Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Cbi vs . Dev Raj on 31 May, 2016

                 IN THE COURT OF SH. BRIJESH KUMAR GARG 
           SPECIAL JUDGE:CBI­01: CENTRAL: TIS HAZARI, DELHI


CC No. : 07/2013
Case ID : 02401R0565152012
                                                                RC :  20(A)/2013
                                                                PS :  CBI/ACB/New Delhi
                                                        U/s:   Section 7 & 13(2), 
                                                                  r/w Sec. 13(1) (d) of
                                                                 The Prevention of Corruption 
                                                                 Act 1988.


CBI  Vs.   Dev Raj
                  S/o Sh. Mange Ram, 
                  R/o Village & P.O. Kassar,
                    P.S. Bahadurgarh, 
                    Distt. Jhajjar (Haryana)


Date of Institution                                         :   01.11.2013
Judgment Reserved on                                        :   23.05.2016
Judgment Delivered on                                       :   31.05.2016


                                                  J U D G M E N T  

1. In the present case, accused Dev Raj has been sent up to face the trial for the offences punishable Under Section 7 & 13 (2), CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 1 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi read with Section 13 (1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The present case was registered on 02.09.2013 vide RC No. RC­DAI­2013­A­0020, under Section 7 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the basis of a written complaint, dated 02.09.2013, of complainant Narender Singh son of Late Shri Jeet Singh, resident of Kanjhawala, New Delhi, wherein, he alleged that on 20.08.2013, his car bearing registration No. DL 8CS 4120 was seized by the traffic police and was deposited at P.S. Kanjhawala and when he met Head constable Dev Raj in the police station, he told him that he can get his car released after getting orders from the court on his application for release of the car, after receiving some expenses. Thereafter, he moved an application before the concerned court at Rohini, in which, accused HC Dev Raj filed his status report and got the release orders passed. Thereafter, accused Dev Raj called him on phone number 9711443075 and asked him to get his vehicle released, CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 2 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi after paying some expenses to him. He also told the complainant not to disclose anything to any other person. It was further alleged in the complaint that the complainant was not interested in paying any expenses to the accused on account of bribe and therefore, he prayed for taking appropriate legal action against HC Dev Raj.

3. The complaint of the complainant was marked to SI A.K.Maurya for verification and registration of the case by Shri D.K.Barikh, SP, CBI and accordingly, the verification of the complaint was done by SI A.K.Maurya, in which, a phone call was made to the accused on his mobile phone number 09968316218 from the mobile phone of the complainant number 09711443075. The verification calls were made in the presence of independent witness Chander Kumar Grover and the conversation revealed the demand of Rs. 10,000/­ as bribe, by the accused Dev Raj, from the complainant, for releasing his car. Accused also directed the complainant to visit him at the police station at about 5.00 p.m. CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 3 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi

4. It is further stated in the charge sheet that the verification had established the demand on the part of the accused and therefore, it was decided to lay a trap and accordingly a trap team consisting of CBI officials, namely, Inspector M.A.Khan; Inspector Sanjay Upadhya, TLO; Inspector Joseph Krelo; Inspector Parmod Kumar; SI Arijit Darippa; SI Raman Shukla and other subordinate staff, was constituted and the independent witnesses, Chander Kumar Grover and Vijay Kumar were also included in the CBI team.

5. It is further stated in the charge sheet that the complainant produced a sum of Rs.10,000/­ in cash and a demonstration was given by SI Raman Shukla about the significance of the use of the phenolphthalein powder and its chemical reaction with a solution of sodium carbonate in water. Thereafter, the GC notes produced by the complainant were treated with phenolphthalein powder and were put in his leather purse in his right side back pant pocket and he was directed, not to touch the said bribe amount and to hand over the same to the accused on his specific demand and CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 4 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi not otherwise, or on his specific directions to some other person. A digital voice recorder with a memory card of 4 GB was also arranged and it was handed over to the complainant, after explaining its functioning and recording the introductory voice of the independent witnesses. The complainant was directed to switch on the DVR after reaching the spot, in order to record his conversation with the accused. Witness Chander Kumar Grover was asked to act as a shadow witness to see the transaction and to hear the conversation. He was also directed to give signal by rubbing his face by both his hands, after completion of the bribe transaction. The other independent witness Vijay Kumar was directed to remain with the trap team.

6. It is further stated in the charge sheet that the trap team reached Police Station Kanjhawala at about 5.40 p.m., and the location of accused HC Dev Raj was ascertained by making a phone call from the mobile phone number 9711443075 of the complainant to the accused on his mobile phone number CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 5 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi 9968316218. Accused HC Dev Raj confirmed his presence in the Police Station and thereafter, the complainant alongwith the shadow witness went inside the Police Station and came out of the Police Station within few minutes and the complainant informed the CBI team that the accused HC Dev Raj had asked him to get a superdiginama of the vehicle prepared from the court. The complainant got the same prepared within half an hour and he again entered the Police Station and approached the accused. After sometime, the complainant alongwith accused HC Dev Raj came out in the parking area of the Police Station alongwith a photographer and the photographer took photographs of the car bearing registration No. DL 8CS 4120 and thereafter, the accused handed over the keys of the car to the complainant and went inside the Police Station. Thereafter, the complainant gave a missed call to the TLO Inspector M.A.Khan at about 7.30 p.m. and informed about the completion of the bribe transaction, on which, all the CBI team members rushed towards the office of accused Dev Raj alongwith the complainant and on the pointing CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 6 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi out of the complainant, the accused was challenged for demanding and accepting the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/­ from the complainant. Thereafter, the accused was caught hold by Inspector Sanjay Upadhaya and SI Raman Kumar Shukla and the wash of his hands was taken in a colorless solution of sodium carbonate in water and on doing so, both the solutions had turned pink in color. The pink solutions were transferred in separate glass bottles and were marked as right hand wash "RHW" and left hand wash "LHW".

7. It is further stated in the charge sheet that on the directions of Inspector Sanjay Upadhyay TLO, witness Chander Kumar Grover recovered the tainted amount of Rs.10,000/­ from the left side pant pocket of accused Dev Raj and the numbers and denominations of the same had tallied with the numbers of the GC notes, produced by the complainant, during the pre­trap proceedings. Thereafter, accused Dev Raj arranged one trouser and 'T' shirt from the Police Station and changed his uniform and CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 7 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi thereafter, the wash of his left side pant pocket was also taken in a freshly prepared colorless solution of sodium carbonate, on which, the said solution had also turned pink in color. The said wash was also transferred in a clean glass bottle and was marked as left pant pocket wash, "LPPW". The recovered bribe amount and the pant of the accused were both seized and sealed by the CBI officials.

8. It is further stated in the charge sheet that accused HC Dev Raj was arrested in the present case and his arrest­cum­personal search memo was prepared at the site. A rough site plan was also prepared.

9. During the investigations, the recorded conversations were transferred into blank C.D.s with the help of a laptop and the micro SD card was taken out from the DVR and was duly sealed. The sealed bottles marked as right hand wash "RHW", left hand wash "LHW" and left pant pocket wash "LPPW", recovered bribe CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 8 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi amount of Rs.10,000/­, khakhi uniform pant of accused, sealed micro SD card, were all taken into possession. The specimen of the brass seal was also taken on a white sheet. The facsimile of the said brass seal was also taken in ink on each page of the recovery memo. The CBI seal was handed over to witness Chander Kumar Grover, after use.

10. It is further stated in the charge sheet that on 03.09.2013, the specimen voice sample of accused Dev Raj was also recorded and was duly sealed with the CBI seal. The sealed exhibits 'RHW', 'LHW' and 'LPPW', as well as the recorded conversations marked 'Q­1' and 'Q­2' alongwith the specimen voice sample of the accused marked 'S­1' were also sent to the CFSL, for expert opinion and the chemistry division of the CFSL had given a positive opinion for the presence of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate in the exhibits 'RHW', 'LHW' and 'LPPW'. The report from the physical laboratory of CFSL regarding the voice spectrograph was awaited.

CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 9 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi

11. It is further stated in the charge sheet that the investigations had established that accused HC Dev Raj had demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.10,000/­ from the complainant for releasing his santro car bearing registration No. DL8CS 4120 and thereby, he had committed the offences punishable u/s 7 & 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sanction for prosecution of accused HC Dev Raj was also granted by the competent authority.

