Delhi District Court
Central Bureau Of Investigation ... vs Neeraj Kumar Saluja on 25 March, 2022
Case No. : 272/2019
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARVIND KUMAR:
SPECIAL JUDGE, (PC ACT) CBI10:
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS: NEW DELHI
In the matter of :
CNR No.: DLCT 110010902019
Case No. : 272/2019
RC No. : DAI2016A0041
Branch : CBI/ACB/New Delhi
U/Sec : 120B IPC r/w Sec 8 of PC Act, 1988 and
substantive offence u/Sec 8 of PC Act, 1988.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ....... Complainant
Versus
NEERAJ KUMAR SALUJA
S/o Sh. J. M. Saluja,
R/o : H. No. 14/224,
New Moti Nagar,
New Delhi 110 015. .......Accused No. 1
SAPNA @ CHARU
D/o : Sh. Maharaj Singh,
R/o : B89, Near Shiv Park,
Near Haryana Dairy,
Nangloi, New Delhi. .......Accused No. 2
CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 1
Case No. : 272/2019
Date of Institution : 02.06.2017
Date on which reserved for judgment : 15.03.2022
Date of Judgment : 25.03.2022
Present : Ms. Jyoti Solanki, Ld. PP for CBI.
Accused No. 1, Neeraj Kumar Saluja with Ld. Counsel
Shri Vipul Srivastava.
Accused No. 2, Sapna @ Charu with Ld. Counsel
Shri Manoj Khatri.
JUDGMENT:
1. Briefly stating, the case of the prosecution is that a complaint dated 26.12.2016 was filed by Smt. Kaushalya Devi w/o Late Sh. Radhey Shyam R/o WZ283/79, West Block, Gali No02, Khyala, New Delhi stating that the complainant is running a fair price shop for distributing of ration under the name & style of M/s. Radhey Shyam at C209, JJ Colony, Khyala, New Delhi vide registration no. 6637. A local resident of the area namely Hardeep Singh made a complaint against the shop of complainant to Food & Supply Department for improper distribution of ration. The said complaint was marked to accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja, FSI, Circle11 for enquiry who visited the shop of complainant several times. In the meantime, complainant received phone calls from a lady who CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 2 Case No. : 272/2019 introduced herself as Charu. She told that she will manage to close the complaint as she has good liaison in Food & Supply Department and she demanded Rs.1,00,000/ as bribe. When complainant and her daughter Jyoti informed accused Neeraj, FSI about said demand of bribe, he told them not to disclose the same to any other person. Charu called Jyoti for a number of times and asked to deliver the money. In the meantime Neeraj, FSI unnecessarily began pressurizing complainant to produce the record of the shop. Later on Charu reduced the demand of bribe to 70,000/ on negotiations. The complainant and her daughter Jyoti did not want to pay the bribe amount so they filed a complaint in CBI, ACB. The said complaint was verified by Sh. Parveen Kumar, Inspector, CBI, ACB, Delhi in presence of independent witness and allegations were found genuine. A case was registered u/s 8 of PC Act 1988 against Ms. Charu. Later on, during investigation role of accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja, Public Servant also surfaced therefore, Sec 120 B r/w Sec 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act was added.
2. On 27.12.16, Ms. Pratibha, Inspector (TLO) formed a trap team consisting of CBI officials namely S/Sh. Parveen Kumar, Inspr., Shitanshu Sharma, Inspr., Pramod Kumar, Inspr., Harnaam Singh, Inspr. and other subordinate staff alongwith independent witnesses namely Sh. Ram Avtar, TOA (G), MTNL, Kidwai CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 3 Case No. : 272/2019 Bhawan, New Delhi and Sh. Ranbir Singh, CSS, MTNL, Eastern Court, Janpath, New Delhi. The complaint dated 26.12.16, lodged by the complainant, Smt. Kaushalya Devi written by her daughter Ms. Jyoti was shown to the witnesses and other trap party members. The trap team alongwith complainant Kaushalya Devi and her daughter Jyoti and both independent witnesses assembled at CBI office. Thereafter, the complainant produced a sum of Rs.20,000/, comprising of 200 GC notes of Rs.100/ denomination each, which she had brought to give to the accused person, as per her demand. The Complainant also submitted that she could arrange Rs.20,000/ only against the demand of Rs.70,000/ of the accused Charu. The numbers of the GC Notes along with denomination, produced by the complainant totaling to Rs.20,000/ were noted separately. A demonstration was also given to all the members present to explain the purpose and significance of use of phenolphthalein powder and it's chemical reaction with sodium carbonate and water. The aforesaid G.C. Notes, so produced by the complainant totalling to Rs.20,000/ were then treated with phenolphthalein powder. Then Shri Ranbir Singh, CSS, the independent witness was asked to touch the tainted amount of Rs.20,000/ with his right hand fingers and wash them in the freshly prepared colourless solution of Sodium Carbonate and water in a glass tumbler. On doing so, the colourless solution turned pink in colour. The said pink colour CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 4 Case No. : 272/2019 solution was thrown away after explaining the significance of reaction. The remaining phenolphthalein powder was thrown away. Thereafter, a brown envelope was taken and was treated with phenolphthalein as the accused had demanded Rs.70,000/ and the complainant could able to produce only Rs.20,000/ out of the demanded bribe amount of Rs.70,000/ so it was decided to keep the tainted bribe amount in this envelope so as to look as Rs.70,000/ and not to raise any suspicion in the mind of the suspect. Thereafter, the tainted bribe amount of Rs.20,000/ was then kept in a brown envelope and put in the purse of Ms. Jyoti by the independent witness after ensuring that nothing incriminating was left in the said purse. The complainant and her daughter were briefed suitably.
3. The Digital Voice Recorder (Sony make) which was used during verification on 26.12.2016 was produced by Ram Avtar, independent witness along with the CBI Brass seal. A new memory card was arranged. After explaining function of the DVR to the Complainant and the independent witnesses the introductory voices of both the independent witnesses were recorded after ensuring its blankness. It was decided that the same DVR containing above said memory card will be given to the complainant on the spot with the direction to switch it on before entering into the conversation with the accused, in order to record the likely conversation between CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 5 Case No. : 272/2019 them. The CBI brass seal was carried to the spot for further proceedings. All the members washed their hands with soap and water. Shri Ram Avtar, the independent witness was asked to act as a shadow witness and to remain close to the complainant to overhear the conversation and see the transaction of bribe amount, likely to take place between the complainant and the accused. He has also been directed to give signal by rubbing his head with his both hands, after the transaction of bribe is over. The complainant has also been directed to give the same signal and also to give a missed call from his mobile phone no. 9582115388 to the mobile phone being carried by TLO bearing no. 9968003060, immediately after the transaction of bribe is over. The other witness Shri Ranbir Singh was directed to remain with the trap team. All the members except the complainant mutually searched each other to ensure that they may not carry any incriminating documents/ articles. A leather bag was also arranged. Empty clean glass bottles, tumblers, sodium carbonate powder, sealing material was kept in this bag. The contents of the bag were shown to all.
4. That the trap team along with both the above named independent witnesses alongwith the complainant Mrs. Kaushalya w/o Late Sh. Radhey Shyam r/o WZ283/79, West Block, Gali No. 2, Khyala, New Delhi18 and her daughter namely Ms Jyoti, left the CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 6 Case No. : 272/2019 CBI office at about 01.10 pm. When the team was about to board the vehicles, a call was received from mob No. 7290008072 on the mobile No. 9582115388 of the daughter of the complainant. Vide said call accused Charu asked about her whereabouts and Ms. Jyoti informed her that she was arranging the money which is to be given to her. On this accused Charu instructed Ms. Jyoti to come alone with money and do not talk anything after giving money to her. She further informed Ms. Jyoti that the status of her complaint will be informed to her on next day. Ms. Jyoti also informed accused Charu that she is coming at Janakpuri east metro station along with her mother only. This call was heard by all present including the independent witnesses and simultaneously recorded in the DVR since the mobile was on speaker mode. Thereafter, the CBI team reached near Janakpuri east metro station at about 14.15 Hrs in two CBI vehicles. Both the vehicles were parked in discreet manner on the road. It was decided to make a call to accused Charu from the mobile of Ms. Jyoti. Thereafter, she made a call from her mobile no. 9582115388 on the mobile No. 7290008072 of accused Charu at about 14:19 Hrs. This call was also recorded in DVR. In the said conversation accused Charu informed that she will be reaching at Janakpuri East Metro station within 10 minutes. Thereafter the DVR in recording mode was given to Ms Jyoti which she kept under her top. The complainant and Ms Jyoti were directed to give the CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 7 Case No. : 272/2019 bribe amount to the accused on her specific demand and not otherwise or to someone else on her direction. She was also instructed to give signal after transaction of the bribe, by way of giving miss call or rubbing her face with both hands. Shri Ram Avtar, the independent witness was asked to act as a shadow witness and to remain close to the complainant to overhear the conversation and see the transaction of bribe amount, which may take place between the complainant and the accused. He was also instructed to give signal after transaction of the bribe, by way of giving miss call or rubbing his face with both hands. The complainant waited under the Janakpuri East Metro station along with her daughter. The other team members and independent witnesses took suitable position in discreet manner. At about 14.30 Hrs one lady wearing black jacket and blue jeans was seen coming from the other side and took the position on the centre/divider of the road below Janakpuri East Metro Station. It was seen that Ms. Jyoti and her mother was crossing the road to meet the said lady at centre of the road and took position in front of said lady who was later identified as Ms. Charu. After some times, Ms. Charu extended her right hand and demanded the bribe money through gesture. On this Ms. Jyoti took out the brown envelop from her hand bag and handed over the said envelop to Ms. Charu. Thereafter, Ms. Jyoti gave the pre decided signal by rubbing her face with both hands and her mother engaged Ms. CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 8 Case No. : 272/2019 Charu in conversation. The TLO Ms. Pratibha Singh, alerted the team members. Immediately, TLO rushed towards Ms. Charu alongwith L/Ct. Suman. The DVR was taken back from Ms. Jyoti and switched off. The TLO after introducing herself and other team members, challenged accused Ms. Charu regarding demand and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs.20,000/ from Ms. Jyoti. On this accused Charu informed that she is private person working in a call centre at District Centre, Janak Puri. The TLO caught hold the right hand of Charu and left hand was caught by L/Ct. Suman. The accused Charu was holding the bribe money in her right hand which was recovered by witness Sh. Ranbir Singh. Since, it was a busy road and lot of people started gathering at the centre of the road, the accused was taken to nearby CBI vehicle parked on the road side for her safety and safety of the trap team.
5. Thereafter, a fresh colourless solution of Sodium Carbonate was prepared in a clean glass. Further, on being directed, accused Charu dipped her right hand fingers into the said solution. The colour of the solution turned pink. The said pink colour solution was transferred into two clean glass bottles. Both the bottles capped, covered with white cloth, tied with green colour tag and sealed with CBI brass seal. Both bottles were marked as RHW1 and RHW2 in RC41(A)/2016 respectively. Thereafter, again, a CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 9 Case No. : 272/2019 fresh colourless solution of Sodium Carbonate was prepared in a clean glass. On the directions of Ms. Pratibha Singh, Inspr/TLO, accused Charu dipped her left hand fingers into the said solution. The colour of the solution turned pink. The said pink colour solution was also transferred into two separate clean glass bottles. Both the bottles were capped, covered with white cloth, tied with green colour tag and sealed with CBI brass seal. Both the bottles were marked as LHW1 and LHW2 in RC41(A)/2016 respectively. Thereafter, recovered tainted bribe amount of Rs.20,000/ was taken out from the brown envelop and tallied by both the witnesses with the numbers mentioned in Pre Trap proceedings and they informed that the numbers tallied with the numbers mentioned in PreTrap Memo. The recovered notes were kept in a brown colour envelope by the witnesses and then, the envelope was sealed.
