Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Rajeev Sachdeva, on 20 October, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
SPECIAL JUDGE (ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH):DELHI
CC No. 59/08
Unique Identification No. 02401R0798192008
State Vs. 1. Rajeev Sachdeva,
S/o Sh. Krishan Lal Sachdeva,
R/o BL - 94, Second Floor,
Hari Nagar,
Delhi.
2. Davinder Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Satnam Singh,
R/o J6/105, Second Floor,
Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi - 110026.
F.I.R No. : 74/06
Under Section : 7/12/13 (i) (d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
Police Station : Anti Corruption Branch
Date of Institution : 28.05.2008
Judgment reserved on : 29.09.2012
Judgment pronounced on : 20.10.2012
FIR No. 74/06 State Vs. Rajeev Sachdeva & Ors. 1/25
J U D G M E N T
The present case was registered on a secret information received by Inspector Sunil Kumar of the Anti Corruption Branch that the officials of Transport Authority, Sheikh Sarai, Delhi were accepting bribe and issuing smart cards through touts. A surveillance team was constituted on 14.09.06 in the Anti Corruption Branch which went to the area of Hari Nagar, Delhi. The surveillance team apprehended accused Rajeev Sachdeva working as LDC in the Transport Authority, Sheikh Sarai, Delhi red handed while demanding and accepting Rs. 11,000/ as illegal gratification from accused Davinder Singh and also apprehended accused Davinder Singh handing over 11 Smart Cards to accused Rajeev Sachdeva. The prosecution chargesheeted accused Rajeev Sachdeva and accused Davinder Singh under Sections 7 & 13 (i) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 respectively.
2. Charges under Sections 7 & 13 (i) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were framed against accused Rajeev Sachdeva and charge under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed against accused Davinder Singh FIR No. 74/06 State Vs. Rajeev Sachdeva & Ors. 2/25 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution examined 21 witnesses after which the statement of both the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accused Rajeev Sachdeva took up a stand that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Accused Devender Singh also claimed on the same lines. Accused Rajeev Sachdeva led defence evidence and examined five witnesses.
4. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined three set of witnesses being public witnesses, witnesses to the raid and other relevant witnesses.
5. In the first set of witnesses the prosecution examined Kunal (PW1), Ram Kripal Yadav (PW3), Purshottam (PW5), Rakesh Chand Mishra (PW8), Umesh Kumar (PW9A), Mohd. Abbas (PW10), Jayanta Dey (PW11), Ved Prakash (PW12), Jaswinder Singh (PW13), Kanwaljit Singh (PW14) and Umesh Chander Mathur (PW20).
Kunal (PW1) turned hostile and denied that his father Vijay Kumar had met one Harish and Nikka who had assured to get the Maruti Zen Car No. DL 3CN 6718 transferred in his name from FIR No. 74/06 State Vs. Rajeev Sachdeva & Ors. 3/25 that of his grandmother Smt. Shanti Devi for a payment of Rs. 2,000/. PW1 on the other hand deposed that he had deposited Rs. 370/ in the Transport Authority against receipt for obtaining this transfer. Ram Kripal Yadav (PW3) also turned hostile and denied the suggestion that he had given Rs. 1,500/ to one Gurnam Singh for getting the ownership of motor cycle No. DL 3SAS 2950 transferred in his name. Purshottam (PW5) failed to support the case of the prosecution and deposed that he had purchased a Maruti Car bearing registration No. DL 3CN 4435 through Delhi Car Dealer Association for Rs. 78,000/ and had deposited the requisite documents in the Tranport Authority, Sheikh Sarai, Delhi for obtaining the registration in his name. Rakesh Chand Mishra (PW8) also turned hostile. Umesh Kumar (PW9A) also did not support the case of the prosecution and rather deposed that he had not paid any money to any person for getting his vehicle transferred in his name. Mohd. Abbas (PW10) deposed that he had got Matiz Car No. DL 3CP 3084 transferred in the name of Jayanta Dey, one of his customers through one Vinod Ji against payment of Rs. 4,000/. Jayanta Dey (PW11) also deposed that he paid Rs. 4,000/ to Mohd. Abaas for getting his Matiz Car transferred. Ved Prakash (PW12) turned hostile and FIR No. 74/06 State Vs. Rajeev Sachdeva & Ors. 4/25 deposed that he never paid any money to any person in the Transport Authority to get the vehicles transferred. Jaswinder Singh (PW13) deposed that he was running the business of sale and purchase of car in the name and style of Golden Motors at Vikaspuri, Delhi and had given Rs. 2,500/ to Harish Kumar, Proprietor of Harish Motors as commission charges for transferring the vehicle in the name of Kanwaljit Singh who had purchased a Fiat Siena Car from Harish Motors. Kanwaljit Singh (PW14) deposed that he had purchased a Fiat Siena Car bearing registration No. DL 3CY 9594 through Golden Motors and had given Rs. 2,000/ to the Proprietor of Golden Motors to get the vehicle transferred in his name. Umesh Chander Mathur (PW20) also turned hostile.
6. In the second set of witnesses the prosecution examined Inspector Sunil Kumar, Raid Officer (PW7), Pradeep Khera, Panch Witness (PW6), Inspector Harvinder Singh (PW15), Inspector Surender Kumar (PW21) and Inspector Sunder Dev, Investigating Officer (PW9) as members of the raiding team.
Pradeep Khera, Panch Witness (PW6), part of the raiding team admitted that he accompanied the Raid Officer (PW7) for raid and went to the area of Hari Nagar, Delhi and further admitted FIR No. 74/06 State Vs. Rajeev Sachdeva & Ors. 5/25 that accused Rajeev Sachdeva reached the raiding spot in a red coloured Santro Car but further deposed that the raiding team chased the Santro Car of accused Rajeev Sachdeva and stopped him after one furlong. According to the Panch Witness (PW6) after the car of accused Rajeev Sachdeva was stopped one Inspector entered his car. In the meantime another red coloured car came from the front side driven by accused Davinder Singh and thereafter both the accused were apprehended. The Panch Witness (PW6) failed to support the case of the prosecution and even during crossexamination by the Ld. APP deposed that :
"It is correct that the red colour car being driven by ac cused Davinder stopped near the car of accused Rajeev."
He further deposed that :
"It is correct that thereafter both the accused persons were apprehended. "
The Panch Witness (PW6) admitted that he signed the seizure memo of GC notes of Rs. 11,000/ Ex.PW6/B, seizure memo of 11 RCs Ex.PW6/C, seizure memo of GC notes of Rs. 44,000/ Ex.PW6/D, seizure memo of 90 Smart Cards Ex.PW6/E, seizure memo of application forms and documents Ex.PW6/F & F1 FIR No. 74/06 State Vs. Rajeev Sachdeva & Ors. 6/25 respectively, seizure memo of the cars Ex.PW6/G and arrest memos Ex.PW6/H & H1 respectively and the disclosure statement of accused Rajeev Sachdeva Ex.PW6/J but deposed that all the documents were prepared in the Anti Corruption Branch.
Inspector Sunil Kumar, Raid Officer (PW7) deposed that when he went to the area of Hari Nagar, Delhi to conduct the raid along with the other members of the raiding team a secret informer met him at the spot and told him that the smart cards would be given to a tout by an employee of Transport Authority Sheikh Sarai, Delhi who would come in black coloured Santro Car DL 9 CG 6297.
The Raid Officer (PW7) described all that he saw and happened at 8:15 AM at the raiding spot in the following words :
"Accused Davinder Singh got down from the red colour WagonR and approached the Santro Car and after seeing accused Davinder Singh, accused Rajeev Sachdeva also got down from Santro Car and both of them had some talks with each other.
Accused Davinder Singh took out some money from right pocket of his half pant and handed over to accused Rajeev Sachdeva which he accepted with his right hand and kept the same in left pocket of his wearing shirt and thereafter accused Rajeev FIR No. 74/06 State Vs. Rajeev Sachdeva & Ors. 7/25 Sachdeva took out a bundle of cards (RCs) and handed over the same to accused Davinder Singh which he kept in the right pocket of his wearing half pant. I and Panch Witness saw the incident.
I apprehended both the accused persons and disclosed my identity and challenged accused Rajeev Sachdeva that he had taken money from accused Davinder Singh and had handed over the smart cards to him and I also offered my search as well as the search of raiding team to accused persons before taking their search but they refused to do so and became perplexed. On my instructions the Panch Witness recovered Rs.11,000/ from the left shirt pocket of accused Rajeev Sachdeva which were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/B and bears my signatures at Point B. Panch witness also searched accused Davinder Singh and recovered 11 RC of different vehicles from the right pocket of half pant of accused Davinder Singh which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW6/C which bears my signatures at Point B. The Panch Witness (PW6) also took the search of Santro Car of accused Rajeev and found one black colour bag from which Rs.44,000/ and 90 RCs of different vehicles were recovered which were taken FIR No. 74/06 State Vs. Rajeev Sachdeva & Ors. 8/25 into possession vide memo Ex.PW6/D & Ex.PW6/E respectively, 30 application forms for duplicate RC and for transfer of vehicle were also recovered which were seized vide memo Ex.PW6/F and 87 delivery challans, copies of 10 NCR and some other documents were also recovered which were taken into possession vide memo EP6/F1 and thereafter both the cars were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW6/G."
