Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Naveen Kumar Singh on 7 January, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI B.R. KEDIA, SPECIAL JUDGE07
(CENTRAL), (PC ACT CASES OF ACB, GNCTD), DELHI
C.C.NO. : 61/11
Unique Case ID : 02401R0130512008
STATE VS. 1. NAVEEN KUMAR SINGH
S/o Sh. Priyawart Singh
R/o Flat No. S2, Plot No. 394,
Shalimar Garden, Sahibabad,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
2. ANAND KUMAR SINGH
Sh. Rana Pratap Singh
R/o 268, Indira Vihar,
Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi
FIR NO. : 80/2006
U/S : 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988
P.S. : ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH,
DELHI
Date of Institution 30.01.2008
Judgment reserved on 05.01.2012
Judgment delivered on 07.01.2012
C.C. No. 61/11 Page No. 1 of 23
JUDGMENT
1. The precise case of the prosecution is that on dated 13.12.2006 complainant Vikas Jain S/o Subhash Chand Jain went to Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi and got lodged his complaint Ex.PW3/A regarding initial demand of bribe of Rs.50,000/ which was scaled down to Rs.20,000/ by the accused Naveen Kumar Singh and Anand Kumar Singh who were posted as Inspector in Enforcement Branch, Food & Supply Department, Delhi in consideration for not registering a case against him for selling kerosene oil in blackmarket without license.
2. The gist of the said complaint is that the complainant Vikas Jain was running a Kirana Shop in Shastri Park and he used to sell kerosene oil to the tenants residing nearby. On dated 13.12.06 at around 11:00 a.m. both accused came to his shop and introduced themselves as Inspectors in Enforcement Branch, Food and Supply Department and threatened him for registering a case for selling kerosene oil without license and initially demanded Rs.50,000/ which was scaled down to Rs.20,000/ on his request for not registering any such case against complainant. The accused asked the complainant to get arranged the said amount by 3:45 to 4:00 p.m. on that day and C.C. No. 61/11 Page No. 2 of 23 since the complainant was against giving of bribe and hence, he went to Anti Corruption Branch and got lodged his complaint Ex.PW3/A before the then Inspector Sunil Kumar, Raid Officer PW11 in presence of Panch witness, Vijay Kumar Sharma PW8.
3. The further case of the prosecution is that the complainant has produced 40 GC notes of Rs. 500/ each, total amounting to Rs.20,000/ before the Raid Officer PW11 who noted down the serial number of said GC notes in the preraid proceedings Ex.PW3/B and treated the said GC notes with phenolphthalein powder. Thereafter, Raid Officer PW11 gave demonstration to the Panch witness, complainant by getting touched the right hand of the Panch witness with that treated currency notes and wash of the right hand of the Panch witness in the colourless solution of sodium carbonate which turned into pink. Thereafter, said GC notes were handed over to the complainant and Panch witness was instructed to remain close with the complainant and to overhear the conversation between the complainant and the person demanding the bribe amount and to give signal by moving his right hand over his head after being satisfied that the bribe has actually been given.
C.C. No. 61/11 Page No. 3 of 23
4. That on that day i.e. dated 13.12.2006 at about 3:20 p.m., PW11/ Raid Officer along with complainant, Panch witness, Inspector Hari Chand and other members of the raiding party left Anti Corruption Branch in a government vehicle and while on the way the complainant received phone call from accused Naveen thereby asking the complainant to come to Shastri Park, Petrol Pump where they were on motorcycle near Petrol Pump. Thereafter, on the instructions of the Raid Officer, complainant brought his motorcycle and complainant and Panch witness were sent on said motorcycle towards Shastri Park Petrol Pump and raiding team followed them by keeping suitable distance. Thereafter, complainant and Panch witness reached on their motorcycle at Petrol Pump, Shastri Park where both the accused were present on their motorcycle and complainant and Panch witness followed the motorcycle of the accused persons and after crossing Hanuman Mandir over Railway Bridge, both motorcycle stopped and accused persons started talking with the complainant. Government vehicle was parked near Railway Bridge and raiding team took suitable position.
