Delhi District Court
Cbi vs (1) Mukhtiar Singh Sangha on 24 May, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI P.S. TEJI : DISTRICT JUDGE
(EAST) cum SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI), KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI.
AC No.06/2004
Unique Case ID No.02402R0551462004
FIR No.RC DAI20040012
Under Sec.7 and 13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.
CBI Versus (1) Mukhtiar Singh Sangha
S/o Sh. Sadhu Singh
R/o H. No. 48, Samrat Gali, Village
Khajoori Khas, PO Gokal Puri,
Delhi 110094.
(2) Pawan Jain S/o B.D. Jain
R/o WZ1247, Nangal Raya,
Delhi110046.
Date of Institution : 20.12.2004
Date of judgment reserved : 05.05.2011
Date of judgment : 20.05.2011
JUDGMENT
Two accused persons, namely, Mukhtiar Singh AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 1 of 67 Sangha and Pawan Jain (both on bail) have been sent to face trial by the Anti Corruption Branch of the CBI, for the offences punishable under Section 7 & 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. 2 At the time of commission of the offence, the accused Mukhtiar Singh Sangha was posted as Addl.SHO Police Station Khajoori Khas, North East District, Delhi whereas accused Pawan Jain was a private person.
3 Briefly stating, the facts of the present case are that the FIR, Ex.PW11/B of the present case was registered against the accused persons on the basis of a written complaint dated 24.02.2004, Ex.PW11/A, made by Shri Okender Kumar Sharma (PW11) (hereinafter shall be referred as complainant) to the CBI to the effect that he was doing the work of Carpenter in Delhi Metro. He had lodged a case under section 308 IPC in Police Station Najafgarh against Ajit Singh and others who were extending threats to him time and again to withdraw the case or to face the consequences. On 14th December, at 8.30 p.m., two persons stopped the complainant at Khajoori Mohalla Pusta and gave beatings to him. Complainant informed the police at number 100 which was assigned to ASI Jagan Nath. No action was taken on the said complaint, therefore, on AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 2 of 67 20.02.2004, complainant met the Addl. SHO M.S.Sanga who demanded bribe of Rs. 15,000/ to register a case against Ajit Singh, Naresh Solanki, Narender and Tajender Singh and to get their bail cancelled. Again on 21.02.2004 at 4.00 p.m., complainant met Addl SHO M.S.Sangha and told him that he was unable to pay such an amount on which, M.S.Sangha asked him to arrange Rs.15,000/ and to come with an application. The said conversation was recorded by the complainant in a small tape recorder. A copy of the said conversation was given to the CBI. As the complainant did not want to pay bribe, he lodged complaint with the CBI.
4 Complaint Ex.PW11/A was made the basis for registration of the FIR Ex.PW11/B. On 24.02.2004, complainant produced the cassette Ex.P14, its inlay card is Ex.P15 containing conversation between him and accused M.S.Sangha dated 21.02.2004. The same was converted into a sealed pulanda and its cloth wrapper is Ex.P16. Cassette Ex.P14 was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/B. Investigation of the case was assigned to Inspector M.M.Ansari (PW20). Two independent witnesses, namely, Sunil Kumar Mathur (PW9) and R.K.Bali(PW10) were arranged. The complaint was shown to them. A trap team consisting of independent witnesses AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 3 of 67 (PW9 & 10), complainant(PW11), Inspector Prem Nath(PW21) headed by Inspector M.M.Ansari(PW20) was formed. The complainant produced a sum of Rs. 15,000 in the denomination of 10 GC notes of Rs. 500/ and 100 GC notes of Rs. 100. The number of GC notes were recorded in handing over memo Ex.PW9/A. The said currency notes with phenolphthalein powder. The significance of phenolphthalein powder's reaction with sodium carbonate solution was explained by practical demonstration. The pretrap proceedings conducted in the CBI office were noted down in handing over memo Ex.PW9/A. Bribe amount of Rs. 5000/ was kept in left pant pocket and Rs. 10,000/ was kept in right pant pocket of the complainant. He was directed to hand over the bribe amount to the accused only on his specific demand. Witness Sunil Kumar Mathur (PW9) was directed to act as shadow witness in order to see and overhear the conversation. He was also directed to give signal to the trap party by scratching his head with both the hands after transaction of bribe. The other independent witness Sh. R.K.Bali(PW10) was directed to remain with the trap team. One digital recorder was given to the complainant to record the conversation.
5 Thereafter, trap team left for Police Station Khajoori AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 4 of 67 Khas. On the way, the application desired by accused M.S.Sangha was given to the complainant. Trap team reached Police Station Khajoori Khas at 5.15 p.m. Complainant was directed to switch of the digital recorder prior to approaching the accused. The complainant (PW11) and shadow witness Sunil Kumar Mathur(PW9) entered the Police Station whereas the other members of the trap party took suitable positions. Accused M.S.Sangha was seen leaving the Police Station along with other police officials. He returned back at 6.50 p.m. Thereafter, complainant(PW11) along with shadow witness (PW9) went inside the chamber of accused M.S.Sangha. After sometime, shadow witness(PW9) came out of his chamber. After sometimes, complainant(PW11) came out and both of them had given the preappointed signal. The trap party entered the office of accused M.S.Sangha and after disclosing their identity, he was challenged whether he had demanded and accepted bribe of Rs. 15,000/ from the complainant on which he kept mum. At that time, in his office, one Rajesh Bhardwaj(PW18) was found sitting. On asking, complainant (PW11) informed that he along with shadow witness(PW9) had entered the room of the accused M.S.Sangha. Accused M.S.Sangha directed shadow witness(PW9) to outside the room and then he AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 5 of 67 discussed the matter with him. He further informed that accused M.S.Sangha made gestures to the complainant to keep the tainted amount in the drawer of his table. On his direction, complainant kept the tainted notes in the drawer of the table of the accused M.S.Sangha. Thereafter, accused directed the complainant to get photocopy of the application brought by him and then only complainant came out of the chamber and gave the signal to the trap team. The other independent witness R.K.Bali(PW10) recovered the tainted amount of Rs. 15,000/ from the drawer of the table of accused M.S.Sangha. The number of recovered GC notes Ex.P1 (colly) tallied with the numbers mentioned in the handing over memo Ex.PW9/A. The digital recorder was taken back from the complainant. Same was played which also confirmed the demand and acceptance of bribe by accused M.S.Sangha from the complainant. The recorded conversation at the spot was transferred into a cassette Ex.P17, its inlay card is Ex.P18 and its cloth wrapper is Ex.P19. 6 The hands of accused M.S.Sangha were got washed in the solution of sodium carbonate but no reaction was noted. Stapler pin box Ex.P8, match box Ex.P9 and newspaper Ex.P10(envelopes in which they were kept were exhibited as Ex.P11 to P13) recovered AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 6 of 67 from the drawer of the table of accused M.S.Sangha were washed in the separate solution of sodium carbonate which turned into pink colour. Those solutions were separately transferred in glass bottles Ex.P2, P3 and P4 respectively. Those bottles were converted into sealed pulandas and their cloth wrappers are Ex.P5,P6 and P7. All the post trap proceedings conducted at the spot were recorded in recovery memo Ex.PW9/D. The search of office of accused M.S.Sangha was conducted vide search cum seizure memo Ex.PW9/F. Site plan Ex.PW9/G was prepared by the Investigating Officer(PW20). Accused M.S.Sangha was arrested vide arrest cum personal search memo Ex.PW9/E. Intimation regarding arrest of accused M.S.Sangha was given to SHO Police Station Khajoori Khas vide Ex.PW20/A. The application Ex.PW11/C with the complainant was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/C. Seal Ex.P23 after use was handed over to R.K.Bali(PW10).
7 On 25.02.2004, in the presence of independent witnesses, specimen voice of accused M.S.Sangha was recorded vide specimen voice recording memo Ex.PW9/H. Same was converted into a cassette Ex.P20, its inlay card is Ex.P21 and cloth wrapper is Ex.P22.
AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 7 of 67 8 Further investigation of the case was transferred to Inspector Lalit Kaushik(PW22). An application under section 17 of the P.C.Act authorizing Inspector Lalit Kaushik(PW22) was moved before the Court on which order Ex.PW22/A was passed vide which he was allowed to carry out further investigation into the matter. Investigating Officer(PW22) seized the mobile phone including SIM of mobile phone No. 9811830508 used by accused Pawan Jain vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/A from Rohtash Kumar(PW17). Investigating Officer(PW22) requested accused M.S.Sangha to give his specimen handwriting and specimen voice but he refused the same. Refusal memo dated 31.08.2004 in this regard is Ex.PW16/A which was prepared in the presence of independent witness Sachin Gupta(PW16). An application dated 9.6.2004 Ex.PW12/A was written by the Investigating Officer(PW22) to the SHO Police Station Khajoori Khas seeking information about postings of accused M.S.Sangha, on the bottom of the said application, it was informed that accused M.S.Sangha took charge of Addl. SHO vide DD No.9A dated 12.10.2003. Investigating Officer(PW22) vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/2 seized a copy of FIR No. 313/2003 Ex.PW4/1 from SI Surender Singh Yadav(PW4) posted in Police Station Najafgarh. AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 8 of 67 Investigating Officer(PW22) prepared the transcriptions Ex.PW22/B and Ex.PW22/C. Vide letter dated 11.04.2004 Ex.PW3/3, some information was given to the CBI by the SHO Police Station Khajoori Khas and the document Ex.PW3/1, Ex.PW3/2 and Ex.PW3/4 to Ex.PW/6 were annexed with it. Vide letter dated 6.5.2004 Ex.PW5/1 addressed to the Investigating Officer(PW22), copies of DD entries dated 14/15.12.2003 Ex.PW5/2 to Ex.PW5/6 were furnished by the ACP, Seelam Pur.
9 Preetpal Singh(PW7) has stated that mobile Phone No. 9811644857 was used by him. He obtained the same vide application form Ex.PW7/A and he annexed the copy of his driving license Ex.PW7/B along with the same. Sh. Jyotish Moharana(PW8), Nodal Officer of Vodafone stated that vide letter dated 29.04.04 Ex.PW8/A, call details in respect of mobile No. 9811830508, 9811644857 and 9899347781 for the period 1.1.2004 to 25.02.2004 were provided to CBI. He stated that mobile No. 9811830508 was in the name of Surender Saini vide application form Ex.PW8/B. He also stated that mobile No. 9899347781 was in the name of Ms. Sonal Aggarwal vide application form Ex.PW8/C. He proved the cell ID chart as Ex.PW8/D. He proved the call details of all the above three AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 9 of 67 mobile phones as Ex.PW8/E, Ex.PW8/F and Ex.PW8/G for the period 1.1.2004 to 31.03.2004.
10 During investigation, the cassette containing questioned voice of accused M.S.Sangha and cassette containing his specimen voice were sent to FSL. In FSL, same were examined by Dr. Rajender Singh(PW1) who gave his report Ex.PW1/A. The washes were also sent to FSL which were examined by Sh.C.L.Bansal (PW2) who gave his report Ex.PW2/A. The sanction Ex.PW23/A for the prosecution of accused M.S.Sangha was recorded by Sh. B.S.Brar (PW23) the then Joint Commissioner of Police.
11 After completion of the investigation, the challan was put up in the court where the accused persons were supplied with the copies of the chargesheet and the documents of the CBI. 12 The charges under Section 120B IPC and also under Section 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act were framed against accused M.S. Sangha on 24.10.2007. Separate charge under Section 109 read with Section 120B IPC and Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act was framed against accused Pawan Jain. Accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed trial.
AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 10 of 67 13 The prosecution has examined 24 witnesses in support of its case. Out of those witnesses, PW11 Sh. Okender Kumar Sharma is the complainant. PW9 Sh. Sunil Kumar Mathur, PW10 Sh. R.K. Bali and PW16 Sh. Sachin Gupta are the independent witnesses. PW1 Dr. Rajender Singh examined voices of accused M.S.Sangha in FSL whereas PW2 Sh. C.L.Bansal examined the washes in FSL. PW4 SI Surender Singh Yadav is the witness of FIR No. 313/2003 Police Station Najafgarh. PW3 ASI J.N.Prasad, PW6 HC Jagmohan and PW12 SI Ram Manohar were posted in Police Station Khajoori Khas at the relevant time. PW5 Inspector Sahid Khan was the Reader to ACP, Seelam Pur. PW7 Preetpal Singh stated that he was user of mobile No. 9811644857 which was allegedly used by accused M.S.Sangha. PW13 Kamal Thareja, PW14 Suresh Kumar Panghal and PW19 Vijay Khandelwal are the witnesses with regard to mobile phone No. 9811830508 allegedly used by accused Pawan Jain. PW15 Ct. Naresh Ahlawat and PW24 Satbir Singh have been examined to prove the alleged conspiracy between the accused persons. PW17 Rohtash Kumar is the attesting witness of seizure of mobile phone of accused Pawan Jain. PW18 Rajesh Bhardwaj allegedly witnessed the transaction of bribe. PW8 AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 11 of 67 Jyotish Moharana is the alternative Nodal Officer of Vodafone/ Hutch who proved the call details, ownership details and cell ID record. PW 20 SI M.M. Ansari and PW22 Inspector Lalit Kaushik are the Investigating Officers of the case whereas PW21 Inspector Prem Nath remained associated in the investigation. PW23 B.S.Brar the then Joint Commissioner of Delhi Police granted sanction for prosecution of accused M.S.Sangha.
14 Statements of both the accused have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. The accused persons have either showed their ignorance or denied the present case against them. Accused M.S.Sangha has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case as CBI officers were having grudge against him. He was a trap laying Officer in a case of Anti Corruption Branch against Ex CBI Officer Inspector Rajesh Kumar. Accused M.S.Sangha opted to lead defence evidence whereas accused Pawan Jain has not preferred to lead any evidence in his defence. On 13.04.2011, accused M.S.Sangha made the statement before the Court that he did not want to lead defence evidence, therefore, defence evidence was closed. 15 I have heard Shri S. Krishna Kumar, learned PP for the CBI, Sh. H.K.Sharma Ld. Counsel for accused M.S.Sangha as AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 12 of 67 well as Ms. Geeta Babbar learned defence counsel for the accused Pawan Jain. I have also carefully gone through their submissions and the material available on record.
16 The learned PP for the CBI has argued that from the statements of the complainant, independent public witnesses, remained associates in the proceedings conducted by the investigating agency and other material, the CBI has proved its case against the accused persons that they criminally conspired to demand and accept bribe from the complainant. It is further argued that prosecution has duly established the abetment of crime by accused Pawan Jain. The prosecution has also established beyond reasonable doubt regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.15,000/ by accused M.S.Sangha. The acceptance and recovery of bribe of Rs.15,000/ by the accused M.S.Sangha has duly been proved on the record. He has further argued that being public servant, accused M.S.Sangha has demanded and accepted the illegal gratification from the complainant for registering FIR against Ajit Singh and others. 17 On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused Pawan Jain has argued that there is no evidence or material on record to connect the accused with the allegations of conspiracy and AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 13 of 67 abetment. On behalf of accused M.S.Sangha, it is argued that the sanction accorded is defective and the sanctioning authority passed the sanction order in mechanical manner. The prosecution could not establish the demand of bribe at the initial stage as well as at the time of trap. It is argued that there is no evidence reflecting any meeting of mind between accused persons. It is further argued that there is no consistency in the evidence of witnesses, complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution and even in cross examination denied the alleged demand and acceptance of any money by accused M.S.Sangha. It is further argued that complainant even did not identify accused M.S.Sangha. It is argued that the documents prepared at the spot are inadmissible in evidence. It is further argued that when the prosecution has failed to establish its one part of story i.e. conspiracy, remaining part of the story can not be believed. It is further argued that witnesses have made different statements at different stages, therefore, their testimony can not be relied upon. It is further argued that it is a settled that if from the evidence adduced, if two views are possible, one favouring the accused and other against the accused, then benefit should be given to accused. It is further argued that expert witnesses(PW1 and PW2) were not having AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 14 of 67 adequate experience and skill to conduct the test. It is further argued that accused can establish their case by preponderance of probability whereas the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is further argued that alleged bribe money was planted upon the accused M.S.Sangha without his knowledge, so he is entitled for benefit of doubt. It is further argued that accused M.S.Sangha has been falsely implicated in the present case as CBI officials were having grudge against him for the reasons that he was a Trap Laying officer in a case against a CBI officer. It is further argued that accused is entitled for acquittal as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
18 The necessary ingredients in trap cases are as under :
(1) Valid sanction for prosecution of the accused;
(2) Demand of bribe at previous stage;
(3) Demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe amount at the time of trap beyond reasonable doubt.
19 Apart from the above ingredients of trap case, the Courts are also required to look into the defence taken by the accused. The Courts are required to examine minutely whether the defence taken by the accused is probable one or not. If the accused fails to probabilise his defence and Court comes to the conclusion that the AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 15 of 67 defence of the accused is improbable, then adverse inference is warranted against him as provided U/s 20 of the P.C. Act. Sanction 20 It is argued on behalf of the accused M.S.Sangha that the sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, obtained in the present case, for the prosecution of the accused, is defective and invalid in law as the same has been given in mechanical manner. On the other hand, learned PP for the CBI has argued that the requisite sanction under section 19 of the Act was obtained as per law for the prosecution of the accused M.S.Sangha, being public servant. 21 Section 19 of the Act deals with the sanction required for prosecuting the public servant. The said section reads as under:
"19.Previous sanction necessary for prosecution(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction
(a) In the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government;
(b) In the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 16 of 67 removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government;
(c) In the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office."
