Delhi District Court
C.B.I. vs . Satish Kumar on 3 March, 2014
IN THE COURT OF DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI 01,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CC No.10/12
Unique Case ID No. 02406R1039522007
C.B.I. Vs. SATISH KUMAR
S/o Sh. Hukum Chand Jatav,
R/o C37, Green View Apartments,
Sector 15A, Noida, UP.
RC No. : DAI2006A0018DLI
u/Ss : Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the POC Act, 1988.
Judgment announced on : 28.02.2014
Date of Order on sentence : 03.03.2014
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Present: Sh. S.Krishna Kumar, Ld. PP for CBI.
Convict Satish Kumar produced from JC.
Sh. Pawan Narang, Ld. counsel for convict.
1.0 Convict Satish Kumar has been convicted for the offence u/S 7 and
Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the POC Act, 1988.
CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 1 of 6
2.0 Sh. S. Krishna Kumar, Ld. PP for CBI has submitted that in this case
there are certain aggravating factors which makes the convict liable for the
maximum punishment i.e conduct of the convict immediately after taking the
bribe; and the quantum of bribe. It has been submitted that it has come on the
record that convict made an attempt to flee away and even made an attempt to
cause injuries to the CBI officials. The convict demanded and accepted heavy
amount of bribe i.e. Rs. 8 lakhs. Ld. PP submitted that there are certain mitigating
factors in favour of the convict like his conduct during the trial ; not being a
habitual offender ; no attempt to tamper with or influence the witnesses. However,
still if the balance sheet is made of aggravating factors and mitigating factors, the
aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating circumstances and therefore, the
convict deserves maximum punishment prescribed under the Act.
2.1 Sh. Pawan Narang, Ld. Counsel assisted by Sh. Anuj Handa and Ms.
Vasundhara, Advocates submitted that it is a fit case where leniency may be shown
to the convict. Ld. Counsel submitted that convict is not a habitual offender. Prior
to this, there was neither any police case nor any departmental action was taken
against the convict. During the searches conducted on 25/5/06, the convict was not
found in possession of any disproportionate assets. Convict recently lost his father
and he has an old mother of 76 years of age. The mother generally remains sick
and therefore, requires constant attention. The convict is the only son of the old
lady and therefore, requires to be in attendance to her. It has been submitted that
CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 2 of 6
convict has already suffered a lot. He has faced trial for 8 years and during this
period he remained suspended. It has further been submitted that convict did not
misuse the liberty granted to him by the Court and no delay can be attributed to the
convict. It has further been submitted that even the children of the convict are at
the threshold of making their career and if at this stage, the convict is sent behind
the bars, it would jeopardize the career of the children of the convict and ruin the
family.
3.0 I have considered the submissions of both the sides and perused the
record carefully.
4.0 A1 Satish Kumar has been tried and convicted for the offence u/S 7
and Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the POC Act, 1988. It may be recalled that it has
been established on record that convict demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 8
lakhs from the complainant Sh. Ramesh Juneja. The convict is an IRS officer of
1989 batch and at the time of incident, he was posted as Addl. Director
(Investigation), Income Tax at Meerut. Indian Revenue System is one of the
premier service of this country and the system has conferred exemplary power
upon the IRS officers. They are basically the pivot of entire economic system in
the country. The IRS officers are generally at a very sensitive positions and handle
the revenue matters of public at large and ultimately of the entire nation. The
corruption in any form, at any stage and by any public servant, on whatsoever
CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 3 of 6
position he/sher is, is condemnable. However, if the corruption is done by the
senior officers then it deserves special treatment. The country is run by the
bureaucracy manned by senior officers and if such senior officers indulge in
corruption then future of the country is actually in danger. It is painful to note that
this country sometimes is being branded as the corrupt nation. The perception of
common man has become such that nothing moves without indulging into
corruption.
The corruption cases are very difficult to be proved. However, once a
person is held guilty after the trial in accordance with law, then the Court is duty
bound to take into account the law, totality of the facts and circumstances of the
case and prevailing circumstances in the nation. At this stage, the Court is bound to
take into account that the disease of corruption is spreading like cancer and
therefore, stringent measures are to be adopted for curbing this menace. Any
lenient view in awarding the punishment may be considered as an incentive to
public servant who are susceptible to corruption to indulge in such nefarious
practices with immunity. In Abhimanyu Vithalrao Jadhav Vs. State of
Maharashtra, 1991 CRLJ 2085, it was held that loss of post and anguish of a long
trial cannot be mitigating circumstances for the purpose of awarding punishment.
It may be noted that the public servant represents the Government in the eyes of
the public and any incident of corruption on the part of the public servant shakes
the confidence of the public in the system itself. The loss of confidence in the
governance has many ill effects including slow growth rate, bad law and order and
CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 4 of 6
over all mismanagement in the society. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surain Singh
Vs. State of Punjab, 2009 II AD (SC), while dealing with a case of corruption,
inter alia held as under:
"Day in and day out the gigantic problem of corruption in the
public servants is on the increase. Large scale corruption retards
the nation building activities and everyone has to suffer on that
count. Corruption is corroding like cancerous lymph nodes, the
vital veins of the body politics, social fabrics of efficiency in the
public services and demoralizing the honest offices. The efficiency
in public service would improve only when the public servant
devotes his sincere attention and does the duty diligently,
truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the
performance of his post."
5.0 I consider that a message must go that nobody is above the law and
that indulging in corruption is a risky proposition. The society looks upon the
Court in appropriate cases for a maximum punishment so as to have deterrent
effect on the society at large.
In the circumstances, I consider that taking into account the totality of
the facts and circumstances, RI for 5 years and fine of Rs. 25,000/ u/S 7 of the
POC Act, 1988 and RI for 5 years and fine of Rs. 25,000/ u/S 13 (1)(d) of the
POC Act, 1988, in default SI for 6 months would meet the ends of justice.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
Benefit of Sec. 428 Cr.PC be given to the convict.
CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 5 of 6
6.0 A copy of the judgment alongwith order on sentence be given to
the convict free of cost.
7.0 File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in Open Court (Dinesh Kumar Sharma )
on 03.03.2014 Spl. Judge (PC Act) : CBI01
Saket Courts : New Delhi.
CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 6 of 6
IN THE COURT OF DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI 01,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CC No.10/12
Unique Case ID No. 02406R1039522007
C.B.I. Vs. 1. SATISH KUMAR
S/o Sh. Hukum Chand Jatav,
R/o C37, Green View Apartments,
Sector 15A, Noida, UP.
2. AMAR SINGH KAIN
S/o Late Sh. Kanhaiya Lal Kain,
R/o D31, Sector 20, Noida, UP.
3. IQBAL ALI
S/o Late Sh. Sabir Ali,
R/o H. No. 26/39495, Trilokpuri,
Opp. Mayur Vihar, PhaseI,
New Delhi.
RC No. : DAI2006A0018DLI
u/Ss : 120B IPC r/w Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of
the POC Act, 1988.
Date of Institution : 27.04.2007
Received by transfer on : 07.04.2012
Arguments Concluded on : 26.02.2014
Date of Decision : 28.02.2014
CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 7 of 6
Appearances:
Sh. S. Krishna Kumar, Ld. PP for CBI.
Sh. Pawan Narang, Ld. Counsel for all accused persons.
JUDGMENT
CHARGE SHEET 1.0 Sh. Satish Kumar, IRS (Indian Revenue Service), officer the then Addl. Director (Investigation), Income Tax, Meerut in April 2006 allegedly called complainant Sh. Ramesh Juneja (PW17) Managing Director, Mankind Pharma Ltd., having registered office at 236, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase III, New Delhi for a meeting. In the said meeting accused Satish Kumar (A1) talked about the business of the complainant and further told him i.e. the complainant to meet him i.e. A1 Satish Kumar alone at his residence at 17C, Sector 15A, near Mother Dairy, Noida, UP. Accused also gave his mobile phone No. 9811018341 to the complainant. On 20/5/06 at about 7:30pm the complainant met A1 Satish Kumar at his residence and in the said meeting accused threatened to initiate investigation against the complainant and demanded a bribe of Rs. 30 lakhs to avoid such harassment. After negotiation, the bribe amount was reduced to Rs. 10 lakhs. The complainant informed A1 Satish Kumar that he needed to discuss the matter with other Directors of the company and time to arrange the money. A1 Satish Kumar told the complainant to contact him on the mobile phone after arranging the said amount. On 22/5/06 at about 11pm, the complainant got a telephone call on his mobile phone from A1 Satish Kumar. During such conversation, A1 Satish Kumar CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 8 of 6 again demanded a bribe of Rs. 10 lakhs and asked the complainant to make the payment at the earliest. On 23/5/06 at about 9:30am, the complainant contacted A1 Satish Kumar on his above mentioned mobile phone from his i.e. complainant's mobile No. 9810202648 from Delhi office and informed A1 Satish Kumar that bribe amount could not be arranged and sought some more time. A1 Satish Kumar told the complainant to contact him again on 24/5/06 when he i.e. A1 Satish Kumar would tell the time and place for delivery of the bribe amount. The complainant did not want to pay the bribe and therefore, made the complaint dtd. 24/5/06 Ex.PW2/A to the SP, CBI. The complaint was assigned to PW26 Inspt. SS Bhullar for verification and necessary action. On the basis of the complaint RC No. DAI2006A0018 Ex.PW16/A was registered on 24/5/06. Independent witnesses PW2 Sh. Ramesh Pawar and PW22 Madan Mohan Singh were joined.
In pretrap verification while the complainant contacted A1 Satish Kumar the telephonic conversations were duly recorded. In the said telephonic conversation A1 Satish Kumar called complainant at his residence for further discussion. The complainant alongwith independent witnesses and CBI team proceeded to the residence of A1 Satish Kumar at Sector 15A, Noida. The complainant met alone A1 Satish Kumar at his residence. The CBI team and the witnesses kept suitable distance from the residence of the accused. The conversation between A1 Satish Kumar and complainant during such meeting was duly recorded in the DVR provided by the CBI. The recording was transferred into two normal audio cassettes, one of which was sealed in cloth wrapper and was CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 9 of 6 marked as Q1. The pretrap verification memo Ex.PW2/B was prepared. Pursuant to said verification, in which the accused reiterated demand of bribe it was decided to hold the trap .The complainant and both independent witnesses were directed to come in the next morning i.e. on 25/5/06 at about 7am at CBI office.
On 25/5/06, PW26 Inspt. SS Bhullar (TLO) constituted a team consisting of CBI officers and the independent witnesses. The independent witnesses PW2 Ramesh Pawar and PW22 Madan Mohan Singh were introduced to the members of the raiding party. The complainant produced a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs in the denomination of Rs. 500/ and Rs. 1,000/ collectively (Ex.P8) kept in Jagdish Store polythene bag Ex.P7. The necessary material for conducting raid was arranged. Inspt. Umesh Vashisht treated the GC notes and the polythene bag with phenolphthalein powder and gave the demonstration with the help of PW2 Ramesh Pawar. The personal search of complainant was taken. The digital voice recorder was duly arranged for recording the spot conversation. The complainant was directed to give a missed call to Inspt. SS Bhullar after the transaction is over. The members of the raiding party took mutual search of each other and after completion of entire formalities, the handing over memo Ex.PW2/C was prepared. The denomination of the currency notes were duly noted down in the sheets (Annexure A) to the handing over memo. It was decided to not to send any shadow witness with the complainant as the complainant was directed by A1 Satish Kumar to come alone. The trap party alongwith the complainant and independent witnesses proceeded towards Modi Nagar, UP (towards the place of delivery of CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 10 of 6 bribe money as decided by the accused), in two vehicles i.e Qualis bearing registration No. DL3C AA2497 and Ford Endeavor. Both the vehicles belonged to the complainant. On the way near Krishi Anaj Mandi, Sahibabad, UP, the complainant received a call on his mobile No. 9810202648 from mobile No. 9811018341 of accused. In the said conversation (transcript Ex.PW17/A), A1 Satish Kumar directed the complainant to meet him at Mohiuddin Sugar Mill, Modi Nagar. As told by A1 Satish Kumar, the complainant reached the spot and parked his vehicle opposite the mill. The CBI team also parked their vehicle at a safe distance. After about 2025 minutes, A1 Satish Kumar came in DL4CNB 0847 and stopped his car near the complainant's vehicle. A1 Satish Kumar shifted from Scorpio to the vehicle of the complainant and thereafter, both the vehicles started moving towards Meerut side. On the way the conversation regarding demand and acceptance of bribe took place and complainant handed over the polythene bag containing Rs. 8 lakhs to A1 Satish Kumar. Both the vehicles i.e. vehicle of the complainant in which accused had shifted and the Scorpio in which A1 Satish Kumar had come kept on moving ahead. Both the vehicles were followed by the CBI team. After about 56 kms, both the vehicles stopped. A1 Satish Kumar called A2 Amar Singh Kain who was travelling in the Scorpio and handed over the polythene bag containing bribe money to A2 Amar Singh Kain who took the polythene bag with him and kept the same in the Scorpio car. The Scorpio was being driven by A3 Iqbal Ali. Again the Scorpio and the vehicle of the complainant moved about 56 kms ahead and then A1 got the vehicles stopped and CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 11 of 6 alighted from the vehicle of the complainant to shift in his Scorpio. in the meanwhile complainant gave pre decided signal from his mobile to trap party. The trap party put their vehicle in front of Scorpio diagonally and surrounded the Scorpio of the accused to apprehend them but A1 Satish Kumar forcibly got freed himself and sat in his Scorpio car and on his instructions A3 Iqbal Ali first drove the Scorpio in reverse side and then moved ahead in high speed endangering the life of CBI team members. This led to registration of case FIR No. 187/06 at PS Partapur, Meerut. Then the chase started and message was flashed to the local police. During the process of chase, A1 Satish Kumar threw away the polythene bag containing bribe of Rs. 8 lakhs on the road from his Scorpio car near Medical College on the road side. The CBI team picked up the polythene bag containing the bribe money from the road and kept the chase on. The effort was made to stop the Scorpio Car at Bagpat chowk by traffic police and at PP Paathsala, PS Kehkra, Baghpat by the local police. During the said chase the scorpio car also got damaged.Ultimately, the Scorpio car could be taken into control on the road near Village Mavikalan. In the said Scorpio, A2 Amar Singh Kain, A3 Iqbal Ali and Smt. Menu S. Kumar (DW2) wife of A1 alongwith her daughter were found. The occupants of the car informed that A1 Satish Kumar had left the vehicle somewhere on the way. The accused persons A2 Amar Singh Kain and A3 Iqbal Ali alongwith the Scorpio car and the bribe money were taken to the CBI office. The handwash of A2 Amar Singh Kain were taken which showed positive result. Similarly, the wash of right inner side of front passenger seat back rest and left CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 12 of 6 inner side of the driver seat back of Scorpio were taken. A2 Amar Singh Kain and A3 Iqbal Ali were arrested on 25/5/06 at 8pm at CBI office vide arrest cum seizure memo Ex.PW2/J and Ex.PW2/K. In the search of Scorpio, one mobile phone make Sony Ericcson having IMEI No. 35906100019831, being used by A1 Satish Kumar was found. The phone did not contain SIM card as the same was thrown somewhere by A1 Satish Kumar. On 25/05/2006 itself PW25 Insp Mukesh Kumar conducted the search at the office of A1 Satish Kumar. A1 Satish Kumar surrendered in the Court on 27/5/06. During investigation, specimen voice of A1 Satish Kumar was recorded in the presence of independent witnesses PW7 AK Singal and PW14 PS Malik. The investigation revealed that A2 Amar Singh Kain and A1 Satish Kumar had long family association and wife of A2 Amar Singh Kain had been working as Secretary to Smt. Tarawati, mother of A1 Satish Kumar. Smt. Prakash Kain wife of A2 Amar Singh Kain was also one of the Directors in a company namely Shri Swayambu Nath Farms Ltd alongwith parents of A1 Satish Kumar. During investigation, call detail records of mobile phone No. 9810202648 of complainant and mobile No. 9811018341 of A1 Satish Kumar was collected. The call detail records indicated the frequent conversation between A1 and the complainant. The exhibits of the case were sent to CFSL. The identity of the voice of A1 Satish Kumar was also established by the CFSL. After investigation, the chargesheet u/S 120B IPC r/w Sec. 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of POC Act, 1988 and substantive offence u/S 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of POC Act, 1988 was filed in the court on 27/4/07. The cognizance was taken on 10/7/07 and the copies were CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 13 of 6 duly supplied to the accused persons.