6. Thereafter, complainant and Ms. Jyoti were directed to narrate the incident. On being asked, she informed that at about 1427 hrs. a call was received on her phone from mobile of Ms. Charu. In this call, Ms. Charu asked complainant to cross the road and to meet her at centre/divider of the road. Ms. Jyoti & her mother crossed the road and Ms. Charu also joined them at centre. Thereafter, she demanded the bribe money with gesture by extending her right hand. On this, Ms. Jyoti took out the bribe amount from her hand CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 10 Case No. : 272/2019 bag with her right hand and extended towards accused Charu. The accused accepted the tainted bribe amount of Rs.20,000/ kept in brown envelop with her right hand and again shifted in her left hand and asked Ms. Jyoti to keep the same for a while in her bag. However, subsequently she kept the same with herself. Thereafter, Ms. Jyoti gave the signal and alerted the TLO. Shri Ram Avtar, witness also corroborated the version of the complainant. Thereafter, a rough site plan not to scale was prepared at the spot, showing the position of Trap Team members, complainant, Jyoti and the accused.
7. Thereafter, Ms. Charu was interrogated. She told that she works in Call Centre, at Tilak Nagar and her name is Sapna @ Charu. She got in touch with one FSO whose name is not known to her neither his posting/circle. She also told that she is also known to Neeraj, Inspector, who also helped her in getting job at call centre. Neeraj gave the mobile number of complainant and told her to demand bribe of Rs.1,00,000/ for closing the enquiry being conducted against the FPS of the complainant. She further disclosed that Neeraj, Inspector also told her that he will not demand the money directly from complainant or her daughter therefore Neeraj, Inspector directed her to demand/collect the money on his behalf. She further stated that she got the instructions from Neeraj, CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 11 Case No. : 272/2019 Inspector to collect the bribe amount and hand over to him in the evening at Janakpuri Distt. Centre where he used to meet her. She also disclosed that she is getting all the information related to said inquiry from said FSO and Neeraj, Inspector who frequently called her. On being asked about the mobile numbers of said FSO and Neeraj, Inspector she voluntarily disclosed after seeing her mobile phone that the mobile number of said FSO is 9210107510 whom she used to talk and the mobile number of Neeraj, Inspector is 9210108810. It was also disclosed that when Ms. Jyoti called her both Neeraj and herself were at Auramount Services, Tilak Nagar 8/98 Gate No1, Near Tilak Nagar Metro station at her office. Further she also told that it was the idea of Neeraj, Inspector that he will call Jyoti and ask for record of FPS and this will put pressure on Jyoti and she will give the bribe money. She also disclosed that the enquiry against the FPS of the complainant has been closed by Neeraj, Inspector therefore he told her to take the money tomorrow at any cost.
8. Thereafter, it was decided to go to Mangolpuri, food & Supply Office to get identified said FSO from the accused. The CBI team left the spot at about 16.00 Hrs to Mangolpuri and reached there at about 16.45 Hrs. the said office was found closed. Thereafter it was decided that accused Sapna @ Charu would make a call on CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 12 Case No. : 272/2019 mobile numbers of FSO and Neeraj, Inspector from her mobile. The phone of said FSO was found to be switched off. Thereafter accused Charu made a call to accused Neeraj, Inspector. In the said call accused informed him that she has collected the bribe amount from Jyoti and where she will meet him. On this Neeraj did not respond properly. This call was recorded in the DVR. Thereafter another mobile number i.e 9891648614 of FSO, Mangolpuri was taken from the nearby shop. The accused made a call from her mobile to said mobile number which was simultaneously recorded in the DVR. In the said conversations the FSO, Mangolpuri did not identify the accused and further told her why she had called her.
9. During the course of trap proceedings, accused Ms. Charu was arrested at 05.15 pm on 27.12.2016 vide a separate arrestcum personal search memo.
10. Thereafter, it was decided to complete further proceedings at the CBI office and CBI team alongwith Ms Charu and other team members left the spot and reached CBI office at 18.30 Hrs. On reaching the office the address of accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja, Inspector was obtained from the service provider of his mobile through proper channel and a notice was sent to him to join the investigation.
CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 13
Case No. : 272/2019
11. Thereafter, the memory card of the DVR was taken out, kept in its cover, and then put into a brown colour envelope. The envelope was then sealed with the CBI seal. The cover of the memory card and sealed envelope were marked as "Q2 in RC 41(A)/2016". Thereafter, another new blank Memory Card was inserted into the DVR for the purpose of taking sample voice of the accused, in the presence of the witnesses. The introductory voice of both the independent witnesses recorded in the memory card. Thereafter, the introductory voice of accused Sapna @ Charu was recorded in the Memory Card through DVR in presence of all present which she recorded voluntarily. Subsequently, some sentences available in recorded conservation in Q1(conversations recorded during verification proceedings) & Q2 were selected. Ms. Sapna @Charu was directed to repeat these sentences thrice to record the sample voice, which she did voluntarily. Thereafter, introductory voices of both the witnesses were again recorded at the end in memory card through DVR. Then the Memory Card was taken out from the DVR and was put in its original cover and marked as S1. It was also revealed by Ms. Jyoti that she had recorded conversation with both Charu & Ms. Neeraj from 22.12.2016 onwards in her memory card of her mobile. The said memory card was taken out from the Mobile of Ms. Jyoti. This memory card make Kington 4 GB kept in plastic cover and sealed in CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 14 Case No. : 272/2019 brown envelop. This envelope was marked as 'Memory Card of Mobile Phone of Ms. Jyoti marked as Q3, RC41(A)/2016, CBI/ACB/DLI'. Thereafter, the DVR used in recording the conversations during the course of verification and trap was sealed in an envelope and marked as "DVR make Sony used in RC 41(A)/2016". Both the witnesses and the TLO have signed on this envelope. Specimen impression of the CBI seal used in sealing the articles during the recovery proceedings have been obtained on several white sheets in ink and wax. The said seal impression was embossed on all sheets of this recovery memo in ink. The CBI seal was handed over to Shri Ram Avtar, independent witness for safe custody and with direction to produce the same as and when required by any lawful agencies.
12. That as per the disclosure of accused Sapna @ Charu, the call details of her mobile phone no. 7290008072 was arranged. The quick analysis of her mobile number revealed that she was in frequent touch of Neeraj Kumar Saluja, co accused and the then Food and Supply Inspector, Circle11. CDR/CAF of the mobile numbers provided by Sapna @ Charu also revealed that both the numbers i.e 9210108810 & 9210107510 were issued in the name of Neeraj, FSI. It shows that that no FSO is involved in this matter and Sapna @ Charu claimed falsely that she was also in touch with one CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 15 Case No. : 272/2019 FSO for demanding bribe from Jyoti. Further, Neeraj also told Jyoti to remain silent when Jyoti informed him while enquiry proceedings of her shop that one Charu is demanding Rs.1 lacs bribe to her for closing the complaint. Accused Neeraj regularly put pressure on Jyoti and her mother for producing the record. It was also revealed that Charu @ Sapna was employee of a placement agency which was allegedly run by Neeraj Kumar Saluja. Accused Neeraj was called and examined on these points during the course of investigation but he did not reveal truth. Thereafter he was arrested for detail custodial interrogation by TLO on 28.12.2016.
13. During the further course of investigation, it is established that accused Sapna @ Charu had previous connection with coaccused Neeraj Kumar Saluja. In this regard it is revealed that accused Neeraj was running a placement agency namely Auramount Associates at 8/98, near Tilak Nagar Metro Station. Neeraj Kumar Saluja has hired the said office space from one Ms. Niketa @ Sunita Garg, who are running a consultant agency namely S. Auramount College of Education at same office and shared the same office with Neeraj on rent basis. Ms. Niketa has hired one girl Sangeeta who was working as receptionist at her agency. Ms. Sapna @ Charu was looking after the work of placement agency of Neeraj. Ms. Sangeeta and accused Sapna were sitting together at the said office CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 16 Case No. : 272/2019 space for their respective works. Accused Neeraj frequently came to that office and met with Sapna for discussion of official issues. During the course of investigation search was conducted at the office of Neeraj where some record related to Auramount Associates was found from the table of Sapna which was seized. Accused Sapna also disclosed that prior to this office, she was working in another office of accused Neeraj Saluja namely Educare institute near Moti Nagar. Said institute was closed. Further, during the house search of accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja few bank cheques of accused Sapna was also found and seized.
14. The original complaint file, filed against the shop of complainant Kaushalya Devi and her daughter Jyoti were also seized through Deptt. of Food and Supply. The file shows that the complaint was being dealt by Neeraj Kumar Saluja. He recommended to close the complaint vide his note dated 26.12.2016. The mobile number of the same officer who was dealing the complaint of complainant was available with accused Sapna @ Charu, this is corroborative with her disclosure in which she provided only the mobile number of accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja and stated that Neeraj directed him to demand the bribe from complainant.
CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 17
Case No. : 272/2019
15. The detail analysis of CDRs of mobile no/s of accused Sapna and Neeraj i.e 7290008072 and 9210108810 respectively and conversations recorded during the verification and trap proceedings, revealed that accused Sapna @ Charu and Neeraj Kumar Saluja were in frequent touch for long time and at relevant time while demanding the bribe from complainant, accused Sapna and Neeraj were in frequent touch with each other. It shows that accused Neeraj and Sapna entered into a criminal conspiracy to demand and acceptance of bribe amount from complainant. Accused Neeraj was not directly demanding the bribe, but he used Sapna a private lady to demand and accept the bribe on his behalf and he only suggested the ways/means of demanding and accepting of bribe amount from Jyoti from background so that his name remains hidden. The CDRs of mobile no. 7290008072 of Sapna from 22.12.2016 to 27.12.2016 shows that how Sapna was demanding bribe from Jyoti and in the meantime Neeraj was also in touch with Sapna to guide her.
16. On being combined analysis of this call detail with the conversations of Neeraj and Sapna held with Jyoti it revealed that Neeraj was also a conspirator of the demand of bribe through Charu. Conversations between Jyoti and Charu was recorded by Jyoti in her mobile which was provided to TLO on 27.12.2016 by Jyoti and the CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 18 Case No. : 272/2019 same was marked as Q3.
17. Investigation revealed that on 24.12.2016, accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja reached at the shop of complainant and asked for record, then, at about 11.23.53 Jyoti (daughter of complainant) contacted to Sapna. Immediately after this call, Sapna contacted to Neeraj and discussed the matter and same is reflected in the CDR , it shows that the visit of Neeraj to the shop of complainant was in knowledge of accused Sapna @ Charu.
18. That on 24.12.2016 at about 11.52.00 conversations between Sapna and Jyoti was made in which Sapna told Jyoti that she had managed her work till evening of the same day and asked to hand over the bribe amount. Immediately after this call, Sapna again contacted Neeraj and discussed the matter which reflects in said CDR.
19. That on same day at about 11.55.22, Jyoti contacted to Sapna.
Immediately after this call, Sapna again contacted to Neeraj and discussed about the matter and same is reflected in CDR.
20. That on 26.12.16 at about 11.33.17, accused Sapna and Neeraj CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 19 Case No. : 272/2019 discussed the matter with each other and the same is reflected in a call mentioned in the CDR. Immediately after this call, Neeraj called Jyoti at about 11.37.30 to put pressure for producing of record.
21. That on 26.12.2016 at about 15.33, Neeraj called Jyoti and pressurized again to produce the record of her shop. The CDR of mobile no 7290008072 shows that prior and after this conversation, accused Sapna and Neeraj discussed the matter which reflects in CDR. During verification proceedings of the complaint filed by Jyoti and her mother, accused Neeraj and Sapna were in continuous touch with each other, and Sapna gave directions to Jyoti on prior directions from Neeraj. On 26.12.2016 while verification proceedings, Sapna called to Jyoti at about 16.41.29. In this call, Jyoti requested accused Sapna @ Charu to convince accused Neeraj not to pressurize her and accused Sapna told Jyoti that she will call her in 2 minutes and she cuts the phone and called accused Neeraj and discussed the matter for 357 seconds. Said call is reflected in the CDR. It shows that accused Sapna @ Charu contacted Neeraj after the request of Jyoti and as requested by Jyoti convinced accused Neeraj not to pressurize her for record. Immediately after this call she called Jyoti at 16.49.15 and told her that no action would be taken against her if she deliver the bribe amount on that CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 20 Case No. : 272/2019 day only.