12. On 31.05.2014, the order on charge was passed and in pursuance to the said order, the charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 & 13 (2) read with Section 13(1(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were framed against the accused on 16.07.2014, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

13. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined the CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 10 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi following witnesses, namely:

i) PW­1 Sh. R.S. Yadav, the Jr. Telecom Officer, MTNL, Tis Hazari, Telephone Exchange, who has provided the call detail records of mobile phone No. 9968316218, registered in the name of the accused Dev Raj, to the CBI.

ii) PW­2 Sh. Sanjay Kumar, who was posted as Additional C.P., Outer District, Delhi, in October, 2013. He was the competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution of accused Head Constable Dev Raj. He has proved the sanction order Ex.PW2/A.

iii) PW­3 Sh. Deepak, the Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., C­45, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase­II, New Delhi, who has supplied the call detail records of mobile phone No. 9711443075, registered in the name of Dharmender Dabas, which was being used by the complainant Narender Singh, on 02.09.2013.

iv) PW­4 Inspector Arvind Kumar, who was the SHO, PS Kanjhawala, Delhi, during the period w.e.f. September, 2012 to September, 2013. He has deposed that HC Dev Raj was CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 11 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi investigating case FIR No. 242/2013, u/s 186/353/506/34 IPC of PS Kanjhawala.

v) PW­5 Sh. Narender Singh son of Jeet Singh, who is the complainant in the present case. He has deposed about the demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe amount of Rs.10,000/­ from the possession of accused Dev Raj.

vi) PW­6 Sh. V.B. Ramteke, who was the Sr. Scientific Officer, Grade­1 (Chemistry), CFSL, New Delhi. He has chemically analysed the exhibits RHW, LHW & LPPW and has submitted his report, Ex.PW6/A, wherein, he has reported that all the three exhibits gave positive tests for the presence of phenolphthalein.

vii) PW­7 Sh. Chander Kumar Grover, who was posted as Manager (Industrial Relations), Syndicate Bank, Regional Office at Bhagwan Dass Raod, New Delhi. He has joined the CBI team as a shadow witness in the present case. He has deposed about the verification of the complaint of the complainant, demand, acceptance and recovery of the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/­ from the possession of accused Dev Raj, during the trap proceedings. CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 12 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi

viii) PW­8 Sh. Vijay Kumar Arya, who was Dy. Manager, State Bank of India, Parliament Street Branch, Region­I, New Delhi. He is another independent witness in the present case. He has also deposed about the acceptance and recovery of the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/­ from the possession of accused Dev Raj, during the trap proceedings.

ix) PW­9 Inspector M.A. Khan, who was entrusted with the investigation of this case on 02.09.2013, by SP D.K. Barikh. He has deposed about the trap proceedings and the recovery of the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/­ from the possession of accused Dev Raj.

x) PW­10 Inspector Arjun Kumar Maurya, who has verified the complaint of the complainant, on 02.09.2013, on the directions of Sh. D.K. Barikh, S.P., CBI. He has deposed about the verification of the complaint and the demand of the bribe money by the accused. He has also proved his verification report as Ex.PW5/B.

xi) PW­11 Shri D.K.Barik, S.P., CBI, New Delhi, who has ordered for registration of the FIR. He has proved the FIR Ex.PW5/D. He CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 13 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi has also forwarded various exhibits to CFSL, CBI, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, for analysis and examination. After receiving the reports from the CFSL, he marked the same to DSP K.S. Pathania, IO.

xii) PW­12 Sh. Amitosh Kumar, who was posted as Senior Scientific Officer (Physics) at CFSL, CBI, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. He has examined the three micro SD cards Q­1, Q­2 & S­1 containing the questioned and specimen voice recordings of the accused. He has proved his report bearing No. CFSL­2013/P­1497, dated 03.03.2014, as Ex.PW12/A.

xiii) PW­13 Sh. K.S.Pathania, DSP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi, who was the Investigating Officer of this case. The investigation of the present case was transferred to him from Inspector M.A. Khan, Trap Laying Officer, by the orders of the SP Sh. D.K. Barikh. After completing investigations, he has also obtained the sanction for prosecution of the accused and has prepared the charge sheet and filed the same in the court.

CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 14 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi

14. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded, u/s 313 Cr.P.C., wherein, the accused has denied all the incriminating evidence against him and has deposed that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has further stated that Dharmender Dabas, the friend of the complainant is a habitual complainant and he used to lodge various false and frivolous complaints against various authorities and government servants, to black mail them, to seek favours from those authorities and government servants. Several FIRs have been registered against him, in this regard. Dharmender Dabas was involved in case FIR No. 242/2013, PS Kanjhawala, which was being investigated by the accused and as such, wanted favours from the accused, which he refused. Mr. Dharmender Dabas was one of the accused in the said case and with the help of the complainant Narender, he created this false case against the accused, as he was insisting that the accused should use his office to influence his colleague, who was the complainant in the said case, to withdraw the case against CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 15 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi Dharmender Dabas. The accused has also preferred to lead evidence in his defence.

EVIDENCE IN DEFENCE

15. During the trial, the accused has also examined two witnesses in his defence i.e. DW1 HC Vijay Singh and DW­2 HC Suresh Kumar, who have proved the copies of FIR No. 0006/2016 of PS Khanjhawala, as Ex.DW1/A and FIR No. 0155/2016 of PS Rajender Nagar, as Ex.DW2/A.

16. After completion of trial, final arguments were addressed by Shri Praneet Sharma, Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI and Shri Ujjawal Jha, Advocate, for the accused.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CBI / PROSECUTION

17. It has been argued by the Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI that the accused Head Constable Dev Raj was posted at PS Kanjawala, in the month of August­September, 2013 and he was the CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 16 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi investigating officer of case FIR No. 242/2013, registered at PS Kanjhawala under Section 186/336/506/34 IPC, in which the friend of the complainant, namely, Dharmender Dabas, was an accused and the Santro car of the complainant, bearing registration No. DL 8C S­4120 was seized. He has further argued that the accused HC Dev Raj had demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/­ from the complainant Narender Singh, for releasing his Santro car, on superdari, despite court orders and the complainant was not interested in making any payment to the accused and therefore, he lodged the complaint, Ex.PW5/A, dated 02.09.2013, with the CBI and the same was marked to SI A.K. Maurya PW­10, for verification. Accordingly, the complainant made a phone call on the mobile phone No. 9968316216 of the accused at about 12.30 p.m. and the said conversation was duly recorded. The conversation revealed the demand of Rs.10,000/­ by the accused from the complainant and thereafter, a verification memo, Ex.PW5/B, was prepared by SI A.K. Maurya and was submitted to PW­11 Sh. D.K. Barikh, SP, CBI, who directed for CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 17 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi registration of the FIR, on which FIR Ex.PW5/B was registered and was marked to Inspector M.A. Khan PW­9, for laying the trap.

18. The Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI has further argued that a trap was laid by the CBI team at PS Kanjhawala, in the presence of two independent witnesses, namely, PW­7 Chander Kumar Grover and PW­8 Vijay Kumar Arya and during the trap proceedings, the telephonic conversations between the complainant and the accused were again recorded.

19. The Ld. Sr. PP For the CBI has further argued that the complainant Narender Singh PW­5; shadow witness PW­7 Chander Kumar Grover; independent witness PW­8 Vijay Kumar Arya; Trap Laying Officer PW­9 Inspector M.A. Khan and PW­10 SI A.K. Maurya, have all deposed in a consistent manner and their depositions have proved the prosecution case beyond a shadow of doubt that accused HC Dev Raj had demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.10,000/­, from the complainant Narender CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 18 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi Singh, for releasing his Santro car to him, on superdari.

20. The Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI has further argued that during the trap proceedings, the bribe money, i.e., the tainted GC notes worth Rs.10,000/­ were recovered from the left side pant pocket of the accused HC Dev Raj and the hands of accused HC Dev Raj were also got washed in separate solutions of sodium carbonate in water and the hand washes of accused had also turned pink and this fact had indicated that the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/­ was accepted by the accused Head Constable Dev Raj from the complainant Narender Singh. The wash of the left side pant pocket of the accused was also taken in a solution of sodium carbonate and the same has also turned pink in colour.

21. The Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI has also argued that during the investigations, the hand wash solutions and the left side pant pocket wash solution, which were marked as 'LHW', 'RHW' & 'LPPW', respectively, were duly sealed with the seal of the CBI CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 19 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi and were sent to the CFSL for expert opinion. The bottles containing the solutions have been proved on record as Ex.PW6/P­6, Ex.PW6/P­5 & Ex.PW6/P­7, respectively. He has further argued that the CFSL report Ex.PW6/A has proved that the aforesaid solutions marked 'LHW', 'RHW' & 'LPPW', contained in bottles Ex.PW6/P­6, Ex.PW6/P­5 & Ex.PW6/P­7, were containing phenolphthalein.