CHARGE 2.0 Being a prima facie case, the charge u/S 120B IPC r/w Sec. 7 and 13(2) POC Act, 1988 was framed against all the accused persons and substantive charge U/s 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of POC Act, 1988 was framed against A1 Satish Kumar. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PROSECUTION WITNESSES 3.0 Prosecution examined 29 witnesses in support of its case. The star witnesses of the prosecution are complainant Ramesh Kumar Juneja (PW17), independent witnesses PW2 Sh. Ramesh Pawar and PW22 Sh. MM Singh. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.05.2006 A1 Satish Kumar had agreed to accept the bribe from PW17 Ramesh Kumar Juneja while on the way from Noida to Meerut at near Moinuddin Sugar Mill. After the acceptance of bribe, the complainant PW17 gave a predetermined miss call to PW26 Insp. SS Bhullar on which the CBI party rushed towards the accused persons to apprehend them, but accused persons managed to flee away from the spot. Thereafter, the CBI team chased the accused persons' vehicle and nabbed them. In the meanwhile, A1 Satish Kumar escaped from the Scorpio car. During this process of chase and apprehension, help of UP Police was taken and to prove this fact the prosecution examined, PW4 Ct. Inderveer Singh, PW6 SI Vijay Gopal, PW19 SI Jagbir, PW20 CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 14 of 6 SI Jai Narain, PW23 SI Vinod Kumar and PW24 Ct. Chanderbir Singh. The search was conducted on 25.05.2006 at the office premises of A1 Satish Kumar. The search proceedings were proved by the prosecution through witnesses i.e. PW11 Sh. Madan Lal, PW12 Sh. Surender Kumar Sharma, PW15 Sh. Devender Kumar Pandey, PW25 Insp. Raja Chatterjee and PW28 Insp. Mukesh Kumar. The Scientific evidence has been proved by CBI through PW5 Dr. Rajinder Singh, PW10 Sh. VB Ramteke and PW27 Sh. AD Tiwari. The photographs of the damaged Scorpio car were taken by PW3 Sh. Abhay H. Ganvir and the same were duly proved by him. Specimen voice of A1 Satish Kumar was recorded in the presence of PW7 Sh. AK Singhal and PW14 Sh. Preetam Singh Malik. The Call details record of the complainant and A1 Satish Kumar were proved by PW8 Sh. RK Singh, PW9 Sh. Jyotish Mohrana and PW18 Sh. Israar Babu. The sanction has been proved by PW1 Sh. SK Mohanty. The fact that scorpio car was in possession of A1 Satish Kumar was proved by PW13 Sh. Sanjeev Pathak. RC No.18(A)/2006 was proved by PW16 Sh. Gurmeet Singh and the prosecution examined PW21 Pramod Kumar, the then Commissioner Income Tax to prove the jurisdiction of A1 Satish Kumar at the relevant time. Insp. SS Bhullar, TLO has been examined as PW26 and Insp. AS Sandhu has been examined as PW29.
A broad overview of the core evidence brought by the prosecution to bring home the charges against the accused persons may now be made as under : CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 15 of 6
(A) Sanction: 3.1 PW1 Sh. SK Mohanti, Under Secretary, Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India (PW1) proved the sanction order dtd. 17/4/07 as Ex.PW1/A. The witness stated that a proposal/request for prosecution of A1 Satish Kumar was received from the CBI by the Director General of Income Tax (Vigilance) and it was sent to the competent authority i.e. Finance Minister for sanction which was approved on 19/3/07. PW1 stated that the proposal alongwith draft sanction order was sent to him on 11/4/07and then under his capacity as Under Secretary, the sanction order Ex.PW1/A dtd. 17/4/07 was issued and forwarded to the CBI alongwith forwarding letter Ex.PW1/B. In the cross examination, PW1 admitted that file had not gone to the office of the President of India for sanction. The witness had brought the file containing the approval of the Finance Minister. The witness denied that Finance Minister did not consider the documents at the time of granting sanction and the sanction was accorded in a mechanical manner without application of mind.
(B) Pretrap verification: 3.2 PW26 Inspt SS Bhullar deposed on oath that on 24/5/06 he was
called by SP, CBI, ACB in his office and was handed over FIR Ex.PW16/A alongwith the complaint Ex.PW2/A and introduced him to the complainant Sh. Ramesh Juneja (PW17). The witness was briefed about the matter. Inspt. SS Bhullar was directed by Sh. B. Srinivasan, the then SP, CBI, New Delhi to verify the complaint and to take necessary action. Inspt. SS Bhullar took the complainant CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 16 of 6 to his room and probed regarding the complaint. The independent witnesses PW2 Sh. Ramesh Pawar and PW22 Madan Mohan Singh were joined alongwith Inspt. AV Bhardwaj and Inspt. Prem Nath . The complainant was introduced to the independent witnesses as well as to the other members of the team and the allegations were informed to all. The independent witnesses satisfied themselves about the allegations and thereafter, inorder to verify the demand, the complainant was asked to contact A1 Satish Kumar on his mobile phone. For the purpose of recording the conversation, DVR was arranged. The introductory voice of both the witnesses were recorded. The telephonic conversation between the complainant and A1 Satish Kumar was recorded. In the said conversation, A1 Satish Kumar asked the complainant to meet him at the residence in Noida. Inspt. Bhullar stated that pursuant to this the CBI team alongwith the independent witnesses and the complainant left for Noida at around 8:15pm. The complainant was handed over the DVR in order to record the conversation between him and A1 Satish Kumar and the complainant was further directed to meet the CBI team on the way to the DND Flyover after the conversation was over. After about 10pm, the complainant joined the CBI team. DVR was taken back from the complainant. The recording confirmed the demand and the fact that the delivery of bribe to take place on 25/5/06 at about 10am near Modi Nagar. The recorded conversation was transferred into two blank audio cassettes (Q1). The pretrap verification memo Ex.PW2/B was prepared.
PW2 Sh. Ramesh Kumar Pawar, independent witness corroborated CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 17 of 6 the statement of PW26 Inspt. SS Bhullar regarding pretrap verification proceedings. It was noted that there was contradiction regarding the time of leaving the CBI office as PW26 Inspt. SS Bhullar had stated that the CBI team had left for Noida at 8:15pm whereas PW2 Sh. Ramesh Kumar Pawar stated that they left the CBI office at 9pm. PW2 stated that in the recorded conversation, the accused was heard making a demand of Rs 10 lakhs. The witness proved his signature on pretrap verification memo Ex.PW2/B. In the cross examination PW2 Ramesh Pawar reiterated that complainant talked to the accused on telephone in his presence, however, the witness stated that he did not hear any demand being raised by the person on other side while talking to the complainant on phone. The witness was cross examined at length regarding the route they took to reach Noida, the place where the team stayed back while complainant had gone to meet A1 Satish Kumar and regarding location of the residence of the complainant. However, nothing material appeared in the cross examination which could shatter the case of CBI. It is pertinent to mention here that PW2 admitted in the cross examination that the recorded conversation was of less than 30 minutes Regarding pretrap, PW22 Sh. Madan Mohan Singh made a consistent and corroborative statement. PW22 also stated that the complainant was specifically told that there should not be any inducement of money to the accused. Sh. MM Singh also stated that the DVR was played before them and all the team members, which confirmed the demand of Rs. 10 lakhs by the accused.The cross examination of PW22 Sh. MM Singh regarding pretrap verification did not elicit CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 18 of 6 anything material.
In respect of the pre trap verification, PW17 Sh. Ramesh Juneja also deposed on oath that on 24/5/06, he lodged a complaint Ex.PW2/A in his handwriting and under his signatures and met SP, CBI. SP, CBI directed him to meet Inspt. SS Bhullar (PW26)who listened to the complainant in detail . PW17 Sh. Ramesh Juneja explained the contents of the complaint to independent witnesses i.e. PW2 and PW22 and at instance of Inspt. SS Bhullar, he made a call from his mobile to the mobile of A1 Satish Kumar for verification of his complaint. In the said conversation A1 Satish Kumar asked the complainant to come to his residence on the same day. The complainant stated that he himself alongwith the independent witnesses and CBI officials left for Sec. 15/A, Noida. The complainant went alone to the residence of A1 Satish Kumar. He was given a DVR in the recording mode. The complainant stated that after some formal talks, A1 Satish Kumar again started raising the demand of bribe. A1 Satish Kumar raised the demand of Rs. 25 lakhs and after negotiations, he came down to settle at Rs. 10 lakhs. A1 Satish Kumar told the complainant that on 25/5/06 he would meet him at Modi Nagar as he leaves his residence at 10 am in the morning for his office in Meerut. The complainant stated that after leaving A1's house, he met the CBI team near the point where DND Flyover starts and handed over the DVR to the CBI officials. The CBI team heard the recording in the presence of independent witnesses. The complainant proved the pretrap verification memo Ex.PW2/B. Similarly, PW26 Inspt. SS Bhullar was cross examined at length CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 19 of 6 regarding pretrap verification. Inspt. SS Bhullar stated that he cannot say that the endorsement encircled at point 'B' regarding verification of the complaint and action to be taken was made prior to registration of RC or subsequent thereto. TLO stated that he had received the said complaint alongwith copy of FIR having said endorsement. TLO was cross examined regarding the jurisdiction of New Delhi, however, TLO stated that since the complainant while being in New Delhi had received a call/message as well as his office being in New Delhi, therefore, the jurisdiction of CBI, ACB, New Delhi was made out. Inspt. SS Bhullar admitted that there was no demand during the telephonic conversation at preverification stage, however, he denied the suggestion that there was an inducement on the part of the complainant. TLO stated that in the conversation there was an indication of demand. Inspt. SS Bhullar was also cross examined at length regarding the place where they stopped while the complainant had gone to meet the accused. TLO reaffirmed in answer to a specific question that complainant on being questioned informed regarding the demand of Rs. 10 lakhs by A1 Satish Kumar and its subsequent delivery on the next day near Modi Nagar. Inspt. SS Bhullar stated that the audio recording in the DVR was played while they were sitting in the complainant vehicle and were travelling towards CBI office. TLO stated that after coming back to the CBI office, the verification memo was prepared and simultaneously the recording was transferred into blank audio cassettes. TLO was also cross examined regarding the nature of the complaint or the pendency of any income tax investigation against the complainant or his group companies. In a CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 20 of 6 specific answer to a question, TLO stated that on going through the transcript of the conversation recorded on 24/5/06, it is clear that there was no specific talk between the parties regarding any pendency of the complaint or enquiry with the Income Tax Department nor there is any query or response as to in what manner the complaint/ enquiry pending would be settled or disposed of so as to give benefit to the complainant or any of his group companies. PW26 Inspt. SS Bhullar, however stated that on the internal page 6 of the transcript, there is a mention by the complainant saying that he had talked to the Directors and Directors were saying "thoda sa concession kara do jaroor". Inspt. SS Bhullar denied the suggestion that there was pressure on the investigating team to falsely implicate the accused Satish Kumar. Inspt. SS Bhullar admitted that he did not make any request for a photographer for the purpose of photography/videography of the trap proceedings conducted on 24/5/06 or 25/5/06.