22. It proves that all the directions for demand and acceptance of bribe amount given by accused Sapna to Jyoti, was just after the receiving prior directions from coaccused Neeraj. Further conversations and call details shows that on same day at about 16.45.42, in continuance of this conspiracy, accused Neeraj called Jyoti and again pressurized her to produce the record. Further at about 18.21.46, accused Sapna called Jyoti and asked to deliver the amount on 27.12.2016 at 02 PM otherwise she would not help her. In the meantime, on same day, accused Neeraj and Sapna were in continuous touch with each other and conspired further. The same is reflecting in the CDR of mobile number 7290008072 of Sapna. On 27.12.2016, at 11.05 AM, accused Neeraj and Sapna were again in touch. Later on Sapna was caught during trap proceedings.
23. During the investigation, accused Neeraj has been called to join investigation and asked to provide his sample voice on 09.03.2017, he joined investigation and his sample voice has been taken in a memory card in presence of independent wintess namely Chandra Prakash, AAI official and the said memory card has been seized and marked as "S2".
CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 21
Case No. : 272/2019
24. During the course of investigation exhibits i.e. hand wash of accused Sapna @ Charu taken during the trap proceedings were sent to CFSL. The chemical examination report received from CFSL in this regard confirmed positive test for presence of Phenolphthalein.
25. During the investigation, the voices of accused Sapna @ Charu and Neeraj Kumar Saluja have been identified by Smt. Kaushalya Devi and Ms. Jyoti. Sh. Hari Prasad, the then Asstt Comm, West, Food and Supply identified the voice of Neeraj Kumar Saluja, FSI as he worked with him during his posting in West Zone. Further, Ms. Sangeeta, Receptionist at S. Auramount College of Education, 8/28, Near Tilak Nagar Metor Station, New Delhi identified the voice of accused Sapna @ Charu as she was well acquainted with the voice of Sapna due to the reason that they both were working in same office space.
26. Accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja recommended to close the complaint of Smt. Kaushalya Devi vide his note dated 26.12.2016. Despite the fact that he closed the complaint on 26.12.2016 at his level, dishonestly called complainant Jyoti and unnecessarily pressurizing her to produce the record of her shop, so that Jyoti got scared and hand over the bribe amount to accused Sapna @ Charu easily. It shows the ill motive of accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja.
CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 22
Case No. : 272/2019
27. Accused Sapna was nowhere in touch with any other officials of Food & Supply Deptt. The CDR of her mobile phone did not suggest such and thus it seems that the story made by her during her arrest that she was in touch with one other FSO is fabricated.
28. Chargesheet is filed against accused persons, namely, Neeraj Kumar Saluja, the then FSI, circle11 of Food and Supply Deptt, GNCT and Ms. Sapna @ Charu u/s 120B r/w Sec. 8 of PC Act 1988 and for substantive offences u/s 8 of PC Act 1988 against accused Sapna @ Charu.
29. Vide order dated 09.02.2018, this Court has held that prima facie case for the offences under section 120 B IPC read with Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is made out against accused no.1, Neeraj Kumar Saluja and accused no. 2, Sapna @ Charu and the offence punishable under Section 8 of P.C. Act is made out against accused no. 2, Sapna @ Charu.
30. On 15.02.2018, formal charge for the offence under Section 120B IPC read with Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed against accused no. 1, Neeraj Kumar Saluja and CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 23 Case No. : 272/2019 accused no. 2, Sapna @ Charu and charge for the offence punishable under Section 8 of P.C. Act was framed against accused no. 2, Sapna @ Charu, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
31. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined as many as following 20 witnesses : PW1, Shri Chander Shekhar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. He handed over letter dated 11.02.2017 alongwith certified copy of customer application form of mobile no. 9210108810, call details record, cell ID Chart and certificate under section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act to CBI.
PW2, Shri Rajinder Kumar Markan, Inspector, in Department of Food & Supply, Circle 29, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. He deposed that he inspected the fair price shop in the name of M/s. Radhey Shyam on the complaint filed by Sh. Hardeep Singh regarding improper distribution of ration and made inquiry.
PW3, Shri Pawan Singh, is Nodal Officer in Idea CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 24 Case No. : 272/2019 Cellular Ltd. He provided letter dated 08.02.2017 alongwith customer application forms of mobile number 9210107510 in the name of Neeraj Kumar Saluja, mobile no. 9540618031 in the name of Sapna, mobile no.
9891648614 in the name of Virender, call detail record of the above mobiles and certificate U/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
PW4, Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Nodal Officer, Tata Teleservices Ltd., Old Ishwar Nagar, Main Mathura Road, New Delhi. He provided ownership, ID proof and customer application form in respect of mobile number 9213717450 to CBI.
PW5, Ms. Deepti Bhargava, Senior Scientific Officer, GradeII, CFSL, New Delhi. She exhibited the chemical examination report dated 08.02.2017. This report is regarding presence of phenolphthalein in left hand and right hand washes of accused taken by the CBI at the time of the trap proceedings.
PW6, Shri Saurabh Agarwal, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. at C45, Okhla CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 25 Case No. : 272/2019 Industrial Area, PhaseII, New Delhi. He provided call detail records, ownership, ID proof and customer application forms in respect of mobile numbers 9582115388 and mobile no.7290008072 to CBI.
PW7, Ms. Nikita. PW7 deposed that she was running a Coaching Centre under the name and style M/s.
Auramount Education at Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. She deposed about renting out some portion of her office to accused Neeraj Saluja. She also deposed that accused Sapna used to sit there as Receptionist and was looking after the work of accused Neeraj Saluja.
PW8, Ms. Sangeeta Mandal. She deposed that she was Receptionist at S Auramount College of Education since August 2016. She deposed that her boss Nikita Garg rented her office to Neeraj Saluja and Sapna Katheria used to sit in that office. Sapna Katheria used to run a placement agency in the name of Auramount Associate. Mr. Neeraj Saluja used to visit office frequently.
PW9, Shri N. C. Nawal, inspector, ACB, CBI, Delhi.
CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 26
Case No. : 272/2019
He conducted search at the house of accused Neeraj Saluja and exhibited the documents related to search.
PW10, Smt. Suman Manju, Lady Constable, CBI, ACB Branch, New Delhi. She participated in house search of accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja conducted by CBI official.
PW11, Shri Chander Prakash, the then Senior Superintendent(HR), Airport Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi. He joined the proceedings of taking of voice sample of accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja.
PW12, Ms. Jyoti, daughter of complainant, Smt. Kaushalya Devi. She deposed about the complaint, verification, trap proceedings and subsequent proceedings conducted by CBI.
PW13, Shri Hari Prasad is Assistant Commissioner in Food & Supply Department, District West. He deposed regarding complaint made against Ration Shop of complainant and proceedings conducted in his office.
CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 27
Case No. : 272/2019
PW14, Shri Ram Avtar, the then Telecom Office Assistant (General) from MTNL is independent witness. He participated in verification proceedings, trap and other proceedings conducted by CBI officials.
PW15, Shri Ranbir Singh, the then SSO, MTNL, AO, (P&A) Office, Western Court, Old STD, Building, New Delhi is another independent witness. He participated in trap proceedings and other subsequent proceedings conducted by CBI officials.
PW16, Ms. Pratibha Singh, the then Inspector in ACB, CBI is Trap Laying Officer.
PW17, Shri Amitosh Kumar is Senior Scientific Officer, GradeII (Physics), CFSL, New Delhi. He deposed regarding forensic voice examination report dated 29.05.2019.
PW18, Shri Parveen Kumar, Inspector, CBI, ACB Delhi, is the Verification Officer.
CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 28
Case No. : 272/2019
PW19, Kaushalya Devi is the complainant.
PW20 Nikesh Kumar Upadhyay, Inspector ACB,
CBI, Delhi, IO of the case.
32. Accused persons were examined under section 313 Cr.PC. Accused No.1, Neeraj Kumar Saluja stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja denied to have conspired with coaccused Sapna in demanding and taking the bribe. Accused Neeraj Saluja stated that the case of the prosecution is frivolous and is based on manipulations.
33. Accused No. 2, Sapna has denied to have demanded or taken bribe from daughter of the complainant. Accused Sapna stated that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case by the CBI.
34. The accused persons preferred not to examine any witness in their defence.
35. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the accused persons as well as Ld. PP for CBI.
CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 29
Case No. : 272/2019
Contentions of counsel for CBI
36. Ld. PP for CBI submitted that accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja and accused Sapna have conspired and in furtherance of the conspiracy, accused Sapna demanded bribe of Rs.1 lac for closing the complaint filed against the complainant for improper distribution of ration and the accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja pressurised the complainant and her daughter to produce record. Ld. PP for CBI submitted that on 26.12.2016, verification was conducted by the CBI regarding the demand of bribe amount and on 27.12.2016, a trap was laid and the accused Sapna was caught red handed taking bribe of Rs.20,000/ from the daughter of the complainant. It is submitted that hand washes of the accused Sapna were taken and thereafter, voice sample of the accused was also taken. It is submitted that PW12, Ms. Jyoti, daughter of the complainant, has clearly testified regarding the demand of bribe made by accused Sapna and the testimony of PW1 is reliable. It is further submitted that the verification report dated 26.12.2016 depicts the proceedings which has taken place and the memory card Q1, Ex.PW12/G, containing conversation between accused and complainant, corroborate the aforesaid fact.
CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 30
Case No. : 272/2019
37. Ld. PP, CBI further submitted that tainted money was accepted by the accused Sapna from the daughter of the complainant and was recovered from the accused Sapna. Hand washes of the accused Sapna gave positive result and the report of Chemical Examiner shows the presence of phenolphthalein in the aforesaid samples. Ld. PP submitted that the recording in Memory Card, Q2, Ex. PW12/J corroborates the aforesaid fact of taking bribe by the accused Sapna. It is submitted that the CFSL report further shows that there has not been any manipulation or tampering in the recording in Memory Cards, Q1, Ex. PW12/G and Q2, Ex. PW12/J.
38. Ld. PP for CBI submitted that accused has failed to give any justified explanation as to how his voice came in recorded conversation, which is in memory cards, which is a primary evidence.
39. It is further submitted that the CBI official were not having any personal grudge against the accused persons and there is no reason for them to implicate the accused persons in false case. Ld. PP, CBI submitted that testimony of PW12, daughter of the Complainant is further corroborated by the testimonies of PW14, Ram Avtar and PW15, Ranbir Singh, who are the independent witnesses and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of these CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 31 Case No. : 272/2019 witnesses. Ld. PP for CBI also submitted that even otherwise testimony of PW12 is reliable and no corroboration is required and her testimony alone is sufficient for convicting the accused persons.
