW4/14. In his cross examination he has further admitted that since there was noise due to crowd so they could not hear the talks between the complainant and the accused and without hearing the talks between the accused and the complainant they over powered the accused just on the basis of signal of the complainant. He further deposed that at the time of or before apprehending the accused they did not have any conversation with the complainant regarding demand of payment of alleged amount by the accused in the Sagar Ratna Restaurant.

Presumption under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988

32) From the evidence discussed above and arguments addressed, it becomes lucid that receiving of Rs 20,000/ by the accused from the complainant is not in dispute because it is the case of the accused that said amount was not received as any gratification/bribe rather the same has been received as a loan with the promise to return the same within a week and the said amount was to be used to facilitate the verification of documents of children of complainant for getting job in railway. As already discussed the accused has highly relied upon the conversation at pretrap stage as well as during the trap proceedings which shows that at the time of receiving the amount during trap proceedings and during discussion on the receiving of the amount at verification stage, accused has promised to return the same C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 40/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 within a week by way of a cheque. It has been argued that when an amount is promised to be returned soon and is to be used for the benefit of complainant and his family, the same cannot be stated to be received as bribe/gratification by the accused. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of accused that the demand of bribe by the accused has not been at all established by the prosecution. It is further argued that complainant was having a grudge against the accused for not returning the Rs. 25000 received from his son and as such falsely implicated the accused. It is further argued that even presumption under section 20 of the P.C Act 1988 cannot be raised against the accused for accepting Rs.20,000/ from the complainant because the amount so accepted was neither bribe nor gratification as a motive or a reward for showing or forbearing to show, in the discharge of his official functions any favour or disfavor to any person so as to bring the case under section 7 of the P.C Act. The accused has relied the following case law in support of his above contention: I. In Prem Singh Yadav Vs Central Bureau of Investigation, High court of Delhi, 2011 Law suit (Del) 817. Para 14, 15, 16 are relevant and reproduced as under: "14. In view of the above, it may not be safe to rely upon the testimonies of PW2, PW3, PW5 and PW6 regarding demand and acceptance of money by the accused. The recovery of tainted money alone is not sufficient to record the conviction. In the case of Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Administration) (1979) 4 SCC 725 it was held that mere recovery of money, divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid, is not sufficient to convict the accused when C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 41/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. Mere recovery of money cannot prove the case of the prosecution against the accused in the absence of any instance to prove the payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe. In the case of C.M. Girish Babu (supra). The Supreme Court held that mere recovery of money from the accused by itself is not enough in the absence of substantive evidence of demand and acceptance. In this case the reliance was placed on a three Judge Bench judgment in M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P. wherein it was held as under: "20. A threeJudge Bench in M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P. while dealing with the contention that it is not enough that some currency notes were handed over to the public servant to make it acceptance of gratification and prosecution has a further duty to prove that what was paid amounted to gratification, observed: (SCC p.700, para 24)

24. ...we think it is not necessary to deal with the matter in detail because in a recent decision rendered by us the said aspect has been dealt with at length. (Vide Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State of Maharashtra) The following statement made by us in the said decision would be the answer to the aforesaid contention raised by the learned Counsel: (SCC p.577, para 12) „12. The premise to be established on the facts for drawing the presumption is that there was payment or acceptance of gratification. Once the said premise is established the inference to be drawn is that the said gratification was accepted `as motive or reward' for doing or forbearing to do any official act. So the word `gratification' need not be stretched to mean reward because reward is the outcome of the presumption which the court has to draw on the factual premise that there was payment of gratification. This will again be fortified by looking at the collocation of two expressions adjacent to each other like C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 42/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 `gratification or any valuable thing'. If acceptance of any valuable thing can help to draw the presumption that it was accepted as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act, the word `gratification' must be treated in the context to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to the public servant who received it.