22. The Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI has further argued that during the process of verification of the complaint Ex.PW5/A and during the trap proceedings, the telephonic conversations between the complainant Narender Singh and accused HC Dev Raj, on their mobile phones, were also recorded and the memory card, marked 'Q­1', in which the conversation regarding verification of the complaint was saved has been proved on record, as Ex.PW5/P­16. The conversation recorded during the trap proceedings in the memory card marked 'Q­2' has been proved on record as Ex.PW5/P­18. After the completion of the trap CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 20 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi proceedings, the sample voice of the accused was also taken on 03.09.2013, in the memory card, marked 'S­1', Ex.PW5/P­19. All the three memory cards were sent to the CFSL for expert opinion and the report Ex.PW12/A has proved the conversations between the complainant and the accused and has corroborated the fact that the accused had demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.10,000/­ from the complainant.

23. The Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI has further argued that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the various documents and exhibits on record have duly proved the demand and acceptance of Rs.10,000/­ by the accused from the complainant for the purpose of releasing his Santro car to him, on superdari and therefore, a presumption, under Section 20 of the P.C. Act, 1988, has to be drawn against the accused.

24. The Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI has relied upon the following judgments, in support of his contentions :

CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 21 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi

(i) "Ram Chander Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), reported as Criminal Appeal 461/2007";

(ii) "C.M. Sharma Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported as, (2010) 15 Supreme Court Cases 1";

(iii) "Prithipal Singh & Ors vs. State of Punjab, reported as, (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 10;

(iv) "Namdev vs. Sate of Maharashtra, reported as, (2007) 14 Supreme Court Cases 150.

(v) "State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Rajmangal Ram, reported as AIR 2014 Supreme Court 1674;

(vi) "State of M.P. Vs Bhooraji & Ors., reported as (2001) 7 SCC 679.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED

25. Sh. Ujjwal Jha, Advocate, the Ld. Defence counsel for accused has argued that the complainant Narender Singh was a friend of Dharmender Dabas, who was an accused in case FIR No. 242/2013 of PS Kanjhawala, in which, the accused was the investigating officer. He has further argued that the complainant Narender Singh has lodged false and frivolous complaint against the accused, at the instance of the said Dharmender Dabas and had falsely implicated the accused in the present case. He has CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 22 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi further argued that the said Dharmender Dabas was having several cases of extortion from government servants, registered against him and the complainant acted on the instructions of the said Dharmender Dabas, to save him in case FIR No. 242/2013.

26. The Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that there are a large number of material contradictions and improvements in the oral depositions of complainant Narender Singh PW­5, the shadow witness PW­7 Chander Kumar Grover, independent witness PW­8 Vijay Kumar Arya and the two CBI officials, namely, PW­9 Inspector M.A. Khan and PW­10 SI Arjun Kumar Maurya, which makes their testimonies doubtful. The Ld. Defence counsel has cited several contradictions in the depositions of these witnesses, from the court record and has further argued that Dharmender Dabas had accompanied the complainant Narender Singh on 02.09.2013 and was also an eye witness of the alleged proceedings. But, he has neither been cited nor examined as a witness for the reasons best know to the CBI and its investigating CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 23 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi officers. He has further pointed out that the complainant had used the mobile phone of Sh. Dharmender Dabas, during the entire proceedings, but, no explanation has come on record, as to why he used the mobile phone of Dharmender Dabas, despite having his own mobile phone, in his possession on 02.09.2013.

27. The Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that there are various material contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses regarding their arrival at the CBI office on 02.09.2013, the verification of the complaint and the trap proceedings, including the recovery of the bribe money from the possession of the accused. He has pointed out that complainant Narender Singh has categorically stated that he reached the CBI office on 02.09.2013, at about 12.00 Noon, along with his friend Amit Kumar and thereafter, he contacted SI Arvind Kumar Maurya and told all the facts to him. Thereafter, SI Arvind Kumar Maurya took him to the room of his senior officer, where he was directed to give a written complaint and to make a phone call to the CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 24 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi accused to verify the demand of bribe. But, PW­7 Chander Kumar Grover had deposed that he reached CBI office at about 11.00 a.m. and reported to the duty officer, who directed him to meet SI Arvind Kumar Maurya. Thereafter, SI Arvind Kumar Maurya introduced him to the complainant Narender Singh. Furthermore, PW­8 Vijay Kumar Arya has deposed that on 02.09.2013, he reached CBI office at about 6.00 ­7.00 a.m., and there he met Inspector M.A. Khan, who told him about the complaint of complainant Narender Singh. He has categorically stated that he was kept waiting in the hall of the CBI, situated at first floor for about 6­7 hours, before leaving the CBI office for conducting the trap proceedings.

28. The Ld. Defence counsel has further pointed out that PW­8 Vijay Kumar Arya had categorically stated that during pre­trap proceedings, the numbers of the currency notes were noted down and some chemical / powder was sprinkled on the currency notes and thereafter, the same were kept in a white envelope. But, CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 25 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi PW­7 Chander Kumar Grover, the alleged shadow witness, had categorically stated that he put the tainted GC notes in the purse of the complainant Narender Singh and thereafter, he put the purse containing the tainted GC notes in his right side back pant pocket. He has further pointed out that PW­7 Chander Kumar Grover had categorically stated that the accused was having the currency notes in his left front pant pocket and the same were recovered by him from the accused. But, PW­8 Vijay Kumar Arya had deposed that the packet containing the tainted GC notes were taken out from the left pant pocket of accused Dev Raj by the other witness from the Syndicate Bank.

29. The Ld. Defence counsel has further pointed out that the complainant has categorically stated that he remained in the CBI office on 02.09.2013 till 11.30 p.m. only, but, the recovery memo was prepared after the completion of the entire proceedings on 03.09.2013, at about 12.30 a.m. But, the recovery memo Ex.PW5/E bears the signatures of all the witnesses with the date CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 26 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi of 02.09.2013 and this fact indicates that the documents were prepared by the CBI officials later on.

30. The Ld. Defence counsel has also argued that the discrepancies on record, as disclosed by him, makes the entire prosecution case doubtful and therefore, the accused be acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 7 & 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in criminal appeal No. 14 of 2016 titled as, "Krishan Chander vs. State of Delhi", on 06.01.2016, in support of his above contentions.

OBSERVATIONS / FINDINGS

31. I have carefully perused the case file and I have given my considered thoughts to the arguments addressed by the Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI and the Ld. Defence counsel and I have also perused the various judgments, cited by them.

CBI  Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013)                       Page  27   of  80                     Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi 
               (A)    DEMAND OF BRIBE

32. In order to prove the demand of bribe by the accused, the prosecution has examined the complainant Narender Singh as PW­5. The shadow witness Chander Kumar Grover has been examined as PW­7. Sub­Inspector Arjun Kumar Maurya, who had verified the complaint of complainant Narender Singh has been examined as PW­10.

33. Perusal of the record shows that the complainant, PW­5 Narender Singh, has categorically stated that in the month of August, 2013, he had given his santro car to his friend Dharmender Dabas and Dharmender Dabas had some quarrel with the police officials, due to which, the police officials of Police Station Kanjhawala had seized his santro car, bearing registration No. DL 8CS 4120 and when he went to Police Station Kanjhawala, to get his car released, the accused HC Dev Raj told him that his car shall be released only on court orders. Thereafter, he went to Rohini Court and got the release order of CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 28 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi his car and thereafter, he again went to Police Station Kanjhawala and met the accused Dev Raj and showed him the orders of the court and requested him to release his car, on which, the accused HC Dev Raj asked him to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/­ to him, otherwise, he would put some liquor bottle inside his car and will prepare a case against him. Complainant had categorically stated that he made a request to the accused Dev Raj that he was unable to pay the said amount of Rs.15,000/­ and on pursuation, the accused Dev Raj agreed to receive a sum of Rs. 10,000/­ from him, for releasing his car.

34. Complainant had further stated that during the said month, he received a SMS on his mobile phone, whereby, he was informed by the concerned authorities that, in case, any person was demanding the bribe for doing some illegal act, then he should approach the concerned authorities. The said SMS was also having a phone number of the concerned authorities. He has further stated that he made a phone call on the phone number CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 29 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi mentioned in the SMS, on which, he was asked to approach the receptionist, at the CBI office. Thereafter, he was taken to the CBI office by his friend Shri Amit Kumar and the receptionist told them to contact SI A.K.Maurya.

35. The complainant PW­5 Narender Singh has further stated that he contacted SI A.K.Maurya and told him the entire facts of the case, on which, SI A.K.Maurya asked him to make a phone call to accused HC Dev Raj, so that the facts of his complaint may be verified. Thereafter, he made a phone call to the accused Dev Raj on his mobile phone and during the conversation, accused Dev Raj asked him about the money paid by him to his Advocate, on which, he told him that he had paid a sum of Rs.15,000/­, on which, the accused Dev Raj asked him to pay the same amount to him. The complainant told the accused Dev Raj that he was unable to pay the amount of Rs.15,000/­ and thereafter, offered to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/­ to him, on which, the accused Dev Raj agreed and asked the complainant to come to Police Station CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 30 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi Kanjhawala, with the bribe amount.