40. It is also submitted that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that there was demand of bribe on the part of accused Sapna and the tainted money was accepted by the accused Sapna and recovery of the tainted money from accused Sapna is also established beyond reasonable doubts. It is submitted that scientific evidence has further lent corroboration to the prosecution case. Ld. counsel for CBI further submitted that the testimonies of PW7 Ms. Nikita, PW8, Ms. Sangita Mandal and PW12, Ms. Jyoti clearly show that both the accused persons were in connivance and conspired to commit the offence punishable under Section 8 of the PC Act. It is clear from the testimonies of the witnesses that both the accused persons were to induce other public servants to get the complaint made against the complainant, closed. Ld. Counsel for CBI submitted that it is proved on record that a complaint was pending against complainant regarding improper distribution of ration and accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja was conducting inquiry in the said matter and has visited Fair Price Shop on 22.06.2016 and met complainant, Smt. Kaushalya Devi and has again visited the said shop on 24.12.2016 and was pressurizing the complainant and her daughter to produce CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 32 Case No. : 272/2019 record and further, PW12 Jyoti told the accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja that co accused Sapna was demanding money on which accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja asked her to keep quiet. Ld. PP further submitted that Neeraj Kumar Saluja and Sapna were known to each other and accused Sapna was working as receptionist in Auramount Associates, Placement Agency, which was being run by accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja. It is also submitted that Neeraj Kumar Saluja had given his report in favour of complainant as he got the complaints made by consumer, withdrawn
41. Ld. Counsel for CBI relied upon the judgments (1) M. Narsinga Rao v. State of AP; SC 2001 Crl.LJ. 515 ; (2) Madhukar Bhaskar Rao Joshi v. State of Mahrashtra, 2000 AIR SCW 4018 ; (3) Kehar Singh v. State of Delhi (1988, 3 SSC AIR 1988 SC 1883) ; (4) Krishna Mochi & Ors v. State of Bihar on 15.04.2002 ; (5) State of UP v. M. K. Anthony, AIR 1985 SC 48 Supreme Court; (6) Tahir v. State (Delhi Administration); AIR 1986 SC 3079; (7) State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (1999 Cr. LC SC 3124) ; (8) Chaman Lal and others v. State of Punjab & Others dated 31.03.2009 ; (9) Koli Laxman Bhai v. State of Gujrat, DOJ 16.11.1999; (10) Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan, DOJ 06.12.2000; (11) C. M. Sharma v. State of Andhra Pradesh; (2013) 2 SCC (Crl) 89.
CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 33
Case No. : 272/2019
Contentions of counsel for accused No. 1.
42. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused no. 1 contended that accused No. 1 has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that complainant PW19 has not supported the case of the prosecution and during her cross examination she has shown her ignorance regarding complaint and enquiry conducted by Food and Supply Department and also stated that she did not know accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja. It is also submitted that complaint was made by one Shri Hardeep Singh on 02.12.2016 and Shri R. K. Markan, Inspector, F&S had visited the Fair Price Shop and had collected the complaint from 11 ration card holders and it is not only the accused Neeraj Kuma Saluja, who had conducted the enquiry regarding the complaints made against said Fair Price Shop and the report in this regard was given by accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja as well as by FSO on 26.12.2016 regarding illegalities/deficiencies in the said Fair Price Shop. It is submitted that trap was laid on 27.12.2016 while by that time accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja had already submitted his report, therefore, no motive can be attributed to accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja. It is also submitted that even on 22.12.2016 accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja had visited the fair price shop of the complainant alongwith FSO (27) and the CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 34 Case No. : 272/2019 allegations, as made by complainant, are contradictory and far from truth and the complainant falsely stated in her complaint that only accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja had visited on 22.12.2016. It is also submitted that accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja had submitted his report on 26.12.2016 and thereafter, show cause notice was issued to the complainant to produce record on 28.12.2016 and on subsequent dates and these facts contradicts the contention of the prosecution. It is also submitted that the aforesaid facts also show that the demand of record by accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja was made as per law and procedure and not for the purpose of pressurising the complainant.
43. It is also submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja that there has not been any conspiracy on the part of accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja with accused Sapna and the prosecution has failed to place on record any conversation between these accused persons during the period 22.12.2016 to 26.12.2016 and thus, the mobile calls, if any, between these two accused is of no help to the prosecution. Ld. Counsel for accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja also submitted that prosecution has failed to prove the FIR as neither the author nor the executent of the FIR is called to prove the FIR. Ld. Counsel for accused further submitted that there has been serious discrepancies in the statement of witnesses which make the case of CBI totally unreliable.
CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 35
Case No. : 272/2019
44. Ld. Counsel for accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja also contended that a search was also conducted by the CBI unauthorizedly and illegally. It is submitted that PW16, TLO Pratibha Singh has recorded false disclosure statement of coaccused Sapna, where she has allegedly taken the name of accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja. It is submitted that the PW16 has deliberately switched off the DVR before such disclosure. It is also submitted that the visiting card, Ex. PW7/DX2 shows the name of Ms. Nikita Garg and accused Sapna Katheria, which shows that Sapna was employee of Nikita Garg.
45. It is also submitted by the Ld. Counsel for accused that even the FSL Report, Ex.PW17/C, state that complainant's daughter's phone contains a probable voice of Neeraj Saluja and does not conclusively say that the voice in question was of accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja.
46. Ld. Counsel for the accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja relied upon the judgments (1) M. L. Sharma and Ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Crl. A. 313/2014 (Gauhati High Court); (2) T. Khimsand and Ors. v. Yelamarti Satyam & Ors., AIR 1971 SC 1865; (3) Raviraj Praful Thacker v. State of Gujarat, Crl. Rev. App. No. CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 36 Case No. : 272/2019 367 of 2003.
Contentions of counsel for accused No. 2.
47. Ld. Counsel for accused No. 2, Sapna contended that accused Sapna has been falsely implicated by CBI and she has nothing to do with the offence alleged by the CBI.
48. Ld. Counsel for accused No. 2, Sapna contended that fair price shop belong to complainant Kaushalya Devi, PW19 while daughter of the complainant, Jyoti PW12 has been made the main witness. Ld. Counsel for accused Sapna contended that there is no evidence of demanding and taking of bribe by accused no. 2, Sapna. It is submitted that the recording done by the CBI is not reliable as in the Voice Examination Report, Ex.PW17/C it is stated that some recording in Memory Cards Q1, Q2, Q3 in certain files could not be considered for spectrographic examination as the voice was not in accordance with questioned voice. It is also submitted that as per the opinion given in the said report, it is stated that the conversation contains the probable voice of accused Sapna and there is no confirmed report and hence the conversation recorded by CBI should not be relied upon.
CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 37
Case No. : 272/2019
49. Ld. counsel for accused Sapna submitted that Chemical Examination Report cannot be relied upon for the reason that the samples were examined by a person other than PW5, Deepti Bhargava, who has given the Chemical Examination report. It is submitted that the person, who has examined the samples, has not been produced as witness by the CBI.
50. It is further submitted that CBI failed to include any independent witness in the verification and trap proceedings as they had allegedly taken help of two government officials who remained with the CBI all the time during this case, while admittedly CBI did not ask any passer by or any person present on the spot, at the time of alleged verification or trap proceedings, to join the proceedings as independent witness.
51. Ld. Counsel for accused Sapna submitted that accused has no reason to demand bribe from the complainant's daughter as accused is not employed in the Food and Supply Department and has nothing to do with said Department. It is also submitted that it is very improbable that any person would take bribe in the mid lane of the road, particularly, when there is heavy crowd in the nearby area and it is difficult to cross the road and to reach on the mid lane of the road. Ld. Counsel for accused also submitted that there are glaring CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 38 Case No. : 272/2019 discrepancies in the testimonies of different witnesses.
52. The first point for determination is whether prosecution has succeeded in proving that accused no. 2, Sapna has committed offence under Section 8, of P.C. Act.
53. Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 reads as under : "8. Taking gratification, in order, by corrupt or illegal means, to influence public servant.--Whoever accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept, or attempts to obtain, from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever as a motive or reward for inducing, by corrupt or illegal means, any public servant, whether named or otherwise, to do or to forbear to do any official act, or in the exercise of the official functions of such public servant to show favour or disfavour to any person, or to render or attempt to render any service or disservice to any person with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the 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 for a term which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine."
54. It is well settled that for proving case beyond reasonable CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 39 Case No. : 272/2019 doubt, the prosecution has to prove the following three aspects namely :
a) Demand of bribe by a person to influence a public servant.
b) Acceptance of bribe by a person.
c) Recovery of bribe amount from the person.
55. Now, I consider the first point as to whether there has been demand of money on the part of accused Sapna to influence public servant to grant undue favour to complainant.
Demand of bribe by a person to influence a public servant :
56. Here the testimonies of PW12, Jyoti Sharma, PW19, complainant Smt. Kaushalya Devi, PW14, Shri Ram Avtar, PW15, Shri Ranbir Singh, PW17, Amitosh Kumar, PW18, Shri Parveen Kumar, Insp. CBI Verification Officer, PW1, Shri Chander Shekhar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd., PW3, Shri Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd., PW4, Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Nodal Officer, Tata Teleservices Ltd., and PW6, Shri Saurabh Agarwal, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. are relevant.
CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 40
Case No. : 272/2019
57. PW12, Ms. Jyoti, daughter of complainant, stated that her mother Kaushalya Devi, the complainant, is running a fair price shop in the name of her father late Shri Radhey Shyam at C 209, JJ Colony, Khyala, New Delhi and in December, 2016, one ration card holder namely, Hardeep Singh made a complaint to Food & Supply Department regarding improper distribution of ration. The said complaint was marked to Neeraj Kumar Saluja, who visited her shop on 22.12.2016 and on the same day, complainant received a call on mobile number 92137137450 and the caller wanted to talk to PW12 and she got the mobile number of PW12 from her mother and called PW12 and introduced herself as Charu and she told that there was a raid on her shop and when PW12 informed that it was not raid then she told that there could be a raid on the shop on the next date and she could manage the enquiry and can get the complaint closed and she demanded Rs.one lac. On 23.12.2016, PW12 met accused Charu at Tilak Nagar metro station and requested to reduce the amount and accused No. 2 stated that she had to give money to number of higher ups and she on pursuation, reduced the bribe amount to Rs.70,000/. PW12 stated that on 24.12.2016 accused Neeraj Saluja visited her shop and made certain enquiries and when he was informed that Charu has demanded bribe, he stated that he was not concerned with it but also asked PW12 not to disclose this to anyone. Thereafter, mother of PW12 made a complaint to CBI on 26.12.2016 and the CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 41 Case No. : 272/2019 complaint was written by PW12 as her mother was not fluent in writing. PW12 stated that on same day, she went alongwith CBI team at Janak Puri Metro Station and accused Sapna also came there and enquired about the money. PW12 stated that she would be paying the money on the next day and also stated that accused Neeraj Saluja was asking for records. The aforesaid conversation was recorded in DVR. PW12, thereafter, stated about the pre trap proceedings conducted on 27.12.2016 and stated that she was carrying Rs.20,000/ of denomination of Rs.100/ and there were two persons from MTNL office in the CBI office. The said notes were treated with powder and the envelope was also treated with powder and it was kept inside her purse. They all reached near Janak Puri Metro Station. Accused Charu told her on phone to wait there and said that she would be reaching there. PW 12 and her mother were standing at Janak Puri Metro Station. Thereafter, Charu called her on her phone and asked her to come in the mid lane of the road and she went in the mid lane of the road and gave her Rs.70,000/ again said Rs.20,000/ which were inside her purse. PW12 stated that she opened her purse and Charu took out the money from her purse and accused Sapna also asked why PW12 had brought the money in envelope and PW12 replied that since the payment was huge hence she did not bring it in open and when PW 12 asked whether her work would be done she replied in affirmative. In the mean time, CBI CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 42 Case No. : 272/2019 official reached there and caught her. She was taken to the place where CBI vehicles were stationed. CBI official dipped both the hands of Charu in water and the water turned pink and the hand washes of both the hands were kept separately in two bottles. The packet containing bribe money was recovered by the lady CBI official. The mobile phone of Charu was taken by CBI official. Thereafter, in the CBI vehicles accused Charu was asked to call accused Neeraj Saluja. Thereafter, they went to Mangol Puri, FSO, Office and then went to CBI office. The CBI officials matched the govt. currency notes with the numbers noted on a paper when they were at the Metro Station Janak Puri. PW12 exhibited the complaint as Ex.PW12/A, FIR as Ex. PW12/B, pre trap memorandum dated 27.12.2016 alongwith annexures as Ex. PW12/C, the envelope and the Govt. currency notes as Ex. PW12/D and as Ex. PW12/E. PW12 also exhibited the memory card Q1 as Ex. PW12/G and she identified the voice of accused Sapna @ Charu when it was played in court. PW12 also exhibited the recovery memo dated 27.12.2016 as Ex. PW12/P.