22. It is equally well settled that the burden of proof placed upon the accused person against whom the presumption is made under Section 20 of the Act is not akin to that of burden placed on the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

"4. ...It is well established that where the burden of an issue lies upon the accused he is not required to discharge that burden by leading evidence of proof his case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, of course, the test prescribed in deciding whether the prosecution has discharged its onus to prove the guilt of the accused; but the same test cannot be applied to an accused person who seeks to discharge the burden placed upon him under Section 4 under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is sufficient if the accused person succeeds in proving a preponderance of probability in favour of his case. It is not necessary for the accused person to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt or in default to incur verdict of guilt. The onus of proof lying upon the accused person is to prove his case by a preponderance of probability. As soon as he succeeds in doing so, the burden shifts to prosecution which still has to discharge its original onus that never shifts, i.e.; that of establishing on the whole case the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt." (See V.D.Jhangan v. State of U.P. at AIR p. 1764, para 4). (Emphasis supplied)"

15. In the case of Dnyaneshwar Laxman (supra) also the Supreme Court held as under: "16. Indisputably, the demand of illegal gratification is a sine C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 43/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 qua non for constitution of an offence under the provisions of the Act. For arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of an offence, viz., demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount of illegal gratification have been satisfied or not, the court must take into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on the record in their entirety. For the said purpose, indisputably, the presumptive evidence, as is laid down in Section 20 of the Act, must also be taken into consideration but then in respect thereof, it is trite, the standard of burden of proof on the accused vis`vis the standard of burden of proof on the prosecution would differ. Before, however, the accused is called upon to explain as to how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. Even while invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt."

16. Though, the accused has led no evidence in defence, but from the crossexaminations of prosecution witnesses he has satisfactorily discharged the onus laid upon him. By preponderance of probability the accused has been able to create doubt in the prosecution case. From the evidence as noticed above, a suspicion arises against the prosecution case, more so, in view of the fact that the complainant might be having a grudge against the accused for challaning him on previous occasions. Even otherwise, in view of all this it is difficult to hold that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is also well settled principle of law that where it is possible to have both the views, one in favour of the prosecution and the other in favour of the accused, the latter should prevail (see Dilip v. State of M.P. [2009] 1 SCC 450 and Gagan Kanejia v. State of Punjab [2006] 13 SCC

516).

C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 44/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 II. In Pushpanath Vs Central Bureau of Investigation 2018HCC online Guwhati High Court 38. It was held that the demand and acceptance of gratification must be proved by the prosecution to establish the offence under section 7 of the PC Act.

III. In Chandulal @ Chandrakant Vs. State of Gujarat, R/criminal appeal no. 1355/2006, judgment dated 02.04.2018, High court of Gujarat, it was held that the prosecution has to prove the charge thereunder beyond reasonable doubt like any other criminal offence and that the accused should be considered to be innocent till it is established otherwise by proper proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which are vital ingredients necessary to be proved to record a conviction. IV. In S.Shanmugaraj Vs State criminal appeal no. 65/2016, judgment dated 28.07.2017, Madras High Court, the case of Hon'ble Supreme court title as P.Sathyanarain Murthy Vs. District Inspector of Police, State of Andra Pradesh and others, (2015), 10 Supreme court cases 152, para no. 23 is quoted as under: "23. The sheet anchor of the case of the prosecution is the evidence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, of PW1S. Udaya Bhaskar. The substance of his testimony, as has been alluded to hereinabove, would disclose qua the aspect of demand, that when the complainant did hand over to the appellant the renewal application, the latter enquired from the complainant as to whether he had brought the amount which he directed him to bring on the previous day, whereupon the complainant took out Rs. 500/ from C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 45/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 the pocket of his shirt and handed over the same to the appellant. Though, a very spirited endeavour has been made by the learned counsel for the State to corelate this statement of PW1 S. Udaya Bhaskar to the attendant facts and circumstances including the recovery of this amount from the possession of the appellant by the trap team, identification of the currency notes used in the trap operation and also the chemical reaction of the sodium carbonate solution qua the appellant, we are left unpersuaded to return a finding that the prosecution in the instant case has been able to prove the factum of demand beyond reasonable doubt. Even if the evidence of PW1 S. Udaya Bhaskar is accepted on the face value, it falls short of the quality and decisiveness of the proof of demand of illegal gratification as enjoined by law to hold that the offence under Section 7 or 13(1)(d)

(i)&(ii) of the Act has been proved. True it is, that on the demise of the complainant, primary evidence, if any, of the demand is not forthcoming. According to the prosecution, the demand had in fact been made on 3.10.1996 by the appellant to the complainant and on his complaint, the trap was laid on the next date i.e. 4.10.1996. However, the testimony of PW1 S. Udaya Bhaskar does not reproduce the demand allegedly made by the appellant to the complainant which can be construed to be one as contemplated in law to enter a finding that the offence under Section 7 or 13(1)(d)

(i)&(ii) of the Act against the appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt."