(C) Handing Over Memo Ex.PW2/C / Proceedings conducted at
CBI office on 25/5/06 before leaving for trap:
3.3 PW26 Inspt. SS Bhullar stated that on 25/5/06 at about 7am, the CBI
team officials, independent witnesses and complainant reported to him in CBI office. The complainant produced Rs. 8 lakhs GC notes in the denomination of Rs. 500/ and Rs. 1,000/ GC notes in a polythene bag of Jagdish Stores. The number of these GC notes of Rs. 8 lakhs was noted down in separate sheets which were signed by all present. The trap kit bag containing sodium carbonate powder, glass CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 21 of 6 tumbler, clean glass bottles, CBI brass seal and marking material were arranged from CBI malkhana. Inspt. Umesh Vashisht and PW2 Ramesh Pawar gave the demonstration regarding phenolphthalein powder on GC notes and polythene bag. Inspt. CK Sharma conducted personal search of the complainant to rule out any incriminating article/document in possession. PW26 stated that complainant was directed to hand over the Jagdish Store polythene bag containing Rs. 8 lakhs to the accused on his specific demand and not otherwise or on his specific direction to some other person. All the team members washed their hands and mutually searched each other. The DVR alongwith compaq cassette recorder with blank audio cassettes were arranged. The formal introductory voice of both the independent witnesses were recorded. The complainant was directed to give a missed call on the mobile No. of the TLO after the transaction of bribe is over. The TLO proved the handing over memo Ex.PW2/C alongwith annexures on which the GC numbers of tainted notes were noted down. In the cross examination, TLO admitted that the trap team had used the vehicles provided by the complainant and the search of the same were not taken.
In regard to the proceedings held on 25/5/06 at CBI office before the CBI left for Noida PW22 Sh. MM Singh fully corroborated the version of TLO. PW22 deposed that they were specifically instructed to remain with the trap party to witness the trap proceedings. He also stated that no shadow witness was sent alongwith the complainant as accused had asked him i.e. complainant to come alone. There is no cross examination of PW22 regarding this fact. CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 22 of 6
PW17 Ramesh Juneja deposed on oath that on 25/5/06 he reached CBI office at around 7am and met the CBI officials. The complainant stated that he had gone to the CBI office in Qualis having registration No. DL3C AA 2497 and had also taken other vehicle Ford Endeavor with him upon being requested by CBI officials to arrange for second vehicle. The complainant stated that he handed over an amount of Rs. 8 lakhs in the denomination of Rs. 500/ and Rs. 1000/ to CBI officials. The number of these GC notes were noted down and the same were treated with phenolphthalein powder. The complainant further stated that his personal search was taken and he was asked to keep the money with himself and to hand over the same to A1 Satish Kumar on his demand at Modi Nagar. The complainant proved the handing over memo Ex.PW2/C. The complainant was also not cross examined regarding this fact.
PW2 Sh. Ramesh Pawar also proved the handing over memo Ex.PW2/C and identified his signatures on the same. Sh. Ramesh Pawar stated that he took part in the demonstration of phenolphthalein powder. PW2 Sh. Ramesh Pawar was also not cross examined regarding the handing over memo. (D) Demand of bribe by A1 Satish Kumar (before registration of FIR):
3.4 In this regard, the star witness of the prosecution is the complainant Sh. Ramesh Juneja PW17. Sh. Ramesh Juneja deposed on oath that he is Chairman cum Director of a pharmaceutical company under the name and style of M/s Mankind Pharma Ltd. having its registered office at 236, Okhla Industrial CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 23 of 6 Estate, Phase III, New Delhi. The complainant belonged to Meerut side and his personal income tax returns and income tax returns of his company were being filed at Meerut. The complainant stated that in the year 2006, he received a message to meet A1 Satish Kumar who was Addl. Director (Investigation), Income Tax Department, Meerut, pursuant to which he met A1 Satish Kumar in Meerut at his office. A1 Satish Kumar told the complainant that he i.e. A1 had sufficient material to initiate action against the complainant and may cause damage to him.
A1 Satish Kumar asked the complainant to meet him at his residence and also gave his mobile number 9811018341. The complainant also told that he was using mobile no. 9810202648 at that time. PW17 Ramesh Juneja stated that on 20/5/06, he went to the house of A1 Satish Kumar in the afternoon as called by him. During this meeting, again A1 Satish Kumar repeated the threat and stated that a bribe of Rs. 30 lakhs is the only solution to avoid this problem. The complainant stated that after negotiations the amount was settled at Rs. 10 lakhs. The complainant sought some time to consult with other Directors.
On 22/5/06, the complainant received a call from A1 Satish Kumar regarding demand of bribe of Rs. 10 lakhs and a repeated call on 23/5/06 raising the same demand. The complainant told A1 that he was making efforts to arrange the amount and as soon as the amount is arranged, he would talk to him. The complainant stated that he was under heavy pressure and being frustrated, approached the CBI office to file the complaint. PW17 Ramesh Juneja also stated that he had withdrawn cash amount of Rs. 8 lakhs from the company account in CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 24 of 6 HDFC Bank, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. In regard to the corroborative evidence regarding the demand of bribe made on 20/5/06, 22/5/06, 23/5/06 and 24/5/06, the CBI has relied upon the telephonic conversation which took place between the complainant and A1 Satish Kumar. It is pertinent to mention here that it is a matter of record that in the telephonic conversation held on 24/5/06 between the complainant and A1 Satish Kumar, there was no demand of bribe. The complainant proved the transcription of the conversation (telephonic conversation as well as direct conversation) between him and A1 Satish Kumar on 24/5/06 as Ex.PW17/C (running into 34 pages). The conversation Ex.PW17/C1 is the transcript of the fist telephonic conversation between the complainant and A1 Satish Kumar, made by the complainant from the CBI office on 24/5/06. The transcription of second telephonic conversation has been proved as Ex.PW17/C2.The third call was received by the complainant from A1 Satish Kumar, the transcript of which is Ex.PW17/C3. A1 Satish Kumar asked the complainant to come over to his residence to discuss the matter. The perusal of this conversation (Ex.PW17/C3) would indicate that A1 Satish Kumar was insisting to talk on landline. It also indicates the complainant expressing his difficulty and requesting to reduce over which accused asked the complainant to meet him and to avoid making any phone call. It also indicates complainant offering to bring the article and accused insisting on visit. The complainant again saying that he has only "8" and A1 not giving any clear reply. Ex.PW17/C4 is the transcript of the direct conversation between complainant and A1 Satish Kumar, which took place CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 25 of 6 on 24/5/06 at the residence of A1 Satish Kumar. The complainant deposed on oath that during these talks the demand of bribe started from Rs. 25 lakhs and then it came down to Rs. 10 lakhs by A1 Satish Kumar. The complainant stated that he kept on insisting that he can arrange only Rs. 8 lakhs and A1 Satish Kumar asked to make efforts to arrange full bribe amount of Rs. 10 lakhs. The complainant also stated that it was decided that they would meet at Modi Nagar on the next day while going towards Meerut as accused would start for going to the office at around 10 am. PW17 Sh. Ramesh Juneja duly proved the cassette Ex.P14. In the cross examination, the complainant admitted that he had not mentioned in his complaint dtd. 24/5/06 Ex.PW2/A, the fact regarding receipt of call from A1 Satish Kumar on 22/5/06 asking him to pay the bribe amount of Rs. 10 lakhs. In the cross examination, the complainant stated that DVR was switched on around 5 minutes before he reached the house of the accused. It also came in the cross examination of the complainant that he had discussion of around 1 ½ hour on 24/5/06. The complainant admitted that he did not ask the accused to show him the documents on the basis of which the complaint against his companies were made nor did he ask the accused any way out to close the complaint. The complainant denied the suggestion that during the discussion of around 1 ½ hour with the accused on 24/5/06 only land deals were discussed. In regard to the demand of bribe on 24/5/06, TLO PW26 Inspt SS Bhullar stated that the recording of direct conversation between complainant and A1 Satish Kumar confirmed the delivery of bribe to take place on 25/5/06.
CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 26 of 6 (E) Demand, Acceptance and Recovery of bribe (on spot i.e. 25.05.2006 3.5 In respect of demand of the bribe , PW17 Ramesh Kumar Juneja made a specific statement on oath that in April 2006, he received a message from A1 Satish Kumar, who was Additional Director (Investigation), Income Tax Department, Meerut, to meet him, pursuant to which he met A1 Satish Kumar. In the said meeting, A1 told the complainant that he i.e. A1 had sufficient material with him to initiate action against the complainant. A1 asked the complainant to meet him at his residence. The complainant stated that he had been using mobile No.9810202648 during those days. Accused gave his mobile No.9811018341 to the complainant. On 20.05.06, complainant went to the house of A1 in the afternoon as called by the accused and on this day also, A1 raised a demand of Rs. 30 lakhs as bribe and after negotiation it was reduced to Rs.10 lakhs complainant sought time saying that he would consult other Directors. Allegedly, the demand was repeated by the accused,when the complainant received a telephonic call from A1 to pay the bribe amount of Rs.10 lakhs, which was followed by another call on 23.05.2006.
In regard to the demand at pretrap stage, the complainant stated that on 24.05.06, after verification of the complaint and during the pretrap proceedings at 8:15 to 8:30pm, he reached at the residence of A1 and after some formal talks, accused started raising demand of bribe and this time the demand was of Rs.25 lakhs and after negotiation it was reduced to Rs.10 lakhs. The complainant further CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 27 of 6 stated that A1 told him that on 25.05.2006 he i.e. A1 will meet the complainant at Modi Nagar as he i.e. A1 leaves his residence at around 10:00am for his office in Meerut. The evidence of the demand on the spot was reiterated by the complainant while he stated that after A1 sat in his car, the vehicle started moving and the accused immediately asked him i.e. complainant that how much money he had brought. The complainant replied that he has brought Rs.8 lakhs and handed over the polythene bag of Jagdish Store lying near his feet containing the money. A1 received that polythene bag with his hands and thereafter, kept the bag near his feet. The complainant further stated that after reaching outside the Big Bite Resort, A1 Satish Kumar asked the driver to stop the car and also to signal to his driver, who was following them. Both the vehicles stopped on the left side outside the Big Bite Resort. A1 Satish Kumar directed his driver i.e. A3 Iqbal Ali to send the person sitting on his left side i.e. A2 Amar Singh Kain, to him. A2 came and the accused handed over the polythene bag of M/s. Jagdish Store containing the bribe money to him. A2 received the polythene bag containing the money and went back to the vehicle of the accused and sat in the same. A1 kept sitting in the vehicle of the complainant and directed both the vehicles to move towards Meerut. A2 Amar Singh Kain was duly identified by the complainant. The complainant also noticed that apart from A2 and A3, one lady and a child were also sitting in the said Scorpio car of A1. The complainant stated that after traveling for 34 kms., A1 asked the driver of the complainant to signal the driver of the Scorpio to stop the vehicle outside the Subharti Medical College. Both the vehicles stopped on the CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 28 of 6 main road outside Subharti Medical College. A1 Satish Kumar alighted from the complainant's vehicle and sat in his Scorpio car. Immediately on which, the complainant gave the predecided signal to the CBI team. The complainant stated that he noticed that after some distance, the vehicle of A1 was intercepted by CBI team sitting in the Ford Endeavor, upon which both the vehicles stopped. However, immediately thereafter, the Scorpio vehicle again started at a very high speed and it overtook the vehicle of the complainant and in a few seconds it disappeared on the road leading towards Meerut. The complainant stated that CBI team in Ford Endeavor chased the Scorpio car of the accused for sometime and thereafter, the said vehicle stopped as the Scorpio vehicle of the accused could not be found. Thereafter, the complainant deposed about the chase and nabbing of the Scorpio car in which A1 Satish Kumar was not found. The complainant stated that in the digital voice recorder (DVR), the conversation between him and A1 could not be recorded as it was discovered that DVR was not properly switched ON. The complainant thereafter, deposed regarding the proceedings conducted at CBI office.
In respect of the demand and acceptance, PW17 was cross examined at length that there was no occasion for A1 to raise the demand of bribe as no case pertaining to the complainant or his company was pending with A1 or A1 had no direct authority to conduct investigation in respect of affairs of the complainant company. In the cross examination, complainant stated that on 20.05.2006, when he met A1 Satish Kumar in the afternoon, he was CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 29 of 6 with him atleast for hour and a half. The complainant admitted that in his complaint to the CBI on 24.05.2006, he has not mentioned the fact that he had received a call from A1 Satish Kumar on 22.05.06 asking him to pay the bribe amount of Rs.10 lakhs. In respect of the fact regarding the withdrawal of money of Rs.8 lakhs from the bank, the complainant admitted that he has not mentioned this fact in his complaint, Ex.PW2/A. The complainant denied the suggestion that in telephonic conversation during pretrap proceedings, rather he offered the money and accused denied the same. The complainant also denied the suggestion that during the discussion of 1 ½ hour with the accused on 24.05.2006, only land deals were discussed. In respect of the demand and acceptance of bribe on 25.05.2006, the complainant stated that despite directions to give the miss call, he could not give any miss call after he handed over the bag of Jagdish Store to TLO as A1 was sitting with him and he became nervous. The complainant denied the suggestion that accused Satish Kumar neither demanded any bribe nor accepted the same.