58. PW19, Smt. Kaushalya Devi is the complainant. PW19 deposed that she was running a fair price shop and a complaint was made by a ration card holder and an enquiry was conducted by an officer of the Department. PW19 stated that money was demanded CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 43 Case No. : 272/2019 from them. PW19 did not state much about proceedings. However, she identified her signature on the complaint, Ex. PW12/A and on other documents.
59. PW14, Shri Ram Avtar, Telecom Office Assistant (General), MTNL deposed that on 26.12.2016 he went to CBI office and he met Parveen Kumar, Inspector, CBI and he was introduced with Smt. Kaushalya Devi and Jyoti and he was informed that one lady Charu has demanded Rs. One lac for hushing up the complaint made against her. PW14 stated that a new memory card was inserted in DVR and his voice sample was recorded. Thereafter, they went to Janak Puri Metro Station and the DVR was given to Jyoti. A call was made to accused Sapna @ Charu informing her that Jyoti and her mother had reached at Janak Puri Metro Station and Charu replied that she would be reaching at the station. After some time she came on a scooty and stopped near Jyoti and asked Jyoti if she had brought the money. Jyoti did not reply and Charu went away after starting her scooty and stopped after travelling some distance and gestured her to pick up her call. Thereafter, Jyoti talked Charu on mobile phone about bribe money and bribe amount was settled at Rs.70,000/. PW14 stated about conversation which had taken place between accused Sapna and Jyoti. PW14 identified his signature on Verification Memo., Ex. PW10/A. PW14 also stated that on 27.12.2016 he again visited CBI CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 44 Case No. : 272/2019 office and a team was constituted. PW14 thereafter stated about pre trap proceedings and about the trap proceedings that had taken place near Janak Puri Metro Station. PW14 stated that bribe money was recovered from Charu in the presence of independent witnesses. PW14 further stated that he did not remember who had recovered money from Charu. PW14 stated that hand washes of the accused Sapna were taken and were kept in glass bottles and currency notes recovered from Charu were tallied with the list which the CBI officials had prepared. PW14 identified his signature on pretrap memo dated 27.12.12, Ex.PW12/C. PW14 stated that CBI asked Charu to make mobile call to Neeraj and she made call to Neeraj and informed to Neeraj that she had got the money as per his direction and where she could meet Neeraj. PW14 also stated about the preparation of recovery memo, Ex. PW12/P, rough site plan, Ex. PW14/A, search list, Ex. PW9/A etc.. PW14 identified the voice of Jyoti and Charu in conversation recorded in Ex. PW12/J(Q2). PW14 also identified different voices recorded in memo card, S1 Ex.PW14/G. During crossexamination, PW14 stated that he did not remember whose signature were there on the complaint, however, signature of Kaushalya Devi and Jyoti were there. He stated that only one DVR was used in this case. He visited Janak Puri Metro station regarding the investigation. He did not know the number of scooty on which a girl was riding. PW14 also stated that he knew the CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 45 Case No. : 272/2019 contents of verification memo. PW14 also stated that he did not remember that who had typed the PreTrap Memorandum, Ex. PW12/C.
60. PW15, SSO, MTNL deposed that on 27.12.2016 he visited CBI office. PW15 deposed about demonstration given by CBI official regarding the use of chemical on currency notes and its effect. PW15 stated about the pre trap proceeding and about pre trap memorandum, Ex. PW12/C. PW15 stated that when they left CBI office, Jyoti got a mobile call from Charu which was put on speaker mode and Charu asked whereabouts of Jyoti and she replied that she had been arranging money for Charu and Charu asked Jyoti to come alone alongwith the money and Jyoti replied to Charu that she had been coming alongwith her mother. Thereafter, they reached Janak Puri Metro Station at about 2:00 pm and on asking by Insp, Pratiba, Jyoti called Charu and Charu stated that she would be reaching after some time. PW15 stated that he was instructed by Insp. Pratibha to follow the complainant and her mother and to see the transaction. After sometime, Jyoti and her mother were seen crossing the road to reach the divider of the road and he also crossed the road and reached near to them and after some time he saw that Jyoti was talking to some lady. While Charu was talking to Jyoti she raised her right hand towards Jyoti and Jyoti took out the envelope from her purse CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 46 Case No. : 272/2019 and handed over to Charu. The envelope contained the tainted money. PW15 stated about the proceedings conducted on the spot when accused was caught red handed and also the proceedings conducted thereafter in CBI office. PW15 identified the accused Sapna's voice recorded in the memory card, Q1, Ex.PW12/G, as well as voices of Charu and Jyoti contained in the conversation recorded in Q2, Ex. PW12/J. During cross examination, PW15 stated that he accompanied the CBI team on the spot on 27.12.2016. He stated that when the transaction of bribe was taking place he was at some distance where from he could see the transaction but he was not at hearing distance. PW15 specifically stated during cross examination that he did not hear the conversation between Sapna and Charu when they were at Metro Station, Janak Puri.
61. PW18, Insp. Parveen Kumar is Verification Officer. PW18 stated regarding the complaint given by the complainant and the demand made by accused Sapna from Jyoti, PW12, daughter of the complainant. PW18 stated that the complaint was marked to him for verification and he secured the presence of an independent witness through duty officer and the independent witness was introduced to complainant. A DVR fitted with fresh memory card was used to record the introductory voice of independent witness and thereafter, Ms. Jyoti called Charu and informed that she would be CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 47 Case No. : 272/2019 reaching at about 1600 hrs. at Janak Puri Metro Station and the said call was recorded in the memory card through DVR. After that, PW18 alongwith complainant, Ms. Jyoti, independent witness and lady constable left the CBI office and on the way, Ms. Jyoti received a call from accused Neeraj to produce the record of shop. Thereafter, at about 1625 hours, they reached Janak Puri Metro station and Jyoti made a call to Charu to inform that she alongwith her mother had reached at the Metro Station. On which, Charu replied that she would reach within two minutes as she was at District Centre Janak Puri. After few minutes Ms. Charu wearing blue jeans and black jacket, face covered with handkerchief and wearing helmet came on a scooty and stopped there, had conversation with Jyoti and complainant and then she moved ahead. PW18 deposed that he prepared verification memo and he identified the voices of Jyoti and Charu and Neeraj Saluja, recorded in the memory card, Q1, Ex. PW12/G. During crossexamination, PW18 stated that on 27.12.2016, the conversation between accused Sapna and complainant was recorded through DVR and he was part of trap team.
62. PW17, Amitosh Kumar, Sr. Scientific Officer proved the Forensic Voice Examination report dated 29.05.2018 as Ex.
PW17/C.
CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 48
Case No. : 272/2019
63. PW1, Shri Chander Shekhar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd., exhibited the letter dated 11.02.2017 alongwith certified copy of customer application form of mobile no. 9210108810, call details record, cell ID Chart and certificate U/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW1/A (colly). PW3, Shri Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd. exhibited the letter dated 08.02.2017 as Ex. PW3/A, customer application form of mobile no. 9210107510 of Neeraj Saluja as Ex. PW3/B, customer application form of mobile no. 9540618031 of Spana as Ex. PW3/C, customer application form of mobile no. 9891648614 of Virender as Ex. PW3/D, call details records of above mobiles as Ex. PW3/E to Ex. PW3/G and Certificate U/s 65 of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW3/H. PW4, Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Nodal Officer, Tata Teleservices Ltd. exhibited the letter dated 13.02.2017 as Ex. PW4/A, the ownership, ID proof, ration card and customer application form of mobile no. 9213717450 as Ex. PW4/B. PW6 Shri Saurabh Aggarwal, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. exhibited the letter dated 08.02.2017 vide which he provided certain information and documents to CBI as Ex.PW6/A, the call details records of mobile no. 7290008072 in the name of Sapna as Ex. PW6/B, Certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW6/C, ownerships, ID proof of Ms. Sapna and customer application form in respect of mobile no.
CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 49
Case No. : 272/2019
7290008072 of Sapna as Ex. PW6/G (colly) and the call details records of mobile no. 9582115388 of Mrs. Kaushalya as Ex. PW6/D, Certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW6/E ownerships, ID proof of Mrs. Kaushalya and customer application form in respect of mobile no. 9582115388 of Mrs. Kaushalya as Ex. PW6/F.
64. I have perused the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses and gone through the material on record.
65. It is noted that the complainant, PW19, has proved her complaint, Ex. PW12/A. PW12, daughter of complainant has categorically stated that accused Sapna has demanded bribe on 22.12.2016 and coaccused Neeraj Kumar Saluja has visited fair price shop on same day. Accused Sapna also stated to PW12 that she could manage the enquiry and can get the complaint closed. PW12 stated that accused Sapna has demanded Rs.One lac for this work and later on, she was called by accused Sapna at Tilak Nagar Metro Station on 23.12.2016 and when accused Sapna met PW12 at Tilak Nagar Metro Station, accused Sapna again demanded money saying that she had to give money to number of higher ups and demanded Rs.one lac and thereafter, reduced the bribe amount to CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 50 Case No. : 272/2019 Rs.70,000/ and she asked the daughter of the complainant to confirm the payment till evening otherwise the enquiry would be done by next day. PW12 also stated that on 24.12.2016, accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja came at their shop and made certain enquiries and when PW12 informed regarding demand of bribe he stated that he is not concerned with it however, he also stated that PW12 should not disclose this to any one. PW12, thereafter, made a complaint, Ex. PW12/A, to CBI clearly mentioning the aforesaid facts. PW12 has further stated that the accused Sapna was repeatedly calling her to give Rs.70,000/. PW12 has also stated that she alongwith CBI team went at Janak Puri Metro Station and there also accused Sapna demanded money and asked whether PW12 had brought the money and the daughter of the complainant, PW12 stated that she would give the amount on next day. It is clear from the verification conducted by the CBI on 26.12.2016 that accused Sapna had demanded bribe from the PW12 Jyoti, daughter of the complainant. Thereafter, accused Sapna again came on 27.12.2016 at Janak Puri Metro Station when the trap was laid and called PW12 in the mid lane of the road and money was demanded by the accused Sapna. The accused Sapna even asked why PW12 had brought the money in envelope and PW12, Jyoti stated that since the payment was huge, PW12 did not bring it in open. PW12, Ms. Jyoti asked the CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 51 Case No. : 272/2019 accused Sapna whether her work would be done and accused Sapna replied in affirmative. The aforesaid facts have been corroborated by the testimonies of independent witnesses, PW14, Shri Ram Avtar and PW15, Shri Ranbir Singh.
66. Further, the conversation recorded in memory card, Ex.PW 12/G (Q1) shows that accused Sapna demanded money from PW12 Jyoti, daughter of the complainant. Accused Sapna clearly stated that "tum mujhe aaj kitne paise pakra sakti ho kyonki na vahi jo aage wala banda jo hai na vo maan nahi raha hai. Vo keh raha hai kuchh bhi mujhe nahin pata mujhe paise de do chahe tum........."
67. Further, the conversation between PW12, Jyoti and accused Sapna, recorded in Ex.PW12/J (Q2), again shows that accused had demanded money. PW12 stated that money has been arranged and the accused replied "achchhaa theek hai" and she also instructed PW12 to come alone. The memory cards Q1, Ex. PW 12/G and Q2, Ex. PW12/J have been examined by PW17, Shri Amitosh Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer, CFSL, New Delhi and forensic voice examination report dated 29.05.2019 , Ex. PW17/C shows that there has not been any tampering in the aforesaid recording.
CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 52
Case No. : 272/2019
68. From the testimonies of aforesaid witnesses, it has clearly emerged that a complaint was made against the fair price shop of the complainant for improper distribution of ration and accused Sapna demanded money from PW12, daughter of the complainant, for closure of the complaint. It has emerged that the accused Sapna had demanded money in order to influence the accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja as well as other higher official for closing the complaint. The testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses are consistent and no material contradiction could be elicited during their cross examination. The totality of the aforesaid circumstances taken together clearly establishes the demand of bribe on the part of the accused Sapna and leaves no doubt for any presumptions or assumptions.