33) Law referred and relied upon by Prosecution:

(i) State V. A. Parthiban, criminal appeal 842/2003 judgment dated 09.10.2006 (Supreme Court of India), it was held that every acceptance of illegal gratification whether preceded by a demand or not, would be covered by section 7 of the Act. But if the acceptance of an illegal gratification is in pursuance of a demand by the public servant, then it would also fall under section 13(1) (d) of the Act.

(ii) In Kanwar Singh Vs. State, criminal appeal no. 256/2008 judgment dated 16.04.2014, it was held that once it is shown that the appellant has accepted the treated government currency notes which was by way of illegal gratification, then presumption under section 20 of the P.C. Act would get attracted.

(iii) In State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. R.Jeevaratnam, AIR 2005, SC 4095, it was held that the term "shall be presumed" in section 20 (1) of the P.C. Act showed that the court had to compulsory draw a presumption. It is held that the only condition for drawing the presumption is that during trial it should be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. Once it is proved that gratification has been accepted the presumption automatically arose.

(iv) In State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. C.Uma Mesheswara Rao and Anothers, criminal appeal no.468469 of 1998, judgment dated 31.03.2004 Supreme Court of India, the following observation are apt and apposite and quoted as under: "For appreciating rival stands it would be proper to quote Section 20(1) of the Act, which reads as follows:

"20(1): Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration.(1) Where in any trial or an offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 or clause

(a) or clause (b) of subsection (1) or Section 13 it is proved that an C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 47/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 accused person has accepted or obtained, or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved that he accepted or obtained, or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain, that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate."

Before proceeding further, we may point out that the expressions "may presume" and "shall presume" are defined in Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the 'Evidence Act'). The presumptions falling under the former category are compendiously known as "factual presumptions" or "discretionary presumptions" and those falling under the latter as "legal presumptions" or "compulsory presumptions". When the expression "shall be presumed" is employed in Section 20(1) of the Act, it must have the same import of compulsion.

When the subsection deals with legal presumption, it is to be understood as in terrorem i.e. in tone of a command that it has to be presumed that the accused accepted the gratification as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act etc., if the condition envisaged in the former part of the section is satisfied. The only condition for drawing such a legal presumption under Section 20 is that during trial it should be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. The Section does not say that the said condition should be satisfied through direct evidence. Its only requirement is that it must be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept gratification. Direct evidence is one of the modes through which a fact can be proved. But that is not the only mode envisaged in the Evidence Act. (See M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P. (2001 (1) SCC 691).

Proof of the fact depends upon the degree of probability of its having existed. The standard required for reaching the supposition is that of a prudent man acting in any important matter concerning him.

C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 48/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 Fletcher Moulton L.J. in Hawkins v. Powells Tillery Steam Coal Co. Ltd. (1911 (1) KB 988) observed as follows:

"Proof does not mean proof to rigid mathematical demonstration, because that is impossible; it must mean such evidence as would induce a reasonable man to come to a particular conclusion".

The said observation has stood the test of time and can now be followed as the standard of proof. In reaching the conclusion the Court can use the process of inferences to be drawn from facts produced or proved. Such inferences are akin to presumptions in law. Law gives absolute discretion to the Court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process the Court may have regard to common course of natural events, human conduct, public or private business vis`vis the facts of the particular case. The discretion is clearly envisaged in Section 114 of the Evidence Act.

Presumption is an inference of a certain fact drawn from other proved facts. While inferring the existence of a fact from another, the Court is only applying a process of intelligent reasoning which the mind of a prudent man would do under similar circumstances. Presumption is not the final conclusion to be drawn from other facts. But it could as well be final if it remains undisturbed later. Presumption in law of evidence is a rule indicating the stage of shifting the burden of proof. From a certain fact or facts the Court can draw an inference and that would remain until such inference is either disproved or dispelled.

For the purpose of reaching one conclusion the Court can rely on a factual presumption. Unless the presumption is disproved or dispelled or rebutted the Court can treat the presumption as tantamounting to proof. However, as a caution of prudence we have to observe that it may be unsafe to use that presumption to draw yet another discretionary presumption unless there is a statutory compulsion. This Court has indicated so in Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra (1998 (7) SCC 337) "A presumption can be drawn only from facts and not from other presumptions by a process of probable and logical reasoning".