In regard to the demand and acceptance of bribe, PW2 Ramesh Pawar in his testimony stated that on 25.05.2006, after they left the CBI, a telephonic call was received at about 10:40 am by complainant Ramesh Kumar Juneja from the accused saying that he was waiting at Modi Sugar Mill, where they reached at about 11:15 am. As per the description given by the complainant, a grey colour Scorpio which bore a Delhi number, reached there after about 2025 minutes and stopped besides the Quails of the complainant. From the Scorpio Car, a sturdy built man came out and sat inside the car of the complainant. PW2 stated CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 30 of 6 that he may not be able to identify that person but that person was of a dark complexion (it would be proper to record the observation of the court that A1 herein is a sturdy man having dark complexion). PW2 further stated that thereafter, both the vehicles started moving and after traveling about 56 kms, both the vehicles stopped and a man aged about 60 years came out of Scorpio car and went towards Qualis Car. That person took the polythene bag containing the money from Qualis Car and returned to the Scorpio car and thereafter, both the vehicles started moving. PW2 further stated that they were following both the vehicles. After traveling some distance, both the vehicles stopped and A1 Satish Kumar came out from Qualis car and started sitting in the Scorpio car. The complainant, as per earlier instructions gave a miss call to PW26 Insp. SS Bhullar, upon which the car in which PW2 was sitting reached there and was diagonally parked ahead of Scorpio car and CBI team came out of their car ,but the Scorpio car was reversed and started running away towards the front side. PW2 stated that after covering a distance of about 56 kms., the aforesaid polythene bag was thrown outside the Scorpio. The said polythene bag was recovered by one Inspector of CBI. The said bag was examined and aforesaid currency notes were found to be intact therein. PW2 stated that Scorpio car had gone much ahead of them and some of the team members sat in the car of the complainant and both the vehicles started chasing the Scorpio. After covering a distance of about 4050 kms., Inspector received a call that the said Scorpio was coming towards them in reverse direction. CBI team parked their car horizontally to slow down the traffic which resulted in a CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 31 of 6 small traffic jam. CBI team stopped the Scorpio car and in said Scorpio car A2 Amar Singh Kain alongwith wife of A1 Satish Kumar i.e. DW2 Ms. Meenu S. Kumar were found traveling. A3 Iqbal Ali was found driving the vehicle. PW2 stated that bribe money was counted and tallied by him and PW22 MM Singh with the handing over memo Ex.PW2/C. PW2 also proved the handwash of A2 and A3 and the wash of car seat covers. A suggestion was given to PW2 that he did not see any person entering into the vehicle of the complainant on 25.05.2006 at the pre decided spot nor did he see any polythene bag being handed over to A2 from the Scorpio car. PW2 also denied the suggestion that no vehicle was stopped at the predecided spot and after seeing that the CBI team and the complainant had failed in the trap proceedings, a chase was conducted to apprehend the Scorpio. The witness also denied that handwash of A2 and A3 were not taken at PP Paathshaala for the ulterior motive.
PW22 Sh. MM Singh has also made a corroborative statement regarding the incident on 25.05.2006. He stated that he himself alongwith CBI team left CBI office at around 10:15am and when they were near Sahibabad Anaj Mandi, a call from accused was received at complainant's mobile and the complainant was asked to reach at Moinuddin Sugar Mill. The conversation was duly recorded in DVR and it was duly played to all the persons sitting in the complainant vehicle. PW22 stated that the complainant told that Moinuddin Sugar Mill was located in Modi Nagar on DelhiMeerut GT Road. They reached at Moinuddin Sugar Mill at 11am. There Inspt. SS Bhullar briefed the complainant CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 32 of 6 and he was given a DVR with instructions to switch it ON. PW22 further stated that on seeing the complainant they also got down from the vehicle at some distance from the Moinuddin Sugar Mill and the complainant went away in his vehicle towards the spot. He further stated that TLO and Insp. Vashisht took position at a tea stall near Moinuddin Sugar Mill. After around 2530 minutes, a silver grey colour Scorpio with a beacon light came on the spot and it stopped near the complainant's vehicle. From the silver grey colour Scorpio, a dark complexion healthy person got down and proceeded towards complainant vehicle and sat down in the same. Then both the vehicles proceeded towards Meerut. The complainant's vehicle was followed by a Scorpio car and the CBI team also started following both the vehicles. After about 56 kms., both the above said vehicles stopped at a secluded place. From Scorpio, an aged person got down and went towards left side of the complainant vehicle. He was given a polythene bag from the window of the complainant vehicle and that aged person came back to the Scorpio carrying that polythene bag and sat towards passenger side. PW22 stated that the polythene bag was looking like polythene bag of Jagdish Store in which Rs. 8 lakhs were kept. The complainant later on told the name of that aged person as A2 Amar Singh Kain. Thereafter, both the vehicles started moving. The complainant's vehicle was following the Scorpio and CBI team also started following the vehicles. After about 56 kms., both the vehicles stopped and the person who had sat in the complainant's vehicle at Moinuddin Sugar Mill, got down and went towards Scorpio. PW22 stated that the name of this person was lateron known as A1 Satish CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 33 of 6 Kumar. In the meanwhile, as scheduled earlier, the complainant gave pre determined signal to PW26 Inspt. Bhullar by a miss call. CBI team surrounded the Scorpio car and while they were trying to intercept the Scorpio car, the Scorpio car fled away. The witness further stated that CBI team chased the Scorpio and while they were chasing the vehicle, it was seen that a polythene bag was thrown out of the window from the Scorpio. Immediately, Inspt. Bharadwaj got down and found that some wades of currency notes were lying outside the polythene bag. He collected those currency notes and the polythene bag and came back to the vehicle. The currency notes in the polythene bag were counted and were found to be Rs. 8 lakhs. This was the same polythene bag which was taken by A2 Amar Singh from the complainant's vehicle to the Scorpio and subsequently, it was thrown from the middle seat. PW22 further specifically stated that he had seen A1 Satish Kumar sitting on the middle seat of Scorpio and while Inspt. Bharadwaj took the polythene bag and came back to CBI vehicle, the Scorpio sped away and became invisible. In the cross examination, PW22 denied the suggestion that he did not see any person entering into the vehicle of the complainant on 25.05.2006 at pre decided spot nor he saw any polythene bag being handed over to A2 Amar Singh Kain from the Scorpio. PW22 also denied the suggestion that after CBI team found that their trap has failed they chased the Scorpio car and falsely implicated A2 and A3. PW22 also denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely under the pressure of CBI.
In respect of incident of 25.05.2006, PW26 Insp. SS Bhullar CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 34 of 6 reiterated that they left CBI office at around 10:10am and at about 10:40 am, the complainant received a call from mobile of the accused,when the team was near Krishi Anaj Mandi, Sahibabad. In the said conversation, the complainant was directed by A1 to meet near Mohiuddin Sugar Mill, Modi Nagar. Insp. SS Bhullar stated that on reaching near the spot, CBI team took the position and DVR was handed over to the complainant. PW26 stated that it was seen that the complainant had stopped his vehicle opposite the sugar mill and after sometime, a Silver Grey colour Mahindra Scorpio sporting a Blue Beacon light stopped near the Qualis of complainant and a dark complexion tall, well built person alighted from the left side of the Scorpio car and went towards the Qualis of the complainant and sat in the middle seat from the left door. Thereafter, it was seen that both the vehicles started moving on the Meerut road wherein Scorpio was being followed by Qualis in which the complainant and the accused were sitting. After about 45 kms., it was seen that the Scorpio car and the Qualis had stopped on the left side of the Highway. After about a minute or two it was seen that a medium height old aged person of about 60 years alighted from the left side front seat of the Scorpio and came towards left middle seat of the Qualis in which the complainant and the accused were sitting. It was seen that the said Jagdish Store polythene bag containing the said Rs. 8,00,000/ GC notes were handed over to said old person from the left side ,who took the same and then sat in the left side of front seat of Scorpio along with the said polythene bag. Afterwards both the vehicles again started proceeding towards Meerut. After a distance of about 34 kms., the Qualis CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 35 of 6 in which the complainant and the accused were sitting took over the Scorpio and again halted on the left side of the highway and A1 Satish Kumar alighted from the said Qualis and moved towards his Scorpio. Immediately thereafter, on receipt of a predecided signal, CBI team rushed towards A1. However, A1 got into the vehicle and driver of the vehicle reversed the vehicle and fled away. PW26 Insp. SS Bhullar deposed in detail regarding the dangerous way in which the Scorpio vehicle was being fled. PW26 further stated that while they were chasing Scorpio car, it was seen that said Jagdish Store Polythene Bag was thrown out of the middle window of the said Scorpio by A1 Satish Kumar. The said Polythene Bag was found containing GC Notes of Rs.8 lakhs. PW26 specifically stated that during this process Scorpio car became out of sight and was last seen moving towards Meerut side. Thereafter, PW26 deposed in detail regarding further chase and apprehension of A2 and A3 and proceedings conducted at CBI office. In regard to the incident of 25.05.2006, PW26 Insp. SS Bhullar admitted in the cross examination that when he saw the complainant's vehicle stopping and A2 getting down from Scorpio car and being handed over one polythene packet, he did not make any attempt to catch A2 Amar Singh Kain, who had collected the polythene bag containing the bribe amount. A suggestion was put to the IO that he did not take any step to apprehend A2 as he was not sure whether the said polythene bag was containing the bribe amount. TLO replied that he did not apprehend A2 as he had not received any indication from the complainant regarding the completion of transaction of bribe. In the lengthy cross examination there was nothing material CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 36 of 6 which could shatter the testimony of this witness.
(F) Motive: 3.6 The case of the prosecution is that A1 Satish Kumar while being
posted as Additional Director (Investigation), Income Tax, Meerut threatened the complainant to initiate action against him, if he i.e. the complainant, fails to fulfill the demand of bribe. In this respect, the prosecution has examined PW21 Sh. Pramod Kumar, the then Commissioner, Income Tax at Meerut. PW21 Sh. Pramod Kumar deposed on oath that A1 Satish Kumar joined as Addl. Commissioner / Joint Commissioner at Meerut and had been given the charge of Range II. The ranges are divided as per alphabets. 'A to M' falls in Range I and 'N to Z' falls in Range II. The witness stated that being in Range II, M/s Mankind Pharma was not in the jurisdiction of accused Satish Kumar. However, lateron, A1 Satish Kumar was posted as Addl. Director (Investigation) and in this capacity, accused Satish Kumar had jurisdiction over M/s Mankind Pharma and in this capacity he could call the file and record of M/s Mankind Pharma for official purpose. In the cross examination, PW21 stated that after being posted as Additional Director (Investigation), A1 Satish Kumar was no more in his subordination. The witness proved the communications dated 19.04.2005 and 14.07.2005 as Ex.PW21/DA and Ex.PW21/DB. The witness stated that it is not necessary that files called by the Investigation Wing would be sent alongwith a noting to the Investigation Wing by the Assessment Wing. He stated that keeping CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 37 of 6 in view the sensitivity of the matter, the Investigating Wing sometimes calls the file directly from the Commissioner/Addl. Commissioner or directly from Assessing Officer but it is expected that Investigating Wing will receive a file against a proper receipt.
(G) Search Conducted on 25.05.2006 at office premises of A1 Satish Kumar:
3.7 In this respect, prosecution examined PW11 Sh. Madan Lal, Officer, PNB, Zonal Office, Meerut, PW12 Sh. Surender Kumar Sharma, Sr. Manager, PNB, Muzaffarnagar, UP, PW15 Sh. Devender Kumar Pandey, Income Tax Officer, Badot, Meerut, PW25 Insp. Raja Chatterjee PW26 Insp. SS Bhullar and PW28 Insp Mukesh Kumar.
PW25 Insp. Raja Chatterjee deposed on oath that on 25.05.2006, he searched the office premises of A1 Satish Kumar the then Additional Director (Investigation), Income Tax Department, in pursuant to the authorization u/S.165 Cr.P.C. issued by Insp. SS Bhullar (PW26). The witness stated that he alongwith PW28 Insp. Mukesh Kumar, other staff members and independent witnesses, PW11 and PW12 conducted the search. Upon request being made, PW15 Sh. Devender Kumar Pandey, Income Tax Officer, also joined the proceedings. During search, one Godrej Steel Almirah was found locked and the same was opened by calling a locksmith who prepared the duplicate key. The search cum seizure cum observation memo has been proved as Ex.PW11/A. In the cross examination, CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 38 of 6 PW25 stated that he was not party to the trap team. Witness stated that Insp. Mukesh was in constant touch on telephone with Insp. SS Bhullar and also the SP during the entire period till the conclusion of search . The witness admitted that he has not been shown any folder on record of the file. He also admitted that out of the 7 documents shown him today as Ex.PW11/D1 to D7, four pages i.e. Ex.PW11/D4 to D7 do not contain any handwritten material. He also admitted that the files mentioned in Ex.PW11/C contained no incriminating material and therefore, the same were not sealed.
PW11 also corroborated the search proceedings and proved his signature on the search cum seizure cum observation memo Ex.PW11/A. Witness also identified his signatures on documents Ex.PW11/B & Ex.PW11/C. The loose sheets seized during the search were identified by the witness as Ex.PW11/D1 to D7. PW12 also made a consistent and corroborative statement on oath. PW15 Sh. Devender Kumar Pandey also proved the search proceedings. Witness admitted in the cross examination that the documents Ex.PW11/D1 to D3 do not contain writing of A1. He also stated that on document Ex.PW11/D4 to D7, there is a date of 15.08.2002. PW15 was also not able to say if these four documents pertain to Income Tax or not but he stated that Income tax papers can be downloaded in these manner and these documents appear to be downloaded from internet as these papers do not bear the file number of income tax or pagination of the department.
PW28 Insp. Mukesh Kumar also proved the search proceedings. He stated that search was conducted as per codal formalities. The witness also stated CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 39 of 6 that search memo was prepared on the computer available in the office of one of the officer in the same office and copy of this memorandum was handed over to PW15 Sh. Devender Kumar Pandey, Income Tax Officer deputed by the office of Commissioner of Income Tax.
(H) UP Police Officers: 3.8 PW24 Ct. Chandbir Singh proved the production cum seizure memo
Ex.PW24/A vide which copy of GD entry No.29 dtd. 25/5/06, PS Khekhra and duty chart from 20/5/06 to 26/5/06 showing duty chart of Ct. Devender Singh, No. 292, from 8am to 4pm on 25/5/06 at PP Paatshaala. The true copy of GD No.29 has been proved as Ex.PW24/C and the duty chart has been proved as Ex.PW24/D. PW24 Ct. Chandbir Singh stated that at around 1pm while he was in PP Paatshaala, Ct. Devender informed him that a barrier has to be put immediately for stopping a Scorpio vehicle with a blue light. He put a naaka at PP Paathshaala and after sometime, the Scorpio vehicle with blue light came from the side of Baghpat and it stopped on naaka, however, as soon as the driver put down his window glass a green colour Qualis also came. The driver of the Scorpio on seeing the Qualis immediately put his vehicle in reverse gear and fled towards Baghpat. PW24 Ct. Chandbir stated that they tried to stop the Scorpio by hitting danda on which its glasses also got damaged. The public also tried to stop it but the Scorpio fled towards Baghpat and Green Qualis also went behind it towards Baghpat. In the cross examination, witness admitted that at the time of incident, there were two CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 40 of 6 pucca rooms in PP Paathshaala and it was duly equipped with furniture i.e., like chair and table. He also admitted that while coming back from Mobikalan after interception, the vehicles stopped at PP Paathshaala for around 15 minutes and during this time, Sh. Parveen Yadav, SO, PS Khekhra had also reached there.
PW23 SI Vinod Kumar Singh stated that on 25.05.2006, he received a message from control room to stop the silver colour Scorpio having a blue beacon light coming from Meerut side and going towards Baghpat. PW23 stated that after sometime the Scorpio vehicle came to the Baghpat post and he made efforts to stop the vehicle. However, the said Scorpio did not stop and fled towards Delhi side from Baghpat. PW23 gave message to the Control Room that the said vehicle had not stopped.
PW20 SI Jai Narain Singh proved the production cum seizure memo Ex.PW20/A vide which photocopy of criminal case No.187/06 u/Ss.224/279/307 & 34 IPC and FIR No.132/06 dated 25.05.2006 PS Partapur against Satish Kumar alongwith photocopy of GD entry No.60 at 23:30 hrs. dated 25.05.2006, PS Partapur, District Meerut was handed over. Witness admitted in the cross examination that as per FIR Ex.PW4/A, the place of incident was in front of Moinuddin Pul, Sugar Mill, Delhi Road and in the general Diary also the place of incident was shown as same.
PW19 SubInspector Jagbir Singh deposed about the functioning of police control room of District Baghpat. He stated that SI Kalicharan was the Radio Station Officer in the year 2006 and in his absence this witness used to look CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 41 of 6 after the work. Witness stated that as and when any message is received, the same is flashed to the concerned officers/offices of police and entries are also made in the log book. Witness proved the production cum seizure memo Ex.PW19/A vide which attested copy of log book, page No.513961 dated 25.05.2006 of Police Control Room Baghpat was handed over to CBI relating to the message in respect of stopping the Scorpio vehicle Silver colour having blue light and same was proved as Ex.PW19/B. Witness stated that first message was flashed at 13:05 and the last message was flashed at 14:12 and in all 12 messages were flashed, the details of messages are mentioned on both the sides of document Ex.PW19/B. PW19 proved that these messages are in the handwriting of HO Nepal Singh and HO Ramesh Chand and he identifies the handwriting of the same.
PW6 SI Vijay Gopal the then Radio Station Officer, Control Room, Police Line, Meerut proved the production cum seizure memo dated 07.06.2006 as Ex.PW6/A vide which certified copy of the log book, serial No.47417 dated 25.05.2006, Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW6/C were proved. The log book was also produced by the witness. In the cross examination, witness admitted that the message Ex.PW6/B recorded at 12:55 pm as received from SSP, Meerut was to the effect that a Silver Colour Scorpio having blue light in which a woman, a man and a driver are sitting, be stopped wherever found and to inform him immediately.
PW4 Ct. Inderveer Singh (Clerk) posted in PS Partapur, Distt. Meerut proved the FIR No.132/06 as Ex.PW4/A and certified copy of DD entry No.60 as Ex.PW4/B. CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 42 of 6 (I) Tape Recorded Conversation & Call Detail Record:
3.9 In respect of the telephonic conversation between complainant and A1 Satish Kumar, the material witnesses is PW5 Sh. Rajender Singh, Principal Scientific Officer and Head of Physics and Forensic Voice Identification Division, CFSL, New Delhi. He stated that on 12/6/06, he received three sealed parcels from SP, CBI, ACB containing cassettes Q1, Q2 and S1. The parcel Q1 contained the normal audio cassettes which had telephonically recorded conversation of 2.55 seconds duration followed by direct recorded conversation. The total duration of telephonic and direct recording were 47.15 sec. The cassette Q2 had telephonic recorded conversation of 1.12 seconds duration and S1 contained specimen voice of A1 Satish Kumar. PW5 Sh. Rajender Singh stated that he examined the questioned voice of A1 Satish Kumar with respect of his specimen voice by auditory, voice spectrographic technique and found that specimen voice of A1 Satish Kumar tallied the specimen voice marked by him in respect of their linguistic, phonetics and other spectrographic parameters. The witness proved his report as Ex.PW5/A. In the cross examination, the witness stated that total duration of recording in cassette Q1 is of 50.45 seconds. PW5 admitted that he had not recorded the static recording (where there is no voice or noise) in the cassette Q1.
The witness admitted that he could not give any opinion on Q2.
The prosecution also examined PW27 Sh. AD Tiwari who proved his report as Ex.PW27/A. Perusal of the report indicates that the cassettes Q1, Q2 and CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 43 of 6 S1 were sent to him to prepare two CD copies of each audio cassettes. In the cross examination, PW27 stated that the transfer of contents of Q1 and Q2 of CD's were done through internal mode.
The transcription of the recording was prepared by PW29 Inspt. AS Sandhu. In the cross examination, PW29 AS Sandhu admitted that on each page of Ex.PW17/C4 i.e; transcript of direct conversation between complainant and A1 Satish Kumar, there are numerous places where the conversation was not audible and understandable, and therefore, such portions were left blank or it was mentioned not clear (aspasht). Inspt. AS Sandhu PW27 stated that he had not made any request to CFSL while sending the tape recordings to try for voice enhancement procedure so as to enable him to understand the non audible or understandable words and sentences/portions in the said recordings. Inspt. AS Sandhu admitted that he is not sure whether the cassettes which were heard by him to prepare the transcript was made directly from the DVR or it was a copy of the cassette sent to CFSL. He was also not able to tell that whether the cassettes which were used to prepare the transcript were the actual recording from the original DVR or contained conversations which has been interpolated, tampered with or erased. The defence in order to assail the tape recorded conversation examined DW4 Sh. Moinuddin Mondal. DW4 stated that the audio clip was sent to him for forensic examination of voice/audio by A1 Satish Kumar on a specific issue "whether the audio was continuous in all respect". The defence witness proved his report dtd. 28/1/2014 running into 07 pages as Ex.DW4/B. Sh. Moinuddin Mondal CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 44 of 6 stated that during examination, he found that total length of CD 1.15.15 seconds and 166 frame whereas the conversation in the CD was only of 49.18 seconds and 409 frames, therefore, the remaining part has either been suppressed or manipulated in any manner.
3.10 In order to prove the telephonic conversation between the complainant and accused, the prosecution examined Sh. RK Singh, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. as PW8. He proved the call detail record of mobile No. 9810202648 (of the complainant) in the name of Ramesh C. Juneja of Mankind Pharma (P) Ltd., 236, Okhla Industrial Area. The call details were proved as Ex.PW8/B. Sh. RK Singh, stated that this telephone number and mobile No. 9811018341 (of A1 Satish Kumar) had contacted each other 18 times as mentioned at points 1 to 18. In the cross examination, PW8 admitted that on the basis of call record and cell ID chart it cannot be said whether the caller had called from inside his house or while roaming in the neighbourhood of his house.
PW9 Sh. Jyotish Mohrana, Nodal Officer, Vodafone proved the call detail record of mobile No. 9811018341 in the name of A1 Satish Kumar resident of 37C, Greenview Apartment, Sector 15A, Noida for the month of May 2006 as Ex.PW9/A. The witness proved the mobile No. 9810202648 of Airtel contacted with this mobile No. 14 times as mentioned in the S.No. 114. It is pertinent to mention here that since PW9 had left the services of the company, PW18 Israr Babu was examined and he produced the cell ID chart pertaining to NCR of Delhi. CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 45 of 6
(J) Miscellaneous Witnesses: 3.11 PW3 Sh. Abhay H. Ganvir, Scientific Assistant (Photography)
proved the 19 photographs pertaining to Scorpio car bearing No. DL 4CNB 0847 as Ex.PW3/A1 to A19. The negatives were also produced in the court and proved as Ex.PW3/B1 to B19 (photographs taken on 05.06.2006).
PW7 Sh. AK Singhal was the witness to the specimen voice recording of A1 Satish Kumar on 02.06.2006. PW7 proved the specimen voice recording memo dated 02.06.2006 as Ex.PW7/A. PW14 Sh. Pritam Singh Malik was also a witness to the specimen voice recording memo of A1 Satish Kumar and proved the same as Ex.PW7/A. PW13 Sanjeev Pathak, owner of Scorpio car deposed on oath that on 25.05.2006 he had handed over the said car to A1 Satish Kumar for his use. In his cross examination, witness stated that he used to give car with driver as well as for self driven on hire to clients. PW13 stated that he had handed over the aforesaid car with driver i.e. A3 Iqbal Ali to A1 Satish Kumar.
PW16 Sh. Gurmeet Singh, Crime Assistant proved the carbon copy of FIR as Ex.PW16/A. He stated that at internal page 4 at point X, the date of 27.05.2006 was wrongly typed due to typographical error and it be read as 24.05.2006 as he typed the FIR on 24.05.2006.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED 4.0 In their statement u/S.313 Cr.P.C., accused persons denied all the CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 46 of 6 allegations. A1 Satish Kumar stated that he knew PW17 Ramesh Chand Juneja much before this incident as he was neighbor of his father at Vasant Vihar, while he was residing at E8/16, Vasant Vihar, which was around 100m away from his father's house. A1 stated that he was quite friendly with the complainant and the complainant had been visiting his office also number of times just for the courtesy call. A1 stated that he is not aware that the income tax returns of the complainant were being filed at Meerut. A1 stated that no inquiry was contemplated against the complainant or was pending with him or in his office and he had never threatened the complainant nor asked him to meet him (A1) at his residence. However, A1 stated that the complainant used to come frequently at his residence at Noida. A1 denied any demand of bribe. In regard to the meeting on 24.05.2006, accused stated that the complainant wanted to meet him and during conversation, he offered to bring money and suggested something to which he refused. A1 denied that he fixed a meeting with the complainant on 25.05.2006. A1 stated that his wife and daughter were traveling towards Meerut with A2 and A3 on 25.05.2006. For other incriminating evidence, A1 either denied or simply placed his ignorance. In regard to the Scorpio vehicle, A1 admitted that the vehicle belonged to PW13 Sh. Sanjeev Pathak and he had hired the same alongwith the driver i.e. A3 Iqbal Ali for his personal use. Accused admitted that in the capacity of Additional Director (Investigation) he had supervisory jurisdiction. He however, stated that ADIT (Investigation), Meerut was Officer under whose direct jurisdiction, this case used CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 47 of 6 to fall. Accused stated that infact in October 2005, Income Tax Deptt, in Meerut, had conducted raid at around 810 Doctors. The Pharmaceutical companies in general and M/s Mankind Pharma in particular had nexus with these doctors. The complainant apprehended that there may be something against him also and therefore, out of vendetta or a preemptive measure, he filed a false complaint against him. Accused further stated that vide instructions issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, Deptt of Revenue, Govt. of India, any tax evasion petition (TEP)] received from any source was to first be forwarded to the Director of Investigation (Kanpur) who used to categorize it according to the quantum of evasion and jurisdiction and he also used to give a unique number. Only after this any investigation or summons could be issued to investigate the matter by the Jurisdictional, Asst. Director (Investigation) / Dy. Director (Investigation). A1 stated that as Addl. Director (Investigation), he had supervisory functions on 34 Asst. Directors namely Meerut, Muzaffarnagar, Saharanpur and Dehradun and as such had never conducted any enquiry or investigation directly. A1 stated that A2 Amar Singh Kain was his acquaintance and was travelling on that day in the Scorpio to Meerut alongwith his wife and daughter, to meet his inlaws. A1 stated that his wife is also an IRS officer and was posted at Meerut and on that day also, she was going to Meerut to attend her office. A1 stated that his daughter who was a small child, simply accompanied her mother. A1 further stated that he never travelled to Meerut on 25/5/06 as after receiving a call at his residence at Noida only, he went to meet his unwell father.
CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 48 of 6
A2 Amar Singh Kain and A3 Iqbal Ali put a simple denial to the incriminating evidence and stated that they had nothing to do with the incident in question and have been falsely implicated. A2 and A3 also stated that A1 Satish Kumar did not travel with them on that day in the Scorpio car. In respect of the interception and allegation of fleeing away, the accused persons stated that while they were going towards Meerut, near Bypass Meerut somebody gave the signal to stop the vehicle. The Meerut is notorious for many things. They got apprehensive and afraid of and therefore, decided to not to stop the vehicle and turn towards Delhi through Baghpat. A2 further stated that later on the Endeavor intercepted their car and certain people got down from the Endeavor and threw stones on the Scorpio, which resulted into breaking of glasses. A2 stated that he alongwith A3 Iqbal Ali were dragged out of the vehicle and were beaten. A2 and A3 also filed written statements u/S.313(5) Cr.P.C. to plead their innocence. 4.1 Defence examined 04 witnesses in their defence. DW1 Sh. Lakhpat Singh Harit deposed on oath that he knew A1 and his family since long. On 25.05.06, at around 10:45am he received a call from mother of A1 Satish Kumar that father of A1 is very unwell and she further requested him to bring A1 Satish Kumar to her place since A1 Satish Kumar did not have car on that day. DW1 went to the house of A1 Satish Kumar, where A1 Satish Kumar was found waiting for DW1 outside his house. DW1 took A1 Satish Kumar from there and went to Vasant Vihar i.e. father of the accused's place via DND Flyover. DW1 stated in the CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 49 of 6 cross examination that in the year 2006 he was in Govt. job and it was a working day. The defence witness denied the suggestion that he had come to depose falsely to help A1 Satish Kumar. The defence witness admitted that he had stated the fact regarding receipt of telephone call from the mother of the accused and then his visit to Sector 15A, NOIDA to take the accused from NOIDA to Vasant Vihar to his father's place, for the first time.
DW2 Ms. Meenu S. Kumar wife of accused Satish Kumar deposed in detail regarding the incident of 25.05.2006. She reiterated that A1 did not travel with them on 25.05.2006 as A1 got a message that his father was not well and therefore, A1 told his wife i.e. DW2 to continue with her schedule and stated that A1 would be going to see his father and would join later if everything was well. DW2 further stated that she herself alongwith her daughter and A2 left for Meerut in hired Scorpio Car and while on the way, after half an hour, she found that A1 Satish in hurry had forgotten to collect his mobile and briefcase from the car and the same were in the Scorpio car itself. Thus, DW2 called at her residence and talked to servant and asked about A1 Satish Kumar, but A1 had left by this time. DW2 stated about the interception of the car and reiterated that she did not tell the driver to stop the car as she got panicked. In the cross examination, DW2 denied the suggestion that she has given a false, concocted and illogical statement. DW2 admitted that she had not made any written complaint regarding the incident either to the higher officials of CBI or to the any other statutory authority. However, she voluntarily stated that she had personally met DIG, CBI and CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 50 of 6 complained about the conduct of CBI.
DW3 Sh. Daya Ram the then Assistant Director, of Income Tax ( Investigation) UnitII, Meerut deposed on oath that A1 Satish Kumar in the capacity of Addl. Director of Income tax (Investigation) Meerut and was his senior officer. DW3 further stated that all the complaints including TEPs (Tax evasion petition) and intelligence/inputs received from various departments were sent to Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Kanpur for his directions. After receipt of the complaints, the Director ( Investigation), Income tax department Kanpur used to categorize those complaints if the complaints were found to be lacking in substance, they were sent to the field officers, who were placed in the assessment units. If substance was found in the said complaints, they were sent either to the Joint / Addl. Director of Income Tax ( Investigation) within its jurisdiction. The Joint Director / Addl. Director to whom the complaint were forwarded used to mark the same to Asst. Director / Deputy Director, as per the area to which the complaint relates. Thereafter, the Director of income tax used to take a decision whether to proceed further against the assessee or to close the investigation. The role of Addl. Director ( Investigation ) were supervisory in nature. DW3 admitted that at the relevant time he was subordinate of A1 and A1 had jurisdiction over whole of Meerut range. In the cross examination, DW3 stated that the case of M/s Mankind Pharma was not with him and he cannot say whether the same was with any other Asst./ Deputy Director under accused Satish Kumar.
DW4 Sh. Moinuddin Mondal stated that the audio clip was sent to CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 51 of 6 him for forensic examination of voice/audio by A1 Satish Kumar on a specific issue "whether the audio was continuous in all respect". The defence witness proved his report dtd. 28/1/2014 running into 07 pages as Ex.DW4/B. Sh. Moinuddin Mondal stated that during examination, he found that total length of CD 1.15.15 seconds and 166 frame whereas the conversation in the CD was only of 49.18 seconds and 409 frames, therefore, the remaining part has either been suppressed or manipulated in any manner.
ARGUMENTS 5.0 Sh. S Krishna Kumar Ld. PP for CBI submitted that prosecution witnesses have made consistent & corroborative statement on oath. The ocular testimony coupled with scientific evidence on record is sufficient to convict the accused persons. The testimony of the complainant has remained unshaken & has very well withstood the test of crossexamination. It has further been submitted that the defense has taken self contradictory pleas, which have failed to raise any reasonable doubt in the story of the prosecution. The defense witnesses being examined by the accused are interested witnesses, and the closer scrutiny of their deposition would indicate that they have failed to inspire any confidence. Sh. Pawan Narang, Ld. counsel for accused persons assisted by Sh. Anuj Handa, Advocate argued in detail that there is no evidence of conspiracy amongst the accused persons and the case of the prosecution is full of whims, fancies, conjectures and surmises. Sh. Pawan Narang, Ld. counsel would submit that CBI CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 52 of 6 intentionally withheld certain material witnesses like Insp. Prem Nath who handled the recording device, Insp. A.V. Bhardwaj who recovered the money and Sh. Satish Kumar @ Sattey, who was driving the complainant's car at the time when the alleged transaction of bribe took place. The non examination of these witnesses indicate that the case of the prosecution is totally false and frivolous and an adverse inference is required to be drawn against the prosecution for this. Sh. Pawan Narang, Ld. counsel further argued that PW13 Sanjeev Pathak deposed on oath that he is the owner of Scorpio car and on 25.05.2006 he had handed over the car to A1 Satish Kumar for his use and the same was being driven by his driver (PW13's driver) i.e. A3 Iqbal Ali. Ld. counsel argued that the case of the prosecution is full of contradictions, the genesis behind filing a false complaint is that in Meerut, raids were conducted by the Income Tax Department on the prominent Doctors and complainant being the owner of a Pharmaceutical Company took a vindictive step and decided to implicate accused Satish Kumar who was Additional Director (Investigation), Income Tax Department. Ld. counsel pointed out that on 20.05.2006, when the complainant stated to have met A1 Satish Kumar at his residence, is totally false as the call record produced by the prosecution itself shows his presence at Okhla. It has further been submitted that there is also contradiction regarding filing of complaint, Ex.PW2/A on 24.05.2006. As per the case of the prosecution, the complaint was handed over by PW17 to SP, CBI who marked it to PW26 Insp. SS Bhullar with a direction to verify and take necessary action. However, the complainant (PW17) in the witness box stated that CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 53 of 6 after he was referred to PW26 Insp. SS Bhullar by the SP, CBI, he i.e. complainant narrated the entire facts to PW26 and thereafter, moved a complaint Ex.PW2/A in his own handwriting. Ld. counsel pointed out that contrary to this statement, PW 26 stated that he was handed over the complaint, Ex.PW2/A and FIR, RC, Ex.PW16/A by the SP, CBI and only thereafter, the complainant narrated him the entire incident and further proceedings were conducted.
Sh. Pawan Narang, Ld. counsel further argued that in the three telephonic conversations at the pretrap verification, there is no demand being made by A1 and rather there is an inducement on the part of the complainant. Ld. counsel read out the transcription to show that actually there was no demand of bribe and complainant only in order to allure A1 Satish Kumar was making inducement. It has been argued that pretrap verification proceedings were not conducted in accordance of rules and therefore, is liable to be disbelieved.
In respect of the visit of complainant to the residence of A1 Satish Kumar on 24.05.2006 where allegedly again the demand was raised by A1, Ld. counsel would argue that there is a huge contradiction in the testimony of independent witnesses, CBI team and the complainant regarding the time of departure; the place where the CBI team stopped; the location of the house of A1 Satish Kumar and so on. Ld. counsel would argue that the contradiction in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses to this effect clearly shows that actually the entire story is concocted and the CBI was predetermined to register the case against the accused and implicate him falsely.
CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 54 of 6
Coming to 25.05.2006, Ld. counsel would point out certain contradictions in the story of the prosecution regarding the fact that it is not possible that independent witnesses or CBI team could see A1 Satish Kumar alighting from his car and sitting in the car of the complainant. It was also pointed out that CBI intentionally did not position any independent witness in the vehicle of the complainant as they knew very well that in fact there is no demand of bribe and this is the reason LW7 Satya who was driver of the complainant, has not been examined. Ld. counsel read out the testimony of the complainant, PW2 and PW22 to point out the contradictions in their testimony. He also painstakingly read out the cross examination of these witnesses to point out that the story of the prosecution is not believable. Ld. counsel specifically pointed towards the conduct of PW17 and also the contradictions in his testimony. Ld. counsel submits that infact, there was no complaint or matter pertaining to the company of the complainant or the complaint pending with A1 Satish Kumar and there was no reason for A1 to have interacted with the complainant in official position. Ld. counsel submits that attracting Section 7(d) of POC Act in this case, would not be a corrective interpretation and if section 7(d) is attracted in such a case, it would be giving lease to the unscrupulous business man to implicate the govt. servants.
Sh. Pawan Narang, Ld. counsel further argued that the prosecution has not been able to bring any substantive material on record that what kind of official work, the complainant had with A1 Satish Kumar for which the money could have been demanded. It was pointed out that PW17 in his deposition CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 55 of 6 admitted that on 24.05.2006, he did not talk regarding any of his pending case with A1 Satish Kumar, whereas, on 25.05.2006, he allegedly talked about his pending case while handing over the bribe money to A1. Ld. counsel submitted that the fact that on 24.05.2006, there was no discussion between A1 and the complainant regarding any pending file, shows that in fact there was no official work of complainant pending with A1 and thus, there was no occasion for A1 to demand any bribe. Ld. counsel pointed out examination in chief of PW17 dated 20.10.2011 and cross examination dated 16.01.2013 in this regard. It was also pointed out that in the search conducted at the office of A1, nothing was found to connect the accused with the complainant. In regard to the procedure and power of the Investigating Wing of Income Tax, Ld. counsel relied upon the testimony of PW21 and DW3. It has been submitted that there are major contradictions regarding the spot where allegedly the transaction took place. Ld. counsel submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons. The story concocted by the prosecution has failed to inspire the confidence and therefore, the accused persons are liable to be acquitted.
Ld. counsel cited following judgments in support of his contentions :
1. P. Parasurami Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2011) 2 SCC 294;
2. State of Kerala and Anr. Vs. C.P. Rao, (2011) 6 SCC 450;
3. C.M. Girish Babu Vs. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala, (2009) 3 SCC 779;
4. Meena (Smt.) W/o Balwant Hemke Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 5 CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 56 of 6 SCC 21;
5. Sadashiv Mahadeo Yavaluje & Gajanan Shripatrao Salokhe Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 1 SCC 299;
6. Otto George Gfeller Vs. The King, Part 37, 56 L.W., page 709 ; and
7. V. Venkata Subbarao Vs. State, Represented by Insp. Of Police, AP, (2006) 13 SCC 305.
Sh. Pawan Narang, Ld. Counsel has relied upon the judgment of Meena (Smt.) W/o Balwant Hemke's case (supra) to buttress his point that it is essential to have the corroboration for what actually transpired at the time of alleged occurrence and acceptance of bribe. Ld. Counsel submitted that in this case it has been held that like any other criminal offence, the prosecution has to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt and the accused should be considered innocent, till it is established otherwise by proper proof of acceptance of the illegal gratification. It has been submitted that since the CBI has withheld the tape recorded conversation and has not examined LW7 Satya, driver of the complainant, therefore, an adverse interference is required to be drawn against him. In regard to the onus on the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and duty of the accused in a criminal trial, Ld. Counsel relied upon Otto George Gfeller's case (supra).
In respect of presumption u/S.20 of POC Act, 1988, Ld. Counsel CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 57 of 6 relied upon V. Venkata Subbarao's case (supra) in which it was held that in the absence of a proof of demand, the question of arising the presumption would not arise.
In respect of role of A2 Amar Singh Kain and A3 Iqbal Ali, Ld. Counsel relied upon Sadashiv Mahadeo Yavaluje & Gajanan Shripatrao Salokhe's case (supra) and emphasized that the CBI has chargesheeted A2 and A3 on account of their conduct after the trap was laid. It was submitted that even as per the case of the prosecution, A2 was merely entrusted with some money to be kept for and on behalf of A1 and merely on this ground, he cannot be held guilty unless it is established that A2 was a party to the arrangement and arrangements arrived at was that money would be handed over to A2 to be given over to A1.
Ld. Counsel has also relied upon C.M. Girish Babu's case (supra) wherein it was held that mere recovery of tainted money from accused is not enough in absence of evidence to prove the payment of bribe or to show that accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe. It was also held that the presumption to be drawn u/S.20 is not an inviolable one. The accused charged with the offence could rebut it either through the cross examination of the witnesses cited against him or by adducing reliable evidence. 5.1 In rebuttal, Sh. S. Krishna Kumar, Ld. PP for CBI has submitted that prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused persons. It has been submitted that PW2, PW17 and PW22 have made a consistent and CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 58 of 6 corroborative statements on oath regarding the demand, acceptance and recovery of the bribe amount. Ld. PP submitted that testimony of these witnesses have fully been corroborated by PW26 Insp. SS Bhullar. Ld. PP has also pointed out that scientific evidence has also lent the corroboration to the case of the prosecution. It has been submitted that contradictions which have appeared in the testimony of prosecution witnesses are minor in nature and does not go to the root of the case. Ld. PP submitted that though the credibility of the complainant has not been shaken yet if the case is decided on the anvil of testimony of PW2 and PW22, it is clear that the prosecution has successfully proved its case. There is no reason for PW2 and PW22 to depose falsely against the accused persons. In respect of the contradictions Ld. PP submitted that the minor contradictions which have appeared in the testimony of prosecution witnesses are very natural and rather shows that the witnesses have deposed truthfully. Ld. PP submitted that prosecution has successfully proved its case and the credibility of none of its witness is shaken and thus, the accused persons are liable to be convicted.
LEGAL PROVISIONS :
6.0 The accused persons have been charged for the offence u/S 120B IPC r/w Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of POC Act, 1988. A1 Satish Kumar has also been charged for the substantive offence u/S 7 and Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of POC Act, 1988. Section 7 of the POC Act, 1988 provides as under:
"Public Servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 59 of 6 respect of an official act - Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government of any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government Company referred to in clause (c) of Section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine."
The necessary ingredients of Section 7 PC Act, 1988 are as follows :
(1) the accused at the time of the offence was, or expected to be a public servant;
(2) that he accepted, or obtained, or agreed to accept, or attempted to obtain from some person a gratification;
(3) that such gratification was not a legal remuneration due to him; and, (4) that he accepted the gratification in question as a motive or reward, for:
(a) doing or forbearing to do an official act, or
(b) showing, or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to some one in the exercise of his official functions; or
(c) rendering or attempting to render, any service or disservice to some one, with the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any public servant.
Similarly, Section 13(1)(d) of the POC Act, 1988 provides as under:
"13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant: (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,
(d) if he,
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 60 of 6 other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest ."
The necessary ingredients of Section 13(1)(d) are as follows :
1) accused was a public servant;
2) accused used corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abused his position; and,
3) accused obtained for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.
The offence of conspiracy has been defined u/S 120A IPC, which reads as under:
"120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy - When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy;
(3) Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof."
The bare perusal of the provision would make it clear that in order to convict a person u/S 120B IPC, there has to be some credible material/ circumstances direct or indirect which could infer meeting of minds amongst the accused persons. In respect of the distinction between Sec. 7 and 13(1)(d) of the CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 61 of 6 POC Act, 1988, it can be stated that if we peruse Sec. 7 of the POC Act, the initiative rests with the receiver of the bribe. Therefore, Sec. 7 of the POC Act, can be attributed even if the prosecution has not been able to attribute demand of bribe on part of the accused. However, in order to bring Sec. 13(1)(d) of the POC Act, the prosecution is duty bound to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe because in order to fasten the guilt u/S 13(1)(d), the initiative rests with the giver of the bribe.
FINDINGS:
7.0 To put it in a concise manner, the case of the prosecution is that A1 Satish Kumar, while being posted as Addl. Director (Investigation), Income Tax, Meerut approached PW17 Sh. Ramesh Chand Juneja, and demanded bribe for non initiation of any action against him. A1 Satish Kumar kept on demanding the bribe and the complainant being frustrated and not inclined to pay the bribe approached CBI and filed the complaint. Upon complaint being filed, the CBI officials constituted a trap team. In the pretrap verification, A1 Satish Kumar was contacted by the complainant on his mobile phone. A1 Satish Kumar called the complainant on 24/05/2006 at his residence. In the said meeting, A1 Satish Kumar repeated the demand of bribe and asked PW17 Ramesh Chand Juneja to pay the bribe on the following day on the way to Meerut from Noida . Pursuant to this information trap was planned. On 25/5/06, A1 Satish Kumar met PW17 Ramesh Chand Juneja on the way and firstly sat with the complainant in his vehicle. In the CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 62 of 6 vehicle itself, A1 Satish Kumar accepted the bribe and then handed over the said bribe money to A2 Amar Singh Kain ,who was travelling in the vehicle of A1 Satish Kumar. After some time, A1 Satish Kumar shifted himself to his own vehicle. This act of A1 Satish Kumar being shifting himself to the car of the complainant; handing over the polythene bag containing bribe money to A2 Amar Singh Kain and then accused A1 Satish Kumar shifting himself back to his vehicle was seen by the independent witnesses and the TLO. Thereafter, on receipt of the predecided signal, the CBI tried to intercept /apprehend A1 Satish Kumar, however, the vehicle being driven by A3 Iqbal Ali in which A1 Satish Kumar and A2 Amar Singh Kain were travelling, put the vehicle in reverse gear and fled away from the spot. Lateron, it transpired that Smt. Meenu S. Kumar wife of A1 Satish Kumar(DW2) and their daughter were also travelling in the vehicle. . During the chase, it was seen by the independent witnesses and the TLO that from the vehicle of the accused, the polythene bag containing bribe money was thrown out. This polythene bag was recovered by the CBI officials. After sometime, the vehicle of the accused became invisible and finally with the help of the local police the Scorpio car was intercepted and taken in control by the CBI officials. However, A1 Satish Kumar was not found in the vehicle. The CBI is basing its entire case on the premises that PW17 Ramesh Juneja has made a specific statement on oath regarding demand and acceptance of bribe. It has duly been corroborated by PW2 Ramesh Pawar and PW22 Madan Mohan Singh. The recovery of the bribe money has also been proved by PW2 Ramesh Pawar, PW22 CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 63 of 6 Madan Mohan Singh and PW26 Inspt. SS Bhullar. In respect of the corroborative evidence, the prosecution has relied upon the recording of the direct conversation between A1 Satish Kumar and PW17 Ramesh Juneja on 24/5/06; various telephonic conversation between A1 Satish Kumar and PW17 Ramesh Juneja at pretrap stage. The prosecution has also relied upon the handwash of A2 Amar Singh Kain and A3 Iqbal Ali after their apprehension.
The defence has assailed the case of the prosecution primarily on the ground that PW17 Ramesh Juneja has filed a false and frivolous complaint with an ulterior motive. Infact, in Meerut, certain income tax raids were conducted on prominent Doctors and since PW17 was also running a pharmaceutical company and therefore, he apprehended that income tax authorities may proceed against him also. The defence took a plea that there was no complaint or any case of the complainant or his company pending with A1 and therefore, there was no reason of demand of any bribe from PW17. The defence took a plea, that A1 Satish Kumar never travelled from Noida to Meerut on 25/5/06. On that day when A1 Satish Kumar was about to leave for Meerut alongwith his wife, daughter and A2 Amar Singh Kain in the vehicle driven by A3 Iqbal Ali, he received a message that his father was not well and therefore, A1 Satish Kumar went to see his ailing father and A3 Iqbal Ali took A2 Amar Singh Kain and wife and daughter of the accused in the Scorpio vehicle to Meerut. In respect of fleeing way and avoiding the police, the defence has taken the plea that the Meerut bypass/highway being notorious for infamous things, they apprehended CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 64 of 6 some unwarranted incident and therefore, decided not to stop and return back to Delhi. In respect of the recording, the defence has stated that the same is not believable at all and further more, it does not contain any demand of bribe on the part of A1 Satish Kumar. The plea of the defence is that in any case even as per the case of prosecution, the recovery has not been effected from the accused persons. The defence has also challenged that the sanction in the present case is defective and is not in accordance with the law.
7.1 Before proceeding further, let us first settle the issue regarding the sanction in the present case. It is a settled proposition that grant of sanction is a sacrosanct act and is intended to provide safeguard to a public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigations. Grant of sanction is only an administrative function and the sanctioning authority is required to prima facie reach the satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute an offence.Satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is essential to validate an order granting sanction. Recently, the question of sanction came up before the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Mahesh G. Jain, (2013) 8 SCC 119 in which it was inter alia held that adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be examined by the Court. The court should not adopt hypertechnical approach to determine the validity of sanction order. When sanction order indicates application of mind by authority, Court should not interfere with it on hypertechnical ground. It was further held that Court should keep in mind rampant corruption in the society and CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 65 of 6 act with magnitude. It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out. The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before it and after consideration of the circumstances has granted sanction for prosecution. The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and its satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the material placed before it. If the sanctioning authority has perused all the materials placed before it and some of them have not been proved that will not vitiate the order of sanction. It was further held that adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the Court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanctioning order. The order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner with a hypertechnical approach to test its validity. When there is an order of sanction by the competent authority indicating application of mind, the same should not be lightly dealt with. The whimsy technicalities cannot be allowed to become tools in the hands of accused. I have perused the sanction order Ex.PW1/A dtd. 17/4/07 which shows that the competent authority has gone through the entire material and after satisfaction it was found that there was a prima facie case and sanction was granted. I consider that in view of the clear law laid down in Mahesh G. Jain's case (supra), there is no further need to dwell on this issue. The prosecution has successfully proved the sanction granted against A1 Satish Kumar.
CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 66 of 6
The first ingredient of Sec. 7 of the POC Act is that the accused at the time of offence was a public servant. In the present case, it is not disputed that A1 Satish Kumar was a public servant. It was an admitted case that A1 Satish Kumar was posted as Addl. Commissioner (Investigation), Income Tax, Meerut. As far as A2 Amar Singh Kain and A3 Iqbal Ali are concerned, they were not public servant and have been tried and charged for the offence of conspiracy. Secondly, in respect of the demand of the bribe, the prosecution has led sufficient material on record in the form of evidence of PW17 Ramesh Juneja, PW2 Ramesh Pawar, PW22 Madan Mohan Singh and PW26 Inspt. SS Bhullar. To begin with, as far as the tape recorded conversation is concerned which has been placed by the prosecution as a corroborative piece of evidence, I consider that same has not been able to inspire the confidence of the Court. I have gone through the transcripts of the tape recorded conversations. The transcripts of the tape recorded conversations are not very clear and therefore, not sufficient to be used as a corroborative piece of evidence. However, I have seen this tape recorded conversation only as a matter of fact to show that complainant and A1 Satish Kumar had talked to each other for around 1 ½ hour on 24/5/06 and they have been in constant touch with each other. It has not been explained by the accused that why the complainant came to him on 24/05/2006 and spent more then one hour. It has also to be kept in mind that the corrupt public servant would normally not demand the bribe directly and would leave many things for imagination. In such like cases the entire circumstances have to be seen in totality. It may be recalled that A1 was insisting to talk on landline CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 67 of 6 and therefore, was conscious of being caught. Now the question is that in absence of the corroborative piece of evidence in the form of tape recorded conversation, whether the testimony of the complainant in itself is sufficient to record the conviction. The main plea of the defence is that in the present case, there is no corroboration to the testimony of PW17 Ramesh Kumar Juneja and he being the complainant is an accomplice and therefore, in absence of any corroboration to the testimony of PW17, the case of the prosecution cannot be believed. It is pertinent to mention here that the Apex Court in Meena (Smt.) W/o Balwant Hemke's case supra , which has been relied upon by the defense also, interalia held that a witness forced to pay on promise of doing or forbearing to do any official act by a public servant, is not a partner in crime and associate in guilt and therefore cannot be said to be accomplice. It was further held that the contractor who gave bribe cannot be said to an accomplice as the same was extorted from him. Reliance was also placed upon Dalpat Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1969 SC 17, wherein it was also held that even those who gave illegal gratification to the appellants cannot be considered as accomplices as the same was extorted from them and concluded that though PWs 1, 2, 4 and 17 can be considered as interested witnesses as regards their evidence relating to trap, as a matter of law, it is not correct to say that their evidence cannot be accepted without corroboration. Reliance was placed upon State of Bihar Vs. Basawan Singh, AIR 1958 SC 500. CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 68 of 6
In C.M. Sharma Vs. State of A.P., (2010) 15 SCC 1, it was interalia held that:
"12. Further corroboration of evidence of a witness is required when his evidence is not wholly reliable. On appreciation of evidence, witnesses can be broadly categorized in three categories viz., unreliable, partly reliable and wholly reliable. In case of a partly reliable witness, the court seeks corroboration in material particulars from other evidence. However in a case in which a witness is wholly reliable, no corroboration is necessary. Seeking corroboration in all circumstance of the evidence of a witness forced to give bribe may lead to absurd result. Bribe is not taken in public view and, therefore, there may not be any person who could see the giving and taking of bribe. As in the present case, a shadow witness did accompany the contractor but the appellant did not allow him to be present in the chamber. Acceptance of this submission in abstract will encourage the bribe taker to receive illegal gratification in privacy and then insist for corroboration in case of prosecution. Law can not countenance such situation. In our opinion it is not necessary that the evidence of a reliable witness is necessarily to be corroborated by another witness. Not only this corroboration of the evidence of a witness can be found from the other materials on record."
7.2 Thus, in view of CM Sharma's case (supra), it can be categorically stated that if the evidence of complainant is wholly reliable, it would be unjust to look for corroboration and the testimony of the complainant itself may be sufficient to convict the accused. Furthermore, if such testimony of the complainant finds support from the deposition of independent witnesses, it would be better. A1 Satish Kumar has alleged animosity against PW17 Ramesh Juneja. If the statement of the complainant in the bribe case is rejected merely on the ground that he had a grouse against the accused then, no bribe giver can get away from such stigma in any graft case. In all such cases, the complainant would have been aggrieved by the conduct of the accused. The very fact that complainant lodged a CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 69 of 6 complaint is reflected on his grievances. The only rule of caution is that in such like cases evidence of the complainant is required to be scrutinized carefully. However, the same cannot be rejected outrightly at the threshold. It has repeatedly been held that such a pedantic approach rejecting the evidence of a complainant simply on the premise that he was aggrieved against the bribe taker will only held corrupt officials being insulated from legal consequences. Reference can be made to State of UP Vs. Zakaullah, AIR 1998 SC 1474. If we read the testimony of PW17 Sh. Ramesh Juneja as a whole, he has specifically stated on oath that A1 Satish Kumar had been demanding the bribe from him. During the pretrap verification proceedings also, the complainant specifically stated that when he visited the residence of A1 Satish Kumar, A1 Satish Kumar after some formal talks started raising the demand of bribe. It has come in the testimony of PW17 Ramesh Juneja that A1 Satish Kumar raised the demand of Rs. 25 lakhs and after negotiations, he came down to Rs. 10 lakhs. PW17 told this fact immediately thereafter to PW2 Ramesh Pawar, PW22 Madan Mohan Singh and PW26 Inspt. SS Bhullar and all three of them have corroborated this version of the complainant. When the complainant has made this consistent and corroborative statement on oath, there is no reason to disbelieve his testimony. It is correct that there are some contradictions in the testimony of the complainant and other witnesses but regarding the contradictions, it is a settled law that a discrepancy would be minor if it does not effect the substratum of the prosecution case or impact on the core issue. It has repeatedly been held by the Apex Court that in such an event, the CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 70 of 6 minor discrepancy should be ignored. Reliance can be placed upon Abdul Nawaz Vs. State of West Bengal, 2012 (5) SCALE 357 and Syed Ahmed Vs. State of Karnataka, 2012(8) SCC 527. In Syed Ahmed's case (supra) it was also inter alia held that the essentials in a bribery case are that a person is a public servant, there is a demand for gratification and acceptance of gratification by the accused. Therefore, the duty of the court is to confine itself to the core issues that whether there was demand and acceptance of gratification by the accused. The court should not be swayed away by the minor discrepancy which does not go to the root of the case. The evidence regarding demand at the pre trap stage have been discussed in detail during the earlier part of this judgment. In regard to the demand and acceptance of bribe on 25/5/06 again the defence tried to demolish the story of the prosecution on the ground that there is no corroboration to the testimony of the complainant. The complainant in his statement on oath has specifically stated that the A1 Satish Kumar sat in his car and after the vehicle started moving, A1 Satish Kumar immediately asked him i.e. complainant that how much money he has brought. The complainant replied that he had brought Rs. 8 lakhs and handed over the polythene bag of Jagdish Store containing the bribe money to A1 Satish Kumar. The complainant specifically stated that A1 Satish Kumar received the bag with his hands and kept the bag near his feet. During the preparation of handing over memo, the identity of polythene bag of Jagdish Store Ex.P7 was duly established and the number of the currency notes had also been noted down. The fact that A1 CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 71 of 6 Satish Kumar came out of his Scorpio car and sat in the Qualis alongwith the complainant has been corroborated by PW2 Ramesh Pawar, Pw22 Madan Mohan Singh and PW26 Inspt. SS Bhullar. The defence has tried to demolish the case of the prosecution on the ground that the conversation between A1 Satish Kumar and complainant in the moving vehicle has not been corroborated by any other evidence. It has been stated that though the complainant was having the DVR with him but the recording during this period has intentionally been withheld and secondly, LW Satish Kumar @ Sattey who was driving the vehicle of the complainant has not been produced by the prosecution for the ulterior motives. It would have been desirable had the prosecution examined the driver of the complainant vehicle but only because the prosecution did not examine such witness, the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out. It is a settled proposition that the evidence has to be weighed and not counted. It is the quality of the evidence which is material and not the quantity. If a witness to a particular fact is wholly reliable then there is no need to look for the corroborative piece of evidence. In respect of the non functioning of the DVR as stated by the complainant, it cannot be ruled out that there may have been some faux pas regarding the functioning of the DVR. Thus, the fact of demand and acceptance of bribe has duly been proved by PW17 Sh. Ramesh Juneja. The cross examination done regarding this by the defence has not been able to shake the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 72 of 6 7.3 The defence took a plea that A1 Satish Kumar was not going to Meerut in Scorpio Car on 25/5/06 as he had received a call regarding illness of his father. I have gone through the entire testimony of the prosecution witnesses. I consider that this plea has been taken by the accused at a much belated stage and, therefore, this plea on the face of it seems to be unreliable and does not inspire the confidence of the Court. In order to prove this fact, the defence has examined DW1 Sh. Lakhpat Singh Harit and DW2 Smt. Menu S. Kumar. DW1 Sh. Lakhpat Singh Harit stated that he knew the family of accused since long and DW2 Smt. Menu S Kumar is wife of the accused. DW2 herself is an IRS officer and was posted alongwith A1 Satish Kumar at Meerut during the relevant time. In a specific question, DW2 replied that she did not make any complaint anywhere regarding the incident dtd. 25/5/06. If DW2 Menu S. Kumar was travelling alone with her daughter in the vehicle being driven by A3 Iqbal Ali and on the way some persons not only intercepted her car but also damaged the same and took the vehicle to the CBI office, then it does not appeal to the reason that a senior IRS officer would keep quiet and not file a complaint to the higher officials in respect of such an incident because if A1 Satish Kumar was not travelling in the vehicle and no incident as alleged by the prosecution had happened, then there was no occasion for the CBI to chase the Scorpio car and then forcibly getting it stopped and also damaging it in this process. The fact that DW2 Smt. Meenu S. Kumar did not make any complaint in this regard to any higher officials indicate that the story that A1 Satish Kumar was not travelling on that day alongwith A2 Amar Singh Kain and CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 73 of 6 A3 Iqbal Ali is an after thought and not believable. Similarly, DW1 Sh. Lakhpat Singh Harit also being a family friend had reason to come and depose falsely in favour of A1 Satish Kumar. These both the witnesses being in the category of the interested witness are required to be put to closer scrutiny and examination. I consider the evaluation of the testimony of these witnesses have failed to pass the test of credibility.
The defence has argued vehemently that the independent witnesses have deposed falsely under the pressure of CBI and cross examined the witnesses at length. This court is of the considered opinion that there is no reason for PW2 Ramesh Pawar and PW22 Madan Mohan Singh to depose falsely against A1 Satish Kumar. They have specifically stated that on 25/5/06 a person had shifted from Scorpio to the vehicle of the complainant. The description as given by PW2 Sh. Ramesh Pawar and PW22 Sh. Madan Mohan Singh matches with the personality of A1 Satish Kumar as has been observed by this Court. PW2 and PW22 are independent witnesses and this Court is not ready to believe that they would come and depose falsely at the instance of the complainant or the CBI. PW26 Inspt. SS Bhullar was also working in the official capacity and therefore, there is no reason for him also to falsely implicate A1 Satish Kumar who himself was a senior IRS officer. Similarly, recovery of the bribe money has also been proved by the independent witnesses and the TLO. All of them have spoken in unison that the polythene bag containing bribe amount was thrown out of the Scorpio vehicle after A1 Satish Kumar had shifted himself in that car. The bag was duly recovered by CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 74 of 6 the CBI officials and the currency notes in the same were tallied with the currency notes mentioned in the handing over memo. The recovery memo Ex.PW17/D has duly been proved by the complainant and PW26 Inspt. SS Bhullar. It also duly bears the signature of independent witnesses PW2 and PW22.
7.4 The accused persons have put a serious question mark over the case of the prosecution on the ground that no complaint against the complainant or his companies were pending with A1 Satish Kumar. The case of the defence is that even otherwise A1 Satish Kumar did not have any jurisdiction or authority to initiate any action against the complainant or his companies. The case of the defence is that A1 Satish Kumar was posted as Addl. Director (Investigation), Income Tax, Meerut and in that capacity he had only supervisory power and no action could have been initiated at his instance. In support of his contention, a circular /notification Ex.PW21/DA and Ex.PW21/DB have been proved. The defence has also examined DW3 Sh. Daya Ram on this point. In this regard, prosecution has examined PW21 Sh. Pramod Kumar, the then Commissioner of Income Tax. There cannot be any quarrel with the notification and the procedures at the relevant time. In view of the case of the prosecution and plea taken by the defence, there can be two fold questions: (1) whether A1 Satish Kumar had any authority to initiate any action against the complainant or his company., or (2) whether any complaint of the complainant or his company was pending with A1 Satish Kumar. If we analyze the law in entirety on this subject, I consider that A1 CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 75 of 6 Satish Kumar can be held guilty for demand and acceptance of bribe from PW17 Ramesh Juneja, even if he had no authority to initiate any action against the complainant or his company or he had no complaint pending with him against the complainant or his company. The legislature in its wisdom has put the sufficient safeguards as explanation (d) Sec. 7 of the POC Act provides as under:
"Explanation (d) : "A motive or reward for doing" A person who receives a gratification as a motive or reward for doing what he does not intend or is not in a position to do, or has not done, comes within this expression."
Explanation (d) of Section 7 of the POC Act, 1988 would make a person liable even if he never intended to do any favour or disfavour or might not even be in position to do any favour or disfavour. Section 20 of the POC Act is another important provision which provides that when it is proved under trial of the offence u/S 7 of the Act that a person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself or for any other person any gratification from any person, it shall be presumed unless contrary is proved that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification, as a motive or reward as mentioned in Section 7 of the said Act. If the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused demanded and accepted the bribe amount from the complainant, a necessary presumption arises that it was demanded and accepted as a motive or reward to do or forbear from doing any official work by the accused. However, it is clear that the presumption u/S 20 POC Act, 1988 can be raised only when the prosecution has proved the demand and CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 76 of 6 acceptance of bribe on part of the accused. It is a settled law that in capacity of the government servant to show any favour or render any service in connection with his official duty does not necessarily take the case out of the mischief of the present provision. In Harish Kumar Vs. CBI ILR (2011) IV Delhi 642, the implication of statutory presumption u/s 20 of the POC Act was considered in detail and it was inter alia held as under :
" 14. In the present case, since acceptance and demand has been proved in terms of Section 7 of the POC Act, this Court is duty bound to raise presumption for offence under Section 20 of the POC Act. In M.Narsinga Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2001 (1) SCC 691 it was held that where receipt of illegal gratification was proved, the Court was under a legal obligation to presume that such gratification was accepted as reward for doing a public duty. In the report, it was held :
" 13. Before proceeding further, we may point out that the expressions "may presume" and "shall presume" are defined in Section 4 of the Evidence Act. The presumptions falling under the former category are compendiously known as "factual presumption" or discretionary presumptions" and those falling under the latter as " legal presumptions" or "compulsory presumption". When the expression "shall be presumed" is employed in Section 20(1) of the Act it must have the same import of compulsion.
14. When the subsection deals with legal presumption it is to be understood as in terrarium i.e. in tone of a command that it has to be presumed that the accused accepted the gratification as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act et., if the condition envisaged in the former part of the section is satisfied. The only condition for drawing such a legal presumption under Section 20 is that during trial it should be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. The section does not say that the said condition should be satisfied through direct evidence. Its only requirement is that it must be proved that CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 77 of 6 the accused has accepted or agreed to accept gratification. Direct evidence is one of the modes through which a fact can be proved. But that is not the only mode envisaged in the Evidence Act."
Thus, in the present case A1 Satish Kumar was a senior Income Tax Officer posted in the Investigating Wing. It has to be understood that a normal business man does not know the scope of power and discretion vested in a particular officer. If an individual is posted as a senior officer in a city, the normal presumption for a business man is that the officer is all powerful and can initiate any action against him. The normal perception of common man is that an officer may not give any benefit but if the officer so desires may harm the common man. This unfortunate perception of nuisance value amongst the common people drive them to the payment of bribe and encourage the unscrupulous and corrupt public servants towards the demand of bribe. I consider in view of this, that whether the accused had any power or jurisdiction or whether any complaint pertaining to the complainant or his companies has no relevance. Ld. Defence counsel has cross examined all the prosecution witnesses to a great length in this regard. I consider that this has no meaning in view of the fact that there is a cogent, clear and creditworthy evidence with regard to the fact that the accused demanded and accepted the bribe from PW17 . Ramesh Juneja. Therefore, I consider that prosecution has proved by way of cogent, creditworthy and reliable evidence that A1 Satish Kumar demanded bribe from PW17 . Ramesh Juneja and accepted the same in the moving car and this bribe money was duly recovered by CBI officials CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 78 of 6 from the road after being thrown out of the vehicle by A1 Satish Kumar. In the circumstances, A1 Satish Kumar is liable to be convicted u/S 7 and Sec. 13(1)
(d) r/w 13(2) of the POC Act, 1988.
8.0 Now coming to the role of A2 Amar Singh Kain and A3 Iqbal Ali. A2 Amar Singh Kain has been tried for the offence of conspiracy. The allegation against him is that A1 Satish Kumar after accepting the bribe from PW17 Ramesh Juneja handed over the same to A2 Amar Singh Kain and A2 Amar Singh Kain kept the bribe money with him till A1 Satish Kumar shifted back into the Scorpio vehicle. The plea of A2 Amar Singh Kain is that he is an old family friend of A1 Satish Kumar and on that day he wanted to go to Meerut to see his ailing mother in law. There is no material on record regarding any meeting of mind or conspiracy between A1 Satish Kumar and A2 Amar Singh Kain. It is correct that in the offence of conspiracy it is very difficult to get the direct evidence but even then an accused cannot be convicted merely at the asking of the prosecution. There has to be some cogent evidence on the record to show that there has been some meeting of mind between the accused persons. Merely, because A2 Amar Singh Kain was travelling in the same vehicle and he was handed over the polythene bag by A1 Satish Kumar, it cannot be inferred that he was in conspiracy with A1 Satish Kumar. There has to be much more on the record to show that A2 Amar Singh Kain knew in advance that there is going to be some transaction of bribe and he was having the knowledge that bribe money has been given to him by A1 Satish CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 79 of 6 Kumar. I consider that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offence of conspiracy against A2 Amar Singh Kain.
Similarly, A3 Iqbal Ali was the driver of the vehicle in which A1 Satish Kumar was travelling alongwith his family and A2 Amar Singh Kain. A3 Iqbal Ali has been tried for the conspiracy. During the trial, the prosecution could not bring any material on the record to show that he was in conspiracy with A1 Satish Kumar in any manner. Therefore, I consider that A2 Amar Singh Kain and A3 Iqbal Ali are entitled to be acquitted.
9.0 In view of the above findings, A2 Amar Singh Kain and A3 Iqbal Ali are acquitted for the charge u/S 120B IPC r/w Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the POC Act, 1988 in RC No. DAI2006A0018DLI.
A1 Satish Kumar is convicted for the charge u/S 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the POC Act in RC No. DAI2006A0018DLI.
Announced in Open Court (Dinesh Kumar Sharma )
on 28.02.2014 Spl. Judge (PC Act) : CBI01
Saket Courts : New Delhi.
CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 80 of 6
CC No.10/12
CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors.
RC No.18(A)/06
28.02.2014
Present : Sh. S. Krishna Kumar, Ld. PP for CBI
All the accused persons on bail are present with Sh. Anuj Handa, Adv. Vide separately announced judgment in the open court, A2 Amar Singh Kain and A3 Iqbal Ali are acquitted for the charge u/S 120B IPC r/w Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the POC Act, 1988 in RC No. DAI2006A0018DLI. Accused Amar Singh and accused Iqbal Ali are on bail. Their bail bonds are canceled and sureties are discharged. Original documents of the sureties, if any, be released against proper acknowledgment.
Accused Satish Kumar is convicted for the charge u/S 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the POC Act in RC No. DAI2006A0018DLI. He be taken into custody.
In terms of section 437(A) Cr.P.C., accused Amar Singh Kain and accused Iqbal Ali are directed to furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/ each with one surety each in the like amount to appear before the Hon'ble High Court as and when court issues notice in respect of any appeal or petition filed against this judgment. Such bail bonds shall be in force for 6 months.
Now to come up for arguments on the point of sentence on 03.03.2014.
(Dinesh Kumar Sharma) Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI : 28.02.2014 CBI Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. CC No.10/12 Page 81 of 6