69. Ld. Counsel for the accused Sapna contended that forensic voice examination report dated 29.05.2019, Ex. PW17/C mentions that some of the recording could not be examined and could not be considered for spectrographic examination and it is opined that voice of accused Sapna is the probable voice, hence the recordings cannot be relied upon and cannot be said that the voices contained in the said recording pertains to accused Sapna. The contention for accused Sapna is without any merit. The forensic voice examination report, Ex.PW17/C clearly mentions that there is no tampering in CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 53 Case No. : 272/2019 the memory cards, Q1, PW12/G and Q2, Ex. PW12/J. Even otherwise, the recorded conversations in Q1, Ex. PW12/G and Q2, Ex. PW 12/J were played in the court and PW12 and other witnesses have identified voice of accused Sapna. Thus, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for accused Sapna is liable to be rejected outrightly.
70. Another contention of Ld. Counsel for the accused is that during verification proceedings and the trap proceedings, no independent witness has joined and they have planted some government witnesses. It is noted that during verification proceedings, PW14, Shri Ram Avtar, Telecom Office Assistant, MTNL has joined as independent witness. It is not the case of the accused that the independent witness, Shri Ram Avtar, who is a government employee was having any enmity or grudge against the accused Sapna. There is no reason assigned by the accused as to why the said witness has deposed against her, particularly, when he was not familiar with the accused prior to 26.12.2016. Further, during trap proceedings two independent witnesses, PW14 Ram Avtar, Telecom Office Assistant (General), MTNL and PW15 Ranbir Singh, SSO, MTNL, AO (P&A) Office have joined the proceedings and testimonies of both these witnesses are consistent and reliable.
CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 54
Case No. : 272/2019
71. Ld. Counsel for the accused also contended that the accused has nothing to do with the office of Food and Supply Department hence, there was no occasion for the accused to have demanded bribe from the complainant or from her daughter for closure of the complaint.
72. It has already come on record that accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja, Food Inspector, was known to accused Sapna and further, from the conversation recorded, it has also emerged that the accused Sapna claimed to have been knowing some higher ups in the Food and Supply Department besides accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja. Therefore, it is clear from the recorded conversation and testimonies of witnesses that accused Sapna demanded money to influence some officials of the Food and Supply Department in order to get the complaint closed.
73. Thus, the prosecution has proved that there was demand of bribe on the part of the accused.
Acceptance and Recovery of tainted money :
74. Now, turning to the next question whether there is acceptance CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 55 Case No. : 272/2019 of money on the part of the accused and whether there has been recovery of tainted money from the accused.
75. Here, the testimonies of PW5, Deepti Bhargava, PW12, Jyoti Sharma, PW19, complainant Smt. Kaushalya Devi, PW14, Shri Ram Avtar, PW15, Shri Ranbir Singh, PW16, Pratibha Singh, PW17, Amitosh Kumar and of Nodal Officers PW1, Chander Shekhar, PW3, Pawan Singh, PW4, Rajeev Ranjan and PW6, Saurabh Agarwal are relevant.
76. The relevant portions of the testimonies of PW12, Jyoti Sharma and PW19, Smt. Kaushalya Devi have already been discussed while dealing with issue of demand of bribe.
77. PW14, Shri Ram Avtar and PW15, Ranbir Singh stated almost same facts regarding pretrap proceedings and taking of bribe by accused Sapna at Tilak Nagar Metro Station and the subsequent proceedings conducted on the spot as well as in CBI office. Same has already been detailed while dealing with issue of demand of bribe.
78. PW16, Ms. Pratibha Singh, the then Inspector, CBI, Trap CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 56 Case No. : 272/2019 Laying Officer, deposed about pre trap proceedings, laying of trap and post trap proceedings.
79. Further, PW5, Ms. Deepti Bhargava proved the chemical examination report dated 08.02.2017, Ex. PW5/G regarding presence of phenolphthalein in right hand and left hand washes of the accused Sapna.
80. PW17, Amitosh Kumar, Sr. Scientific Officer deposed regarding examination of voices contained in Ex. PW12/G (Q1), Ex. PW12/J (Q2), part of Ex. PW12/L (Q3) and part of Ex.PW14/G (S1) and part of Ex.PW11/B (S2). PW17 proved his Forensic Voice Examination report dated 29.05.2019 as Ex. PW 17/C.
81. Further, PW1, Shri Chander Shekhar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd., PW3, Shri Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd., PW4, Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Nodal Officer, Tata Teleservices Ltd. and PW6 Shri Saurabh Aggarwal, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. have produced records pertaining to mobile numbers 9210108810, mobile no. 9210107510 of Neeraj Saluja, mobile no. 9540618031 of Spana, mobile no. 9891648614 of Virender, mobile no. 9213717450, mobile no. 9582115388 and CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 57 Case No. : 272/2019 7290008072 and same have already been discussed in previous paras.
82. I have perused the testimonies of aforesaid witnesses.
83. The testimony of PW12, Ms. Jyoti is consistent and there is nothing to discredit the testimony of said witness. PW12, Ms. Jyoti has clearly stated that on 27.12.2016 accused Sapna has called her and instructed her to come near the pillar of the Metro Station. The accused Sapna was standing on the other side of the road in the mid lane and asked her to come in the mid lane of the road and after reaching there accused had taken bribe money of Rs.20,000/. Accused Sapna has asked PW12 why she had brought the money in envelope and PW12 stated that since the payment was huge she did not bring it in open. In the meantime, CBI officials came and caught her. The recorded conversation also shows that accused had instructed her to come and give money and also instructed that at that time, PW12 should not talk to her and after giving money should leave and they would talk on phone. This part of conversation is recorded in the memory card, Q2, Ex.PW12/J during the trap proceedings. It only shows that accused not only demanded money but accepted the money willingly.
CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 58
Case No. : 272/2019
84. Further, immediately after acceptance of bribe money, fingers of the accused Sapna were dipped in Sodium Carbonate Solution and it turned pink and the said solution was kept in different bottles and marked LHW, Ex.PW5/E and RHW, Ex. PW5/F. The bribe amount of Rs.20,000/ was recovered from her by PW15, Ranbir Singh.
85. Further, currency notes of the bribe amount recovered from the accused Sapna by PW15 Ranbir Singh were tallied with the numbers of notes noted in the PreTrap Memorandum, Ex.PW12/C. PW12, Ms. Jyoti, PW14, Shri Ram Avtar and PW15 Shri Ranbir Singh, Independent witnesses and CBI officer, PW16 Ms. Pratibha Singh have clearly stated about these proceedings and there is no contradiction except some minor differences in the testimonies of these witnesses. The report of the Chemical Examiner dated 08.02.2017, Ex. PW5/G leaves no doubt that bottle marked, Ex.PW5/E (LHW) and bottle marked, Ex. PW5/F (RHW), which contained the handwashes of the accused gave positive result for presence of phenolphthalein.
86. PW17, Amitosh Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer, CFSL has CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 59 Case No. : 272/2019 given his report dated 29.05.2019, Ex. PW12/C which clearly shows that memory card, Q1, Ex. PW12/G; memory card, Q2, Ex. PW12/J; memory card, Q3, Ex. PW12/L; memory card, S1, Ex. PW14/G and memory card, S2, Ex. PW11/B were not tampered with. It lends support to authenticity regarding conversation recorded in the memory cards. Thus, it is clear that accused has accepted the money from the complainant's daughter and there is also no doubt regarding recovery of tainted amount from the accused Sapna. The prosecution has established acceptance of tainted amount by accused and recovery of tainted amount has also been proved by the prosecution.
87. It has already been discussed in detail that demand of bribe amount on the part of the accused has been clearly established by the prosecution.
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT OFFENCE.
88. Now, I turn to the next point of determination as to whether accused no. 2 and accused no. 1 conspired to commit the offence as mentioned in section 8 of PC Act, 1988.
CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 60
Case No. : 272/2019
89. Here, it is relevant to refer Sections 120A and 120B IPC, which read as under : '120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy.--When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,--
(1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation.--It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.' '120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.]'
90. To constitute a conspiracy, meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is the first and primary condition and it is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy. Neither is it necessary that every one of the conspirators takes active part in the CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 61 Case No. : 272/2019 commission of each and every conspiratorial acts. The agreement amongst the conspirators can be inferred by necessary implication. In most of the cases, the conspiracies are proved by the circumstantial evidence, as the conspiracy is seldom an open affair. The existence of conspiracy and its objects are usually deduced from the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the accused involved in the conspiracy. Criminal conspiracy is an independent offence in the Penal code. The unlawful agreement is sine qua non for constituting offence under the Penal Code and not an accomplishment. Conspiracy consists of the scheme or adjustment between two or more persons which may be express or implied or partly express or partly implied. Even Section 10 of the Evidence Act introduces the doctrine of agency and if the conditions laid down therein are satisfied, the act done by one is admissible against the co conspirators.
91. Here, the testimonies of PW12, Jyoti, PW2, Rajinder Kumar Markan, PW7, Ms. Nikita, PW8, Ms. Sangita Mandal, PW9, Shri N. C. Naval, PW10, Smt. Suman Manju, PW13, Shri Hari Prasad and PW20, Nikesh Kumar Upadhyay are relevant.
CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 62
Case No. : 272/2019
92. The testimony of PW12, Jyoti daughter of the complainant has already been discussed while deciding earlier point of determination.
93. PW2, Shri Rajinder Kumar Markan, Inspector, Department of Food and Supply deposed that FSO, Shri V. P. Singh, received a phone call from MLA, Shri Jarnail Singh that some consumer made a complaint against Fair Price Shop in the name of M/s. Radhey Shyam. There was a complaint of Shri Hardeep Singh regarding improper distribution of ration to him and Shri V. P. Singh, FSO had referred the complaint to him. PW2 stated that he visited the fair price shop under the name M/s. Radhey Shyam on 02.12.2016 and heard the complaint of Shri Hardeep Singh and made enquiries from number of consumers, who were in the queue and about 1012 consumers made complaint regarding misbehaviour and improper distribution of ration by said fair price shop. PW2 stated that he had taken their complaints on the photocopy of their ration cards and initiated a note regarding action taken by him after inspection of the shop and he submitted his note with enclosures to Shri V. P. Singh, FSO and Shri V. P. Singh vide his note dated 02.12.2016 submitted his report to Asstt. Commissioner, West for necessary action and Shri Hari Prasad, Asstt. Commissioner directed the FSO Circle26 & 27 and Food and Supply Inspector, Circle11 for further inspection and CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 63 Case No. : 272/2019 report regarding aforesaid 11 card holder's complaint. The FSI, Circle-11 and FSO, Circle 26 & 27 submitted their reports vide note sheet dated 22.11.2016, Ex. PW2/F and vide said report, FSO directed FSI, Circle 11 Neeraj Saluja to submit his report after his enquiry from consumers, who made the complaint and Neeraj Saluja submitted his report, Ex. PW2/G and thereafter, FSO and Mr. Neeraj Saluja wrote a note, Ex. PW2/H and the file was forwarded to Asstt. Commissioner, who vide his note dated 27.12.2016, directed for issuing Show Cause Notice and a show cause notice dated 28.12.2016 was issued to above said fair price shop but the FPS holder did not appear on 31.12.2016 and another notice dated 03.01.2017 was issued and thereafter, Smt. Kaushalya Devi and her daughter Jyoti appeared and filed reply and warning was issued to them vide note dated 11.01.2017. PW2 stated that he handed over the documents to CBI vide Production cum Seizure Memo, Ex.PW2/A. During crossexamination, PW2 stated that after giving his report regarding visit of fair price shop of the complainant, he did not do anything in the said case.