390) it was observed that there is no requirement to prove passing of money by direct evidence. It may also be proved by circumstantial evidence. In Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State of Maharashtra (2000 (8) SCC571) it was observed thus:

"The premise to be established on the facts for drawing the presumption is that there was payment or acceptance of gratification. Once the said premise is established the inference to be drawn is that the said gratification was accepted "as motive or reward" for doing or forbearing to do any official act. So the word "gratification" need not be stretched to mean reward because reward is the outcome of the presumption which the court has to draw on the factual premise that there was payment of gratification. This will again be fortified by looking at the collocation of two expressions adjacent to each other like "gratification or any valuable thing". If acceptance of any valuable thing can help to draw the presumption that it was accepted as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act, the word "gratification" must be treated in the context to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to the public servant who received it".

In Black's Law Dictionary, "gratification" is defined as "a recompense or reward for services or benefits, given voluntarily, without solicitation or promise". But in Oxford Advance Learner's Dictionary C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 50/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 of Current English the said word is given the meaning "to give pleasure or satisfaction to". Among the above two descriptions for the word "gratification" with slightly differing nuances as between the two, what is more appropriate for the context has to be found out. The context in which the word is used in Section 4(1) of the Act is, hence, important.

In Mohmoodkhan Mahboobkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra (1997 (10) SCC 600) this Court has taken the same meaning for the word "gratification" appearing in Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the old Act'). We quote the following observations:

"7. The primary condition for acting on the legal presumption under Section 4(1) of the Act is that the prosecution should have proved that what the accused received was gratification. The word 'gratification' is not defined in the Act. Hence, it must be understood in its literal meaning. In the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, the word 'gratification' is shown to have the meaning 'to give pleasure or satisfaction to'. The word 'gratification' is used in Section 4(1) to denote acceptance of something to the pleasure or satisfaction of the recipient."

The provisions of Section 4(1) of the old Act and Section 20(1) of the Act are almost identically worded.

What is the concept of gratification has been succinctly stated by this Court in The State of Assam v. Krishna Rao (1973 (3) SCC 227), through illuminating words, after quoting Section 4 of the Act.

"22.In State of Madras v. A.Vaidiaratha Iyer (1958 SCR 580) after reproducing the relevant provisions of Section 4 of the Act this Court observed that where it is proved that a gratification has been accepted the presumption under Section 4 of the Act shall at once arise. It is a presumption of law and it is obligatory on the Court to raise it in every case brought under Section 4. In the reported case this Court allowed the appeal of the State of Madras and setting aside the impugned order of acquittal passed by the High Court restored that of the Special Judge convicting the respondent there. In C.I. C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 51/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 Emden v. The State of U.P. (AIR 1960 SC 548) the appellant who was working as a local foreman, was found to have accepted a sum of Rs.375 from a railway contractor. The appellant's explanation was that he had borrowed the amount as he was in need of money for meeting the expenses of the clothing of his children who were studying in school. The Special Judge accepted the evidence of the contractor and held that the money had been taken as a bribe, that the defence story was improbable and untrue, that the presumption under Section 4 of the Act had to be raised and that the presumption had not been rebutted by the appellant and accordingly convicted him under Section 161 IPC and Section 5 of the Act. On appeal the High Court held that on the facts of that case the statutory presumption under Section 4 had to be raised, that the explanation offered by the appellant was improbable and palpably unreasonable and that the presumption had not been rebutted, and upheld the conviction. The appellant contended, on appeal in this Court, inter alia: (i) that the presumption under Section 4 could not be raised merely on proof of acceptance of money but it had further to be proved that the money was accepted as a bribe, (ii) that even if the presumption arose it was rebutted when the appellant offered a reasonably probable explanation. This Court, dealing with the presumption under Section 4, observed that such presumption arose when it was shown that the accused had received the stated amount and that the said amount was not legal remuneration. The word 'gratification in Section 4(1) was to be given its literal dictionary meaning of satisfaction or appetite or desire; it could not be construed to mean money paid by way of a bribe. The High Court was justified in raising the presumption against the appellant as it was admitted that he had received the money from the contractor and the amount received was other than legal remuneration. On the facts the explanation given by the accused, in agreement with the opinion of the High Court was held to be wholly unsatisfactory and unreasonable. In Dhanvantrai v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1964 SC 575) it was observed that in order to raise the presumption under Section 4(1) of C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 52/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 the Act what the prosecution has to prove is that the accused person has received 'gratification other than legal remuneration' and when it is shown that he has received a certain sum of money which was not a legal remuneration, then, the condition prescribed by this section is satisfied and the presumption thereunder must be raised. In Jhangan v. State of U.P. (1968 (3) SCR 766) the above decisions were approved and it is observed that mere receipt of money is sufficient to raise the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Act."