5. The further case of the prosecution is that at about 4:05 p.m. on receiving the predetermined signal from the Panch witness, Raid C.C. No. 61/11 Page No. 4 of 23 Officer alongwith other members of the raiding team reached at the spot where Panch witness disclosed that on the instructions of accused Naveen Kumar, accused Anand Kumar Singh accepted the bribe amount in his right hand and kept the same in upper left pocket of his shirt beneath his jacket. Thereafter, Raid Officer disclosed his identity and challenged the accused persons and on instructions of Raid Officer, Panch witness recovered GC notes of Rs.20,000/ from the upper left pocket of shirt of accused Anand Kumar Singh and compared the serial number of that GC notes with serial number mentioned in pre raid proceedings Ex.PW3/B and the same tallied. That recovered GC notes were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/C. The wash of right hand of the accused Anand Kumar Singh and wash of his upper left pocket of shirt were taken separately in colorless solution of sodium carbonate which turned into pink and solution was transferred into four empty small clean bottles which were sealed with the seal of SK and were marked as RHWI & II and LSPPWI & II by pasting slips thereon which were signed by Raid Officer, complainant and Panch witness. The shirt of the accused Anand Kumar Singh was converted into a pullanda and was sealed thereafter and all said four bottles alongwith the shirt pullanda of accused Anand Kumar Singh and sample seal were taken into C.C. No. 61/11 Page No. 5 of 23 possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/D. Motorcycle bearing No.DL 6SX 1134 of the accused persons was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/E. Raid Officer also drawn up the post raid proceedings which is Ex.PW8/A and prepared rukka Ex.PW11/A and sent the same through Ct.Kapil Dev to PS Anti Corruption Branch for registration of the case.
6. The further case of the prosecution is that the Raid Officer called the then Inspector Hari Chand/PW9, IO at the spot and handed over him the custody of both accused namely Naveen Kumar Singh and Anand Kumar Singh, case property and relevant documents etc. for purpose of Investigation. I.O. took up the Investigation, prepared the Site Plan Ex.PW9/A, arrested the accused persons vide Arrest Memo Ex.PW3/F and PW3/F1 and conducted their personal search vide Personal Search Memo Ex.PW3/G and G1, one bag containing Rs.27,500/, PLI Certificate, loose papers and tiffen were recovered from the possession of accused Naveen Kumar which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/M. IO recorded the statement of the complainant and Panch witness and received original rukka Ex.PW11/A and copy of FIR Ex.PW4/A. Medical examination of both the accused was got done by the IO and thereafter, went to PS C.C. No. 61/11 Page No. 6 of 23 Civil Line where he deposited the case property, exhibits and articles of personal search with the MHC(M) and both the accused were put in the lock up. During the course of Investigation, IO seized Transfer Posting Order Ex.PW2/E, Biodata Ex.PW2/A, Attendance sheet Ex.PW1/A of accused Anand Kumar Singh and Transfer Posting Order Ex.PW2/C, Bio data Ex.PW2/B, Attendance Sheet Ex.PW1/B of accused Naveen Kumar Singh, Sanction Order of accused Naveen Kumar Singh Ex.PW7/A and Sanction Order of accused Anand Kumar Singh Ex.PW7/B. IO sent the relevant case property to FSL and obtained FSL Report Ex.PW9/D. IO on recording the statement of the witnesses and after completion of the Investigation, prepared the chargesheet and filed in the court.