94. PW7, Ms. Nikita deposed that in the year 2016, she was running a coaching center under the name and style M/s Auramount Education at Tilak Nagar. She rented out some portion of her office to Neeraj Saluja at a monthly rent of Rs.8000/ for his business of CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 64 Case No. : 272/2019 placement. PW7 stated that Neeraj Saluja was not visiting the office in her presence and Sapna used to sit there in the office. PW7 stated that Sapna might have been sitting on behalf of Neeraj Saluja. PW1 was crossexamined by Ld. Public Prosecutor and she stated that Sapna was looking after the work of Neeraj Saluja in the said office and Neeraj Saluja was visiting the said office in 1520 days. During crossexamination by Counsel for accused, PW7 stated that Neeraj Saluja had put his table outside her office which was in the shape of cabin but inside the premises and it was in October, 2016 and he remained there for November and December. PW7 stated that she allowed Sapna and Neeraj Saluja to use the name S. Auramount College of Education in the visiting card, Ex. PW7/DX1 and this card belongs to her. PW7 stated that the card, Ex. PW7/DX2 belongs to Neeraj Saluja and Sapna.
95. PW8, Ms. Sangeeta Mandal deposed that she was receptionist in S. Auramount College of Education and her boss, Nikita Garg rented her office to Neeraj Saluja and Sapna Katheria used to sit in that office. PW8 stated that Sapna used to run a placement agency in the name of Auramount Associate and Neeraj Saluja used to visit office frequently. PW8 also stated that Neeraj Saluja used to visit alone in the office. PW8 identified accused Neeraj Saluja as well as CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 65 Case No. : 272/2019 accused Sapna. PW8 identified voice of accused Sapna when Memory Card Q1, Ex. PW12/G was played in the court.
96. PW9, Inspector N. C. Naval stated that he was authorized by Insp. Pratibha Singh to conduct search at the house of accused Neeraj Saluja and he had conducted the search at the house of accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja. PW9 exhibited the search list as Ex. PW9/A.
97. PW10, Lady constable, Suman Manju stated that she participated in search proceedings conducted at the residential premises of Neeraj Saluja.
98. PW13, Hari Prasad, the then Asstt. Commissioner, Food and Supply Department stated about complaint made against ration shop of complainant. PW12 stated that he constituted a team to conduct an enquiry into the allegations levelled against the said ration shop. PW13 stated about different notings as stated by PW2. PW13 identified the voice of Neeraj when memory cards Q1, Ex. PW 12/G; Q2, Ex. PW12/J and Q3, Ex. PW 12/L were played in court.
CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 66
Case No. : 272/2019
99. PW20, Nikesh Kumar Upadhyay is the IO in the present case. PW20 stated that he has seized different documents from Food and Supply Department.
100. I have gone through the material on record.
101. It has emerged from the testimonies of different witnesses and documents on record that a complaint was made against the fair price shop of the complainant to Food Supply Officer (FSO) by area MLA telephonically on 02.12.2016 and Inspector Rajinder Kumar Markan (PW2) visited the shop of the complainant on 02.12.2016 and he got complaints of 11 consumers regarding improper distribution of ration and on the same day, Assistant Commissioner, Food and Supply Office, vide note Ex.PW2/D, directed one FSO and Inspector Neeraj Kumar Saluja, FSI (Circle11) for further inspection in respect of aforesaid complaint. Accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja and one FSO visited the shop of the complainant on 22.12.2016 for inspection of shop and on the same day, accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja was directed by FSO to contact all the consumers who complained against the complainant and get their statements and submit his report. These proceedings are reflecting from notings, Ex.PW2/E and Ex. PW2/F. CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 67 Case No. : 272/2019
102. It is worthwhile recording here that the demand of bribe was, firstly, made on 22.12.2016 by accused Sapna when she talked to the complainant, Smt. Kaushalya Devi, PW19 and her daughter Ms. Jyoti, PW12. No demand for bribe was made prior to 22.12.2016 although complaint was made on 02.12.2016 and PW2 Shri Rajinder Kumar Markan visited the shop. Accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja visited the shop with one other official of Food & Supply Department on 22.12.2016 and on 24.12.2016 accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja again visited the shop of the complainant and complainant's daughter informed him that some lady namely Charu (Sapna) was demanding bribe for closure of the case and accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja replied that he was not concerned with it and also asked her not to disclose this fact to others. Here, the conduct of the accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja shows that he did not want that demand of bribe made by accused Sapna should be known to any other person. Accused is a public servant and if he comes to know of any such demand of bribe, it becomes his duty to report the matter to police or appropriate authority instead of asking the complainant's daughter not to tell to any other person. Aforesaid conduct of accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja shows the ill motive of the accused. Further, the demand of bribe by accused Sapna started from the day of visit of accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja.
CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 68
Case No. : 272/2019
103. It has also come on record that accused Sapna and accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja were known to each other. From the testimonies of PW7, Ms. Nikita and PW8, Ms. Sangeeta Mandal, it is clear that the accused persons were knowing each other. The visiting cards, Ex. PW7/DX2, bearing the name of accused Sapna as well as the blank cheque, part of Ex.PW9/B, signed by the accused Sapna were recovered from the house of the accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja vide Search List, Ex. PW9/A and it shows that both the accused were known to each other.
104. The transcription of the conversation, Ex. PW13/C, recorded between accused Sapna and the complainant's daughter, PW12 Ms. Jyoti shows that accused Sapna was well aware of the proceedings being conducted by accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja. Accused Sapna was even aware of the fact that the complaints made against the shop of the complainant, have been withdrawn by the consumers and accused Neeraj Saluja was asking for the record. The aforesaid fact point out that accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja was informing the co accused Sapna regarding the development of the proceedings in respect of the enquiry against the shop of the complainant. The aforesaid conclusion is further fortified from the call detail record, Ex. PW6/D between accused Sapna and accused Neeraj Kumar CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 69 Case No. : 272/2019 Saluja, which shows that accused Sapna was having frequent talks with accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja during the period when the matter regarding shop of the complainant was going on and accused Sapna was demanding money from the daughter of the complainant. The pattern of the call detail record clearly shows that accused Sapna was talking to accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja immediately after talking to complainant's daughter. The aforesaid facts point out that the accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja was informing the progress of the matter to coaccused Sapna, who was demanding money for closure of the case. It has already come on record that demand of bribe by accused Sapna was made on 22.12.2016 after the visit of accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja on 22.12.2016
105. One more fact which needs consideration is that accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja was repeatedly making calls to PW12, Ms. Jyoti, daughter of the complainant and was asking her to produce the records and same is clearly reflecting in the transcription of recorded conversation, Ex. PW13/C. It is clear from the recorded conversation between accused Neeraj and Ms. Jyoti that he was pressurizing PW12, Ms. Jyoti to produce the record. Accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja was making calls to PW12, Ms. Jyoti and was demanding records from complainant's daughter while he could have simply given notice to complainant to produce the documents. Accused CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 70 Case No. : 272/2019 Neeraj Kumar Saluja was acting in official capacity, hence he should have given notice to the complainant to produce the records if the records were needed for inspection. It is also noted that the accused, who was working in official capacity, was having conversation with PW12, complainant's daughter from his personal mobile phone and did not make any call to complainant's daughter from his official phone. It is also noted that accused Neeraj and PW12 had conversation after the duty time of the accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja.
106. Here, it is also relevant to record that accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja has submitted his report, Ex. PW2/G, regarding the complaint made by 11 consumers against the fair price shop of accused on 26.12.2016, which does not mention about the records. It only shows that accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja was demanding records from the complainant's daughter only to pressurize her.
107. It is also worthwhile to record here that accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja has given his report on 26.12.2016 and on the basis of this report, FSO (Circle27) has given his report, Ex. PW2/I on same day i.e. 26.12.2016. Accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja was demanding production of record even after submission of his report. The conversation between accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja and PW12, Jyoti shows that accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja had conversation with CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 71 Case No. : 272/2019 daughter of the complainant at about 6:15 pm on 26.12.2016 as shown in Transcription, Ex.PW13/C (colly) asking her to produce the record while, by that time, accused No.1, Neeraj had already submit ted his report. Accused Neeraj was pressurizing the complainant for production of the documents even after submission of his report and it only shows the mala fide intention on the part of the accused No.1.
108. Here, it is also required to be mentioned that the accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja has done undue favour to the complainant by getting the complaints withdrawn. It is clearly reflecting from the conversation, part of Ex. PW13/C, between accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja and PW12 Ms. Jyoti and report of accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja, Ex. PW2/G, that the accused had got 11 complaints of consumers, withdrawn. The transcription, Ex. PW13/C (colly) shows that accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja in the conversation dated 26.12.2016 stated that ".....main enforcement kaa aadami hoon tum mujhe majaak me le rahi ho, tumko problem ho jaegi. Maine bari mushkil se sardaar ji ko baithhaya hai aapke against me..... pata hai aapko." and PW12, Ms. Jyoti says "sar mujhe pata hai aapne aapke vajay se hi aapke kehne pe hi sardaar ji ne itna likha hai nahi to vo to likhne ko bilkul hi taiyar nahi thaa". It was not the duty of the accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja to get those complaints withdrawn. The accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja should have recorded CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 72 Case No. : 272/2019 the statements of the consumers as directed by FSO but he got the complaints of the consumers withdrawn besides pressurizing PW12, Ms. Jyoti to produce record. At the same time, coaccused Sapna was demanding the money for the aforesaid favour as is reflecting from the conversation between the accused Sapna and PW12, Jyoti. Accused Sapna was stating in said conversation that she had got the complaints withdrawn and daughter of the complainant must pay the money. In the conversation dated 24.12.2016, Ex. PW12/N, when PW12, Ms. Jyoti told Charu that she has been called by Enforcement Department, the accused Sapna @ Charu has stated "pahuchne ke lie to beta main bhi keh rahi hoon pahuch jaao saamne matlab haajir ho jaao baaki kuchh aur aisa nahi hoga, jo baaki jo hai maine complaint vaapas karwaa di hai." The favour granted by accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja to the complainant further strengthen the inference that the accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja has conspired with the coaccused Sapna who was demanding money for closure of the case and accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja had helped in closure of the case by getting the complaints withdrawn and only some minor issues were left, which were to be looked into by the higher officials. The aforesaid conversation between accused Neeraj Saluja and PW12, Jyoti shows that accused Neeraj had put much effort in pursuading the consumers to withdraw the complaints. The aforesaid facts CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 73 Case No. : 272/2019 clearly shows the conspiracy between accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja and accused Sapna.
109. Learned Counsel for accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja has contended that the complainant, Smt. Kaushalaya Devi, PW19 has not supported the prosecution case as during crossexamination, she has stated that she was not aware of any complaint against the shop or any enquiry and did not know accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja. Learned Counsel for accused No. 1 pointed out that there are contradictions in the testimony of PW19. It is submitted that PW19 in her testimony has stated that she remained sitting in the CBI office and did not know what happened there.
110. Here, it is relevant to point out that PW19 is an illiterate and old lady of 59 years of age. Although she has joined the proceedings but could not specifically state regarding the proceedings where she has participated. PW19 could not state the complete facts in her chief examination and has broadly stated about the complaint made against her shop and complaint made by her to CBI and demand of bribe made by accused Sapna. It is noted that PW12, Ms. Jyoti, daughter of the complainant was involved in the entire incident. PW12 was communicating and meeting the accused persons and the CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 74 Case No. : 272/2019 bribe was demanded from PW12 by accused Sapna and the accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja asked the PW12 to produce record. Even, the complaint was written by her daughter, PW12 Jyoti. The conversation regarding demand of record by accused no. 1, Neeraj Saluja and demand of bribe by accused no. 2, Sapna, was recorded by PW12 through her mobile phone. She also took part in pretrap proceedings and subsequent proceedings conducted by CBI and has clearly supported the prosecution case. Under the facts and circumstances, it cannot be expected from complainant, PW19, who is an old and illiterate lady to state all the incidents with finer details that too after three and half year of the incident. PW12 has stated in detail the entire incident regarding visit of accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja to her shop, demand of records by accused No. 1 when he visited the shop as well as through different calls made to PW12, the demand of bribe by accused no.2, Sapna, pretrap, trap and post trap proceedings. The testimony of PW12 is corroborated not only by the testimonies of independent witnesses, PW14 Shri Ram Avtar and PW15, Shri Ranbir Singh but also by testimonies of CBI officials. Even otherwise, the contradictions, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused, does not affect the case of prosecution.