In C.I. Emden v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1960 SC 548) and V.D. Jhangan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1966 (3) SCR 736) it was observed that if any money is received and no convincing, credible and acceptable explanation is offered by the accused as to how it came to be received by him, the presumption under Section 4 of the old Act is available. When the receipt is admitted it is for the accused to prove as to how the presumption is not available as perforce the presumption arises and becomes operative."

34) Thus, from the above discussions it becomes crystal clear that in order to raise presumption under section 20 of the Act, prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that amount of Rs. 20,000/ has been received by the accused as gratification i.e the said amount is received by him for his pleasure or satisfaction. It is an admitted fact that all the material prosecution witnesses including complainant and eye witness has admitted that accused has made utterance at the verification stage as well as during the trap proceedings that he will be returning the said amount within a week by self cheque and complainant can withdraw the said money to pay the same to the person from whom he might have borrowed the sum of Rs. 20,000/ as is evident from the conversation dated 08.11.2016 Ex.PW7/DX1. Portion A to A and B to B is reproduced as under: C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 53/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 Portion A to A" Accused : Kisi tarah se sir jaise taise kar ke dekh lo Kisi tarah se or apko to main de dooga ye to main de dooga apko paisa, Aap uske tension kyo le rahe ho, Main ek hafte ka jo hai na cheque de dooga, self ka dooga cheque, Apko wo hi bas khali usi din ja kar ke nikalwa lena wah se bank se, or jis se liya hai pakda dena.

PortionB to B Accused: Eske sir apko woh wala chakar nahi padega ke apko pahele jaise, uska bola tha pachis woh to mera kharach ho gaya nahi to who bhi mai apko de deeta, woh to chalo bimari me mera lag gaya, is leye mere ko nahi tha woh apko de deta, yeh ho gai dikath, ab yeh jo hai na apko yeh jis se bhi loge usko bolana ek hafte mai tere ko bhaiya mai wapis kar dooga main."

34.1) Further conversation dated 09.11.2016 Ex. PW4/14 portion X to X, X1 to X2 is reproduced as under: Portion X to X: 'Aap ek hafte ke bad woh nikal kar de dena, kis se le kar aye ho kitne paise'.

Portion X1 to X2: 'kuch nahi to unko bol diya na, ek hafte mai de dege, apko nikalwana padega.' 34.2) Further, in crossexamination of PW4 (complainant) carried out on 15.12.2018, he has categorically admitted as under: " It is correct that on 09.11.2016 accused told me that he will give cheque of Rs. 20,000/ and same will not be dishonoured. It is correct that accused has also told me that he was having good relations in the Railway department and he will approach his Superiors for the employment of my son. "

C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 54/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016

35) The above deposition of complainant shows that accused has in unequivocal terms agreed to return the sum of Rs. 20,000/ to the complainant by way of cheque. It is also evident from the evidence and the admitted material on record that the accused and son of the complainant were known to each other for a considerable period and earlier son of the complainant Mohit Sharma has made payment of Rs. 25,000/ to the accused and accused has issued a cheque of Rs. 25,000/ in the name of the complainant for returning of the said borrowed amount and admittedly the said cheque was dishonored and despite repeated demands by the son of the complainant, accused has failed to make the payment of the amount of the dishonored cheque.

36) Also the reply to the question no. 277 put in statement under section 313 CrPC by the accused is relevant and reproduced as under: Q.277: Do you want to say anything else?