22 Section 19 of the Act provides protection to an accused who happened to be public servant at the time of taking the cognizance by the court. The purpose of sanction under section 19 of the Act to have the approval of the competent authority to remove the accused from the office, is just because that at the time of taking the cognizance, he was a public servant.
23 In order to prove the sanction granted for the prosecution of the accused M.S.Sangha, the prosecution has examined Shri B.S. Brar (PW23), the then Joint Commissioner of Delhi Police. He has stated in his statement before the court that he was competent to remove accused Inspector M.S. Sangha. According to him, Inspector Lalit Kaushik, came to his office along with the case file of the present case in respect of accused Inspector M.S. Sangha, the then Addl, SHO Police Station Khajoori Khas. He had perused the case file of the present case, statement of witnesses, seizure memos and other material and after due consideration and application of mind, he accorded sanction Ex.PW23/A for prosecution of the accused M.S. AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 17 of 67 Sangha. The learned defence counsel for accused M.S. Sangha has not preferred to cross examine this witness. Therefore, his testimony regarding according of sanction in respect of accused M.S. Sangha remained unimpeached.
24 In the recent judgment of our own Hon'ble High Court in case titled Ram Chander Versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (Reported in 2009 Cri. L.J. 4058), it was observed that the sanctioning authority himself proved the sanction order by appearing as witness who has categorically deposed that he granted the sanction after going through the papers produced before him. Once the sanctioning authority has been produced in the court, unless there is anything brought on record which may vitiate the sanction order, the sanction order has to be taken as proved.
25 In the present case, the CBI has produced the sanctioning authority, namely, Sh. B.S. Brar (PW23) and he has duly proved the sanction order of the accused M.S. Sangha as Ex.PW23/A for his prosecution. The perusal of sanction order shows that the sanctioning authority after carefully examining the material on record placed before him with regard to the allegations and circumstances of the case and after applying his mind, granted the sanction for the AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 18 of 67 prosecution of the accused M.S. Sangha.
26 Consequently, in view of the above mentioned discussion, it is held that the Sanctioning Authority i.e. Sh. B.S. Brar (PW23) was competent to accord the sanction for the prosecution of the accused M.S.Sangha and it can not be said that sanction for his prosecution vide order Ex.PW23/A was accorded in mechanical manner or the same is defective.
Criminal Conspiracy & abetment 27 The next question for consideration is whether there was any criminal conspiracy between the accused persons for demand and acceptance of the bribe amount from the complainant (PW11). The essence of criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination and an agreement of minds between two or more accused persons whereby they cooperate to accomplish an object. In the present case, it is alleged that both the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, criminally conspired to demand and accept the bribe amount from the complainant (PW11). Apart from hatching a criminal conspiracy, accused Pawan Jain has also been charged separately for abetting the offence under section 7 & 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act.
AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 19 of 67 28 It has been argued by Ld. Defence counsel that there is no evidence on record which could connect the accused persons for the commission of conspiracy. The complainant (PW11) has not stated even a single word with regard to meeting of mind between the accused persons.
29 Case of the prosecution as per chargesheet is that complainant (PW11) met the accused M.S. Sangha in his office on 15/16.2.2004 as no action on his complaint was taken and at that time accused Pawan Jain was also sitting there. Accused Pawan Jain told the complainant that he had to spend some money to get his work done. It is also alleged that on the next day, when complainant again went to office of accused M.S. Sangha, he was not found there but accused Pawan Jain was sitting in his room. On that day, accused Pawan Jain and complainant exchanged their mobile numbers and on 20.2.2004. Accused Pawan Jain made call on the mobile of the complainant. It is also alleged that accused Pawan Jain informed the complainant that accused M.S.Sangha demanded Rs. 25,000/ to get his work done and asked the complainant to come to his office at Nangal Raya to discuss the matter. In the office of accused Pawan Jain, matter was discussed and he agreed to get the work done of AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 20 of 67 complainant through accused M.S.Sangha on payment of Rs. 15,000/. It is also alleged that on the day of trap i.e. on 24.02.2004, accused M.S.Sangha made call to accused Pawan Jain to confirm the identity of the complainant.
30 To prove the allegations of conspiracy between the accused persons, prosecution has examined the complainant(PW11). In his examination in chief, complainant has not stated even a single word with regard to demand of bribe by accused Pawan Jain on behalf of his coaccused M.S.Sangha for getting done his work. He was declared hostile by the prosecution and was cross examined by Ld. PP for the CBI. In cross examination by ld. PP for the CBI, he denied that on 15/16.02.2004 when he met accused M.S.Sangha, he had seen accused Pawan Jain sitting with him. He has not identified accused Pawan Jain in the Court. He stated that his statement was not recorded by the CBI. He also denied that on that day, accused Pawan Jain told him to make payment for getting his work done. He also denied that on the next day, accused Pawan Jain met him in the Office of accused M.S.Sangha or that they exchanged mobile number. He further denied that on 20.02.2004 accused Pawan Jain contacted him on his mobile thrice and told him that accused M.S.Sangha was AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 21 of 67 demanding Rs. 25,000/ for doing his work. He also denied that accused Pawan Jain asked him to come to his office at Nangal Raya or that at his office, he agreed to get his work done from accused M.S.Sangha for Rs. 15,000/. He also denied that on 21.02.2004, he met accused M.S.Sangha and told him that accused Pawan Jain fixed Rs. 15,000/ for getting his work done through accused M.S.Sangha. He voluntarily stated that he did not know how the name of accused Pawan Jain came up.
31 Complainant was confronted with the conversation recorded in cassette Ex.P14. After hearing the conversation, he denied that Jain Saheb, referred in the conversation pertains to accused Pawan Jain. He voluntarily stated that it was a code word meant for Investigating Officer. He denied that at the time of the trap, accused M.S.Sangha rang up accused Pawan Jain to confirm his identity. After hearing the conversation contained in cassette Ex.P 17 of the spot, complainant denied that accused M.S.Sangha spoke to accused Pawan Jain on telephone. He categorically denied that accused Pawan Jain mediated between him and accused M.S.Sangha or that accused M.S.Sangha accepted the bribe amount due to mediation of accused Pawan Jain.
AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 22 of 67 32 In the complaint dated 24.02.2004 Ex.PW11/A, it has not been mentioned by the complainant that he met accused Pawan Jain in the office of accused M.S.Sangha on 15/16.02.2004 as alleged in the chargesheet. It is also not mentioned in the complaint that on the next day also, complainant met accused Pawan Jain in the office of accused M.S.Sangha and they exchanged their mobile numbers. It is also not mentioned that accused Pawan Jain called the complainant and told him to get his work done through accused M.S.Sangha on payment of Rs. 25,000/. It is also not mentioned in the complaint that accused Pawan Jain asked the complainant to come to his office at Nangal Raya or that complainant visited the office of accused Pawan Jain where any such talks of demand of bribe was made by accused Pawan Jain for getting his work done through accused M.S.Sangha on payment of Rs. 15,000/. Name of accused Pawan Jain did not find mentioned in the entire complaint Ex.PW11/A. This complaint is dated 24.02.2004 whereas as per chargesheet of CBI, the alleged talks between accused Pawan Jain and complainant took place between 15/16.02.2004 and 20.02.2004.
33 Neither in the complaint Ex.PW11/A nor in the testimony of the complainant(PW11), name of accused Pawan Jain AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 23 of 67 surfaced as the person who demanded the bribe for and on behalf of accused M.S.Sangha for getting his work done. The prosecution has failed to show as to from where name of accused Pawan Jain cropped up as a conspirator and abettor to demand the bribe on behalf of accused M.S.Sangha. It may be that the name of accused Pawan Jain surfaced from the statement of the complainant dated 19.04.2004 recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. This is unsigned statement of the complainant and can not be relied upon to convict an accused in the absence of corroboration. Secondly, complainant has denied having made such statement to the CBI and categorically denied the contents of said statement put to him during cross examination by Ld. PP for the CBI.
34 The other evidence which has been relied upon by the prosecution to show the meeting of minds between both the accused is the call details record. It is alleged that accused Pawan Jain was using the mobile Phone No. 9811830508 at the relevant and had talks with the complainant thrice on 20.02.2004 when the alleged demand of bribe of Rs. 25,000/ was made. It is also alleged that on the day of trap i.e. on 24.02.2004, accused M.S.Sangha made call from his mobile phone to accused Pawan Jain to confirm the identity of AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 24 of 67 complainant.