7. After compliance with the provision U/S 207 of Cr.P.C and after hearing both sides on the point of charge, charge for offence punishable U/S 120B IPC r/w 7 and U/s 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and U/S 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and U/S 13 (1) (d) and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed as against both the accused Naveen Kumar Singh and Anand Kumar Singh vide order dated 10.12.2008 to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. C.C. No. 61/11 Page No. 7 of 23
8. That in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined 12 prosecution witnesses namely J.P.Kothari, a formal witness as PW1, R.K.Bilyan, a formal witness as PW2, Vikas Jain/complainant as PW3, SI Anand Swaroop, a formal witness as PW4, Ct.Mohanan A.M., a formal witness as PW5, the then Inspector Ashok Goswami, last IO as PW6, Sh.Vijay Kumar Dev the then Secretary cum Commissioner in the Department of Food & Supply, Govt. of NCT, Delhi, Sanctioning Authority as against both the accused as PW7, Vijay Kumar Sharma, Panch witness as PW8, the then Inspector Hari Chand, IO as PW9, HC Surender Singh, a formal witness as PW10, the then Inspector Sunil Kumar, Raid Officer as PW11 and Mukesh Chand, a formal witness as PW12.
9. After closure of the PE, statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which they denied about any demand and acceptance of the bribe from the complainant and claimed to be falsely implicated in this case by the complainant. However, the accused have got examined 12 witnesses namely HC Suman Singh as DW1, HC Ashok Kumar as DW2, HC Manish Kumar as DW3, HC Chhotey Lal as DW4, HC Harkesh as DW5, HC Yoginder Singh as DW6, ASI Sunil Minz as DW7, SI Suman Kumar C.C. No. 61/11 Page No. 8 of 23 as DW8, HC Banwari Lal as DW9, Ct.Arun Kumar as DW10, SI Hawa Singh as DW11 and HC Chhotey Lal as DW12.
10. I have heard Final Arguments as addressed by Sh.H.K. Sharma, Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused Naveen Kumar Singh, Ms. Geeta Babbar, Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused Anand Kumar Singh and Sh. Abdul Aleem, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and perused the relevant record.
11. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Naveen Kumar Singh that this accused has neither demanded nor accepted any bribe from the complainant and prosecution has failed to prove about the said aspects and hence, this accused deserves to be acquitted. It is also added by him that neither PW3/complainant nor PW8/Panch witness have deposed anything about the demand of bribe or about the conversation between the accused and the complainant and therefore, this accused deserves to be acquitted. It is also added by him that PW3/complainant has not even identified the accused. It is also added by him that there is nothing on record to establish regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe against the accused and therefore, no case U/S 7 & 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is made C.C. No. 61/11 Page No. 9 of 23 out against this accused. It is also added by him that even PW8/Panch witness has also not deposed anything regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe as against this accused. It is also added by him that despite thorough crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP of PW3/complainant and PW8/Panch witness, nothing material to substantiate the case of the prosecution could be extracted from them. It is also added by him that since this accused was working as Inspector in Enforcement Branch of Food and Supply Department and had to keep surveillance and collect information about illegal transaction of kerosene, cooking gas, diesel etc. and being aggrieved against the said duty of the accused and as the accused has got registered several FIRs, against various persons and therefore, the accused has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also added by him that since PW7 has passed the Sanction Order against this accused mechanically without due application of mind and therefore, the entire trial stands vitiated. Thus, Ld. Defence Counsel urged for acquittal of this accused Naveen Kumar Singh.
12. Ms. Geeta Babbar, Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused Anand Kumar Singh has submitted that she adopted the aforesaid submissions as made by Counsel for the accused Naveen Kumar C.C. No. 61/11 Page No. 10 of 23 Singh on final argument, concerning the accused Anand Kumar Singh and hence, Ld. Counsel for the accused Anand Kumar Singh urged for his acquittal.
13. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution by examining 12 PWs have clearly established its case as against both the accused persons namely Naveen Kumar Singh and Anand Kumar Singh and therefore, they deserve to be convicted for the charged offence. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that PW3/complainant and PW8/Panch witness by being won over by the accused persons have not deposed anything as against them but same can be of no help for the accused. It is further added by Ld. Addl.PP that PW11/Raid Officer and PW9/IO have specifically deposed as against both these accused and there is no reason to disbelieve the same specifically when they had no prior enmity as against the accused persons. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that FSL Result duly corroborate the stand of the prosecution. Thus, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has added that the prosecution has been successful in establishing its case as against both these accused persons for the charged offence and hence, they deserved to be convicted.