Ans. I am working in Indian Railways for the last about 32 years. In the year 2016, I was working as G. Operator and in the month of May 2016, I was staying in Hotle Ginger, Ajmeri Gate, New Delhi. Mr. Mohit Sharma who was working in said hotel, came to know that I am working in Indian Railways. Mr. Mohit Sharma approached me and came closer to me during my said stay in said hotel. He was very much frustrated with his job in ginger hotel. He requested me to help him getting any better job. He took my residential address and after some days he started coming frequently at my residence. During those days my mother became seriously sick and I was in dire need of some finances. I discussed about C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 55/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 it with Mr. Mohit Sharma, who of his own offered me a loan of Rs 25,000/. I accepted the amount of Rs 25,000/ as loan and in order to discharge my liability I gave him a cheque of Rs 25,000/ in the name of his father namely Mr. Rajesh Sharma. I had to incur huge expenses for the treatement of my mother and was therefore unable to repay the said loan amount. Due to abovesaid reason, the cheque amounting to Rs 25,000/ was dishonoured, the father of Mohit Sharma i.e Sh. Rajesh Sharma contacted me and told me that he is a police official and if the amount of Rs 25,000/ is not paid back to him, he would take stern action against me. On being told entire actual position and circumstances by me, Sh. Rajesh Sharma had shown sympathy and remained with me as into a cordial/ Friendly relations. After few days, I again required a financial assistance of Rs 20,000/ and for sake of same I asked Mr. Rajesh Sharma to help me at such crucial time. I also told him that inso far as Rs 25,000/, I could not return the same as I had spent huge amount upon the treatment of my mother but I undertake to return the sum of Rs 20,000/ to him within a period one week. I further told him that he should promise to the person from whom he will borrow Rs 20,000/ can return to him within a week's time. I also told him that for this loan amount I would issue a bearer cheque of Rs 20,000/ and he can withdraw the same from the bank, immediately on its presentation. Mr. Rajesh Sharma had made a false complaint against me by falsely alleging that I have demanded that bribe. The allegation are totally false and I have been falsely implicated in this case. I never demanded any such alleged bribe amount and I am innocent.

37) Admittedly, the accused has not led any evidence in defence to prove his above stand taken in his statement u/s 313 CrPC. However, the said version of accused stands proved from the crossexamination of complainant (PW4) dated 15.12.2018 and conversation between accused and complainant reproduced in the transcription Ex.PW7/DX1 i.e portion A to A and B to B, the transcription Ex. PW4/14 i.e portion X to X and X1 to X2 referred Supra (para no. 34 of the judgment). Reliance can safely be placed on para no. 15 and 16 of the judgment of High court of Delhi in Prem Singh Yadav Vs. CBI, 2011 Law suit (Del) 817, wherein it was held as under:

15. In the case of Dnyaneshwar Laxman (supra) also the Supreme Court held as under: "16. Indisputably, the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constitution of an offence under the provisions of the Act. For arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of an offence, viz., demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount of illegal gratification have been satisfied or not, the court must take into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on the record in their entirety. For the said purpose, indisputably, the presumptive evidence, as is laid down in Section 20 of the Act, must also be taken into consideration but then in respect thereof, it is trite, the standard of burden of proof on the accused vis`vis the standard of burden of proof on the prosecution would differ. Before, however, the accused is called upon to explain as to how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. Even while invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 57/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt."

38) The crossexamination of PW3 Mohit Sharma in that regard is quite relevant and reproduced as under:

" I had joined Ginger Hotel in April, 2016. Accused firstly met in Ginger Hotel in May, 2016. Accused had met me 34 times and after that he offered for my employment in Railway department. It is correct that accused told me that he is having good relations in railway department and he will help me in procuring employment, mine, my brother and my sister. The accused had taken a loan from me as he was facing financial hardship due to illness of his family member. It is correct that accused demanded a loan of Rs. 25,000/ from me as his family members was not well. It is also correct that accused told me that he will repay the amount of Rs. 25,000 to me. It is correct that I demanded the amount of Rs.

C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 58/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 25,000/ from the accused and accused had issued a cheque of Rs. 25,000/ in the name of my father. It is correct that my father has presented the cheque in October 2016 and cheque was dishonoured. I kept on demanding the money back from the accused but accused was avoiding the payment on one pretext or other. When the accused did not return the amount, I had narrated the entire facts to my father. It is correct that after narrating entire facts to my father, my father had dealt the issue with the accused and I had never met with him. It is correct that accused had never demanded any money from me or in my presence from my father. "