36. Complainant, PW­5 Narender Singh has further stated that on 02.09.2013, a written complaint was given to SI A.K.Maurya at about 12.00 Noon. The said written complaint has been proved on record as Ex.PW.5/A. The complainant Narender Singh has further deposed that SI A.K.Maurya had also taken him to the room of some senior officer and the said senior officer had also asked him about the facts of his complaint, on which, he told the entire facts to him and thereafter, he directed him to give a written complaint. The complainant has further deposed that the said senior officer had also directed him to talk to accused Dev Raj on his mobile phone to verify his complaint of demand of bribe by the accused Dev Raj. Thereafter, on his directions, he made a phone call to the mobile phone of the accused Dev Raj and the conversation was heard by all the persons present in the room of the said senior CBI officer on the mobile phone, on speaker mode. He had categorically stated that the said conversation was CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 31 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi recorded by SI A.K.Maurya with some recording device.

37. Complainant PW­5 Narender Singh has also identified his voice and the voice of the accused Dev Raj in the recored conversation, marked 'Q­1'. The memory card ( 4GB ), make 'SANDISK', in which the conversation 'Q­1' was recorded, has been proved on record as Ex.PW.5/P­16. The transcript of the conversation contained in the memory card 'Q­1', Ex.PW.5/P­16 has been proved on record as Ex.PW.5/F.

38. It is pertinent to mention here that during the trial, the Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI, moved an application, u/s 311 Cr.P.C., for recalling of the complainant, PW­5 Narender Singh, for his further examination, as the mobile phone from which the complainant Narender Singh made phone calls to accused HC Dev Raj was registered in the name of his friend Dharmender Dabas. Vide orders dated 22.04.2016, the said application was allowed, as the Ld. Defence counsel was having no objection, in recalling of the CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 32 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi complainant.

39. During his further examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the complainant Narender Singh (PW­5) has further stated that the mobile phone, which he used during the trap proceedings, was registered in the name of Dharmender Dabas and on 02.09.2013, he was using the mobile phone of Dharmender Dabas, as Dharmender Dabas had accompanied him to the CBI office. He has further stated that Dharmender Dabas had accompanied him to the CBI office, when he lodged the complaint against the accused Dev Raj and he remained with him during the entire proceedings, including the trap proceedings.

40. Testimony of the complainant, PW­5 Narender Singh, finds corroboration from the deposition of PW­7 Chander Kumar Grover, the independent shadow witness, who has deposed that on 02.09.2013, he was posted as Manager (Industrial Relations), Syndicate Bank Regional Office at Bhagwan Dass Road, New CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 33 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi Delhi and he was instructed by his Senior Manager, Shri Shanker Lal, to visit CBI office on 02.09.2013. He has further stated that he reached the CBI office at about 11.00 a.m. and reported to the duty officer and the duty officer asked him to meet Sub Inspector A.K.Maurya, at the first floor of the CBI office, where, SI A.K.Maurya introduced him to the complainant Narender Singh, who was having his compliant against a suspected police official of Police Station Kanjhawala, who was demanding bribe for releasing his santro car.

41. PW­7 Chander Kumar Grover has also categorically stated that SI A.K.Maurya told him that he will verify the contents of the complaint of the complainant Narender Singh, by making a phone call to the suspected police official and he also told him that the conversation will be recorded. This witness has further deposed that SI A.K.Maurya arranged a digital voice recorder, make 'SONY' and after ensuring that the DVR was blank, his introductory voice was recorded. Thereafter, SI A.K.Maurya CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 34 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi instructed the complainant Narender Singh to make a phone call from his mobile phone to the mobile phone of the suspected police official of Police Station Kanjhawala. Thereafter, the complainant made a phone call to the mobile phone of the suspected police official and at that time, his mobile phone was on speaker mode and they heard the conversation between the complainant and the accused Dev Raj. He had categorically stated that during the conversation, the suspected police official asked the complainant to bring Rs.10,000/­ at Police Station Kanjhawala at 5.00 p.m., on the same day. He has further stated that the said conversation was also played on the official laptop of SI A.K.Maurya and was heard by them. He has further stated that the memory card, which was used in the DVR, for recording the said conversation, was taken out from the said DVR and was sealed with the CBI seal.

42. PW­10 SI A.K.Maurya has also deposed that on 02.09.2013, at about 10.00 a.m., Shri D.K.Barik, the then S.P., introduced him CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 35 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi to one Narender Singh and told him that he was giving some complaint. Thereafter, he took the complainant Narender Singh to his work station and asked him about his complaint. This witness has further deposed that the complainant told him that his santro car was in police custody and was lying at Police Station Kanjhawala and accused HC Dev Raj had told him that his santro car may be released, only after getting the court orders and paying some expenses (Kharcha­Paani), to him. This witness has further deposed that complainant further told him that accused HC Dev Raj was still demanding some expenses (Kharcha­Paani) from him, despite of the fact that he had already obtained the court orders for releasing of his santro car.

43. PW­10 SI A.K.Maurya has also deposed that the complainant Narender Singh gave a handwritten complaint Ex.PW.5/A to him and the said complaint was taken by him to Shri D.K.Barik, the then S.P., who ordered for verification of the complaint. Thereafter, for verification of the complaint, he requisitioned an CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 36 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi independent witness, namely, Mr. Grover from Syndicate Bank, Bhagwan Dass Road Branch, Delhi and thereafter, he got issued a DVR and a 4 GB memory card from the care taker of the CBI. Thereafter, he introduced the witness to the complainant Narender Singh and also briefed him about his complaint. The written complaint was also shown to him.

44. PW­10 SI A.K.Maurya has further deposed that for verification of the complaint, he directed the complainant to make a phone call from his mobile phone to the mobile phone of the accused Dev Raj and at about 12.30 p.m., the complainant made a phone call on the mobile phone of the accused Dev Raj and during the conversation, it was revealed that the accused Dev Raj was demanding a sum of Rs.10,000/­ from the complainant, for releasing his santro car. This witness has further deposed that the said conversation was recorded with the help of the DVR, in the external 4 GB memory card. This witness has further stated that after confirmation of the demand, during the verification CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 37 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi process, he prepared the verification report Ex.PW.5/B and submitted the same to Shri D.K.Barik, the then S.P.

45. Perusal of the record shows that during the investigations, the IO DSP K.S.Pathania (PW­13) had also collected the C.D.R. of the mobile phone of the accused bearing No. 9968316218, as well as the C.D.R., of mobile phone No. 9711443075, pertaining to Dharmender Dabas, for 02.09.2013. The C.D.R., for mobile phone 9968316218 in the name of accused HC Dev Raj has been proved on record as Ex.PW.1/B. The certificate, u/s 65­B of Indian Evidence Act, pertaining to this C.D.R., has been proved on record as Ex.PW.1/D. The C.D.R., for mobile phone No. 9711443075 has been proved on record as Ex.PW.3/C and the certificate, u/s 65­B Indian Evidence Act in respect of this C.D.R., has been proved on record as Ex.PW.3/B. Perusal of the C.D.R.s, Ex.PW.3/B & Ex.PW.3/C clearly indicate that a phone call was made from the mobile phone No. 9711443075, registered in the name of Dharmender Dabas, to the mobile phone No. CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 38 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi 9968316218, registered in the name of accused HC Dev Raj, on 02.09.2013, at about 12:32:10 p.m. It also indicates that the conversation had taken place for a period of 143 seconds. This conversation was duly recorded with the help of the DVR in 4 GB memory card, make 'SANDISK', which was marked as Q­1 and has been proved on record as Ex.PW.6/P­16. The transcript of this conversation has been proved on record as Ex.PW.5/F (running into two pages).

46. The perusal of the transcript Ex.PW.5/F clearly indicates that during the conversation, the complainant had told the accused Dev Raj that he had received the release orders from the court and he was available to meet him at 5.00 p.m. Thereafter, the accused had agreed to meet the complainant at the police station Kanjhawala at 5.00 p.m. During the conversation, the complainant had also asked for the amount to be paid to the accused, on which, the accused told him to pay the same amount, which, the complainant had paid to his Advocate. The CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 39 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi complainant told him that he paid a sum of Rs.10,000/­ to his Advocate and his Advocate was demanding a further sum of Rs. 5,000/­. Thereafter, the accused asked the complainant to pay the same amount to him. The depositions of the complainant PW­5 Narender Singh; PW­7 Chander Kumar Grover and PW­10 SI A.K.Maurya and the recorded conversation, has established on record, beyond a shadow of doubt that the accused Dev Raj had demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/­ from the complainant, for releasing his santro car to him.