35 In the chargesheet, it is mentioned that at the relevant time, mobile No. 9811830508 was in the name of Surender Saini which was being used by accused Pawan Jain. To prove this aspect, prosecution has examined Sh. Kamal Thareja(PW13). Prosecution has relied upon his statement Ex.PW13/A recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. in which it is mentioned that mobile No. 9811830508 was being used by accused Pawan Jain. But in the Court, this witness did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile and was cross examined by Ld. PP for the CBI. During course of cross examined, this witness stated that he never saw any person, namely, Pawan Jain. He could not say whether mobile No. 9811830508 was being used by accused Pawan Jain. He denied having made any statement before the CBI after being confronted with statement Ex.PW13/A. 36 Prosecution has also examined Sh. Suresh Kumar Panghal(PW14). It is claimed by the CBI that his statement Ex.PW14/A under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he stated that he is friend of accused Pawan Jain and that accused Pawan Jain was using mobile No. 9811830508. In his statement before the AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 25 of 67 Court, witness(PW14) stated that he was called by the CBI and they inquired about a person, namely, Pawan Jain but he told the CBI that he did not know any such person. He was also declared hostile by the prosecution and was cross examined by Ld. PP for the CBI. In cross examination, this witness(PW14) stated that he did not know any person, namely, Pawan Jain or his mobile number. He denied having made any statement Ex.PW14/A to the CBI.
37 Ex.PW8/E to Ex.PW8/G are the call details of mobile phones allegedly used by accused Pawan Jain, accused M.S.Sangha and complainant respectively. Case of the prosecution that above call details prove that there were talks amongst complainant and accused persons in which demand of bribe was made by accused Pawan Jain from the complainant and on the day of trap, accused M.S.Sangha confirmed the identity of the complainant from accused Pawan Jain. It may be true that calls were made or received on abovesaid mobile phones users but the prosecution has failed to establish that mobile phone No. 9811830508 was being used by accused Pawan Jain at the relevant time. The prosecution has examined PW13 Kamal Thareja and PW14 Suresh Kumar Panghal to substantiate its case that at the relevant period, said mobile phone was AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 26 of 67 being used by accused Pawan Jain. But both these witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and stated that they did not know any person by the name of Pawan Jain, what to say user of said mobile phone number. The prosecution has thus failed to establish on record that at the relevant period, accused Pawan Jain was the user of mobile phone No. 9811830508 from which calls might have been made or received on mobile phones of complainant or accused M.S.Sangha.
38 The another flaw in the prosecution's case is that in the chargesheet it is mentioned that the mobile phone No. 9811830508 allegedly being used by Pawan Jain was in the name of one Surender Saini. The Nodal officer of Vodafone/ Hutch, namely, Jyotish Mohrana(PW8) has proved the application form Ex.PW8/B which shows that mobile phone No. 9811830508 was issued in the name of Surender Saini. But the prosecution has failed to examine said Surender Saini to establish its case that he had given his said phone number to accused Pawan Jain for usage.
39 From the testimony of complainant(PW11), as discussed above, the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused Pawan Jain had any role to play in the AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 27 of 67 alleged demand and acceptance of bribe from the complainant. Testimony of complainant is completely silent with regard to his acquaintance with accused Pawan Jain. He has not identified accused Pawan Jain as the person who allegedly met him in the office of accused M.S.Sangha and as the person who demanded bribe of Rs. 25,000/ which was later on reduced to Rs. 15,000/ for getting his work done through accused M.S.Sangha. Moreover, witnesses Kamal Thareja(PW13) and Suresh Kumar Panghal(PW14) who are alleged to be the friends of accused Pawan Jain have also not identified accused Pawan Jain in the Court and categorically stated that they did not know any person by the name of Pawan Jain or about the mobile phone No. 9811830508 allegedly being used by him. In the absence of identification of accused Pawan Jain in the Court and in the absence of any proof regarding user of said mobile phone by him, the call details do not render any help to the prosecution to show his acquaintance either with the complainant or accused M.S.Sangha. 40 In view of aforementioned discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to bring anything on record to establish the charge of criminal conspiracy between the accused persons. As the prosecution has failed to show any AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 28 of 67 involvement of accused Pawan Jain in the demand and acceptance of bribe from the complainant, I am of the considered opinion that no charge for abetment of crime under section 109 IPC read with section 7 and 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act has been proved against accused Pawan Jain. Consequently, both the accused accused Pawan Jain and accused M.S.Sangha are acquitted under section 120B IPC. Accused Pawan Jain is also acquitted under section 109 IPC read with section 7 and 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act.
Demand of bribe at previous stage 41 Our own Hon'ble High Court in case titled Ram Chander Versus State (Reported in 2009 Cri. L.J. 4058) has framed the guidelines in trap cases. In the said judgment, it was observed that to succeed in trap cases, the prosecution is obliged to prove the previous demand of bribe, its acceptance and the recovery of tainted money. It was further observed that the demand can be proved by the testimony of complainant as well from the complaint made by him.
42 To prove the demand of bribe by accused M.S. Sangha, prosecution has examined the complainant (PW11). Complainant (PW11) in his testimony has stated that he was having AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 29 of 67 some quarrel with Ajit Singh who committed physical attacks on him, therefore, a case under section 308 IPC was registered against him. Thereafter, also Ajit Singh and his associates committed various physical attacks on the complainant (PW11) and he made complaint to Police Station Khajoori Khas but no action thereon was taken. In the Police Station, he met the Duty Officer, Sub Inspector as well as SHO accused M.S. Sangha. He also stated that he made complaint to the CBI against accused M.S. Sangha to the effect that he was demanding bribe from him for registration of the case on the basis of his complaint. He also stated that accused M.S. Sangha demanded bribe from him only once and he recorded the said demand of bribe in a tape which was produced by him to the CBI. He identified his complaint Ex.PW11/A made to the CBI and stated that the amount demanded was Rs.15,000/ on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW11/B was recorded.
43 Complainant (PW11) was declared hostile by the prosecution and was cross examined by Ld. PP for the CBI. In cross examination, he admitted the contents of his complaint Ex.PW11/A to be correct. He admitted the date of complaint as 24.2.2004. He stated that in his complaint he had mentioned that on 14th December, AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 30 of 67 at about 8.30 p.m. two persons stopped him at Khajoori Mohalla Pusta and beat him for which he made complaint at number 100 but no action was taken. He further stated that on 20th February, he met Addl SHO M.S.Sangha Police Station Khajoori Khas who said that in case complainant paid the bribe of Rs. 15,000/, case would be made out against Ajit Singh and others and their bail would be cancelled. On 21st, at 4.00 p.m. Complainant met the accused M.S.Sangha and pleaded him that he could not arrange that much amount on which accused told him to arrange Rs. 15,000/ and also to come with an application. The said conversation was recorded by the complainant (PW11) in a small tape recorder, copy of which was handed over to the CBI.
44 The perusal of the complaint Ex.PW11/A which is admitted by the complainant(PW11) having been made to the CBI shows that complainant mentioned therein that on 14th December, at about 8.30 pm. he was given beatings by two persons at Khajoori Mohalla Pusta for which he made complaint at number 100. It is also mentioned in the complaint that since no action was taken, complainant(PW11) approached accused M.S.Sangha in Police Station Khajoori Khas who demanded bribe of Rs. 15,000/ for AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 31 of 67 registration of a case against Ajit Singh and others and to get their bail cancelled. It is also mentioned in the complaint that on 21st, at 4.00 p.m., complainant(PW11) again met accused M.S.Sangha and expressed his inability to pay such an amount but accused M.S.Sangha again asked him to arrange Rs. 15,000/ and to come with an application. It is further mentioned in the complaint that the conversation between complainant(PW11) and accused M.S.Sangha was recorded in a tape recorder, a copy of which was given to the CBI.
45 The conversation allegedly recorded by the complainant(PW11) which took place between him and accused M.S.Sangha on 21.02.2004 was contained in cassette Ex.P14. Transcription of the said conversation has been proved as Ex.PW22/B. Transcription Ex.PW22/B shows that complainant (PW11) told accused M.S.Sangha that he had to bring Rs.15,000/ but he could not arrange the same and he would make the payment on Tuesday when he would get the payment from contractor. The complainant(PW11) narrated the earlier incident and the making of complaint to the police at number 100. Complainant(PW11) has specifically asked accused M.S.Sangha that he would bring the AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 32 of 67 money on Tuesday to which accused M.S.Sangha agreed. Accused M.S.Sangha also directed the complainant(PW11) to bring an application by mentioning therein that he was threatened and looted on gun point.