39) The crossexamination of PW11 Inspector H.V. Attri dated 16.09.2019 is also relevant and reproduced as under: "It is correct that Mohit son of complainant told me that he wanted to get a more good job and the accused had offered to help him to get a good job at Taj Hotel. It is correct that Mohit son of complainant told the accused that he want a government job and for that reason does not want to do job at Taj Hotel. It is correct that during the said conversation between Mohit and accused the accused then offered to help him to get a job in Railway in Minister's quota. Mohit told me that thereafter he handed over biodata of himself along with all educational documents and also of his sister and brother to the accused. It is correct that Mohit told me that accused asked for loan of Rs. 25,000/ from him stating that his mother was not keeping well. It is correct that accused issued a cheque in the name of the complainant, father of Mohit for a sum of Rs. 25,000/. I do not exactly remember if the date of the said cheque was issued for 25.06.2016 (cheque is already Ex.PW3/1 having date of 25.06.2016). It C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 59/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 is correct that Mohit told me that he started asking the accused to refund amount of Rs. 25,000/ to him but accused told him that he need more time for making payment of the said amount. It is correct that complainant used to work in Delhi Police. Mohit told his father the complainant about the fact that accused was not returning the amount. I do not know the exact date but the cheque issued by the accused was got dishonored. "

40) The above deposition of witnesses gives credence to the arguments on behalf of the accused that complainant was having grudge and was annoyed with the accused for nonreturning of the said amount of Rs. 25,000/. It is also admitted fact that at the time of verification of the complaint, complainant has not mentioned or disclosed to the CBI about the previous transaction between accused and his son and dishonour of the cheque of Rs. 25,000/ issued by the accused for returning of the borrowed amount. All these facts and circumstances and material on record and conversation of the accused with the complainant and deposition of the complainant in crossexamination referred above shows that accused has failed to repay the borrowed amount of Rs. 25,000/ and the cheque issued by him in that regard was dishonoured and that complainant agreed to further pay Rs. 20,000/ to the accused so as to facilitate the verification of the documents of his two sons and daughter so that they may get job in Railway department under Minister/ GM quota. Above discussion and material on record points towards probabilities that a sum of Rs. 20,000/ C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee. Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019 Page no............ 60/62 CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee C.C.No. 19/19 Reg.No.353/2019 RC No. 38(A)/2016 has not been demanded and accepted by the accused for his pleasure and satisfaction, rather the same has been given by the complainant to facilitate the verification of the documents and medical examination of his sons and daughter so that they were able to get the job in railway. The conduct of the complainant wherein he has not disclosed the fact of the previous dealing with the accused and other attending circumstances shows that complainant was having a grudge against the accused for not returning the amount of Rs.25,000/ despite repeated demands. In the given facts and circumstances, wherein the complainant himself was Police official, chances of falsely implication of the accused are not ruled out.

41) Moreover, it is not the case of the prosecution that accused was posted in the office of the GM railway or in the office of Hon.Minister Railway or that he was in a position to influence the decision if any by these authorities in giving employment to the children of the complainant.

Therefore, in the absence of any other evidence on record there has to be irresistible conclusion, in the attending facts and circumstances that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a sum of Rs.20,000/ has been demanded and accepted by the accused as bribe/gratification so that the case of the accused can be considered under section 20 of the Act for raising presumption against him to the effect that once he has accepted the amount of Rs. 20,000/ he is presumed to have accepted the same as bribe/gratification being motive and reward for exercise of his duty as public servant in favour of complainant.

42) From the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Chandan Mukherjee has made a demand and accepted Rs. 20,000/ from the complainant as bribe/gratification for the purpose of getting job in Railway for his sons and daughter.

43) In the given facts and circumstances of the case benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused and he is held entitled to benefit of doubt. For these reasons, prosecution has failed to prove the charge under section 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C Act against accused Chandan Mukharjee beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is accordingly acquitted.

44) The bail bonds of the accused is cancelled and his previous surety be discharged as per rules. Fresh surety bonds is directed to be furnished as per the provisions of section 437A Cr.P.C.

File be consigned to Record Room.


                                                                          Digitally signed
                                                          RAJ
Announced in the open court                               KUMAR
                                                                          by RAJ KUMAR
                                                                          CHAUHAN
on 15.11.2019                                             CHAUHAN         Date: 2019.11.15
                                                                          15:42:40 +0530
                                                   (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN)
                                                Special Judge03 (P.C Act) CBI
                                                     Rouse Avenue Courts,
                                                     New Delhi 15.11.2019




C.C.No.196/2019 (Reg.no.353/19)          (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN)
CBI Vs. Chandan Mukherjee.              Special Judge (P.C Act) CBI03
                                  Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi/15.11.2019

                                                                              Page no............ 62/62

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Cbi vs . Chandan Mukherjee on 15 November, 2019