C.C. No. 61/11 Page No. 11 of 23
14. The first and foremost question having significant bearing on the fate of this case is whether prosecution has proved that valid Sanction has been accorded by the Competent Authority as per Section 19 (1) (c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In order to prove the Sanction, the prosecution has examined PW7 Sh. Vijay Kumar Dev who has categorically deposed that on 25.10.2007 while he was posted as Secretary cum Commissioner in the Department of Food & Supply and Consumer Affairs, Govt. of NCT, Delhi, on receiving the request from Anti Corruption Branch alongwith coy of FIR, copy of Rukka, Seizure Memo, FSL Result and other documents for granting Sanction for prosecution of accused Naveen Kumar Singh and Anand Kumar Singh, GradeII, Inspectors in Enforcement Branch, Food and Supply Department, Govt. of NCT, Delhi as he was competent to remove the said accused from service and after perusal of the aforesaid documents and applying his mind, he accorded the Sanction U/S 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act to prosecute the accused Naveen Kumar Singh and Anand Kumar Singh vide Sanction Order Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B respectively which bears his signatures at point A. He had specifically denied the suggestion of Ld. Defence Counsel that he had accorded the sanction mechanically without proper application of mind or that he was not competent to C.C. No. 61/11 Page No. 12 of 23 grant Sanction.
15. In the case reported as State of Maharashtra and ors. V/s Ishvar Piraji Kelpatri & ors 1996 Cri.L.J.1127, where Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down that if the Authority according Sanction makes statement that while signing the order of Sanction, it had personally scrutinized the file and had arrived at required satisfaction, it is not necessary to look for, that there was application of mind or not or that material on record was examined by the concerned officer or not before according sanction, especially when order prima facie shows that, he had done so.
16. Furthermore, in the case reported as 2004 (13) SCC 487, Shankar Bhai Lalji Bhai Vs. State of Gujrat, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "So far as the question of Sanction is concerned, in the absence of anything to show that any defect or irregularity therein caused failure of justice, that plea is without substance."
17. In the case reported in 2011 I AD (CRI.) (S.C.) 1, Kootha C.C. No. 61/11 Page No. 13 of 23 Perumal Vs. State (through) Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption, it was held in Para 14 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "Keeping in view the aforesaid statement of law, it would not be possible to conclude that the sanction order in the present case was not valid. Ex.P2 with the present appeal is the copy of the sanction order. A perusal of the same would show that the sanctioning authority has adverted to all the necessary facts which have been actually proved by the prosecution in the trial. Upon examination of the material facts, the sanctioning authority has certified that it is the authority competent to remove the appellant from the office. It is specifically stated that the statements of the witnesses have been duly examined. Sanction order also states that the other materials such as copy of the FIR as well as other official documents such as the different mahazars were carefully examined. Upon examination of the statements of the witnesses as also the material on record, the sanctioning authority has duly recorded its satisfaction that the C.C. No. 61/11 Page No. 14 of 23 appellant should be prosecuted for the offences, as noticed above. We, therefore, find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel that the sanctioning order to prosecute the appellant was not legal".
18. By taking cue from the aforesaid judgments and applying the same to the facts of the present case, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused persons to the effect that Sanction Orders were passed mechanically as I am of considered view that the Sanction have been validly granted by PW7 Sh.Vijay Kumar Dev, the then Secretary cum Commissioner in the Department of Food and Supply, Govt. of NCT, Delhi who was competent to do so.
19. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that it is the case of the prosecution that on 13.12.06 both the accused persons namely Naveen Kumar Singh and Anand Kumar Singh while posted as Inspectors in Enforcement Branch of Food and Supply Department by hatching criminal conspiracy demanded bribe of Rs.50,000/ which was scaled down to Rs.20,000/ from the complainant/Vikas Jain in consideration for not registering the case against him for selling kerosene oil in blackmarket without license and subsequently on the C.C. No. 61/11 Page No. 15 of 23 same day itself accused Anand Kumar Singh on the asking of co accused Naveen Kumar Singh has received said bribe amount of Rs.20,000/ from the complainant. However, from the perusal of the deposition of PWs, it is clearly reflected that PW3/Vikas Jain/complainant and PW8/Vijay Kumar Sharma/Panch witness who are the most material witnesses of the prosecution relating to the demand and acceptance of the bribe are found to have given clean chit to these accused persons and despite searching cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, no material to help the stand of the prosecution could be extracted from them.
20. PW3/Vikas Jain/complainant in his deposition before the court found to have given complete clean chit to both these accused and had even not identified them and has denied to have made any such statement as per the contents of Complaint Ex.PW3/A and despite thorough cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, nothing material to help the stand of the prosecution could be brought out from him. Said PW3/complainant in his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP has stated that he had not mentioned in his Complaint that the accused had demanded bribe of Rs.50,000/ from him to settle the matter and finally agreed to accept Rs.20,000/ as bribe. He has also denied C.C. No. 61/11 Page No. 16 of 23 regarding the production of Rs.20,000/ in the denomination of 40 GC notes of Rs.500/ each before the Raid Officer and also denied regarding the PreRaid Proceedings and Post Raid Proceedings. Said PW3 has also denied to have has made any such statement to the police that accused Anand Kumar Singh enquired from him as to whether he has brought the money, on which he replied in affirmative and thereafter, he delivered the said bribe amount to the accused Anand Kumar Singh at the instance of accused Naveen Kumar Singh. Said PW3 has also denied about the recovery of the bribe amount from the shirt pocket of the accused Anand Kumar Singh by Panch witness on the instructions of the Raid Officer. He has also denied about taking of any hand wash solution of accused Anand Kumar Singh in the colorless solution of sodium carbonate at the spot. Said PW3 has denied the specific suggestion of Ld. Addl. PP for the State on material aspect regarding demand and acceptance of the bribe as he has deposed in this respect as under: "It is wrong to suggest that accused Naveen Kumar and Anand Kumar both present in the court had come to my shop and demanded bribe of Rs.50000 for not taking action against me for selling kerosene oil at my shop. It is further wrong to suggest that both the accused persons agreed to accept Rs.20,000 as bribe. It is C.C. No. 61/11 Page No. 17 of 23 further wrong to suggest that I went to AC Branch on my own and I lodged complaint Ex.PW3/A. It is further wrong to suggest that my signatures were not obtained on the blank papers. It is further wrong to suggest that I alongwith the raiding team reached the petrol pump where I was called by accused Naveen Kumar and accused Naveen Kumar demanded bribe of Rs.20,000 which I handed over to accused Anand Kumar on the instruction of accused Naveen Kumar. It is further wrong to suggest that all the proceedings were conducted in my presence which I signed after going through the same."
Furthermore, said PW3/complainant has not identified any of the case property before the court during course of his deposition.
21. Similarly, PW8/Vijay Kumar Sharma/Panch witness is also found to have not deposed anything as against these accused persons by giving clean chit to them. Said PW8 is found to have not deposed anything regarding demand of bribe by these accused from the complainant. From the perusal of the deposition of PW8/Panch witness, it is clearly reflected that the complainant without any demand of bribe had tried to deliver the same which has resulted in scuffle between the complainant and two motorcycle riders at the spot C.C. No. 61/11 Page No. 18 of 23 as said PW8 has deposed in this respect as under: "Complainant asked me to follow them alongwith him on the motorcycle and we followed them upto the end of Flyover and thereafter complainant gave signal to them to stop and accordingly those two motorcycle rider stopped. Complainant took out tainted G.C. Notes from his pant pocket, but I do not know if he took out from left pocket or right pocket and thereafter, tried to give the tainted money to the motorcycle riders and in the process complainant took out key of the motorcycle of those two persons and then scuffle took place between complainant and those two motorcycle riders as a result of which complainant as well as said two motorcycle riders sustained injuries. In the process of scuffle tainted G.C. Notes fell down on the road. On this I made alarm. The raiding party on hearing the alarm reached at the spot. I do not know the name of those two persons. Those two persons are not present in the Court today. I also do not know any of the accused person present in the Court today."