111. Here it is relevant to refer the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in "C. M. Sharma v. State of Andhra Pradesh"
CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 75
Case No. : 272/2019
(supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "on appreciation of evidence, witnesses can be broadly categorized in three categories viz., unreliable, partly reliable and wholly reliable. In case of a partly reliable witness, the court seeks corroboration in material particulars from other evidence. However in a case in which a witness is wholly reliable, no corroboration is necessary."
112. Learned counsel for accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja has further pointed out that there are contradictions in the testimony of PW12. It is submitted by ld. Counsel for accused that PW12 has not stated about visit of FSO on 02.12.2016 and has further concealed the fact that on 22.12.2016 one FSO also visited with accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja. Learned counsel for accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja also submitted that there is difference in the statement of PW12 recorded under section 161 Cr.PC and her testimony recorded before this court. PW12, in her statement under Section 161 CrPC stated that demand of Rs. 1 lac was made to her mother, while before court she stated that the demand was made to her.
113. Learned counsel for accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja further submitted that PW12 in her statement under Section 161 CrPC stated that on 24.12.2016 accused Neeraj met with Hardeep Singh CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 76 Case No. : 272/2019 when Jyoti informed Neeraj about the demand of bribe, while before this court she stated that Neeraj came without any reference to Hardeep Singh. Further, while in 161 statement she only stated that Neeraj asked her to remain silent, whereas before court she also deposed that Neeraj stated that he has no concern with it.
114. Learned counsel for accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja further submitted that PW12 has stated before the court that "accused Neeraj Saluja left the place and thereafter I met the local MLA of my area and when I was in the office of the MLA, I received the call from the accused Neeraj and when he inquired about my whereabouts and he said that I was sitting in the office of local MLA. He asked me why I had visited the MLA office. I told him that I had come to say sorry to the MLA in respect of my complaint made against my shop" while she did not state these facts in her statement under Section 161 CrPC.
115. The discrepancies/ contradictions, as cited by the counsels for the accused no.1, are only the minor differences in the statement of PW12 recorded under section 161 Cr. PC and the statement recorded in the court and there is no material contradiction which goes to the root of the matter. Here, it needs to point out that PW12 has been examined in court after about three and half years after the aforesaid CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 77 Case No. : 272/2019 incident, hence the minor differences/ discrepancies are bound to creep in the testimony of PW12. Further, it is not expected from the witness to verbatim reproduce the statement under section 161 Cr. PC when the witness is examined in the court and the minor contradictions and differences are bound to creep in the testimony of the witnesses. PW12 has been crossexamined at length and no material contradictions/differences has surfaced during her lengthy crossexamination. It has already been stated that testimony of PW12, Jyoti further finds corroboration from the testimonies of independent witnesses and CBI officials.
116. Here, it is relevant to refer the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'State of UP v. M. K. Anthony' (supra), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:
"Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hypertechnical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 78 Case No. : 272/2019 whole. If the court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals.".
117. Here, it is also relevant to refer another judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding minor inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses. In the judgment Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2012 SC 3539, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed :
"47. .........Minor contradictions inconsistencies or embellishments of trivial nature which do not affect the ore of the prosecution case should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence in its entirety. It is only when such omissions amount to a contradiction creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of the witness and other witnesses CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 79 Case No. : 272/2019 also make material improvements, on contradictions before the court in order to render the evidence unacceptable, that the courts may not be in a position to safely rely upon such evidence. Serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the prosecution have to be understood in clear contradistinction to mer marginal variations in the statement of the witnesses. The prior may have effect in law upon the evidentiary value of the prosecution case; however, the latter would not adversely affect the case of the prosecution. Another settled rule of appreciation of evidence as already indicated is that the court should not draw any conclusion be picking up an isolated portion from the testimony of a witness without adverting to the statement as a whole. Sometimes it may be feasible that admission of a fat or circumstance by the witness is only to clarify his statement or what has been placed on record. Where it is a genuine attempt on the party of a witness to bring correct facts by clarification on record, such statement must be seen in a different light to a situation where the contradiction is of such a nature that it impairs his evidence in its entirety.
......... Furthermore, whether such omission, variations or discrepancy is a material contradiction or not is again a question of fact which is to be determined with reference to the facts of a given case. The concept of contradiction in evidence under criminal jurisprudence, thus, cannot be stated in any absolute terms and has to be construed liberally so as to leave desirable discretion with the court to determine whether it is a contradiction or material contradiction which renders the entire evidence of the witness untrustworthy and affect the case of the prosecution materially.
CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 80
Case No. : 272/2019
118. It is noted that the contradictions, as noted above, are the minor contradictions in the statement of witnesses and none of these are major contradictions affecting the sanctity of the prosecution case. Testimonies of witnesses are consistent and reliable.
119. Learned counsel for accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja has contended that FIR has not been proved, as PW19 has not identified her signature on FIR and hence, the subsequent proceedings also cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel for accused has relied upon the judgment, 'Raviraj Praful Thacker v. State of Gujarat', wherein it has been held that :
"12.It is required to be considered that the informant (Complaint in the present case) has already been examined. He has been treated hostile by the prosecution. He has not supported the case of the prosecution. He has not stated anything about the involvement of the petitioner in the offence in question. Therefore, when the informant has been tested before the court concerned and when the FIR filed and produced before the court concerned, the contents of the FOR were not required to be considered by the trial court as the contents thereof could not be said to have been proved and unless the contents therefore have been proved and unless the contents thereof have been proved, it cannot be CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 81 Case No. : 272/2019 said that the petitioner was involved in the offence in question. The FIR cannot be used as substantive evidence. At the same time, it can be used as corroborative evidence. However, when the information has not proved the contents of the FIR and when there is no other material on record to prove the contents of the FIR, then the contents of FIR cannot be used against the petitioner for any other purpose. It is more so, when the prosecution is not in a position to prove the contents of FIR."
120. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja is not applicable under the facts and circumstances of the present case as in the matter in hand, the complainant has proved her complaint, Ex. PW12/A, and her daughter, PW12 Jyoti, who has written this complaint, has also appeared in the witness box and stated about the contents of the complaint and has also stated that she has written the said complaint and has identified her signature on the said complaint. Further, the FIR, Ex.PW12/B, was registered not only on the basis of the complaint, Ex.PW12/A but verification was also conducted by the CBI official and the verification memo dated 26.12.2016, Ex.PW10/A is duly proved. Copy of the complaint, Ex. PW12/A and the verification memo dated 26.12.2016 were annexed with the FIR. The contents of the FIR has already been proved. Thus, the contentions of the counsel for the accused no.1 are without any merit and are liable to rejected outrightly.
CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 82
Case No. : 272/2019
121. One of the contentions of the learned counsel for the accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja is that search was illegally conducted at the house of the accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja by an officer of CBI who was not authorized. So far as the search at the house of the accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja is concerned, PW9, Shri N.C. Naval has clearly deposed that at the request of Inspector Pratibha Singh, he conducted search at the premises bearing No. 14/224, IIIrd Floor, New Moti Nagar, New Delhi and he was authorized by Inspector Pratibha Singh to conduct the search under section 165 Cr.PC. The search list has been exhibited by the said witness as Ex.PW9/A, which bears the signatures of the independent witness, Ram Avtar; Kuldeep Narotra, brotherinlaw of accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja; Anita Saluja, wife of accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja and lady Ct. Suman Manju and it clearly states about the proceedings conducted during search and it also mention that PW9 N.C. Naval has been authorized to conduct the search at the aforesaid premises. Merely, because authorization letter has not been filed, will not make the search conducted by the police officer, illegal and does not make the material collected during search, inadmissible in evidence. Even otherwise, the accused has himself relied upon two documents which were seized during said search i.e. two visiting cards, Ex.PW7/DX1 and Ex.PW7/DX2 and CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 83 Case No. : 272/2019 confronted these documents to PW7 while crossexamining PW7, Ms. Nikita. Thus, I find no merit in the contention of the counsel for accused No.1 and the same is rejected.
122. One of the contentions of the learned counsel for the accused is that Memory Card Q3, Ex.PW12/L which was provided by PW12, Jyoti allegedly containing the recording of conversation held during the period between 22.12.2016 to 27.12.2016 was tampered as chain of custody of memory card is not established. The recovery memo, Ex. PW12/P shows that the memory card, Q3, Ex. PW12/L, was sealed during the proceeding and further, forwarding letter dated 16.01.2017, Ex. PW20/A was sent to Director, CFSL for preparing the copies of memory cards for investigation purposes. The letter dated 31.03.2017 sent to Director, CFSL, Ex.PW17/A clearly shows that exhibits Q1, Q2, Q3, S1 and S2 were sent for preparing copies for investigation purposes and after preparing copies, copies in the form of CD have been received back alongwith exhibits as per letter dated 23.01.2017. No doubt letter dated 23.01.2017 regarding receipt of copies of aforesaid recording in Q1, Q2, Q3 and original memory cards, is not placed on record, however, the letter dated 31.03.2017 mentions that copies of Memory Cards alongwith Memory Cards were received in CBI vide letter dated 23.01.2017 and Memory Cards Q1, Q2 and Q3 bear the seal CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 84 Case No. : 272/2019 "*P.K.GOTTAM*,CFSL,CBI". The voice examination report, Ex. PW17/C shows that CFSL had received Memory Cards in parcels with intact seal "*P.K.GOTTAM*, CFSL,CBI". Thus, it is clear that there has not been any break in chain of custody and no occasion for tampering the conversation recorded in Memory Cards. Further the voice examination report, Ex. PW17/C ruled out tampering in conversation recorded in Memory Cards. Thus, I find no merit in the contention of Ld. counsel for accused.
123. From the material on record, it has clearly emerged that there was a conspiracy between accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja and accused Sapna to extract money from the complainant for influencing the officials of Food and Supply Department to close the pending enquiry in respect of shop of the complainant. It has clearly surfaced from the testimonies of witnesses that accused Sapna @ Charu acted on behalf of accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja and represented to complainant and her daughter that she would influence the officials of Food and Supply Department so that enquiry can be closed and accused Neeraj Kumar Saluja has got the complaints of different consumers withdrawn in order to get the enquiry report in favour of complainant and influence the higher official in getting the enquiry closed. It is noted that for minor discrepancies show cause notices were directed to be issued by CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 85 Case No. : 272/2019 Asstt. Commissioner and after 27.12.2016, the enquiry was closed after issuing warning to FPS holder to remain careful in future and to display timetable on notice board.
124. Thus, the prosecution has established beyond doubt that accused No.1, Neeraj Kumar Saluja has conspired with accused No. 2, Sapna and in furtherance of said conspiracy, accused No. 2, Sapna took illegal gratification from the complainant's daughter for influencing the officials of Food and Supply Department for getting the enquiry closed in respect of Fair Price Shop of the complainant.
CONCLUSION
125. Pondering over the ongoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that:
(i) Prosecution has succeeded to bring home the guilt of accused No. 1, Neeraj Kumar Saluja and accused No. 2, Sapna @ Charu for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC read with Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, I hereby hold them guilty thereunder.
CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 86
Case No. : 272/2019
(ii) Prosecution has also succeeded to bring home the guilt of accused No. 2, Sapna @ Charu for the offence punishable under Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Accordingly, I hereby hold her guilty thereunder.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AS ON THIS 25th DAY OF MARCH, 2022. (ARVIND KUMAR) Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)10 Rouse Avenue Courts Complex New Delhi.(pk) CBI v. Neeraj Kumar Saluja & Anr. Page no. 87