46 The contents of complaint Ex.PW11/A made by the complainant(PW11) to the CBI and the contents of transcription Ex.PW22/B have duly been corroborated by the complainant in his testimony before the Court. Though, it is correct that in examination in chief complainant turned hostile but the fact remains that he has categorically stated that he met accused M.S. Sangha in Police Station Khajoori Khas who demanded bribe from him for registering a case on the basis of his complaint. He has categorically stated that amount demanded by accused M.S. Sangha was Rs.15,000/ and the conversation took place at that time was recorded by him in tape recorder. Even in cross examination by Ld. PP for the CBI, complainant stated that when he met accused M.S. Sangha, he asked him to bring a written application and suggested him to write that "on 14.12.2003 Sh. Ajit Singh and two persons physically gave beatings to him and threatened to kill him on the point of a katta. Complainant admitted that accused M.S. Sangha told him that if he wrote such an AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 33 of 67 application and gave Rs.15,000/ then he would fix Ajit Singh and others. The cassette Ex.P14 containing conversation recorded on 21.2.2004 was played in the Court and after hearing the same, complainant (PW11) identified his voice and voice of accused M.S. Sangha. He identified his words "... AISA HAI KI PANDRAH HAZAR RUPAI LEKE JAANA HAIN WAHAN PE; MERA ARRANGEMENT AAJ KAM HO PAYA THA.....". He also identified the words spoken by accused M.S. Sangha "EK COMPLAINT LIKH KAR MERE PASS LE AAO". Complainant identified his words that "... MANGALWAR KO PAISE LE KAR AA JAOUNGA, COMPLAINT TABHI LE AOUN SIR" and the words of accused M.S. Sangha vide which he replied "HAAN LE AAO, USMEN SAARI CHEEZ KE AISE AISE PHALAN TARIKH KO HUA THA...". Complainant(PW11) identified his words " TO SIR MANGALWAR KO MAINE AAP KE PASS DO BAJE TAK AA JAOUNGE" and the words spoken of accused M.S. Sangha in reply thereto as " THEEK HAI".
47 The abovementioned testimony of the complainant proves that accused M.S. Sangha demanded bribe amounting to Rs.15,000/ from the complainant (PW11) for registration of the case AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 34 of 67 against Ajit Singh and others. In the complaint Ex.PW11/A, it is also mentioned that accused M.S. Sangha demanded the bribe of Rs. 15,000/ from the complainant (PW11). The complainant (PW11) in his testimony before the Court has corroborated the contents of his complaint Ex.PW11/A. Initially complainant (PW11) turned hostile but during cross examination by Ld. PP for the CBI, he identified accused M.S. Sangha in the Court as well as words spoken by him which were recorded by the complainant (PW11) in cassette Ex.P14. The transcription Ex.PW22/B also confirms demand of bribe by accused M.S. Sangha from the complainant (PW11) at the initial stage.
48 It is argued by Ld. Counsel for accused M.S. Sangha that there is no evidence reflecting demand of bribe by accused M.S. Sangha at any point of time or place. It is further argued that the complainant (PW11) in his cross examination has categorically denied the alleged demand or acceptance of bribe by accused M.S. Sangha. He has further argued that complainant(PW11) even did not recognize accused M.S. Sangha and rather gave physical description of the person whom he met as M.S. Sangha. In support of his argument, judgment in case titled Ram Singh and others vs. Col. AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 35 of 67 Ram Singh (AIR 1986 SC 3) has been relied upon in which it was observed that time, place and accuracy of recording must be proved by competent witness and the voices must be properly identified. It was further observed that the Court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the record has not tampered with. It was further observed that voice of the speaker must be duly identified by the maker of the record or by others who recognize his voice. Next judgment relied upon is in case of Vishal Chand and Jain vs. CBI (Crl. A. No.579/2005, decided on 24.12.2010 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi) in which the appellant was acquitted on the ground that there was no direct evidence regarding demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant.
49 In the present case, the initial demand of bribe of Rs.15,000/ by accused M.S. Sangha was recorded by the complainant (PW11) which took place in conversation dated 21.02.2004. It was recorded in cassette Ex.P14. The said cassette was played in the Court and the complainant (PW11) identified his voice as well as voice of accused M.S. Sangha. The transcription Ex.PW22/B also confirms the demand of bribe by accused M.S. Sangha. So far as contention of tampering with the recorded conversation is concerned, AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 36 of 67 it has been proved on record that the said cassette was seized by the Investigating Officer in CBI office vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/B by sealing with the same with seal of CBI. The said seal was handed over to independent witness R.K. Bali (PW10) after its use. It is a matter of record that said cassette Ex.P14 along with cassette Ex.P 20 containing specimen voice of accused M.S. Sangha was sent to CFSL for obtaining expert's opinion. The cassette Ex.P14 containing conversation dated 21.02.2004 was produced in the Court in sealed condition bearing seal of CFSL which proves the genuineness of the cassette and that it was not tampered with. The CFSL report Ex.PW1/A has also confirmed that the voice of accused M.S. Sangha in cassette Ex.P14 tallies with his specimen voice contained in cassette Ex.P20. Even there is direct evidence in the form of testimony of complainant (PW11) that he identified the accused M.S. Sangha and his words in the cassette demanding bribe from him. 50 So far as contention of Ld. defence counsel that complainant (PW11) did not recognize accused M.S. Sangha in his cross examination is concerned, I am not convinced with this contention. It is correct that during cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused M.S. Sangha, complainant has stated that he had not AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 37 of 67 heard the cassette earlier to the time when they were played in the Court. He also stated that accused M.S. Sangha never demanded any money from him. He stated that accused M.S. Sangha is not the person who demanded money from him. But the fact remains that a specific question was put to the complainant (PW11) with regard to identification of accused M.S. Sangha in the Court on 16.4.2010. In reply thereto, complainant(PW11) stated that on 16.4.2010 he was not feeling well and could not identify as to what questions were asked from him or what answers were being recorded. The deposition of the complainant dated 16.4.2010 shows that he specifically identified accused M.S. Sangha in the Court as the person who demanded bribe of Rs.15,000/ from him on 20.2.2004 and on 21.2.2004. It appears that during cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, words were put in the mouth of the complainant(PW11) not to identify accused M.S. Sangha but the fact remains that he was duly identified by the complainant (PW11) as the person who demanded bribe from him prior to making complaint to CBI. It is evident that he just gave the positive answer to the suggestion put by Ld. Defence counsel and even the words were put forward by the defence counsel just for the purpose of having reply in affirmative. In his deposition before AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 38 of 67 the court on 16.4.2010, complainant (PW11) categorically stated "It is correct that accused standing in the court is M.S. Sangha". Therefore, the judgments relied upon by Ld. Defence counsel in case of Ram Singh (supra) and Vishal Chand Jain (supra) are of no help to the accused as the same are distinguishable to the facts of the present case.
51 From the testimony of complainant (PW11) which corroborates the contents of complaint Ex.PW11/A, the prosecution has duly established one of the important ingredients of trap cases i.e. there was previous demand of bribe by accused M.S. Sangha prior to laying of trap. Even the recorded conversation in cassette Ex.P14 and transcription Ex.PW22/B also confirms demand of bribe by accused M.S. Sangha from the complainant (PW11) at previous stage. Demand, acceptance and recovery 52 To prove the demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe by accused M.S. Sanga at the spot, prosecution has examined the complainant (PW11) who during the course of crossexamination at the hands of Ld. PP for CBI has stated that the handing over memo Ex.PW9/A bears his signature. He further stated that he produced Rs.15,000/ at CBI office and a team was formed including AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 39 of 67 independent witnesses. He further stated that the number of GC notes produced by him were recorded in handing over memo Ex.PW9/A. Phenolphthalein powder was applied on the GC notes produced by him and the same were put in his pockets with the direction to hand over same to the accused. He further stated that independent witness Sunil Kumar Mathur (PW9) remained with him as shadow witness to watch the transaction. He admitted that one digital recorder was given to him with the instruction to switch it on before contacting the accused. He further stated that from CBI office they proceeded to Police Station Khajuri Khas. Complainant (PW11) admitted his signatures on recovery memo Ex.PW9/D. He stated that after reaching the police station, he along with shadow witness (PW9) went inside the police station Khajuri Khas whereas rest of the team remained outside. He further stated that when accused M.S. Sanga returned back, he along with independent witness Sunil Kumar Mathur (PW9) entered his room. Sunil Kumar Mathur was asked to go out of the room. Accused M.S. Sangha kept his finger on his lips signalling to keep mum. He further stated that during his meeting with accused M.S. Sangha, there was discussion regarding his complaint against Ajit Singh. Complainant (PW11) categorically AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 40 of 67 stated that when he told accused M.S. Sangha about the money which he had brought, accused M.S. Sangha opened the drawer of his table and indicated him to keep the money in the said drawer. Thereafter, accused M.S. Sangah asked him to get a copy of the application which he had brought with him and then he came out of the room. Sunil Kumar Mathur was standing outside the gate of the room. After coming out of the room, he gave preappointed signal on which CBI team came inside the police station. He further stated that before entering the room of accused M.S. Sangha, he had switched on the tape recorder and the same was taken back from him. 53 Complainant (PW11) in his deposition dated 26.4.2020 further stated that when accused M.S. Sangha turned his attention towards him, then he took out the powder treated notes from both his pockets and extended the same towards accused M.S. Sangha saying "Sir Yeh Paise". He further stated that on this, accused M.S. Sangha signalled him to keep silence by keeping his finger on his lips and by gesture of his hands directed him to keep the money in the upper right side drawer of his table. He further stated that he asked accused M.S. Sangha "Sir ek baar gin to lo" and accused M.S. Sangha replied "Koi baat nahin". He further stated that he came out of the AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 41 of 67 room and informed Sh. Mathur (PW9) that on the direction of accused M.S. Sangha, he had kept the tainted notes on his table drawer. 54 Testimony of complainant (PW11) that accused M.S. Sangha demanded and accepted the bribe from him, has been corroborated by independent witness Sunil Kumar Mathur (PW9). This witness (PW9) deposed that on 24.2.2004, he reported to CBI office along with Sh. R.K. Bali (PW10). In CBI office, complaint of complainant was shown to the effect that Addl. SHO M.S. Sangha demanded Rs.15,000/ from him for registration of FIR. Complainant produced Rs.15,000/ on which some chemical was applied. There were 100 notes of Rs.100/ denomination and 10 notes of Rs.500/ denomination. A document was prepared in which all the numbers of notes were noted down. A Samsung recorder was arranged and handed over to the complainant with the direction to switch it on while going inside the room of accused M.S. Sangha. The powder treated notes were kept in the pockets of complainant. Complainant showed an application addressed to Addl. SHO, Police Station Khajuri Khas requesting him to register FIR against Ajit Singh and others and he was directed to hand over said application. Witness identified handing over memo Ex.PW9/A as the same in which AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 42 of 67 numbers of currency notes were noted down. He also identified the said application of the complainant as Ex.PW9/C. He further stated that the team reached Police Station Khajuri Khas and he was directed to accompany the complainant. He was also directed to give signal after transaction of bribe money. He further stated that he saw complainant talking to accused and then accused along with other police officials went on round. They returned back at about 6.45/6.50 PM. He along with complainant went inside the room. After sometime, said official asked him to go outside. He further stated that he was standing outside the room. Thereafter, complainant came out and informed him that the said official demanded the money and to put the money in the drawer and he did so. Then, he gave signal to the CBI team and then team rushed inside and challenged that official. Thereafter, other independent witness R.K. Bali (PW10) took out the money from the drawer and tallied the numbers. He further stated that he also participated in tallying the numbers of notes with the handing over memo. The search of the drawer was taken which contained items like pin box, newspaper, matchbox etc. Said items were taken out and washes of the same turned pink. Accused was arrested at the spot and memo was prepared at the spot. Witness AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 43 of 67 (PW9) identified recovery memo as Ex.PW9/D, arrest cum personal search memo of accused M.S. Sangha as Ex.PW9/E, search memo of office of accused M.S. Sangha as Ex.PW9/F and site plan as Ex.PW9/G. He also identified the tainted recovered notes as Ex.P1, stapler pin box wash as Ex.P2, matchbox wash as Ex.P3, newspaper wash as Ex.P4. He also identified stapler pin box as Ex.P8, matchbox as Ex.P9 and newspaper as Ex.P9. Sunil Kumar Mathur (PW9) further stated that on 25.2.2004, he again attended CBI office along with R.K. Bali (PW10) when specimen voice of accused M.S. Sangha was recorded vide memo Ex.PW9/H. He identified cassette containing conversation recorded at the spot as Ex.P17 and cassette containing specimen voice of accused M.S. Sangha as Ex.P20. This witness duly identified accused M.S. Sangha in the Court. 55 Testimony of complainant (PW11) has also been corroborated by other independent witness R.K. Bali (PW10) who also deposed almost on similar lines as deposed by independent witness Sunil Kumar Mathur (PW9). This witness (PW10) also identified accused M.S. Sangha as the person who was apprehended at the spot and was stated to be the person who demanded and accepted bribe from the complainant. This witness (PW10) has stated AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 44 of 67 that after the raiding party entered into room of the accused M.S. Sangha, he was directed by CBI officers to check the drawer of main table in the room. On search, he found two bundles of GC notes inside the drawer. The numbers of said GC notes were tallied with the numbers mentioned in the document which was prepared earlier at CBI office. Witness (PW10) identified the handing over memo Ex.PW9/A as the document which was prepared at CBI office. Witness further stated that stapler pin box, match box and newspaper were taken out from the drawer and their washes were taken in the chemical solution which turned into pink colour. The matter in the recording equipment was transferred into cassettes. Witness further stated that at the spot recovery memo Ex.PW9/D was prepared. Witness identified stapler pin box wash, matchbox wash and newspaper wash as Ex.P2, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 respectively. He also identified stapler pin box, matchbox and newspaper as Ex.P8, Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 respectively which were recovered from the drawer of accused M.S. Sangha. He identified the recovered GC notes as Ex.P1 (collectively).
56 The testimony of the complainant (PW11) has also been corroborated by the Investigating Officer SI M.M. Ansari AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 45 of 67 (PW20) and Inspector Prem Nath (PW21) who remained associated in the investigation of the case.
57 Conversation between accused M.S. Sangha and complainant (PW11) was recorded in cassette Ex.P17. Transcription Ex.PW22/C of the said conversation was reduced into writing. This conversation also confirms the demand and acceptance of bribe money by accused M.S. Sangha. The said cassette Ex.P17 along with cassette Ex.P20 containing specimen voice of accused M.S. Sangha were sent to CFSL for examination. Dr. Rajender Singh (PW1) examined the same in the CFSL. As per report Ex.PW1/A of the voice expert, the voice of accused M.S. Sangha in cassette Ex.P17 tallied with his specimen voice in cassette Ex.P20. Thus, the CFSL report Ex.PW1/A establishes that accused M.S. Sangha demanded and accepted the bribe money from the complainant (PW11) in his room on 24.2.2004.
58 It is case of the prosecution that tainted currency notes from the drawer of accused M.S. Sangha were recovered along with stapler pin box Ex.P8, matchbox Ex.P9 and newspaper Ex.P10. It has been stated by the complainant (PW11) and independent witnesses that said articles Ex.P8, Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 along with AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 46 of 67 tainted currency notes Ex.P1 were recovered from the drawer of table of accused M.S. Sangha. It has also been stated by the witnesses that when the articles Ex.P8 to Ex.P10 were washed in the solution, the colour of solution turned into pink.
59 The stapler pin box wash is Ex.P2, matchbox wash is Ex.P3 and newspaper wash is Ex.P4. The said washes were sent to CFSL where the same were examined by Sh. C.L. Bansal (PW2) vide his report Ex.PW2/A. The perusal of report Ex.PW2/A shows that the said washes marked SPBW (stapler pin box wash), MBW (matchbox wash) and NPW (newspaper wash) gave positive tests for the presence of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate. Thus, the CFSL report Ex.PW2/A also establishes the case of prosecution that tainted currency notes were recovered from the drawer of accused M.S. Sangha along with stapler pin box, matchbox and newspaper. 60 From the totality of evidence produced on record in the form of testimony of complainant (PW11) which has duly been corroborated by the independent witnesses and the Investigating Officer, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has duly established that accused M.S. Sangha was present in the office on 24.2.2004 when complainant (PW11) contacted him. It has come on AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 47 of 67 record that the shadow witness Sunil Kumar Mathur (PW9) accompanied the complainant (PW11) to the room of accused M.S. Sangha but the shadow witness was sent outside the room by accused M.S. Sangha. It has been established that accused M.S. Sangha demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.15,000/ from the complainant (PW11) in his room on 24.2.2004. The said tainted currency notes Ex.P1 were kept in the table of drawer of accused M.S. Sangha on his direction by the complainant (PW11). The said tainted currency notes Ex.P1 were recovered from the drawer along with other articles like stapler pin box Ex.P8, match box Ex.P9 and newspaper Ex.P10. The CFSL report Ex.PW2/A also corroborates the case of prosecution to the effect that the said articles were found containing phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate. The conversation which took place between the complainant and accused M.S. Sangha at the spot was recorded in cassette Ex.P17. The CFSL report Ex.PW1/A confirms that the said cassette Ex.P17 contains the voice of accused M.S. Sangha after getting it compared with his specimen voice. The transcription Ex.PW22/C also confirms the demand and acceptance of bribe by accused M.S. Sangha from the complainant in his office.
AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 48 of 67 61 It has been argued by ld. Counsel for accused M.S. Sangha that the recovery memo and the site plan are not admissible in evidence as it contains averments which were made to the Investigating Officer on his questioning. It is further submitted that the recovery memo and site plan are hit by Section 162 of Cr.PC therefore same are inadmissible in evidence. In support of the contention, judgment in case titled Santa Singh Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1956 SC 526) has been relied upon in which it was observed that the evidence of the draftsman taken with what he has noted on the map could only be treated as evidence of prior statements, as to the distance of the eye witnesses in the course of investigation by the police and was therefore inadmissible in evidence. Next judgment relied upon is in case of Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma and others Vs. State of Bombay (AIR 1955 SC 104) in which it was observed that the admission of inadmissible evidence would amount to a misdirection in the learned Judge's charge to the jury. 62 Section 162 of Cr.PC provides that any statement made to the police shall not be signed nor any such statement be used for any at any inquiry or trial. In the present case, site plan Ex.PW9/G and recovery memo Ex.PW9/D were prepared by the AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 49 of 67 Investigating Officer in the presence of complainant (PW11) and independent witnesses. Complainant (PW11) duly identified the recovery memo Ex.PW9/D during his deposition in the court. The independent witnesses (PW9 and PW10) have also identified the recovery memo Ex.PW9/D and the site plan Ex.PW9/G. Even otherwise, the complainant (PW11) during his deposition has narrated the entire incident i.e. the pre and post trap proceedings conducted at CBI office and at the spot as well. So, in my considered opinion the recovery memo and site plan are admissible in evidence. So, the judgments referred by the ld. Defence counsel in case of Santa Singh (supra) and Ram Kishan (supra) is of no help to him. 63 It is further argued by the ld. counsel for accused M.S. Sangha that the story of prosecution has to be treated as one story and if one part of the story is not proved, then remaining part of the story cannot be sustained. It is further argued that since the prosecution has not produced any evidence to prove the allegations of conspiracy between accused persons, therefore, benefit should be given to the accused with regard to other allegations. In support of the arguments, reliance in case titled Hari Dev Sharma Vs. Delhi (State Administration) (1977) 3 SCC 352 has been placed in which AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 50 of 67 the conviction of the appellant was set aside while observing that essential part of the prosecution case was not believable on which the other part was depending. Next judgment relied upon is in case of Suraj Mal Vs. State (Delhi Administration) (1979) 4 SCC 725 in which it was held that mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the appellant in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the appellant voluntarily accepted the money.
64 The above judgments relied upon by the ld. Defence counsel are not applicable in the present case as the same are distinguishable to the facts of the present case. Though, it is correct that the prosecution has failed to establish the allegations of conspiracy entered into between both the accused, but the fact remains that the prosecution has duly established that accused M.S. Sangha demanded the bribe at previous stage i.e. before making complaint by the complainant to the CBI. Prosecution has also established beyond reasonable doubt that accused M.S. Sangha demanded the bribe from the complainant at the time of laying the trap and accepted the same voluntarily from him. Prosecution has even proved the recovery of bribe from accused M.S. Sangha which AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 51 of 67 was recovered from his drawer. So, there is no force in the contention of learned defence counsel that when the prosecution has failed to establish the allegations of conspirary, accused is liable to be acquitted while extending benefit of doubt.
65 It has further been argued by ld. counsel for accused M.S. Sangha that the witnesses have made different statements in the court and as such the testimony of such witnesses cannot be said to be believable. In support of his arguments, judgments in cases Sat Paul Vs. Delhi Administration (AIR 1976 SC 294), Panalal Damodar Rathi Vs. State of Maharashtra (1980 SCC (Cri) 121), Randhir Singh Vs. State (1980 Cri. L.J. 1397), Sunny Kapoor Vs. State of U.T., Chandigarh (AIR 2006 SC 2242) and C.M. Girish Babu Vs. CBI, Cochin (2009) 3 SCC 779 have been relied upon. 66 In Sat Paul's case (supra) it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross examined and contradicted with the leave of the court, his evidence cannot as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the record altogether. It was further observed that it is for the Judge to consider whether as a result of such cross examination and contradiction, testimony of such a witness is reliable or not. In Panalal's case AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 52 of 67 (supra), it was observed that when the version of the complainant is not corroborated, his evidence regarding demand of money can not be relied upon. In Randhir Singh's case (supra), it was observed that the testimony of a witness can not be relied upon when he has materially improved upon his earlier statement only with the object of involving the accused.
67 In Sunny Kapoor's case (supra), the evidence of last seen witnesses were not found trustworthy inasmuch as there were glaring discrepancies in their statements. In case of C.M.Girish Babu (supra), it was held that mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence is not reliable. It was further observed that in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the bribe, mere recovery itself can not prove the charge of prosecution.
68 So far the contention regarding making of different statements by witnesses is concerned, it is correct that witnessed made different statements in examination in chief and in cross examination, but the fact remains that it has been established from the testimony of witnesses that accused M.S. Sangha demanded the bribe AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 53 of 67 from the complainant, not only previous to his making complaint with the CBI but also at the spot. It has also been established that at the spot, accused M.S. Sangha accepted the bribe amount from the complainant by directing him to put the same in his drawer. The recovery of bribe money from the drawer of accused M.S. Sangha has also been established on record. Therefore, making of different statements at different stages is of no meaning, in view of the fact that the demand and acceptance of bribe money by accused M.S. Sangha has been proved by the prosecution. So far as contention regarding mere recovery of bribe money is concerned, in the present case, the prosecution has duly established the identity of accused M.S. Sangha as the person who demanded the bribe from the complainant. It has also been established beyond reasonable doubt that accused M.S. Sangha voluntarily accepted the bribe money and the same was recovered from his drawer. It is not the case of mere recovery of bribe money from accused, rather it is the case where the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of trap cases i.e. demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe. Therefore, the aforementioned judgments are of no help to the accused as the same are distinguishable to the facts of the present case.
AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 54 of 67 69 It is further argued by the ld. Counsel for accused M.S. Sangha that the prosecution has not proved the allegations against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is argued that it is a settled law that if two views are possible, one favouring the accused and one against the accused, then benefit should be given to the accused. In support of his contention, judgments in cases titled T. Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2006 SC 836), Sambhaji Hindurao Deshmukh & others Vs. State of Maharashtra (JT 2008 (1) SC 569) and Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky Vs. State of Punjab I (2007) CCR 334 (SC) have been relied upon. It is further argued by the Ld. counsel that the accused can establish its case by preponderance of probabilities and the prosecution is bound to prove its case beyond preponderance of probabilities. In support of this contention, judgments in cases titled Mahesh Prasad Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan (1974 (3) SCC 591) and V. venkata Subbarao Vs. State of AP (AIR 2007 SC 489) have been relied upon in which it was held that the accused need not to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt.
70 The aforementioned judgments relied upon by the Ld. Defence counsel are not applicable in the present case, inasmuch AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 55 of 67 as the prosecution has duly established from the evidence of complainant duly corroborated by independent witnesses and Investigating Officer that it was accused M.S. Sangha who demanded the bribe from the complainant. It has well been proved that accused M.S. Sangha demanded the bribe from the complainant at the previous stage i.e. before making of complaint to the CBI. It has also been proved that accused M.S. Sangha demanded bribe from the complainant at the spot in his room and voluntarily accepted the same by directing the complainant to put the same in his drawer. Prosecution has also duly established the recovery of bribe money from the drawer of accused. Thus, in my considered opinion, the prosecution has duly established all the ingredients of trap cases beyond reasonable doubt against accused M.S. Sangha. The evidence produced on record clearly point towards the guilt of accused M.S. Sangha in demanding and accepting the bribe from the complainant. The present case does not show two views, benefit of one of which could be given to accused.
71 It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for accused M.S.Sangha that mere recovery of bribe amount is not sufficient to convict an accused when the substantive evidence is not reliable. To AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 56 of 67 press this contention, judgments in case titled Suraj Mal vs. State ( Delhi Administration) (1979) 4 SCC 725, G.V.Nanjun Diya vs. State AIR 1987 SC 2402; Anand Swaroop Vs State 1988 Cri.L.J.756; Harbharosey Lal vs State of UP 1998 Cri.L.J. 1122 and C.M.Girish Babu vs. CBI ( 2009) 3 SCC 779 have been relied upon. It is further argued that the alleged bribe money recovered from the drawer of the accused was planted one as the same was put by the complainant without the knowledge of the accused. It is further argued that the witness Rajesh Bhardwaj(PW18) who is alleged to be the witness of putting bribe money in the drawer of the accused has not supported the case of the prosecution. It is further argued that in view of this position of the matter, accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. In support of this contention judgments in cases M.K.Harshan vs. State of Kerala AIR 1995 SC 2178, Meena Balwant Hemke vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2000 SC 3377, Ganapati Sanya Naik vs. State of Karnataka 2007 (3) Chandigarh Criminal Cases(80) 256, Pyare Lal vs State ( Criminal appeal No. 141/99, decided on 17.03.2008 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi) and Prem Raj Meena vs. CBI ( Criminal appeal No. 963/2008, decided on 21.02.2011 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi) have been relied upon.
AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 57 of 67 72 The contention raised by Ld. Defence counsel is of no help to the accused inasmuch as it has duly been established from the evidence of the complainant which has been duly corroborated by the independent witnesses and other material that accused M.S.Sangha demanded bribe from the complainant and accepted the same voluntarily by directing the complainant to put the bribe money in his drawer. It has also been established that tainted bribe money was recovered from the drawer of the accused M.S.Sangha. It is not mere case of recovery of bribe amount but it is a case where prosecution has duly established the essential concomitants of trap case viz. demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe from accused M.S.Sangha. The other contention of ld. Defence counsel that bribe money was planted in the drawer and its keeping was not in his knowledge, is also not sustainable in view reliable and trustworthy evidence of complainant. In the present case, complainant has categorically deposed that he put the bribe money in the drawer of accused M.S.Sangha on his specific direction when he asked him to put the same in his drawer by gestures of hands. So far as hostility of witness Rajesh Bhardwaj(PW18) is concerned, his testimony is of not much importance in view of reliable and trustworthy statement of the AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 58 of 67 complainant. Consequently, I am of the firm view that aforementioned judgments relied upon by ld. Defence counsel are not applicable to the facts of the present case as the same are distinguishable.
73 It is further argued by ld. Defence counsel that expert witnesses (PW1 and PW2) who examined the voice and washes allegedly did not have experience or skill to do the job. In support of his contention, judgment in case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs Jai Lal and others JT 1999(6) SC 548 has been relied in which it was observed that in order to bring the evidence of an expert witness, it has to be shown that he has made special study of the subject or acquired special experience therein or in other words, he is skilled and has adequate knowledge of the subject.
74 The voice Expert, Dr. Rajender Singh(PW1) has stated that he has 20 years of experience in the field of Forensic Voice identification and during this period, he examined more than 1000 cases of such nature involving voice of more than 3000 persons. He has further stated that he is qualified upto M. Sc., B.Ed, M.Phil and Ph.D. ( physics). In his report Ex.PW1/A, it is mentioned that he has got published 30 research papers in various forensic science journals AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 59 of 67 in India and Abroad. In his report, he has mentioned each and every test he had performed for comparing the voice of accused M.S.Sangha. Similarly, Sh. C.L.Bansal(PW2) who examined the washes in CFSL has stated that he has been working as Sr. Scientific Officer( Chemistry) in CFSL and he examined the washes in question. No question with regard to experience and skill of this witness was put to him in cross examination. Therefore, it has been shown that both these witnesses were having enough knowledge, experience and skill and well qualified to conduct the said tests and no doubt can be raised on the reports submitted by them. 75 The defence taken by the accused M.S.Sangha is that present case is a false case. It is submitted that accused M.S.Sangha was T.L.O. in a case registered by Anti Corruption Branch of Delhi Police in which firing took place and the matter was investigated by CBI. He has further taken the plea that he was a Trap Laying officer in a case against ExCBI Officer, Inspector Rajesh Kumar of Delhi Police and since then CBI was having grudge against him and that was the reason of his false implication in the present case. 76 It is argued by Ld. Counsel for accused M.S.Sangha that presumption under section 20 of the P.C.Act is a rebuttable AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 60 of 67 presumption which he can show that either from oral testimony of witness or by any document. In support of this argument, judgment in case M.C.Mitra vs. The State, AIR (38) 1951 Calcutta 524, State vs. Minaketan Patnaik AIR 1952 Orissa 267, Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai vs. State of Maharashtra 1 SCR 485, Kashiram and others vs State of MP(2002) 1 SCC 71 and Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker vs. State of Gujarat 7 SCR 361 ( 1964) have been relied.
77 The defence taken by the accused M.S.Sangha is that since CBI officers were having grudge against him for the reason that he was a TLO in a case against an ExCBI officer, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. In view of above authorities relied upon by accused himself, he can establish his defence either from the oral testimony of witnesses or by producing documents or by adducing his defence evidence. But accused M.S.Sangha has not produced any defence evidence to show that any CBI officer was having grudge against him for which he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Even no suggestion or put to the Investigating Officers(PW20 and PW22) on behalf of accused M.S.Sangha to show that he has been falsely implicated by them as he happened to be Trap AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 61 of 67 Laying officer in a case against an ExCBI officer. No document has been produced by accused M.S.Sangha to establish his defence. In the absence of any ocular or documentary evidence, I am of the considered opinion that accused M.S.Sangha has failed to probabilise his defence. Therefore, judgments relied upon by ld. Defence counsel are of no help to the accused.
78 Since, accused M.S.Sangha has failed to prove the plea taken by him in his defence, an adverse inference is drawn against him in view of provision of Section 20 of the P.C. Act. 79 In view of the reliable and trustworthy testimony of complainant (PW11), independent witnesses (PW9 and PW10), Inspector Prem Nath(PW21) and the Investigating Officers(PW20 and PW22), I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused M.S.Sangha demanded and accepted bribe of Rs. 15,000/ from the complainant (PW11) on 24.02.2004 in his room at Police Station Khajoori Khas which was kept by the complainant in his drawer of table on his specific direction. The prosecution has also successfully established the recovery of bribe money from the drawer of accused M.S.Sangha. AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 62 of 67 Conclusion 80 In view of aforementioned discussion, prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that there existed a criminal conspiracy between both the accused, namely, M.S.Sangha and Pawan Jain for demand and acceptance of bribe from the complainant. Prosecution has also failed to establish that accused Pawan Jain abetted the offence of demand and acceptance of bribe by his coaccused M.S. Sangha. Consequently, accused Pawan Jain is acquitted for offence under section 109 of IPC. Since prosecution has failed to prove any conspiracy between accused persons, therefore, both the accused M.S. Sangha and Pawan Jain are acquitted for offence under section 120B IPC.
81 However, as discussed above in detail, it is hereby held that the CBI has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused M.S. Sangha that he being public servant while posted as Additional SHO of Police Station Khajoori Khas, committed the criminal misconduct by demanding the bribe of Rs.15,000/ from the complainant (PW11) at the previous stage i.e. before making complaint by the complainant to CBI. It has also been established that on 24.2.2004, accused M.S. Sangha demanded and AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 63 of 67 accepted the bribe of Rs.15,000/ from the complainant (PW11) in his room which was recovered from the drawer of his table. Therefore, accused M.S. Sangha has committed the offence punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accordingly, accused M.S. Sangha is hereby convicted for the said offences. 82 Since accused Pawan Jain has been acquitted, he is directed to comply with provisions of section 437A Cr.P.C.
Announced in the open Court ( P.S. TEJI )
Dated: 20.05.2011 District Judge (East)
Special Judge (CBI)
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi
AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 64 of 67
IN THE COURT OF SHRI P.S. TEJI : DISTRICT JUDGE
(EAST) cum SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI), KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI.
AC No.06/2004
Unique Case ID No.02402R0551462004
FIR No.RC DAI20040012
Under Sec.7 and 13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.
CBI Versus Mukhtiar Singh Sangha etc.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
I have heard Sh. H.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for
convict Mukhtiar Singh Sangha as well as learned PP for the CBI on the quantum of sentence.
2 The learned counsel for convict M.S. Sangha has submitted that the convict is a married person. In his family, he is having ailing wife and mother. Convict is the sole bread earner of the family and the entire family is dependent upon him. It is further submitted that the convict has already faced the protracted trial of about seven years. It has been prayed that lenient view may be taken while awarding sentence to the convict.
3 The learned PP for the CBI has submitted that the AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 65 of 67 convict M.S. Sangha being public servant, misused his official position and demanded and accepted the bribe from the complainant. The acts committed by the convict have potential to infect the entire society. He has further submitted that the convicts may be awarded the maximum punishment prescribed under the law. 4 Vide judgment dated 20.5.2011, convict M.S. Sangha has been convicted for commission of offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act. 5 It is important to note that wide spread corruption amongst the public servants has to be curbed with a strong hand by all concerned including courts of law, inasmuch as corruption affects not only the moral fibre of the society but the economic stability and progress of country as well. Corruption in a civilized society is termed as a plague which is not only contagious but if not controlled spreads like a fire in the jungle. Corruption is opposed to democratic set up of the country and social order, being not only antipeople, but aimed and targeted against them.
6 Considering the circumstances under which the offence was committed, convict Mukhtiar Singh Sangha is awarded sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/ AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 66 of 67 for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. In default of payment of fine, convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Convict is further awarded sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/ for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act. In default of payment of fine, the convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
7 Both the sentences of the convict shall run concurrently. The convict shall be entitled for the benefit of the provisions of Section 428 Cr.PC. Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given free of cost to the convict.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court ( P.S. TEJI )
Dated: 24.05.2011 District Judge (East)
Special Judge (CBI)
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi
AC No.06/2004 CBI Vs. M.S. Sangha etc. Page 67 of 67