22. Said PW8/Panch witness is also found to have been C.C. No. 61/11 Page No. 19 of 23 thoroughly cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP but no material to help the stand of the prosecution could be brought out by him. As said PW8 in his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP had denied the specific suggestion that on asking of accused Naveen Kumar to the complainant as to whether he has brought the bribe amount, the complainant replied in affirmative and thereafter, accused assured him not to take any action against him. He has also denied the specific suggestion of Ld. Addl. PP that on the asking of accused Naveen Kumar Singh, the complainant delivered the bribe amount to co accused Anand Kumar Singh. Said PW8/Panch witness has denied to have made any such statement as per the contents of Ex.PW8/B and was confronted by Ld. Addl. PP in this respect. Said PW8 has also deposed in the court that several documents were got signed by the officials of Anti Corruption Branch in the night and had not given any opportunity to him to go through the contents of the same.
23. From the perusal of the deposition of PW11/Raid Officer, the then Inspector Sunil Kumar, it is also clearly reflected that he has not heard about the conversation between the complainant and the accused persons. As in his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he has deposed in this respect: C.C. No. 61/11 Page No. 20 of 23 "It is correct that I had not heard any conversation, transpiring between the complainant and the accused persons, present in the court, uptill the time the accused persons were apprehended. There is no mention of any conversation between the complainant and the accused persons in the post raid report, after the apprehension of the accused persons."
24. In view of the aforesaid material as available on the record, it is clearly reflected that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish regarding the factum of demand of bribe by the accused persons from the complainant and therefore, the presumption as contemplated U/S 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be attracted in this case and my said view is found supported from the judgment as rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported as AIR 2007 SC 489 "V.Venkata Subbarao vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, A.P." In Para 24 of the said judgment, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "Submission of the learned counsel for the State that presumption has rightly been raised against the appellant, cannot be accepted as, inter alia, the demand itself had not been proved. In the C.C. No. 61/11 Page No. 21 of 23 absence of a proof of demand, the question of raising the presumption would not arise. Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 provides for raising of a presumption only if a demand is proved".
25. In the absence of proof of "Demand of bribe" by the accused persons, I am of the considered view that the accused persons cannot be held liable for penal provisions U/S 7 and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for which they have been charged with and my said view is found supported from the following judgments: (1)2006 (1) SCC 401 "T.Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu"
(2) 2005 Crl.L.J. 1136 "State of H.P. Vs. Sukhdev Singh Rana"
(3) 2007 Crl.L.J. 2919 "State of M.P.vs. Anil Kumar Verma"
(4) 2006 (3) RCR (Crl.) 796 "Amrit Lal vs. State of Punjab"
(5) 2000 Crl,.L.J. 4591 "State of M.P. Vs. J.B.Singh"
(6) 2006 (1) RCR (Crl.) 314 "L.K.Jain vs. The State"
(7) 2005 (4) RCR (Crl) 716 "R.V.Subba Rao Vs. State"
(8) AIR 1979 SC 1408 "Suraj Mal Vs. State"
(9) 1992 (3) RCR (Crl.) 139 "Pritam Singh vs. State of Haryana"
(10) 2009 (4) LRC 275 (SC) "State of Maharastra Vs. C.C. No. 61/11 Page No. 22 of 23 Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede"
26. Furthermore, there is nothing on record to establish that both the accused persons have entered into any criminal conspiracy to raise demand and accept any bribe amount from the complainant and therefore, they cannot be held liable for offence punishable U/S 120B r/w Section 7 and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for which they have been charged with.
27. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that the prosecution has failed to establish its case as against both the accused persons namely Naveen Kumar Singh and Anand Kumar Singh and therefore, both these accused persons are ordered to be acquitted of the charged offence. Resultantly, their bail bonds stand cancelled and their sureties stand discharged. Announced in the open court on this 7th day of January, 2012 (B.R. Kedia) Special Judge07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC,Delhi C.C. No. 61/11 Page No. 23 of 23