(B) REGISTRATION OF FIR & PRE­TRAP PROCEEDINGS

47. PW­5 complainant Narender Singh has also deposed that on 02.09.2013, he was taken to the CBI office by his friend Amit Kumar where they were told to contact SI A.K.Maurya and he told the entire facts of the case to him. He has further stated that the written complaint Ex.PW.5/A was given by him to SI A.K.Maurya at about 12.00 Noon. He has proved his complaint as Ex.PW.5/A. CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 40 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi

48. PW­10 SI A.K.Maurya has also deposed that on 02.09.2013, he verified the written complaint on the written directions of his the then SP Sh. D.K.Barik and for verification of the complaint, he requisitioned an independent public witness Mr. Grover from Syndicate Bank, Delhi and he directed the complainant to make a phone call from his mobile phone to the mobile phone of the accused HC Dev Raj. He has further stated that at about 12.30 p.m., a phone call was made by the complainant to the accused and the conversation was recorded with the help of a DVR. The conversation has revealed that the accused was demanding a sum of Rs.10,000/­ from the complainant for releasing his car. Thereafter, he prepared the verification report Ex.PW.5/B and submitted the same to his the then SP Sh. D.K.Barik.

49. PW­11 D.K.Barik has also stated that on 02.09.2013, complaint Ex.PW.5/A was handed over to him by the complainant Narender Singh and he directed for registration and verification of the complaint. He has further stated that this complaint was CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 41 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi marked to SI A.K.Maurya and after verification of the complaint, SI A.K.Maurya submitted the verification report Ex.PW.5/B, on the basis of which, he directed for registration of a case and to lay a trap. He has further deposed that the verification report Ex.PW5/B was marked by him to Inspector M.A.Khan for registering the case and to lay the trap. This witness has also proved the FIR as Ex.PW5/D.

50. PW­9 Inspector M.A.Khan has also deposed that the investigations of this case were entrusted to him by his the then SP Sh. D.K.Barik on 02.09.2013 who called him and handed over the copy of FIR alongwith the complaint of the complainant Narender Singh. He has further deposed that complainant Narender Singh was also directed by his SP Sh. D.K.Barik, to accompany him for further proceedings. Thereafter, a team was constituted, comprising of himself, Inspector Sanjay Upadhyay, Inspector Joseph Kerelo, Inspector Parmod Kumar, SI Raman Kumar Shukla and SI Arijit Daripa alongwith the subordinate staff. CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 42 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi He has further deposed that after constituting the trap team, two independent witnesses, Shri Chander Kumar Grover and Shri Vijay Kumar Arya, were arranged and all the trap team members, the complainant and the independent witnesses, assembled in his cabin at about 3.00 p.m.

51. PW­9 Inspector M.A.Khan, PW­7 Chander Kumar Grover, PW­8 Shri Vijay Kumar Arya and the complainant PW­5 Narender Singh have all deposed about the pre­trap proceedings and have corroborated each other on all material points. PW­9 Inspector M.A.Khan has categorically stated that the members of the team were introduced with each other and they were told by him that they have assembled to trap the accused HC Dev Raj of PS Kanjhawala, as he was demanding Rs.10,000/­ for releasing the santro car of the complainant Narender Singh. He has further stated that the complaint of the complainant was also shown to all the team members and to the independent witnesses. He has further deposed that the complainant produced 20 GC notes for CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 43 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi Rs.10,000/­, in the denomination of Rs.500/­ each and the numbers of the GC notes were noted down in the handing over memo.

52. PW­9 Inspector M.A.Khan has further deposed that after noting the numbers of the GC notes in the handing over memo, phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate powder was arranged from the malkhana and a demonstration was given by SI Raman Kumar Shukla, in which, the phenolphthalein powder was smeared over GC notes and a fresh solution of sodium carbonate in water was prepared in a glass tumbler. He has further deposed that independent witness Chander Kumar Grover PW­7 was asked to touch the GC notes with his right hand fingers and thereafter, to dip his right hand fingers in the solution of sodium carbonate. On doing so, the solution turned pink. He has further deposed that the significance of this demonstration was also explained to all the trap team members, including the complainant and the independent witnesses and it was explained that CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 44 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi whenever a person touches the tainted GC notes and thereafter, his fingers are dipped in the solution of sodium carbonate, it turns pink and it indicates that the said person had touched the tainted GC notes and had accepted the same. This witness has categorically stated that after the demonstration the remaining phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate powder were returned to the malkhana and the pink solution was thrown away.

53. PW­9 Inspector M.A.Khan has further deposed that after the demonstration, a digital voice recorder of make 'SONY', having 4 GB external memory card was arranged from the care taker of ACB, CBI, Delhi and the working of the DVR was explained to all the team members including the complainant and the independent witnesses and it was told by him that the DVR will be used by the complainant during the trap proceedings, for recording his conversation with the accused, who was demanding the bribe.

CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 45 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi

54. PW­9 Inspector M.A.Khan has further deposed that all the team members including the complainant and the independent witnesses, washed their hands with soap and water, on his instructions and witness Chander Kumar Grover put the tainted GC notes in the leather purse of the complainant. He has further deposed that the complainant was instructed, not to touch the GC notes and to hand over the same to the accused only on his specific demand or to hand over the same to some other person, on the directions of the accused. He has further stated that the introductory voices of both the independent witnesses were recorded through the DVR and the DVR was handed over to the complainant, with the directions to switch it on before entering into a conversation with the accused, in order to record the same. He has further stated that independent witness Chander Kumar Grover was instructed to remain with the complainant to watch the entire activities between the complainant and the accused and the other witness Vijay Kumar Arya was asked to remain with the trap team members. He has further stated that the complainant CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 46 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi Narender Singh and independent witness Chander Kumar were further instructed to give a signal by rubbing their face with both their hands, after the completion of the bribe transaction. He has further stated that they were also instructed that, in case, the trap team was unable to see the rubbing of face by them, then the complainant will make a missed call to his mobile phone number 09868059168, immediately after the transaction of the bribe. He has further deposed that before leaving the CBI office, a leather bag containing four clean empty glass bottles, glass tumbler, sodium carbonate powder, sealing material, file covers and papers, copy of FIR, the complaint and a sum of Rs.1000/­ for incidental expenses were also arranged. He has further deposed that the entire pre­trap proceedings were recorded in the handing over memo Ex.PW.5/C. This handing over memo was also signed by the independent witnesses.

55. Above testimony of the trap laying officer, PW­9 Inspector M.A.Khan, finds corroboration from the depositions of PW­7 CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 47 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi Chander Kumar Grover, PW­8 Vijay Kumar Arya and the complainant Narender Singh PW­5 in every respect. All the aforesaid witnesses have also given a similar narration of the pre­ trap proceedings conducted at the CBI office. The witnesses have also identified their signatures on the handing over memo Ex.PW.5/C and have proved the same.

(C) TRAP PROCEEDINGS, ACCEPTANCE AND RECOVERY OF BRIBE MONEY FROM THE ACCUSED

56. In order to prove the trap proceedings and the acceptance and recovery of the bribe money from the accused, the prosecution has examined the complainant Narender Singh, PW­5; TLO Inspector M.A.Khan PW­9, and the two independent witnesses, PW­7 Chander Kumar Grover and PW­8, Vijay Kumar Arya.

57. Complainant, PW­5 Narender Singh has deposed that on 02.09.2013, he alongwith the CBI officials and the two independent witnesses went to Police Station Kanjhawala and contacted the accused HC Dev Raj there and showed him the CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 48 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi court orders and the other documents of his vehicle, on which, the accused Dev Raj got the said documents photocopied and took them to his room on the first floor of Police Station Kanjhawala, where, he again demanded the amount of Rs.15,000/­ from him, on which, he told him that he was able to collect only Rs.10,000/­ and on his pursuation, the accused Dev Raj agreed to receive the said amount from him. He has further stated that the accused checked the documents and found the same as correct and thereafter, he asked him to pay the amount of Rs.10,000/­ to him, on which, he paid the said amount to the accused Dev Raj and the accused kept the said amount in his right side pant pocket. Thereafter, the accused Dev Raj got his santro car photographed and released the same to him. Thereafter, he took his santro car out of the Police Station Kanjhawala and told SI A.K.Maurya that the amount of Rs.10,000/­ has been received by accused HC Dev Raj. He has further deposed that the entire CBI team entered the Police Station Kanjhawala and apprehended the accused Dev Raj.

CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 49 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi

58. Complainant Narender Singh, PW­5, has further deposed that on re­entering the Police Station Kanjhawala, alongwith the CBI team and independent witnesses, he saw the accused Dev Raj sitting in the IO room and he pointed at the accused and told the CBI officials that the accused Dev Raj had accepted the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/­ from him. The complainant has further deposed that the CBI officials got the hands of the accused washed with the liquid in a glass and the hand wash of the accused had turned pink in color. He has further deposed that the left side pant pocket of the accused was also washed in the same liquid and the said wash had also turned pink in color. He has categorically stated that these solutions were kept by the CBI officials in the empty glass bottles and the empty bottles were duly sealed.

59. PW­5 Narender Singh has further deposed that the CBI officials had also recovered the bribe money from the possession of the accused Dev Raj and the numbers of the recovered CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 50 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi currency notes were also noted down by them and thereafter, the same were also sealed. He has further stated that the two independent witnesses had seen and told the numbers of the currency notes to Inspector Khan, who tallied the numbers of the recovered currency notes from the handing over memo. The complainant PW­5 Narender Singh has also proved the recovery memo Ex.PW.5/E and has proved the currency notes recovered from the possession of the accused Dev Raj as Ex.PW5/P­1 to Ex.PW5/P­20.

60. PW­7 Chander Kumar Grover has also deposed in a similar manner. He has also deposed that they left the CBI office at about 4.00 p.m. ­ 4.30 p.m., in two official vehicles and the car of the complainant PW­5 Narender Singh and reached Police Station Kanjhawala at about 5.30 p.m. He has further stated that after reaching the spot, Inspector Khan asked the complainant PW­5 Narender Singh, to make a phone call to the suspect police official and during the conversation, the suspect police official told CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 51 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi the complainant that he was present in the Police Station Kanjhawala and he asked the complainant Narender Singh to come inside the police station. He has further stated that after the call, the CBI team officials took different positions near the Police Station Kanjhawala and he alongwith the complainant Narender Singh entered the Police Station Kanjhawala. He has further deposed that after entering the police station Kanjhawala, the complainant Narender Singh went to meet the suspect police official and returned back to him within ten minutes and told him that the said official is asking for some papers and the papers were to be brought by him. Thereafter, both of them returned back to the CBI team and told the said fact to Inspector Khan. Thereafter, the complainant Narender Singh alongwith SI Raman Kumar Shukla went to get the papers prepared and after about 30­45 minutes, they returned back with some documents and thereafter, the complainant Narender Singh entered the Police Station Kanjhawala again, alone, and all of them had remained outside the police station. He has further deposed that after CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 52 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi about 5­10 minutes, the complainant Narender Singh came out of the police station Kanjhawala alongwith the accused Dev Raj and a photographer and the photographs of the vehicle of the complainant, which was lying parked outside the Police Station Kanjhawala, were taken and thereafter, all of them again went inside the police station Kanjhawala. Thereafter, the complainant returned back within 5­7 minutes and informed Inspector Khan by making gestures with his hands that the transaction had been completed and he asked them to enter the police station. Thereafter, all of them went inside the police station. All the above narrated facts also find corroboration from the recorded conversation marked 'Q­2', Ex.PW5/P­18 and its' transcript Ex.PW5/G.

61. PW­7 Chander Kumar Grover has further deposed that after entering the police station Kanjhawala, the CBI team caught hold of the accused Dev Raj and when he entered the said room, he saw the accused Dev Raj in the custody of the CBI team. He has CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 53 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi further stated that the accused Dev Raj was caught hold by Inspector Sanjay Upadhyay by one side and by SI Raman Kumar Shukla from the other side. Thereafter, some water was requisitioned and a solution of sodium carbonate was prepared and the right hand of the accused Dev Raj was dipped in the said solution, on which, the said solution had turned pink in color. The said pink solution was transferred to a small glass bottle. He has further stated that the same procedure was repeated with the left hand of the accused Dev Raj and the said solution had also turned pink in color.

62. PW­7 Chander Kumar Grover has further deposed that Inspector Khan had asked him to took out the GC notes from the pocket of the accused, on which, the currency notes were recovered by him from the left front pant pocket of the accused. He has further deposed that he alongwith PW­8 Vijay Kumar Arya were directed to tally the number of the recovered GC notes with the handing over memo and the numbers of the recovered GC CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 54 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi notes had tallied with the numbers noted down by them at the CBI office. This witness has further deposed that accused Dev Raj was wearing police uniform at that time and therefore, he was asked to remove his pant and thereafter, the left pant pocket of the accused Dev Raj was dipped in a separate solution of sodium carbonate and the said solution had also turned pink in color. He has further deposed that the said solution was also transferred in a separate glass bottle of the same size and all the three glass bottles were thereafter sealed and their signatures were obtained on the glass bottles. He has also stated that the Incharge or the ACP was also called to the police station Kanjhawala and was duly informed about the incident and the arrest of the accused Dev Raj in this case. This witness has also identified his signatures on the recovery memo Ex.PW.5/E. This witness has also proved the rough site plan as Ex.PW.7/A and the arrest­cum­ personal search memo of the accused Dev Raj as Ex.PW.7/B. The glass bottles, in which the pink solutions were sealed, have been proved on record as Ex.PW6/P­5, Ex.PW6/P­6 and CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 55 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi Ex.PW6/P­7, respectively.

63. PW­8 Vijay Kumar Arya, the second independent public witness, has also deposed in a similar fashion and has corroborated the complainant Narender Singh, PW­5 and PW­7 Chander Kumar Grover, on all the material points. He has categorically stated that the complainant Narender Singh went inside the police station Kanjhawala, alongwith one other person. He has further deposed that when he entered the room of the accused Dev Raj in the police station Kanjhawala, he saw the accused Dev Raj surrounded by the CBI team officials and the complainant. He has categorically stated that the packet containing the GC notes was taken out from the left pant pocket of the accused Dev Raj by the other witness from Syndicate Bank and on the directions of the CBI officers, he alongwith the other independent witness checked the GC notes. He has categorically stated that the numbers of the currency notes recovered from the possession of accused had tallied with the numbers of the GC CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 56 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi notes mentioned in the handing over memo Ex.PW.5/C. He has also deposed that the SHO / Senior officer of Police Station Kanjhawala was also informed about the incident and the hands of the accused Dev Raj, as well as his pant, were got washed in a chemical solution and the pant wash as well as the handwashes of accused Dev Raj were kept in the separate glass bottles.

64. PW­9 Inspector M.A.Khan, the Trap Laying Officer has also corroborated the testimonies of the aforesaid three witnesses on all the material points. He has also deposed that the trap team members reached near the Police Station Kanjhawala at about 5.40 p.m. and thereafter, he instructed the complainant Narender Singh to make a phone call from his mobile phone to the mobile phone of the accused to ascertain his location or the availability in the police station Kanjhawala and he further instructed him to put his mobile phone on the speaker mode, so that all the trap team members, including the independent witnesses, may hear the conversation between them. Thereafter, the complainant made a CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 57 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi phone call from his mobile phone to the mobile phone of the accused Dev Raj and the conversation revealed that the complainant Narender Singh was told by accused Dev Raj that he was available in the police station Kanjhawala and he can come inside. This witness has also stated that this conversation was also recorded in the DVR and thereafter, the DVR was switched off. He has further stated that the complainant Narender Singh and the shadow witness Chander Kumar Grover, PW­7, were instructed to enter the office of the accused Dev Raj and some of the team members stationed themselves in the lawn of the police station Kanjhawala, whereas, the other team members remained outside the police station Kanjhawala.

65. PW­9, Inspector M.A.Khan has further deposed that after about ten minutes, the complainant Narender Singh and the shadow witness came out of the office of the accused Dev Raj and on the asking of Inspector Parmod Kumar, the complainant Narender Singh told him that accused HC Dev Raj had directed him to get CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 58 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi prepared a superdarinama. Thereafter, he sent the complainant Narender Singh with SI Raman Kumar Shukla to the nearby court of the SDM, for preparation of the superdarinama of his car. He has further deposed that after about 15­20 minutes, they returned back with the documents and the complainant Narender Singh alongwith the shadow witness again entered the office of the accused HC Dev Raj.

66. PW­9 Inspector M.A.Khan has further deposed that after about 10­15 minutes, the complainant Narender Singh and the shadow witness again returned back alongwith accused HC Dev Raj and a photographer and the complainant Narender Singh opened his car and got himself seated in the car and the photographer took the photographs from its front side and back side. He has categorically stated that on asking about the transaction, the complainant Narender Singh told him that the bribe money had already been handed over by him to the accused HC Dev Raj. Thereafter, they entered the police station Kanjhawala and the CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 59 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi complainant Narender Singh pointed towards the office of accused Dev Raj and thereafter, they entered his room and introduced themselves to the accused Dev Raj and challenged him that he had accepted the bribe money from the complainant Narender Singh. In the meantime, Inspector Sanjay Upadhyay and SI Raman Kumar Shukla caught hold the accused with his hands. Thereafter, a solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in a glass and the right hand of the accused Dev Raj was dipped in it, on which, the solution had turned pink in color. The said solution was poured in a glass bottle and the solution was marked as "RHW". The procedure was repeated with the left hand of the accused Dev Raj and the solution in the second glass had also turned pink in color. The said solution was also transferred to a separate glass bottle and the same was marked as "LHW".