Inspector Harvinder Singh (PW15) another witness to the raid and member of the raiding team deposed that after the raiding party had taken suitable position at CD Block, Hari Nagar Chowk, Delhi, he saw, after a short while that, a black coloured Santro Car arrived and after a short while one red coloured WagonR also arrived and accused Davinder Singh got down from the red coloured WagonR and went to accused Rajeev Sachdeva and thereafter accused Rajeev Sachdeva handed over something to accused Davinder Singh on which accused Davinder Singh took out some money from his pocket and handed over to accused Rajeev Sachdeva. Soon thereafter the Raid Officer (PW7) came to the spot and introduced himself and challenged both the accused persons and offered his search to which both the accused persons refused and FIR No. 74/06 State Vs. Rajeev Sachdeva & Ors. 9/25 became perplexed. PW15 deposed that thereafter on the direction of the Raid Officer (PW7), the Panch Witness (PW6) recovered GC notes of Rs. 11,000/ in different denominations from accused Rajeev Sachdeva and also recovered 11 Smart Cards (RCs) from the possession of accused Davinder Singh and the recovered GC notes were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW6/B and the 11 Smart Cards were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/C. According to PW15, the search of the Santro Car of accused Rajeev Sachdeva resulted in recovery of Rs. 44,000/ and 90 Smart Cards of different vehicles which were seized vide memos Ex.PW6/D & E respectively. PW15 deposed that 30 application forms for duplicate RC and transfer of vehicles, delivery challans and copies of 10 NCR were recovered and seized vide memos Ex.PW6/F & Ex.PW6/F1 respectively.
Inspector Surender Kumar (PW21), part of the raiding team deposed that at the raiding spot he saw that one red coloured WagonR driven by accused Davinder Singh came near the road side where accused Rajeev Sachdeva was waiting for him in a black Santro Car and as soon as accused Davinder Singh saw the Santro Car he got down and went towards the car of accused Rajeev Sachdeva. Both the FIR No. 74/06 State Vs. Rajeev Sachdeva & Ors. 10/25 accused persons started talking to each other and accused Davinder Singh took out some money from the pocket of his shorts and handed over the same to accused Rajeev Sachdeva who accepted the same and returned to his car and brought a bundle of smart cards and handed over the same to accused Davinder Singh whereafter Inspector Sunil Kumar challenged both the accused persons and affected their search and Rs. 11,000/ were recovered from accused Rajeev Sachdeva and 11 smart cards were recovered from the possession of accused Davinder Singh.
Inspector Sunder Dev, Investigating Officer (PW9) deposed that he accompanied the raiding team led by Inspector Sunil Kumar (PW7) and after the raid had been conducted accused Rajeev Sachdeva and accused Davinder Singh were handed over to him along with Rs. 11,000/, seizure memo Ex.PW6/B, bundle of 11 smart cards, seizure memo Ex.PW6/C, Rs. 44,000/, seizure memo Ex.PW6/D, 90 smart cards, seizure memo Ex.PW6/E, documents and seizure memo Ex.PW6/F and some other documents, seizure memo Ex.PW6/F1, one Santro Car & one WagonR Car and seizure memo Ex.PW6/G. Investigating Officer (PW9) further deposed that he prepared the site plan Ex.PW9/A, arrested both the accused persons vide arrest memos FIR No. 74/06 State Vs. Rajeev Sachdeva & Ors. 11/25 Ex.PW9/B & C respectively and conducted their personal search vide memos Ex.PW6/H & H1 respectively and on receipt of copy of FIR Ex.PW9/F deposited the case property with MHC(M), PSCivil Lines. In the crossexamination, this witness admitted that the Raid Officer (PW7) did not hand over any bag to him and admitted that "It is correct that some of the smart cards were rejected."
7. In the third set of witnesses the prosecution examined A. R. Joshi (PW2), R. Chandramohan (PW4), Pradeep Anand (PW16), Rajiv Kumar Arora (PW17), Inspector Hans Raj (PW18) and Inspector Rajesh Kumar (PW19).
R. Chandramohan (PW4) accorded the sanction Ex.PW4/A under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for prosecution of accused Rajeev Sachdeva. Pradeep Anand, MLO (PW16) proved the record pertaining to 101 RCs as Ex.PW16/A1 to 101. Rajiv Kumar Arora (PW17) proved the biodata of accused Rajeev Sachdeva vide Ex.PW7/A. Inspector Hans Raj (PW18) got the FIR 74/06 registered after receipt of rukka. Inspector Rajesh Kumar (PW19) seized 101 smart cards produced by Pradeep Anand, MLO, Sheikh Sarai Transport Authority.
FIR No. 74/06 State Vs. Rajeev Sachdeva & Ors. 12/25 A. R. Joshi (PW2), MLO, Transport Authority Sheikh Sarai, Delhi explained the procedure of transfer of ownership of vehicles and deposed that an applicant deposits the requisite fee along with the required documents which are forwarded to the Record Room and the concerned record keeper hands over the file to the concerned dealing clerk for manual dealing and the dealing clerk would meet the concerned Inspector for manual approval. After the manual approval, the data is fed and electronic approval obtained in the computer room and the smart card is prepared which is handed over by the concerned inspector to the dealing assistant to be handed over to the owner of a vehicle. PW2 deposed that :
"On 14.09.06 the smart cards seized by Anti Corruption Branch from accused Rajeev Sachdeva were supposed to be in the custody of accused Rajeev Sachdeva who was dealing with the transfer of the ownership of vehicles and it was his duty to distribute the same to the owners of those vehicles."
In the crossexamination, this witness admitted that orders Ex.PW2/D1 & 2/D2 were issued by him and as per orders FIR No. 74/06 State Vs. Rajeev Sachdeva & Ors. 13/25 Ex.PW2/D3 (collectively) (running into 16 pages), the smart cards were handed over to accused Rajeev Sachdeva on 13.09.06 by the concerned Inspector. PW2 deposed that :
"It is correct that as per Ex.PW2/D3 (collectively) (running into 16 pages), the smart cards were handed over to accused Rajeev Sachdeva on 13.09.06 by the concerned Inspectors."
PW2 deposed that there were about 10 Lacs of files in the Record Room and the rejected cards or the cards having some mistakes used to be collected in a bag and at the end of the week the cards were checked and thereafter consigned to the Record Room. PW2 further deposed that accused Rajeev Sachdeva had informed him at about 5:30 PM that the keys of his office almirah were missing. PW2 further deposed that on 15.08.06 some money was collected from the public and officials for Armed Forces Flag Day and accused Rajeev Sachdeva was the Incharge of Collection of Flag money from the department / public. PW2 further deposed that letter Ex.PW2/D4 was received from the Deputy Commissioner Transport seeking explanation for delay in deposit of flag money and accused Rajeev Sachdeva had explained the delay in reply Ex.PW2/D5. FIR No. 74/06 State Vs. Rajeev Sachdeva & Ors. 14/25
8. In this background Sh. B. S. Kain, Ld. Addl. PP addressed his arguments representing the State and Sh. Yogesh Kumar Verma, Advocate represented accused Rajeev Sachdeva and Sh. R. K. Tripathi, Advocate represented accused Davinder Singh.
9. RIVAL ARGUMENTS Sh. B. S. Kain, Ld. APP argued that even though some of the independent witnesses had turned hostile including Pradeep Khera, Panch Witness (PW6), the other members of the raiding team i.e. Inspector Sunil Kumar, Raid Officer (PW7), Inspector Harvinder Singh (PW15), Inspector Surender Kumar (PW21) and Inspector Sunder Dev, Investigating Officer (PW9) have successfully proved the case of the prosecution.
On the other hand, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Verma, Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Rajeev Sachdeva argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case for the following reasons :
(a) That none of the independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and not a single witness out of the twelve public witnesses has deposed that they know accused Rajeev Sachdeva and ever paid bribe to him to procure FIR No. 74/06 State Vs. Rajeev Sachdeva & Ors. 15/25 smart cards.
(b) That the Panch Witness (PW6), an independent eye witness of raid has failed to support the case of the prosecution.
(c) That the testimony of the Raid Officer (PW7) who is an interested witness needs to be carefully examined.
(d) That the testimony of Inspector Surender Kumar (PW21) can not be taken into account as he is a planted witness and this fact is proved from the record as he failed to append his signatures on any documents which were allegedly prepared at the spot.
(e) That the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the main ingredient of offence of corruption i.e. demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by accused Rajeev Sachdeva and in the absence of any demand of bribe having been made by the accused the prosecution case must fail.
(f) That the defence taken by the accused is supported by the testimony of the prosecution witness A. R. Joshi (PW2) who clarified that the accused had carried the smart cards to his house as he had misplaced the keys of his office almirah and the money found in his possession pertained to the Armed FIR No. 74/06 State Vs. Rajeev Sachdeva & Ors. 16/25 Forces Flag Day collection which duty had been assigned to the accused.
(g) That the accused should be given benefit of doubt as it is wellsettled law that where on the basis of evidence on record two views seem to be possible, then the view favourable to the accused has to be taken into account.
Sh. R. K. Tripathi, Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Davinder Singh argued that there is no incriminating evidence against the accused therefore he is liable to be acquitted.
10. Adverting to the merits of the case it is to be seen whether the witnesses examined by the prosecution are creditworthy and their testimony can be acted upon. It is further to be seen whether the essential ingredients of offence of corruption for which the accused is facing trial are proved. The record reveals that the independent public witnesses did not name any of the accused persons nor deposed that they were acquainted with accused Rajeev Sachdeva or met him in connection with transfer of registration of any vehicle. The public witnesses failed to support the case of the prosecution. FIR No. 74/06 State Vs. Rajeev Sachdeva & Ors. 17/25
11. Let me now examine the testimony of the witnesses to the raid.
The Panch Witness (PW6) has not supported the case of the prosecution and according to him no transaction, exchange of money and bundle of smart cards took place between the accused persons at the spot. According to the Panch Witness (PW6) both the accused persons were apprehended as soon as they arrived at the raiding spot. The Panch Witness (PW6) disputed the colour of the car of accused Rajeev Sachdeva. Even though the Panch Witness (PW6) admitted his signatures on seizure memos Ex.PW6/B, C, D, F, F1, G, H, H1 & J but denied the recovery of Rs. 11,000/ from accused Rajeev Sachdeva and 11 smart cards from accused Davinder Singh and deposed that all the memos were prepared in the Anti Corruption Branch.
Inspector Surender Kumar (PW21) part of the raiding team confirmed the arrival of both the accused persons in their respective vehicles and deposed that they started talking to each other after which accused Davinder Singh gave some money to accused Rajeev Sachdeva and accused Rajeev Sachdeva returned to his car and brought the bundle of smart cards and handed over the same to FIR No. 74/06 State Vs. Rajeev Sachdeva & Ors. 18/25 accused Davinder Singh. Inspector Surender Kumar (PW21) confirmed the recovery of GC notes of Rs. 11,000/ from accused Rajeev Sachdeva and the recovery of 11 smart cards from accused Davinder Singh by the Raid Officer (PW7).
The Raid Officer (PW7) also identified both the accused persons and also confirmed the exchange of money and a bundle of smart cards between accused Davinder Singh and accused Rajeev Sachdeva and confimed the recovery of money and smart cards from accused Rajeev Sachdeva and accused Davinder Singh respectively but deposed that the recovery was affected by the Panch Witness (PW6).
Inspector Harvinder Singh (PW15), another member of the raiding party also confirmed the presence of both the accused persons at the spot and that accused Rajeev Sachdeva gave something to accused Davinder Singh and accused Davinder Singh took out money from his pocket and gave to accused Rajeev Sachdeva and further confirmed that the Panch Witness (PW6) recovered GC notes of Rs. 11,000/ from accused Rajeev Sachdeva and 11 smart cards FIR No. 74/06 State Vs. Rajeev Sachdeva & Ors. 19/25 from the possession of accused Davinder Singh.
The collective reading of the testimony of the Raid Officer (PW7), Inspector Harvinder Singh (PW15) and Inspector Surender Kumar (PW21) proves that both the accused persons arrived at the raiding spot in their respective vehicles and there was exchange of some money and some smart cards but these witnesses have failed to prove the conversation which took place between both the accused. None of the witnesses deposed that accused Rajeev Sachdeva demanded bribe from accused Davinder Singh for handing over the smart cards nor any witness deposed that on the demand made by accused Rajeev Sachdeva, accused Davinder Singh agreed to pay the demanded money to accused Rajeev Sachdeva to obtain the smart cards illegally.
12. Even, if it is assumed, for the sake of arguments that the Rs. 11,000/ were recovered from accused Rajeev Sachdeva and 11 smart cards were recovered from accused Davinder Singh, the question is whether mere recovery of the aforesaid is sufficient to hold the accused persons guilty of the charges framed against FIR No. 74/06 State Vs. Rajeev Sachdeva & Ors. 20/25 them. The settled legal position is that the prosecution is required to prove two important ingredients in a case of corruption being demand and acceptance and mere recovery of the GC notes by itself is not sufficient to prove that accused has accepted the illegal gratification especially when there is no direct evidence regarding demand of bribe as held in 2007 [2] JCC 1315 Sunil Kumar Sharma Vs. State (CBI):
"All cases of corruption have two important aspects and they are (i) demand and (ii) acceptance. Unless demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant charged with under the Prevention of Corruption Act are proved by the prosecution beyond doubt, the presumption provided for in Section 20 of the Act cannot be drawn. Three cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence are well settled and they are as follows:
i) that the onus lies affirmatively on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and it cannot derive any benefit from weakness or falsity of the defense version while proving its case;
FIR No. 74/06 State Vs. Rajeev Sachdeva & Ors. 21/25
ii) that in a criminal trial the accused must be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty; and
iii) that the onus of the prosecution shifts."
Reverting to the analyzation of the testimony of the Panch Witness (PW6), it is clear that he falsified the entire case of the prosecution and according to him no transaction of demand of illegal gratification and acceptance thereof took place.
If the testimony of Inspector Harvinder Singh (PW15) is examined it clearly shows that he witnessed the exchange of GC notes and smart cards from a distance and failed to hear any conversation which might have taken place between both the accused persons.
At the same time Inspector Surender Kumar (PW21) also witnessed the incident from a distance and he also failed to give the details of the conversation which took place between the two accused. Even otherwise the presence of this witness at the spot of raid is not free from doubt, as strangely enough, none of the memos Ex.PW6/B, C, D, F, F1, G, H, H1 & J bear his signatures.
The careful examination of the testimony of the Raid Officer (PW7) creates a reasonable and plausible doubt over the FIR No. 74/06 State Vs. Rajeev Sachdeva & Ors. 22/25 whole procedure of the entire raid as he failed to make entries in the official record that he had received secret information that officials of the Transport Authority, Sheikh Sarai, Delhi were issuing smart cards through touts after accepting bribe. It can not be ignored that the Raid Officer (PW7) is an interested witness and his testimony is to be considered with great caution and can only be accepted if it is further corroborated by other evidence adduced by the prosecution. The prosecution has examined the Panch Witness (PW6), Inspector Harvinder Singh (PW15) and Inspector Surender Kumar (PW21) to support the testimony of the Raid Officer (PW7) but there are inherent and unexplained discrepancies and contradictions which appear in the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses and their testimonies do not inspire confidence.
In view of the above discussion and from the material on record there is no evidence to prove that there was demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not FIR No. 74/06 State Vs. Rajeev Sachdeva & Ors. 23/25 sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of substantial evidence of demand and acceptance and I conclude that the prosecution has failed to prove the foundational facts of the present case.
13. Before parting with the judgment, I wish to add that Law does not contemplate that an accused should prove his defence with the same strictness and rigour as the prosecution and it is sufficient that if the accused is able to prove that the probability of his version throws doubt on the case of the prosecution. The testimony of A. R. Joshi (PW2) throws a doubt on the story of the prosecution and supports the defence taken by accused Rajeev Sachdeva. PW2 has categorically stated that accused Rajeev Sachdeva was in lawful possession of the smart cards and that accused Rajeev Sachdeva had misplaced the keys of his almirah on the evening of 13.09.06 which fact he had brought to his notice. On the other hand the defence of the accused is that he carried 101 smart cards, in his bag, to his residence on the evening of 13.09.06 as he had lost the keys of his almirah and on 14.09.06 when he was coming to his office in the morning at 8:30 AM he was waylaid by the raiding party.
FIR No. 74/06 State Vs. Rajeev Sachdeva & Ors. 24/25
14. Resultantly, the case of the prosecution fails for the above reasons and both the accused persons deserve to be acquitted. Both the accused persons are acquitted of the offences for which they had been charged. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. Original documents, if any, be returned. Endorsement, if any, be cancelled.
Announced in the Open SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
Court on 20.10.2012 SPL. JUDGE (ACB)/DELHI
FIR No. 74/06 State Vs. Rajeev Sachdeva & Ors. 25/25