67. PW­9 Inspector M.A.Khan has further deposed that the shadow witness PW­7 Chander Kumar Grover was asked to search the pocket of the accused HC Dev Raj and during search, CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 60 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi PW­7 Chander Kumar Grover recovered the cash amount of Rs. 10,000/­, in the denominations of Rs.500/­ from the left pant pocket of the accused. Thereafter, the complainant Narender Singh was asked to tally the number of the recovered GC notes from the numbers mentioned in the handing over memo Ex.PW. 5/C. He has further deposed that the accused Dev Raj was in uniform at that time and therefore, a pant and a shirt were requisitioned from the police station Kanjhawala and his pant was taken into possession and its left pant pocket was dipped in a separate sodium carbonate solution and on doing so, the said solution had also turned pink in color. The said solution was also transferred to a separate glass bottle and was marked as "LPPW". He has further deposed that all the three bottles marked "RHW", "LHW" and "LPPW" were duly sealed with the seal of CBI and were signed by him and the independent witnesses Chander Kumar Grover and Vijay Kumar Arya.

68. Perusal of the depositions of the complainant PW­5 Narender CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 61 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi Singh; the Trap Laying Officer PW­9, Inspector M.A.Khan; shadow witness PW­7, Chander Kumar Grover and the second independent witness PW­8, Vijay Kumar Arya indicates that all these aforesaid witnesses have given a consistent and similar narration of the trap proceedings. But, a few contradictions have come on record in their examination­in­chief, as well as in their cross­examinations, regarding the handing over of the tainted GC notes to the complainant Narender Singh, during the pre­trap proceedings and regarding the recovery of the said tainted GC notes from the possession of the accused HC Dev Raj at Police Station Kanjhawala. But, in the considered opinion of this court, these contradictions are not fatal to the prosecution case, as such kind of contradictions are bound to occur, in their examinations, when the witnesses depose in the court in a consistent manner and that too, after a gap of several years.

69. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case titled as, "Prem Singh Yadav vs. CBI, reported as, 2002 Law Suit CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 62 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi (SC) 43", as under :­

7. Before proceeding to see the veracity of the testimony of this witness, in the light of the testimonies of other witnesses, namely PW3, PW5 and PW6 and to see as to whether the discrepancies as pointed out by learned Counsel were material as alleged by him or insignificant as submitted by learned Counsel for the prosecution, it may be appropriate to refer to the judgment in the case of Zamir Ahmed v. State, 1996 Crl. Law Journal 2354. with regard to the discrepancies, it was observed by the Division Bench of this Court that :

"It would be a hard nut to crack to find out a case which is bereft of embellishment, exaggeration, contradictions and inconsistencies. The said things are natural. Such contradictions and inconsistencies are bound to creep in with the passage of time. If the witnesses are not tutored, they would come out with a natural and spontaneous version on their own. The two persons on being asked to reproduce a particular incident which they have witnessed with their own eyes would be unable to do so in like manner. Each one of them will narrate the same in his own words, according to his own perception and in proportion to his intelligence power of observation."

(emphasis supplied by me)

70. The oral testimonies of these witnesses and the recorded CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 63 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi conversations and the call detail records have established on record, beyond a shadow of doubt, that accused HC Dev Raj was demanding a bribe of a sum of rupees fifteen thousands, from the complainant, for releasing his santro car to him, on superdari. Their testimonies have also established on record, beyond a shadow of doubt, that accused HC Dev Raj had accepted the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/­ from the complainant, Narender Singh.

71. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, way back in the year 1959, in the case titled as "Tehsildar Singh & Anrs. vs. State of U.P." (Supra), (as relied by the Ld. PP for the CBI), has held as under:

19. "Contradict" according to the Oxford Dictionary means to affirm to the contrary, Section 145 of the Evidence Act, indicates the manner in which contradiction is brought out. The cross­examining Counsel shall put the part or parts of the statement which affirms the contrary to what is stated in evidence. This indicates that there is something in writing which can be set against another statement made in evidence. If the CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 64 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi statement before the police­officer - in the sense we have indicated - and the statement in the evidence before the Court are so inconsistent or irreconcilable with each other that both of them cannot co­exist, it may be said that one contradicts the other.

(emphasis supplied by me)

72. Even in the present case, the cross­examinations of the aforesaid witnesses have indicated that there are some contradictions in their depositions, but, the same are not so inconsistent or irreconcilable from their statements recorded in the court that their depositions in their examination­in­chief and the cross­examination cannot co­exist and therefore, the contradictions or the minor discrepancies in their cross­ examination cannot be termed as fatal to the prosecution case, in the present case. Furthermore, the clinching electronic evidence, in the form of recorded conversations between the accused and the complainant has corroborated the prosecution case and has ruled out any inference of false implication of the accused in the present case, despite of all those contradictions in the oral CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 65 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

(D) FORENSIC & ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE

73. The testimonies of the aforesaid four witnesses finds corroboration from the CFSL reports. PW­6 Shri V.B.Ramtek has proved his report dated 30.09.2013, as Ex.PW6/A. He has categorically stated that vide memo No. RC-DAI­2013­ A­0020/13508, dated 17.09.2013, SP SDOP CBI/ACB/New Delhi, forwarded three sealed bottles for chemical analysis for presence of phenolphthalein, in the exhibits. The bottles were marked as RHW, LHW & LPPW and were sealed with the seal impression of 'C.B.I. A.C.B. N.D. 26/2012'. The seals were found intact and were tallied with the specimen seal impressions, which WERE forwarded with the said request letter. He had categorically stated that the contents of these bottles were examined by him by chemical tests and thinlayer chromatographic technique, and on examination, all the three exhibits gave positive tests for the presence of phenolphthalein. The bottles marked RHW, LHW & CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 66 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi LPPW have been proved on record as Ex.PW6/P­5, Ex.PW6/P­6 & Ex.PW6/P­7, respectively.

74. Perusal of the record further shows that during the process of verification of the complaint and the trap proceedings on 02.09.2013, a DVR was used by the complainant and the CBI officials, for recording of the telephonic conversations of the complainant with accused HC Dev Raj. These recordings were made with the DVR in an external memory card of 4 GB memory. The conversation of the complainant with the accused, on 02.09.2013 at 12:30:10 p.m., for verification of his complaint has been recorded in the memory card marked 'Q­1', Ex.PW.5/P­16. The conversations of the accused and the complainant, after verification of complaint, on 02.09.2013 have been recorded in the memory card marked 'Q­2', Ex.PW.5/P­18. After the trap proceedings and the arrest of the accused, in the present case, the sample of voice of the accused was taken on 03.09.2013, in the memory card, marked 'S­1', Ex.PW.5/P­19. All these three CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 67 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi memory cards have been duly proved during the trial. Since, all these memory cards are the original memory cards, in which the conversations were directly recorded, these memory cards are the 'primary evidence', and no certificate under the Provisions of Section 65­B of the Indian Evidence Act, is required to be furnished by the prosecution to prove these 'documents'.

75. During the investigations, the memory card containing recorded conversations marked 'Q­1', Ex.PW5/P­16 & 'Q­2', Ex.PW5/P­18, along with the specimen voice sample of the accused, in memory card (micro SD card), marked 'S­1', Ex.PW5/P­19, were also sent to CFSL, CBI, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, for expert opinion, by the S.P., C.B.I. Sh. D.K Barik, vide his letter No. RC­DAI­2013­A 0020/13508 dated 17.09.2013, in sealed envelopes, along with specimen seal impression and the copies of the transcripts. The exhibits were marked to PW­12 Sh. Amitosh Kumar, Sr. Scientific Officer, for comparison, analysis and expert opinion. He has categorically stated that the present CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 68 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi case was allotted to him by his head of the department and before opening the parcels for examination, the seals of the parcels were tallied with the specimen seals forwarded and the same were found intact. He has further deposed that the parcels contained three micro SD cards marked 'Q­1', 'Q­2' & 'S­1' and were stated to contain the questioned and specimen voice recordings. He has further stated that the questioned conversations and the specimen voice recordings were transferred to the instrument, namely, Speech Science Lab (SLL), for examination. He has further deposed that the questioned voices of suspected person were segregated from the recorded conversations and were compared with the specimen voice. On court questioning, this witness has deposed that the transcripts of the recorded conversation were also provided by the CBI, along with the recorded conversation and with the help of the transcripts of the recorded conversation, he has segregated the questioned voice of the suspected person.

CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 69 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi

76. PW­12 Sh. Amitosh Kumar has further stated that after comparing and identifying the questioned voice marked 'Q­1 (I) (A)'; 'Q­2 (I) (A)' & 'Q­2 (II) (A)' and the specimen voice marked 'S­1 (I) (A)', he opined that the same were of the same person, namely, Dev Raj, on the basis of the linguistics, phonetic and spectrographic examination. He has further stated that after the examination, the micro SD cards were re­sealed with his official seal in a separate envelope and sent to the forwarding authority, along with the original report. He has also proved his report, bearing No. CFSL­2013/P­1497 dated 03.03.2014, running into seven pages, as Ex.PW12/A.

77. Perusal of the record further shows that during the entire proceedings on 02.09.2013, the complainant has used the mobile phone of his friend Dharmender Dabas with phone number 9711443075, whereas, the accused HC Dev Raj was using mobile phone number 9968316218, at that time. During the trial, the call detail records of both these mobile phone numbers have CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 70 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi been duly proved by the concerned Nodal Officers. The C.D.R. and the certificate under Section 65­B of the Indian Evidence act, pertaining to mobile phone number 9711443075 have been proved on record as Ex.PW.3/C and Ex.PW.3/B, respectively. The C.D.R., and the certificate, under Section 65­B of the Indian Evidence Act, pertaining to the mobile phone of the accused, No. 9968316218 have been proved on record as Ex.PW.1/B and Ex.PW.1/D, respectively.

78. The call detail records of the mobile phones, used by the complainant and the accused on 02.09.2013 and the recordings of their telephonic conversations have also corroborated the prosecution case, to prove the guilt of the accused.

(E) PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 20 OF THE P.C.ACT, 1988

79. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case titled as, "B. Jayaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh", reported as, CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 71 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi "(2014) 13 Supreme Court Cases 55", as under :­

7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position of law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing to be a bribe. The above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court. By way of illustration reference may be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P. And C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI.

xxx xxxx xxxx

9. Insofar as the presumption permissible to be drawn under Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such presumption can only be in respect of the offence under Section 7 and not the offences under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. In any event, it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the present case the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent.

(emphasis supplied by me) CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 72 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi

80. In the present case also, the prosecution has successfully proved, beyond a shadow of doubt, by oral as well as corroborative electronic and forensic evidence that the accused has demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.10,000/­ from the complainant Narender Singh, for releasing his santro car bearing registration No. DL 8CS 4120 to him, on superdari. Once the prosecution has proved the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused, now, a presumption, as provided under Section 20 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is to be drawn by the court, against the accused. Now, it is for the accused to rebut the said presumption. But, in the present case, the accused has failed to present any plausible or reasonable defence to rebut the presumption and to prove his innocence. No material evidence has been produced on record, in his defence, to rebut the presumption. However, the accused has summoned the relevant record to prove the FIR No. 6/16 of P.S. Kanjhawala, registered for the offences, under Section 386/387/506/34 IPC, as Ex.DW1/A and the FIR No. 155/2016 of P.S. Rajinder Nagar, CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 73 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi registered for the offences, under Section 186/353/307/384/120­B IPC, as Ex.DW2/A. But perusal of these FIRs indicate that the complainant Narender Singh was not involved in any of these two cases. However, his friend Dharmender Dabas has been cited as an accused in FIR No. 6/16, Ex.DW.1/A. In the considered opinion of this court, the mentioning of the name of Dharmender Dabas in the aforesaid FIR, as an accused, does not prove the fact that the complainant Narender Singh has connived with Dharmender Dabas to falsely implicate the accused in the present case. No reasonable explanation has come on record, from the accused, as to why he has demanded and accepted the bribe from the complainant, for releasing his santro car on superdari, in case FIR No. 242/2013 of P.S. Kanjhawala, despite of the court orders, in favour of the complainant.

81. During the course of arguments the Ld. Defence counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in case titled as, "Krishan Chander vs. State of Delhi" (Supra) and CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 74 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi has argued that in view of the material contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, it cannot be said with certainty that the accused HC Dev Raj had demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.10,000/­ from the complainant Narender Singh. He has further argued that in the absence of conclusive proof of demand of illegal gratification and acceptance of the same by the accused HC Dev Raj, no presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act, 1988 can be drawn against the accused. But, I do not find any merit in these submissions of the Ld. Defence counsel as the facts and circumstances of the Krishan Chander's case are totally different from the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, in the present case. In the case of Krishan Chander (supra), the complainant had turned hostile and had not supported the prosecution case, but, in the present case, the complainant Narender Singh had supported the prosecution case on all the material points. In the case of Krishan Chander (supra), the demand of illegal gratification was never made by the accused himself. But, in the present case, the demand of illegal CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 75 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi gratification was made by accused HC Dev Raj himself and the same has been duly proved during the trial. Furthermore, in the case of Krishan Chander (supra), the presumption under Section 20 could not be drawn against the accused, because the demand of illegal gratification by him, could not be proved beyond a shadow of doubt, during the trial. But, in the present case the demand of illegal gratification and the acceptance of a sum of Rs. 10,000/­ as bribe, has been duly proved by the prosecution in the present case and therefore, a presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act, has to be drawn, necessarily, against the accused, in the present case.

(F) SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION

82. In the present case, PW­2 Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Deputy Director, Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, who was posted as Additional Commissioner of Police, Outer District, Delhi, in the year 2013, has granted the sanction for prosecution of accused HC Dev Raj, vide sanction order dated 31.10.2013 CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 76 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi Ex.PW.2/A. PW­2 Sh. Sanjay Kumar has categorically stated before the court that as per the Delhi Police Punishment and Appeal Rules, he was the competent authority to grant the sanction for prosecution of accused HC Dev Raj. He has further stated that the CBI officials had produced the complete case file, containing the charge sheet, statements of the witnesses and other documents, for his perusal, for grant of sanction for prosecution of accused HC Dev Raj. He has further deposed that after perusing the complete file, he granted the sanction for prosecution of accused HC Dev Raj, vide order dated 31.10.2013 as Ex.PW.2/A.

83. It has been held in case titled as " C.B.I. Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, reported as, 2014 Crl. L.J., 930", as under :­ "7. The prosecution has to satisfy the court that at the time of sending the matter for grant of sanction by the competent authority, adequate material for such grant was made available to the said authority. This may also be evident from the sanction order, in case it is extremely comprehensive, as all the facts and circumstances of the case may be spelt out in the CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 77 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi sanction order. However, in every individual case, the court has to find out whether there has been an application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority concerned on the material placed before it. It is so necessary for the reason that there is an obligation on the sanctioning authority to discharge its duty to give or withhold sanction only after having full knowledge of the material facts of the case. Grant of sanction is not a mere formality. Therefore, the provisions in regard to the sanction must be observed with complete strictness keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought.

It is to be kept in mind that sanction lifts the bar for prosecution. Therefore, it is not an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to the government servant against frivolous prosecution. Further, it is a weapon to discourage vexatious prosecution and is a safeguard for the innocent, though not a shield for the guilty.

Consideration of the material implies application of mind. Therefore, the order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. In every individual case, the probability has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that those facts were placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same. If the sanction order on its face indicates that all relevant CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 78 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi material i.e. FIR, disclosure statements, recovery memos, draft charge sheet and other materials on record, were placed before the sanctioning authority and if it is further discernible from the recital of the sanction order that the sanctioning authority perused all the material, an inference may be drawn that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law. This becomes necessary in case the court is to examine the validity of the order of sanction inter alia on the ground that the order suffers from the vice of total non application of mind."

(emphasis supplied by me)

84. Perusal of the sanction order Ex.PW.2/A indicates that PW­2 Shri Sanjay Kumar has gone through the entire case file and the documents and after going through the entire material on record and considering the allegations and circumstances of the case, he passed the sanction order Ex.PW.2/A. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this court, the sanction order Ex.PW.2/A does not suffer from any illegality and cannot be held as an invalid or illegal sanction order.

85. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 79 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi opinion that the CBI / prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused HC Dev Raj, beyond a shadow of doubt, for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

86. The accused Dev Raj is accordingly held guilty & convicted, for the said offences.

Let the convict be heard on the point of sentence, on the next date of hearing.

It is ordered accordingly.

Announced in open Court on 31 day of May, 2016 st BRIJESH KUMAR GARG Special Judge:CBI­01 Central District. Delhi CBI Vs. Dev Raj (CC 07/2013) Page 80 of 80 Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi