Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Geeta Rawat on 27 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV AGGARWAL
SPECIAL JUDGE : (CBI)-10 : (PC ACT)
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI
CNR No : DLCT 11-000175-2023
RC No. : DAI-2022-A-0007
PS : CBI/ACB/New Delhi
U/S : 120B IPC r/w Section 7 of P.C.
Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018)
and substantive offences thereof.
CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Versus
1. Ms. Geeta Rawat
W/o Sh. Dilwan Singh Rawat
R/o B-30, Street No. 1
West Vinod Nagar, Delhi-92
2. Sh. Naushad Ahmed
S/o Sh. Jameer Ahmed
R/o D-197, Gali No. 3,
Near Nalanda Public School,
West Vinod Nagar, Delhi-92
3. Sh. Sanaullah@ Bilal
S/o Sh. Mohd. Yunus
R/o (1). E-370, Gali No. 5
West Vinod Nagar, Delhi-92
(2). E-109, Street No. 02,
Shanti Marg, West Vinod Nagar
Delhi-92.
CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 1 of 102
CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
Permanent Address:-
VPO-Partapur, Tehsil and District
Bulandsahar, UP
Date of Institution : 21.02.2023
Date on which reserved for judgment : 09.01.2025
Date of Judgment : 27.01.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts as set out in the chargesheet are as under:-
(16.1) The background of the case is that a complaint dated 17.02.2022 duly signed by complainant was submitted in CBI, ACB, New Delhi against Smt. Geeta Rawat and her accomplices. It was alleged that complainant took over the contract to construct the house at plot D- 572, D-Block, West Vinod Nagar, from Sh. Sikandar Hasan, who took over the collaboration of the said plot from the owner of the said plot namely Smt. Yasmin Malik. Ms. Geeta Rawat, Municipal Councilor demanded amount of Rs. 20,000/- through her husband Sh. Dilwan Singh Rawat for allowing to lay down the lenter in the house under construction at said plot no. D-572, D-Block, West Vinod Nagar from complaint Shri CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 2 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
Salim Ali. They were demanding bribe through complainant's munshi Sh. Jitendra Kumar and also threaten to get that house demolished through MCD Department and even did not let the electricity connection installed therein. (16.2) Investigation revealed that a verification dated 17.02.2022 was conducted by CBI which confirmed demand of bribe of Rs. 20,000/ on the part of Smt. Geeta Rawat, the then councilor, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi through unknown person from Sh. Jitender Kumar (Munshi of the complaint). The verification memo containing verification proceedings was prepared in presence of independent witness Sh. Amit Kumar Soni, Sh. Salim Ali (Complainant). Sh. Jitender Kumar (Munshi of the complaint) and after verification proceedings an FIR No. DAI-2022-A-0007 was registered on 17.02.2022 U/s 120-B of IPC r/w Section 7 of PC Act 1988 (As amended in 2018) against Smt. Geeta Rawat, Municipal Councilor, Delhi and Unknown others.
(16.3) Investigation revealed that as per the directions of Sh. Dharam Bir, SI (Verifying officer), Sh. Amit Kr. Soni, witness also attended CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 3 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
CBI office in the morning on the next day le 18.02.2022 and there CBI team including one more independent witness Sh. Devendra Kumar were assembled at about 0940 Hrs on 18.02.2022 The assembled persons were formally introduced to each other and the purpose of assembly for laying a trap on accused Mrs. Geeta Rawat, Councillor, East Delhi Municipal Corporation, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi was explained by the TLO. Sh. C.M.S Negi, Inspector to all present.
The hand written complaint dated 17.02.2022, duly signed and submitted by complainant Sh. Salim Ali, Verification memo, FIR of the case, was shown, read over and also explained to all present.
(16.4) Investigation revealed that complainant Salim Ali produced a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and the number of the said GC Notes were mentioned in the Pre-Trap Memorandum. A demonstration was given by one Sh. Sandeep Tiwari, Inspector, to all the members present to explain the purpose and significance use of phenolphthalein powder and its chemical reaction with sodium carbonate and water. The G.C. Notes, so produced by the CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 4 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
complainant totalling to Rs. 20,000/- were treated with phenolphthalein powder. It was decided that the tainted bribe amount would be carried by the munshi Shri Jitendra Kumar as the accused persons were talking to him only. Shri Jitendra Kumar was directed not to touch the said tainted bribe amount and to hand over the same to the accused or to someone else on the directions of the accused, on their specific demand and hot otherwise. A new memory card was arranged and inserted in the DVR. The functioning of the DVR was explained and the introductory voices of both of the independent witnesses were recorded after ensuring the blankness of the DVR and the memory card.
(16.5) Investigation revealed that all the trap team members including Amit Kr. Soni, Complainant Salim Ali, Shri Jitendra Kumar (Munshi) and other independent witness washed hands with soap and water. Shri Jitendra Kumar was directed to give a signal by rubbing his face with both hands or by giving a call from his mobile phone to the mobile phone number of the TLO, after the transaction of bribe is over. Amit Kr. Soni, CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 5 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
witness was also directed to give a signal by rubbing face with both hands or by giving a missed call from his mobile phone to the mobile phone of the TLO, after the transaction of bribe is over. All the members except Shri Jitendra Kumar mutually searched each other to ensure that they might not carry any incriminating documents/ articles. The Pre-Trap Memorandum was prepared to this effect.
(16.6) Investigation revealed that in continuation of Pre-Trap Memorandum dated 18.02.2022, the CBI trap team including Amit Kr. Soni, witness, (Munshi) Shri Jitendra Kumar, Sh. Salim Ali (Complainant) and Sh. Devender Kumar, witness left CBI office at about 1050 Hrs. on 18.02.2022 towards the spot i.e. O/o of Ms. Geeta Rawat, Municipal Councilor located at Ambedkar Park, Narvana Road, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi. Prior to reaching the spot at around 1116 Hrs, a call was made by Jitender Kumar from his mobile phone to the mobile phone of Smt. Geeta Rawat, Municipal Councilor in the presence of witness. In the said call Geeta Rawat informed that she would be reaching within 10 minutes to the CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 6 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
office. The above said call was recorded. (16.7) Investigation revealed that CBI team reached near the vicinity of office of Geeta Rawat and took suitable position and when it is confirmed that Ms. Geeta Rawat had reached in her office, The DVR containing the SD Card in switched on mode was kept in the left side pocket of the jacket worn by Sh. Jitendra Kumar (Munshi of the complainant), Sh. Amit Kr. Soni, witness followed Shri Jitendra Kumar from some distance. Shri Jitendra Kumar entered the Ambedkar Park and went inside the office of Mrs. Geeta Rawat. After a while Mrs. Geeta Rawat and Shri Jitendra Kumar came out of her office. Mrs. Geeta Rawat was seen calling over her mobile phone. Thereafter, one person (later on identified as Sanaullah @ Billal) was seen approaching towards Mrs. Geeta Rawat. After having a brief talk, Sh. Sanaullah @ Bilal and Sh. Jitendra Kumar left the said spot and came outside the Ambedkar Park from the Panchdeep Dwar at the stall located on the right side. Shri Jitendra unzipping the right pocket of his jacket and Shri Sanaullah took out the money with his CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 7 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
right hand from the said pocket and counting it using both his hands. He then kept the same in his left front pocket of the lower /track pant worn by him. This transaction happened at around 1215 hrs and Shri Jitendra Kumar gave the pre-decided signal of transaction of illegal gratification by rubbing both his hands on his face. Immediately CBI team members caught hold Shri Sanaullah @ Bilal from his right hand and left hand wrists, respectively.
(16.8) Investigation revealed that accused Sanaullah disclosed that as instructed by Mrs. Geeta Rawat, Municipal Councilor, he had accepted an amount of Rs. 20,000/- from Sh. Jitendra Kumar and counted them and then kept it in his left pocket of the lower worn by him. A fresh sodium carbonate solution with water was prepared in a clean glass tumbler. The accused Shri Sanaullah @ Bilal was asked to dip his right hand fingers into the said solution. On his doing so, the solution turned pink. The said solution was transferred in a fresh glass bottle which was marked, signed and sealed accordingly. Again afresh sodium carbonate solution with water was CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 8 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
prepared in another fresh clean glass tumbler. Shri Sanaullah dipped his left hand fingers into the said solution. On doing so, the solution turned pink. The said solution was transferred in a fresh glass bottle which was marked, signed and sealed accordingly.
(16.9) Investigation revealed that the tainted amount was recovered by Shri Devender Kumar, witness and then the same was counted by both of witnesses and tallied the distinctive numbers and denominations with the distinctive numbers and denominations of the GC notes mentioned in the Pre-Trap Memorandum. The same were found matching in toto. The recovered tainted amount of Rs. 20,000/- was sealed, marked and signed accordingly. A fresh sodium carbonate solution with water was prepared in a fresh clean glass tumbler and the inner left side front pocket of the lower/track pant of accused Sanaullah's was dipped into the said solution. On doing so, the solution turned pink. The said solution was transferred in a fresh glass bottle which was marked, signed and sealed accordingly. The Left Side Front Pocket of Lower/track pant of accused CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 9 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
Sanaullah was also signed, marked and then the said lower/track was sealed, marked and signed accordingly.
(16.10) Investigation revealed that Shri Jitendra Kumar narrated the sequence of events that took place at the spot which confirmed the demand of bribe by the accused Geeta Rawat from him and on behalf of accused Geeta Rawat, accused Sanaullah took out the money from the pocket of the jacket of Jitendra Kumar and after counting the same, kept it in his left front pocket of the lower /track pant. Independent witness Sh. Amit Kr. Soni also corroborated the facts. A rough site plan of the spot was prepared by Shri Ravindra Kumar Bharti, Inspector denoting the positions of members.
(16.11) Investigation further revealed that the CBI team left the spot along with the accused persons at about 1305 Hrs, and reached CBI office at around 1340 Hrs. After reaching the CBI office the recorded conversation was heard and it was found that it was in sync with the events narrated above. A rough transcription of the conversation held between Shri Jitendra Kumar CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 10 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
(Munshi of the complainant), and Smt. Geeta Rawat and held between Shri Jitendra Kumar and Shri Sanaullah @ Billal were prepared. The memory card inserted in the DVR was taken out from the DVR and after preparing the investigation copy, the said memory card was sealed, marked and signed accordingly.
(16.12) Accused Geeta Rawat, Municipal Councilor, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi: 92 and accused Shri Sanaullah @ Bilal were arrested. Specimen voice samples of Smt. Geeta Rawat, Sanaullah and Sh. Jitendra Kumar (Munshi) were taken by the CBI before Independent witnesses which they have voluntarily given. The memory cards concerned containing voice samples were marked, sealed and signed accordingly.
(16.13) Investigation revealed that the identity of a person who was present with accused Geeta Rawat on 17.02.2022 in her office while having conversation with Shri Jitendra Kumar, was established as Shri Naushad Ahmed. Accused Naushad Ahmed admitted having pressed Jitendra Kumar for paying the bribe money. The role of accused Naushad Ahmed was also surfaced in the CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 11 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
conspiracy for demanding illegal gratification from Shri Jitendra Singh (Munshi of the complainant), therefore he was also arrested on 18.02.2022. Specimen voice sample of accused Naushad Ahmed was also taken by the CBI in presence of independent witnesses which he has given voluntarily. The memory card concerned containing voice sample of accused Naushad Ahmed was marked, sealed and signed accordingly. The DVR used for recording the conversations during the course of verification and trap proceeding was sealed, marked and also signed accordingly. The recovery proceedings concluded at about 0040 Hrs. on 19.02.2022. The detailed memorandum was prepared in this regards.
(16.14) Investigation revealed that the transcription of conversations of recordings, recorded during verification proceedings and trap proceedings were prepared. Vide voice identification-memo, voice of accused persons have been identified by Jitender Kumar (Munshi of complainant). Independent witnesses also identified their voices in the above said CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 12 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
recordings recorded as introductory voices Besides above, on matching of voice the expert's opinion report bearing No. CFSL - 2022/P-0581, dated 21.11.2022, has also been received in CBI, ACB, New Delhi. The washes taken from accused Sannullah @ Bilal were sent to CFSL for seeking expert opinion. The expert's opinion has been received in CBI, which revealed positively presence of Phenolphthalein. During investigation CDRs/CAF's details of mobile phone numbers of accused persons were taken on record that correlates the relevant facts. (16.15) In view of the evidence oral documentary and the facts and circumstances of the case, it is revealed that the accused Geeta Rawat, the then councilor, EDMC, New Delhi, in conspiracy with Sh. Naushad Ahmed and Sanaullah @Bilal (Private Persons) have demanded bribe of 20,000/ for allowing construction of house and laying of lenter (concrete proofing) committed offences punishable U/s 120-B of IPC r/w 7 of PC Act, 1988 (As amended in 2018) and substantive offence thereof.
(16.16) It is worthwhile to mention here that the CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 13 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
sanction for prosecution of accused Geeta Rawat in term of sec. 19 of PC Act (As amended in 2018) has been initiated from the competent authority and in this respect communication dated 24.01.2023 has been received from Special Secretary - II (UD)/ADLB, vide which it is informed that there is no authority prescribed under the Delhi Municipal Act to accord prosecution sanction of a Municipal Corporation Act to accord prosecution sanction of a Municipal Councilor as act has no provision which expressly states as to who is the competent authority to remove Municipal Councilor. (16.17) It is further submitted that in light of the aforesaid communication and absence of any express provision regarding the authority competent to remove the Municipal Councilor, it is imperative to take the shelter of Judgement titled P.V. Narsimha Rao V/s State, (1988) 4 SCC 626, in which it is held that "if there is no authority competent to remove a public servant and to grant sanction for his prosecution U/s 19(1) of PC Act, there is no limitation on the power of the court to take the cognizance u/s 190 CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 14 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
Cr.PC of the offences mentioned in section 19(1) of the 1988 Act.
2. Vide order dated 21.02.2023, charge sheet was filed in the Court and vide order dated 29.05.2023, cognizance of the offence(s) mentioned in the charge sheet was taken. After supply of the copies and documents to the accused persons u/S. 207 CrPC, vide detailed order dated 16.03.2024 charges u/S. 120B IPC r/w Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) were directed to be framed against all the accused persons and additionally accused no. 1 Geeta Rawat was also directed to be charged for the substantive offence u/S. 7 of the PC Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018).
3. Thereafter, formal charges were framed against all accused persons namely Geeta Rawat (A-1), Naushad Ahmed (A-
2) and Sanaullah @Bilal (A-3) u/S. 120B IPC r/w Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and additionally a substantive charge u/S 7 of the PC Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) was also framed against accused Geeta Rawat (A-1) on 22.03.2024, to which all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 15 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses as under :-
PW-1 is Sh. Manish Kushwaha, the friend of PW4, who had allegedly lent his mobile sim bearing no. 8130239734 to PW4, which was issued on his ID on 15/16.02.2022.
PW-2 is Sh. Parveen Kumar, Nodal officer, Reliance Jio, who had provided the CAF / CDR along with Cell ID chart and certificate u/S. 65-B of Evidence Act for mobile no. 7834873893 for the period 18.01.2022 to 18.02.2022, which is Ex. PW2/A (Colly) issued in the name of father of accused no. 3 Sanaullah @ Bilal.
PW3 Ms. Yasmin Malik, who is the owner of the property no. D-572, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi and who had purportedly handed over the construction work over the said plot to Sh. Sikandar Hassan on 10.06.2021 and he has proved the said construction / collaboration agreement executed between him and Sikandar Hassan as Ex. PW3/A. PW4 Sh. Jitendra Kumar, the star witness of the prosecution, who was allegedly working as munshi CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 16 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
of one Salim Ali, to whom the construction work of the above plot was given by Sikandar Hassan who had entered into a collaboration agreement with PW3 Yasmin Malik.
He is the witness with regard to the verification, demand and acceptance of the bribe money of Rs. 20,000/- and he was present throughout the investigations and the prosecution has relied upon him to prove its case that A-1 demanded the bribe money for putting lenter in the above house of Rs. 20,000/- and in case the said amount was not paid, the said under construction house will be demolished through MCD, where the A-1 was working as councilor of Municipal Corporation of Delhi and she will not allow the installation of electricity connection in the said property and that she demanded the money in conspiracy with A-2 Mohd. Naushad Ahmed and accepted the bribe money through A-3 Sanaullah@ Bilal from whom the bribe money was recovered on 18.02.2022.
PW-5 is Sh. Shashank Tyagi, who was working as alternate nodal officer in Vodafone Idea Ltd. and he CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 17 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
had provided the CDRs / CAFs for two mobile nos. along with certificate u/S. 65-B of Evidence Act bearing no. 8745903834 and 9811343853 for the period 18.01.2022 to 18.02.2022 Ex. PW5/A (Colly) and as per the CAF, the mobile no. 9811343853 belongs to A-1 Geeta Rawat and mobile no.
8745903834 belongs to Sanaullah Chohan.
PW6 Sh. Sikander Hassan, who had purportedly taken the house of Yasmin Malik, bearing no. D-572, D Block, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi on collaboration for construction and he has also proved the collaboration agreement for the construction of the said house with Yasmin Malik Ex. PW3/A and he has also stated that he had given the construction work in turn to Salim Ali vide agreement dated 17.02.2022 Ex. PW6/B (colly).
PW-7 is Sh. Rajiv Vashisht, the Nodal Officer from Bharti Airtel Ltd. Who had provided the CAF and CDRs to CBI for the period 18.01.2022 to 18.02.2022 relating to mobile no. 9654251247 along with the certificate u/S. 65B of Evidence Act Ex. PW7/A (Colly). Similarly he had provided the CAF CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 18 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
and CDR for the above period relating to mobile no. 8130239734 along with the certificate u/S. 65B of Evidence Act vide Ex. PW7/B (Colly). He has stated that the mobile no. 8130239734 belongs to Manish Kushwaha i.e. PW1 and he has also stated that the mobile no. 9654251247 is in the name of A- 2 Naushad Ahmed.
PW-8 Insp. Dharambir, the verification officer, who on receipt of one complaint dated 17.02.2022, which was marked to him by SP Akhilesh Singh for verification regarding the demand of Rs. 20,000/- from one Salim Ali with the allegations that Geeta Rawat the then councilor, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi was demanding Rs. 20,000/- through her munshi Jitender Kumar for the purpose of allowing the construction / laying down lenter and installation of electricity connection at the under construction house at West Vinod Nagar, verified the same, as he carried out the verification through the said munshi Jitender Kumar, PW4 and also procured the presence of independent witness Amit Kumar Soni and arranged DVR and a memory card for recording the likely conversation, which may take place CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 19 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
between PW4 and afore mentioned Geeta Rawat and which was successfully verified by him vide verification memo Ex. PW4/A, bearing his signatures at point B on each page. He has also proved the copy of the complaint marked to him Ex. PW4/A and the copy of the FIR Ex. PW8/A. He also stated that he was part of the trap team and was handing the DVR related work at the time.
PW-9 is Sh. Amitosh Kumar, the Assistant Director and Scientist C (Physics), CFSL, DFSS, Kmrup, Assam, who at the relevant time was working in CFSL, New Delhi and had examined the voices contained in the micro SD card Q-1 and Q-2 containing the questioned recorded conversations and the micro SD cards S-1 to S-4 containing the specimen voice recordings of A-1, A-2, A-3 and PW4 along with the DVR and has proved his voice comparison report Ex. PW9/A (colly).
PW-10 is Sh. V.B.Ramteke, who had given the chemical examination report regarding the exhibits RHW, LHW and LSFPL contained in three sealed bottles which gave positive test for the presence of CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 20 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
phenolphthalein. His chemical examination report is Ex.PW10/A. PW-11 is Sh. Salim Ali, who claimed that he was working as a builder and did construction work and he was working at the site plot no. D-572, West Vinod Nagar, which was taken over from Sikander Hassan and the owner of the land was lady named Yasmin Malik. He also deposed that when the construction was going on and the lenter was to be laid on the 5th floor, A-1 through her husband Diwan Singh Rawat demanded money of Rs. 20,000/- for laying a lenter and threatened that if the demanded money will not be paid, construction will be demolished and the electricity connection will not be installed.
PW12 is Sh. Amit Kumar Soni, postal assistant, Department of Post, New Delhi, who was the shadow witness procured by the CBI, who was deputed to see and overhear the likely conversation, which may take place at the time of demand and acceptance of the bribe transaction of Rs. 20,000/- between A-1 and PW4 in conspiracy with A-2 and CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 21 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
A-3. He was present throughout the pre-trap verification and at the time of trap and post-trap proceedings and his signatures appears on pre-trap and post trap memos. However, did not witness the actual demand proceedings or the acceptance proceedings and did not do his job for which he was deputed i.e. to shadow PW4 during the demand and acceptance proceedings.
PW-13 is Sh. Devender Kumar, another independent witness, who was also with the trap team at the time of alleged acceptance of bribe money of Rs. 20,000/- by A-1 through A-3 and he was also present at the spot and he was the recovery witness.
PW-14 is Sh. C.M.S.Negi, the trap laying officer (TLO), who constituted the trap team, arranged independent witnesses PW12 and PW13 and after the assembly of trap team, Rs. 20,000/- were produced by Salim Ali and thereafter a demonstration was given by Inspector Sandeep Tiwari regarding the properties of phenolphthalein powder to the trap team through Sh. Davender PW13 and he also obtained a fresh DVR, in which CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 22 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
the introductory voices of independent witnesses were recorded and also obtained the trap kit and in the pre trap memo, the number of the 10 currency notes of Rs. 2,000/- each were mentioned and the pre trap memo was signed by all the members of the trap team. The said pre trap memo is Ex. PW4/B. He had also laid the trap and after the receipt of the signal from PW4 regarding the completion of the bribe transaction, caught A-3 and recovered the bribe money from A-3 and his hands were put into the solution of sodium and water which turned into pink and was sealed in separate bottles. The recovered amount was matched with the numbers of the currency notes mentioned in the pre trap memo which exactly matched, the wash of his left side pocket of the track pant worn by him was also taken. The said track pant was also seized.
The contents of the memory card were heard through DVR and they corroborated the sequence of events narrated by PW4 Jitender. Thereafter, A-3 and A-1 were arrested. A-2 also came there, who was also arrested and the voice samples of all of them were taken voluntarily and also that of complainant Jitender, which were seized.
CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 23 of 102The post trap memo was prepared which is Ex.PW4/H, also bearing his signatures.
PW-15 is Sh. A.K.Singh, who was the IO of this case, who has deposed regarding the investigations, as were carried out by him during the course of the present case and he had filed the charge sheet which is Ex. PW15/B (Colly).
5. After examination of the above prosecution witnesses, mentioned above, the prosecution evidence was closed vide separate statement of Ld. Sr. PP for CBI recorded on 04.11.2024.
6. As a consequence, the matter was listed for recording the statement(s) of accused persons U/s 313 CrPC, in which the entire incriminating evidence appearing against the accused persons during trial was put to them, to which the accused no. 1 Geeta Rawat stated as under :
A. It is a false case. I have been falsely implicated by complainant and Jitender due to political rivalry, at the instance of defeated candidates of BJP who was defeated by me in the year 2017 and one builder, as I was the strongest candidate for AAP party in the CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 24 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
election scheduled for the year 2020. Being MCD Counseller I had no role to play in booking of unauthorised construction or demolition. MCD has no control over BSES in granting or not granting the electricity connection. My husband is engaged in agriculture work and most of the time he remained at Dehradun. He had no concern with my portfolio as MCD Counseller. No money was demanded from anybody or from Jitender for any work nor any amount was accepted by A-2 on my behalf. All the exhibits are planted upon. None of the SD Card is having my voice. I am innocent.
Whereas, the accused no. 2 Naushad Ahmed in his statement u/S. 313 CrPC has stated as under :
A. I have been falsely implicated in the present case without any credible evidence to substantiate the allegations against me. It is pertinent to note that Mr. Jitender Kumar did not disclose my physical appearance to any CBI official during the investigation. Despite this crucial omission, I have been booked in the present case.
Furthermore, no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted to establish my identity, which is a fundamental requirement to CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 25 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
ensure fairness and impartiality in the identification process. The lack of a TIP, combined with the absence of any description of my physical appearance by Mr. Jitender Kumar, highlights the baseless and unfounded nature of the charges against me.
This case against me is fabricated, and I have been wrongly implicated without any proper verification or lawful identification.
A-1 was a municipal counsellor and due to political rivalry, this case has been planted against us.
The accused no. 3 Sanaullah @Bilal in his statement u/S. 313 CrPC has stated as under :
A. This case has been registered on the basis of unfounded information, and no proper verification of the contents of the complaint was carried out by the CBI before implicating me in the present case. The entire investigation is biased and devoid of due diligence. Due to political Rivalry between MCD counsellor with others in the locality, the present case has been registered.
I am innocent, and I have been wrongly implicated in this case .CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 26 of 102
CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
7. Only the accused no. 1 Geeta Rawat chose to lead evidence in her defence, whereas, the accused persons Naushad Ahmed and Sanaullah @Bilal did not prefer to examine any witness in their defence.
8. Accused Geeta Rawat has examined two witnesses in support of her defence evidence as under :
DW-1 is Sh. Dilwan Singh Rawat, husband of accused Geeta Rawat (A-1).
DW-2 is Sh Dheeraj, Judicial Assistant, Record Room Session, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
9. After examination of above defence witnesses, the defence evidence was closed on behalf of accused no. 1 Geeta Rawat vide separate statement of her Ld. Defence Counsel recorded on 23.12.2024.
10. I have heard Sh. V. K. Ojha, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI, Sh. Sanjay Gupta along with Sh. L. S. Lingwal, Ld. Counsel(s) for accused no. 1 Geeta Rawat and Sh. Narender Singh Bhist, Ld. Counsel for accused nos. 2 & 3 Naushad Ahmed and Sanaulla @ Bilal and perused the record. I have also gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1 Geeta CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 27 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
Rawat.
11. Ld. counsel for the accused Geeta Rawat (A-1) has relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions :
a) Ram Singh Vs. Colonel Ram Singh AIR 1986 SC;
b) Nitesh Dinkar Paradkar Vs. State, (2011) 4 SCC 143;
c) Ajay Gupta Vs. CBI, Crl. No. 469/2003;
d) Subodh Anand Vs. CBI, Crl Appeal No. 768/2013;
e) State Vs. Sukhdeo Singh, 1993 (1) CCC 57 SC;
f) Punjab Rao Vs. State, 2002 (10) SCC 371 SC;
g) State Vs. Dnyaneshwar Rao, 2009 (4) RCR (Cr.) 217 SC;
h) Om Prakash Vs.State , AIR 2006 SC 394;
i) State of Karnatka Lokayukta Police Vs. S Subbegodhac Crl Appeal No. 1595/2023;
j) Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi Vs. State,2024 (3) RCR (Cr.) 562 SC;
k) Prem Singh Vs State , 2011 (2) JCC 1059;
l) Mukhtiar Singh Vs. State, 2017 (3) RCR (Cr.) 694 SC;
m) Soundarajan Vs. State, (2023) 4 SCR 133;
n) K.Santhamma Vs. State , (2022) 4 SCC 574;CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 28 of 102
CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
o) Joginder Singh Malik Vs CBI, Crl A No. 1302/2010;
p) P.C. Mishra Vs. CBI, 2021 (1) LRC 301 Delhi;
q) State Vs. Hansraj, 2018 (4) RCR (Cr.) 813 SC;
r) Subodh Anand Vs. CBImCrl Appeal No.768/2013;
s) Nepal Singh Rawal Vs. State, 2011 (4) CCC 41 Delhi;
t) Ashwani & Ors. Vs. State, Crl Appeal No. 323/18 & 412/2018;
u) Jahan Singh Vs. CBI, 2020 (2) RCR (Cr.) 794 Delhi;
v) Karnail Singh Vs. State, 2009 (1) RCR (Cr.) 406 P&H);
w) D.K.Basu Vs. State, AIR 1997 SC 610;
x) S.K.Bhatia Vs. State, 2019 (4) JCC 3424 Delhi;
y) Sohan Singh Vs. State, 2009 (3) RCR (Cr.) 971 SC;
z) State Vs. Daulat Ram, 1980 SCC (Cr.) 683;
a1) Rai Sahab Vs. State, J.T. 2000 (1) SC 273;
a2) Kailash Gaur Vs. State, 2012 (1) LRC 81 SC.
12. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI has relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions :
a) P.V. Narasimha Rao Vs. State (CBI/SPE) (1998) 4 Supreme Court Cases 626;CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 29 of 102
CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
b) Sita Soren Vs. Union of India in Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 2019, decided on 04.03.2024.
13. I have gone through the rival contentions.
14. Section 7 of the PC Act (as amended in 2018) reads as under :
Any public servant who,--(a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such duty either by himself or by another public servant; or
(b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage from any person as a reward for the improper or dishonest performance of a public duty or for forbearing to perform such duty either by himself or another public servant; or (c) performs or induces another public servant to perform improperly or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear performance of such duty in anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an undue advantage from any person, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 30 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
From the reading of new Section 7 (as amended in 2018) as a whole, it is not merely accepting or obtaining or attempt thereof to obtain undue advantage from any person, but same has to have nexus with the improper or dishonest performance or forbearance from performing such a duty.
Mere obtaining of some advantage without any intention to improperly perform public duty or forbearance to do so or by abusing his position as a public servant will not attract provisions of Section 7 of New Act. For this, following illustration may be given :
Suppose a high ranking Minister 'M' purchases a very costly Rolex watch on credit from a high street store. The store owner 'S' generally does not sells such costly watches on credit basis, but thinking of his high influential position i.e. 'M' he sells the highly priced watch on credit to 'M' without 'M' promising any official act or forbearance or abuse of position in return. If 'M' does not later on pays for the watch, then same will not attract penal provisions of Section 7 of PC Act, 2018.
15. The prosecution must not only establish a financial or other undue advantage has been offered, promised or given, it must then also show that there is sufficient connection / co-relation CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 31 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
between the undue advantage so obtained and intention to perform any public duty improperly or forbearance / abstinence from performance of said duty or abuse or position as a public servant.
16. Though explanation I and illustration therewith of the new Section 7 may look incongruous to this afore interpretation, however, on closer look / scrutiny, it is apparent that explanation I to Section 7 and illustration thereto is merely an corollary to explanation II or the main substantive provision of Section 7 of PC Act 2018, as if a public servant 'S' asks a person 'P' to give him an amount of five thousand rupees to process his routine ration card application on time. 'S' is guilty of an offence under this Section.
In this illustration, demand of illegal gratification or undue advantage by public servant, irrespective of fact, whether performance of public duty was proper or not, i.e. for routine processing of ration card application by demanding sort of facilitation fee can only be said to be obtained by the public servant, by abusing his position as a public servant, otherwise why would 'P' give facilitation money to 'S' which would fall under explanation II to Section 7 of PC Act 2018.
In this illustration also obtaining of undue advantage has nexus with the abuse of his position as a public servant by 'S'.
17. In this context, another illustration can be given.
CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 32 of 102Suppose a trader 'T' gives a substantial sum of money as a loan to very high ranking public servant 'S' on 2 percentage points less than the market lending rate / banking rate thinking that he may utilize the relations so made in view of said transactions in getting his work done in future. However, the public servant 'S' has no such consideration or indulgence in his mind entering at the time of such a transaction, who enters into said transaction professionally in a business like manner nor he has linked the same with performance of his public duty improperly or forbearance from the same or has thoughts of abusing his position as a public servant. Then it cannot be said 'S' obtained any undue advantage from 'T' by abuse of his position as public servant.
18. Further, there was overlapping in the old Section 7 of PC Act, 1988 as well as Section 13(1)(d) of the said Act and it appears that the Legislature has chosen to resolve the issue by deleting half of Section 13(1)(d), this has been done through explanation II to Section 7 which carries large chunks of the old Section 13(1)(d) PC Act. Therefore, there are no substantive changes in Section 7 of PC Act, 2018 vis-a-vis older Section 7 of PC Act, 1988 with regard to basic ingredients of demand of bribe, acceptance of bribe or recovery thereof, consequently the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts would be guiding beacons for deciding a case under this Act as well.
CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 33 of 10219. The law with regard to Section 7 of the PC Act 1988 has been laid down in the relevant para(s) of the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court :
i) B. Jayaraj vs. State of AP, 2014, Cr. L J 2433
7. In so far as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in 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 it 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 Vs. State of A.P.[1] and C.M. Girish Babu Vs. C.B.I.[2]
8. In the present case, the complainant did not support the prosecution case in so far as demand by the accused is concerned. The prosecution has not examined any other witness, present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant, to prove that the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused. When the complainant himself had disowned what he had stated in the initial complaint.
9. In so far 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 Section 13(1)(d)(i)
(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 CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 34 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent.
ii) SeJappa vs. State, AIR 2016, SC 2045
10. In order to constitute an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 'proof of demand' is a sine quo non. This has been affirmed in several judgments including a recent judgment of this Court in B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 55, wherein this Court held as under :
'7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in 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 it 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.(2010) 15 SCC 1 and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI(2009)3.SCC.779.' The same view was reiterated in P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. (2015) 10 SCC 152.
11. It is the case of the prosecution that on 09.12.1997, the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification from PW-1 to discharge the official act of forwarding PW-1's application for pension and for release of retiral benefits. PW-1-Ramakrishnappa has deposed that on 09.12.1997, the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification for sending 'No Objection Certificate' to the office of Accountant General at Bangalore for processing the appellant's pension papers. On the contrary, the appellant has taken the plea of alibi. The appellant contended that on 09.12.1997, when he is alleged to have demanded illegal gratification in his office at Chitradurga, he was actually on official tour in CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 35 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
Bangalore from 07.12.1997 to 10.12.1997 for attending a seminar and that after attending the seminar, on 10.12.1997, he along with PW-7 took delivery of a van alloted to Chitradurga PHE, Sub-Division.
iii) Mukhtiar Singh (Since deceased) Through his LR vs. State of Punjab.
14. The indispensability of the proof of demand and illegal gratification in establishing a charge under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, has by now engaged the attention of this Court on umpteen occasions. In A. Subair vs. State of Kerala4, this Court propounded that the prosecution in order to prove the charge under the above provisions has to establish by proper proof, the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification and till that is accomplished, the accused should be considered to be innocent. Carrying this enunciation further, it was exposited in State of Kerala vs. C.P. Rao5 that mere recovery by itself of the amount said to have been paid by way of illegal gratification would not prove the charge against the accused and in absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused had voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe, conviction cannot be sustained.
4 (2009) 6 SCC 587 5 (2011) 6 SCC 450
15. In P. Satyanarayana Murthy (supra), this Court took note of its verdict in B. Jayaraj vs. State of A.P.6 underlining that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Section 7 as well as Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. It was recounted as well that in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be proved. Not only the proof of demand thus was held to be an indispensable CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 36 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
essentiality and an inflexible statutory mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, it was held as well qua Section 20 of the Act, that any presumption thereunder would arise only on such proof of demand. This Court thus in P. Satyanarayana Murthy (supra) on a survey of its earlier decisions on the pre-requisites of Sections 7 and 13 and the proof thereof summed up its conclusions as hereunder:
"23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)
(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these 6 (2014) 13 SCC 55 two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder."
(emphasis supplied).
20. Admittedly the accused no. 1 Geeta Rawat was a public servant at the relevant time, as she was working as municipal councilor, therefore, she would fall under the definition of public servant, as defined in Section 2(c)(ii) & 2(c) (viii) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in the year 2018), as she can be said to be in the service or pay of a local authority i.e. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) or she can also be said to be holding an office by virtue of which she authorized or required to perform any public duty.
However, it is the contention of Ld. Sr. PP for CBI that CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 37 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
no sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act is necessary in view of the Constitutional Bench judgment of P.V. Narsimha Rao Vs. State (supra).
21. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1 has argued that there is no sanction to prosecute A-1 u/S. 19 of the PC Act, who was admittedly a public servant, which is a sine qua non for even taking cognizance of the offence(s) punishable u/S. 7 of the PC Act, as in the present case no sanction was taken from the competent authority to remove the councilor of MCD i.e. A-1, which is the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, therefore, the matter is bad for non obtaining of the requisite sanction and without the sanction, the said A-1 cannot be prosecuted, as it is a bar or the barrier which has to be crossed for prosecuting any public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
22. He has further argued that the prosecution in the present case did not make sincere efforts to obtain sanction qua A-1, as a matter of fact, the prosecution is relying upon one letter dated 24.01.2023, written by one Ms. Sonalika Jiwani, Special Secretary- II (UD)/ADLB, Government of NCT of Delhi, in which she has stated as under :
I am directed to refer to your letter No. RC- DAI-2022-A-0007/9005 dated 22.11.2022 addressed to CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 38 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi on the above cited subject.
In this regard, this is bought to notice that earlier, in another matter of grant of Sanction to prosecute Sh. Ashok Jain, Municipal Councillor of Delhi under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, wherein the prosecution sanction was sought by CBI, the UD department had conveyed vide its letter no. F.13/54/2006/UD/789 dated 12.01.2007 (Copy enclosed), the opinion of the then Ld. Addl. Solicitor General Shri Gopal Subramanium, wherein it has been mentioned that if there is no authority prescribed under the Act to grant prosecution sanction then there is no limitation on the power of the court to take cognizance under Section 190 of CrPC of the offences mentioned in Section 19(1) of the 1988 Act.
It is submitted that as of now no prosecution authority is mentioned in the MCD Act for grant of prosecution sanction against a councillor, so the CBI may take further necessary action at its end in line with the advice dated 05.12.2006 of the then Ld. ASG as was done in previous case of Sh. Ashok Jain, the then Municipal Councillor.CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 39 of 102
CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
23. However, he submits that even the author of the said letter Ex. PW15/C i.e. the above Ms. Sonalika Jiwani has not been examined as a witness nor has been cited as a witness. He has further relied upon the document Ex. DW2/A in which in a case of similar nature a permission to prosecute one Dimple Chadha Municipal Councilor of Sant Garh, Tilak Nagar area was obtained by the CBI in RC No. DAI-2013-A-0021 dated 14.09.20213 u/S. 120-B IPC, 7 & 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 in the case titled as CBI Vs. Dimple Chadha & Ors., by the then Lieutenant Governor of Delhi u/S. 9(i)(a) of the DMC Act, 1957, as in the said file there is a document D-29, dated 23.07.2014 which has been proved as Ex. DW2/A1 (three sheets) by DW2 Sh. Dheeraj, Judicial Assistant, Record Room (Sessions), therefore, he submits that since there is no sanction obtained by the prosecution in the present case, which goes to the root of the matter, therefore the entire proceedings stands vitiated for this reason alone.
24. I have considered the rival contentions on the above aspect.
25. In the judgment cited as P.V. Narasimha Rao Vs. State (supra), the majority view has held in the following para(s) as under :
95. ....This means that when there is an authority competent to remove a public servant and to grant sanction for CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 40 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
his prosecution under Section 19(1) of the 1988 Act the requirement of sanction preludes a court from taking cognizance of the offences mentioned in Section 19(1) against him in the absence of such sanction, but if there is no authority competent to remove a public servant and to grant sanction for his prosecution under Section 19( I) there is no limitation on the power of the court to take cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. of the offences mentioned in Section 19(1) of the 1988 Act. The requirement of sanction under Section 19( I) is intended as a safeguard against criminal prosecution of a public servant on the basis of malicious or frivolous allegations by interested persons. The object underlying the said requirement is not to condone the commission of an offence by a public servant. The inapplicability of the provisions of Section 19(1) to a public servant would only mean that the intended safeguard was not intended to be made available to him. The rigour of the prohibition contained in sub-section (I) is now reduced by sub-section (3) of Section 19 because under clause (a) of sub-section (3) it is provided that no finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction required under sub-section (I), unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. This would show that the requirement of sanction under sub-section ( l) of Section 19 is a matter relating to the procedure and the absence of the sanction does not go to the root of the jurisdiction of the court. It must, therefore, be held that merely because there is no authority which is competent to remove a public servant and to grant sanction for his prosecution under Section 19(1) it cannot be said that a Member of Parliament is outside the purview of the 1988 Act.
96. In the absence of requirement of previous sanction for initiating proceedings in a court of law against a Member of Parliament in respect of an offence mentioned in Section 19(1) of the 1988 Act the possibility of a Member of Parliament being subjected to criminal prosecution on the basis of malicious or frivolous allegations made by interested persons cannot be excluded. It is hoped that Parliament will provide for an adequate safeguard in that regard by making CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 41 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
suitable amendment in the 1988 Act. But till such safeguard is provided, it appears appropriate to us that protection from being subjected to criminal prosecution on the basis of malicious or frivolous allegations should be available to Members of Parliament.
26. In the judgment of Sita Soren Vs. Union of India (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court only considered the question " Whether by virtue of Article 105 of the Constitution, an MP can claim immunity from prosecution on a charge of bribery in a criminal court" and did not consider the question "whether an MP falls within the purview of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and who is designated as the sanctioning authority for the prosecution of an MP under the PC Act"
The relevant para 10 of the aforesaid Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under :
A prosecution was launched against the alleged bribe givers and bribe takers, and cognizance was taken by the Special Judge, Delhi. The accused moved the High Court of Delhi to quash the charges. The High Court dismissed the petitions. Appeal were preferred to this Court and culminated in the PV Narasimha Rao (supra) decision. Two major questions came up for consideration before the Court. First whether by virtue of Article 105 of the Constitution, an MP can claim immunity from prosecution on a charge of bribery in a criminal court. Second, whether an MP falls within the purview of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and who is designated as the sanctioning authority for the prosecution of an MP under the PC Act. In the present judgment, we are concerned solely with the holding of the five-judge bench on the first question, i.e. the scope of the immunity from prosecution under Article 1052) when an MP is charged with bribery.CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 42 of 102
Therefore, the majority view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to this question as laid down in the judgment of P. V. Narasimbha Rao Vs. State (supra) reproduced above stands.
27. In this case, it is not that the CBI had not sought the sanction against the accused no. 1 Smt. Geeta Rawat, the then Municipal Councilor, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi, however, vide letter dated 24.01.2023 Ex. PW15/C (Colly), addressed to Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, written by Special Secretary- II, (UD)/ADLB, it was stated that as of now no prosecution authority is mentioned in the DMC Act for grant of prosecution sanction against a councilor, so the CBI may take further necessary action at its end in accordance with advise dated 05.12.2006 of the then Ld. ASG, as was done in the previous case of Sh. Ashok Jain, the then municipal councilor.
28. With regard to the argument of the Ld. Counsel for A-1 that the said letter has not been proved, as the author of the said letter has not even been cited as a witness nor examined, however, the said contention has no force as the prosecution would have been under an obligation to prove the said letter, if only sanction would have been accorded by the said Special Secretary / Officer not otherwise.
CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 43 of 10229. In the said opinion, the Govt. of NCT of Delhi have also relied upon the earlier opinion given by the then Ld. ASG in the case of one Ashok Jain, who was also a councilor and in the said opinion, it had been opined by the Ld. ASG that the Mayor of the Corporation either does not enjoy any power to remove any municipal councilor under the DMC Act 1957 neither he can be equated to the Chairman of Rajya Sabha or the Speaker Lok Sabha. Further the Mayor is not a competent authority to accord previous sanction as required u/S. 19 of the PC Act to prosecute a municipal councilor charge sheeted with the offence(s) u/S. 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the Act and it was also found that the Lieutenant Governor is not the competent authority to remove the councilor as well. He merely acts in an adjudicatory capacity u/S. 33 of the DMC Act 1957.
30. It appears that obtaining of sanction in the case titled as CBI Vs. Dimple Chadha, RC No. DAI-2013-A-0021 was only an aberration or surplusage, merely because the sanction was obtained in the said case from the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi does not ipso facto lead to conclusion that it is also legally required in the present case as well. Since it appears that there is no removing authority in the case of municipal councilor and neither the Mayor nor the Lieutenant Governor is the competent authority to grant sanction or to remove the municipal councilor. Therefore, CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 44 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
it is clear that no sanction was required in this case. It may be that the sanction may have been obtained by the CBI under some wrong impression in the said aforementioned case and further it seems that the same have been recorded in the mechanical manner overlooking the earlier opinion given by the Ld. ASG. Though the said opinion given by the Ld. ASG is binding upon this Court, however, the same is rational opinion with strong legal reasoning and there is no reason why this Court should differ from the same.
31. Therefore, in view of the majority view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.V. Narsimha Rao case (supra), wherein it was held that the requirement of sanction u/S. 19(1) of PC Act is intended as a safe guard against criminal prosecution of a public servant on the basis of malicious or frivolous allegations by interested persons, the objection underlying the said requirement is not to condone the commission of an offence by a public servant. The inapplicability of the provision of Section 19 to a public servant would only mean that the intended safeguard was not intended to be made available to him, therefore, it appears that there was no prosecution authority or removal authority mentioned in the DMC Act 1957 for grant of sanction against the municipal councilor, therefore, the bar of Sec. 19(1) of PC Act would not apply qua A-1 Geeta Rawat.
CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 45 of 10232. Similarly, as held in the judgment of Shadakshari Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr, Crl. Appeal No. 256 of 2024, decided on 17.01.2024, it is no part of the official duty of a public servant or a municipal councilor to demand bribes from the people of her constituency for making construction of houses in her area, therefore, the said act was not in discharge of her official duties or has no nexus with the same. Therefore, the protection u/S. 197 CrPC is also not available to A-1 Geeta Rawat in view of the ratio of law laid down in the above judgment.
VOICE EXPERT EVIDENCE ANALYSIS
33. In this case Sh. Amitosh Kumar PW9, CFSL Expert examined the questioned voice(s) contained in micro SD cards Q-1 and Q-2, containing the questioned recorded conversations and micro SD cards S-1 to S-4, containing the specimen voice recordings of A-1 to A-3 and PW4. After analysis, he gave his report Ex. PW9/A (colly) in which he opined that the voice contained in Q-1 and Q-2 and after comparing the specimen voice marked S-1 is the probable voice of Smt. Geeta Rawat.
He also opined that the voices contained in questioned voice Q-1 and Q-2 when compared with the specimen voice S-2 is the probable voice of PW4 Jitendra Kumar. Similarly he opined that the questioned voice contained in Ex. Q-1 when compared CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 46 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
with the specimen voice contained in S-4 is the similar voice of A- 2 Naushad Ahmed, however, he also opined that no opinion could be offered regarding the examination of questioned voice of Sanaullah @ Bilal with respect to the specimen voice contained in S-3 due to insufficient text spoken by the speaker in the questioned recorded conversation marked Q-2.
34. The prosecution has strongly relied upon the said report of the said voice expert to corroborate the case of the prosecution to the testimony of PW4, in whose presence the alleged demand and acceptance of bribe was made by A-1 through A-3 in conspiracy with A-2. The prosecution has also relied upon the transcript of the conversations contained in questioned voice Q-1 and Q-2 proved by PW4 i.e. Ex. PW4/N, as the said transcript was played in the Court and PW4 duly identified the voices of A-1, A-2 and A-3 i.e. the speakers in the said recorded conversations.
The Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI has argued that nothing has come out in the cross-examination of the said witness which could show that his testimony and report is not reliable. Therefore, this is a strong piece of corroborative evidence against the accused persons.
35. On the other hand, Ld. Counsels for the accused persons have argued that the report of the voice expert Ex. PW9/A (colly) is CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 47 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
not reliable piece of evidence, as firstly he cannot be said to be an expert in voice analysis, as he has failed to describe any special qualifications which could qualify him as an expert in voice analysis. It is also argued that he was not at all trained in the science of voice analysis, therefore, he cannot be described as an expert in the said field.
It is further argued that even otherwise, he has only mentioned in the report that the questioned voices and the specimen voices are the probable voices of A-1 and A-2 as well as PW4, which is having no probative force, therefore, he has argued that in view of the settled law, the said report cannot be relied upon.
36. Considered the rival submissions on the said aspect. PW9 Sh. Amitosh Kumar in his cross-examination had admitted that he does not possess any specific educational qualification in the field of acoustics, linguistics or voice examination and he also admitted that the voice examination was not a subject in his post graduation course in science. During his education period, no specific degree or diploma in forensic voice identification (sic.). However, after joining in service, he got short term training in the filed of forensic acoustics and speaker identification and voice and speech system. He also stated that he cannot admit or deny that training or experience does not impart any educational CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 48 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
qualification.
37. In view of the said testimony of PW9 and in view of the judgment relied upon by Ld. Counsel for A-1 State Vs. Sukhdeo Singh (supra), in which though observations have been made with regard to the opinion of handwriting expert, but the same analogy would also apply to the opinion of voice expert. The relevant para 28 of the said judgment is reproduced as under :
28. Before a Court can act on the opinion evidence of a handwriting expert two things must be proved beyond any manner of doubt, namely (i) the genuineness of the specimen / admitted handwriting of the concerned accused and (ii) the handwriting expert is a competent, reliable and dependable witness whose evidence inspires confidence.....
38. In view of the said judgment, it has to be proved the prosecution that the voice expert examined by them is a competent witness or a qualified expert. In the present case, the witness has not done any course or qualification in the field of voice analysis acoustics, linguistics. He had only done a small, short term training in the said field after joining service, without any degree or diploma in the said field. The science of voice analysis is also not an exact science like the field of finger print analysis which is an exact science where the chances of error are almost minimal.CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 49 of 102
CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
39. In the present case, the report given by the expert is probable only i.e. he has reported that the questioned voice after comparison with the specimen voice was the probable voice of the speaker i.e. A-1 and A-2, though, he could not even say after such analysis that on such comparison it was the probable voice of A-3.
Though he has stated in his cross-examination that his report is the probable report, but his report is based on probabilities, it is not exactly 100% but is likely 100%. It is not clear if the report is likely to be 100% as stated by him, then it will not longer be probable, but it will become almost certainty, as the probability of happening any event is always measured on the scale of 0 to 1, 0 being the state of total non happening of any event or complete improbability of happening of an event and 1 being an absolute certainty or certain happening of an event, from where he has stated this fact is not clear, as the science of comparison of voice cannot be an exact science.
If it was so, what stopped him from writing so in his report Ex. PW9/A in which he has only mentioned that the questioned voice contained in micro SD card Q-1 and Q-2 after comparison with the specimen voice recording contained S-1 and S-4 are the probable voices of the speaker mentioned therein.
40. Further in the judgment Ajay Gupta Vs. CBI (supra), in para 148, it has been held as under :
CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 50 of 102CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
148. Furthermore, the FSL result dated 31.09.1997 only states that the questioned voice samples marked Q1, Q2 which were thane matched with S1, the voice samples of the appellant were "probably" of the same speaker. Apparently, the accused cannot be held guilty on the basis of probabilities in a criminal trial. In the circumstances, of the case, the appellant is thus acquitted in relation to the allegations in RC No. 80(A)/96/CBI/ACB/New Delhi qua the alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption At, 1988.
In view of the said judgment the said report Ex. PW9/A which is a probable report cannot be used as a corroborative evidence in this case to corroborate the case of the prosecution regarding the identification of the voices of A-1, A-2 and PW4.
41. Further PW9 has admitted in his cross-examination that it was correct that the identity of the various speakers was revealed to him from the covering letter and copy of the transcript. In the report Ex. PW9/A (Colly.), also there is mention of copies of transcription of recorded conversations which have been received with other parcels by the voice expert. It has been held in the judgment Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar Vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 4 SCC 143 (Para 31 to 396) that any officer attempting a voice recognition exercise should not be provided with the transcript bearing the annotations of any other officer. Therefore, this fact of sending transcription along with the questioned voice recording as well as specimen voice recordings vitiates the voice report given by the above expert.
CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 51 of 102INITIAL DEMAND
42. Regarding the initial demand of bribe, a complaint was made to the CBI by PW11 Salim Ali, dated 17.02.2022 that one plot no. D-572, Block D, West Patel Nagar, belongs to Smt. Yaseen Malik, the collaboration of which has been taken by Sikandar Hassan and after that the contract for construction of the said plot along with the material has been taken by him, one Geeta Rawat (A-1) who is the MCD councilor and the name of whose husband was Diwan Rawat, who deals with money on her behalf and the said Geeta Rawat sometime ago had asked for Rs. 20,000/- for putting lenter on the said house through her husband and also threatened that if the said bribe money would not be paid then she would get the under construction house demolished from MCD and she would also not allow the electricity connection to be installed in the said under construction house. This bribe amount of Rs. 20,000/- these people were demanding through her munshi Jitendra Kumar, whom they were calling repeatedly.
43. In the said initial demand Ex. PW4/A, no time, place or the date of the said initial demand has been mentioned. The PW4 is the star witness of the prosecution. In his cross-examination, had stated after reading the complaint Ex. PW4/A that the verifying officer had asked him and Salim Ali about the first date and place CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 52 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
of initial demand. He had informed the said date to the verifying officer, however, he does not remember the said date today. He also does not remember about the factum of date of initial demand being mentioned by the verification officer in verification memo PW4/K or not. The attention of this witness was also drawn to the said memo Ex. PW4/K, whereafter he admitted that there is no mention of any date of initial demand in the same.
44. Further PW8 the verification officer Insp. Dharambir also admitted that he did not inquire from Jitendra i.e. PW4 or Salim Ali i.e. PW11 about the date, time and place of initial demand and it was correct that no such date, time and place of initial demand was mentioned in the complaint and it was also correct that no date, time of place of proposed bribe transaction was mentioned in the complaint. He also did not inquire from PW4 or PW11 about the date, time and place of proposed bribe transaction.
45. Further there is a material contradiction with regard to this aspect as to from whom the initial demand was made, initial demand was made through Jitendra PW4 as per PW11, whereas in the complaint Ex. PW4/A, PW11 stated that threat was made to him, whereas PW6 Sikander Hassan says that it was made to him which he communicated to PW11. Therefore, the above witnesses CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 53 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
are not even sure about the factum as to whom the initial demand was actually made. Therefore, the evidence lead by the prosecution with regard to the initial bribe demand made by or on behalf of A-1 Geeta Rawat is most vague and sketchy and has not been proved. In the absence of the specific and unambiguous initial demand being proved by the prosecution, the factum of initial demand of bribe, as specified in the complaint Ex. PW4/A has not been proved.
DEMAND
46. Regarding the demand of bribe by A-1, during the verification proceedings, the prosecution is relying upon the testimony of PW4 Jitendra Kumar, who participated in the verification proceedings and it is the case of the prosecution that the said demand of Rs. 20,000/- was made directly to him by A-1 Geeta Rawat. The relevant testimonial deposition of PW4 dated 16.05.2024 in this regard is as under :
I am working in construction sector.
In 2022, I was working in the capacity of Munshi with Saleem Ali. In Feb, 2022, we were looking after the construction work of D-572, E Block, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi.
With regard to the complaint filed by Saleem Ali with CBI dated 17.02.2022, I say that the CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 54 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
complaint was filed by Saleem Ali as to the demand of Rs.20,000/- made by Smt. Geeta Rawat. Before filing the complaint, I was asked by Saleem Ali to visit Smt. Geeta Rawat as she called for the meeting. When I met Geeta Rawat, she demanded Rs.20,000/- in lieu of laying lantern and as to meter connection. I told this fact to Saleem Ali and thereafter he filed the complaint with CBI on 17.02.2022.
(At this stage witness is shown page no. 5 of D-1). After seeing the same the witness states that this is the same complaint filed by Saleem Ali with CBI and his signatures are at Point A. The aforesaid document is Ex. PW4/A. Thereafter, on 17.02.2022 itself, I along with Saleem Ali met SI Dharambir at CBI office and there we were introduced to one person namely Amit Kumar who was also shared the purpose of meeting by Sh. Dharambir. Thereafter, one DVR and one memory card in sealed condition was produced and its blankness was ensured by putting the memory card in the DVR and playing it and it was found to be blank.
Thereafter the introductory voice of Sh. Amit Kumar was recorded in it. Thereafter, all of CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 55 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
us i.e. me, Saleem Ali, Amit Kumar and SI Dharambir Singh went to the office of Smt. Geeta Rawat which was situated at Ambedkar Park, West Vinod Nagar at around 11 AM. After reaching there, the DVR was put in my left hand side pocket of my shirt after switching it on by SI Dharambir Singh.
Thereafter, I along with Amit Kumar entered into the said park, however, he stayed outside and only I went inside the office of Geeta Rawat. The reason for his staying outside and not accompanying as told by him, that someone was watching so he decided to stay back observing from outside. Upon visiting the office, I came to know from an old age person that Geeta Rawat was not in office and would be coming in about half an hour. Thereafter I came outside, after meeting the team my DVR was switched of by SI Dharambir and I told this fact of Geeta Rawat not being present in office to them.
Then I called Geeta Rawat for inquiring about likelihood of her reaching the office. When I called Geeta Rawat, the phone was put to speaker mode and the DVR was also switched on so as to record the conversation. Upon inquiry, she told that she would be reaching the office in about 10 CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 56 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
minutes.
Thereafter, I along with Amit Kumar again went for office of Geeta Rawat. However, Amit Kumar stayed outside for the aforestated reason that someone was keeping a watch on the persons coming in the office of Geeta Rawat. When I went there, Geeta Rawat was sitting outside the office when I tried to approach her. I was stopped by an unknown person whose name I came to know later on as Naushad.
Thereafter, Naushad inquired about my purpose of visit on which I conveyed to him that I came to meet Geeta Rawat with regard to the demand of Rs.20,000/- as made by her and I came here for reducing Rs.20,000/- to some lesser amount, may be to the tune of Rs.15,000/-. I was stopped by Naushad from meeting Geeta Rawat and he told me that let him talk to her. Thereafter, Naushad went to meet Geeta Rawat and after coming back told me that the amount cannot be reduced and Rs.20,000/- was to be paid. I had tried to reach Geeta Rawat, as I had been told that the "len den ki baat jo hui hai wo madam se verify karna hai" is to be verified from her only. Thereafter, I managed to meet Geeta Rawat. When I CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 57 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
met her, she told that "20 paper hi lagege". However, I cannot confirm the exact words used by her in the conversation but she asked for "20 papers".
Thereafter, upon meeting her I came out and met the team waiting outside. My DVR was switched off by SI Dharambir. Thereafter, we came to CBI office.
From the testimony of the said witness PW4, it appears that the shadow witness PW12 Amit Kumar Soni remained outside the office of A-1 and only PW4 went inside the office of said accused A-1 for talking / negotiating with her with regard to the demand of bribe money.
47. PW12 also stated so in his testimonial deposition that he followed PW4 and after some time PW4 went to the office of the councilor, he also followed him, perhaps they talked. He further stated that after coming out of the office of the councilor, another person with PW4 outside her office and they talked about money. Therefore, it is apparent that only PW4 went inside the office of the accused A-1 Geeta Rawat for having conversation with her on the date of verification i.e. 17.02.2022, therefore, the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon his testimony of PW4 with regard to the demand of bribe during the verification proceedings by accused no. 1 Geeta Rawat on 17.02.2022.CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 58 of 102
CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
48. As reproduced above, when PW4 went inside the office of accused no. 1 Geeta Rawat, A-2 Naushad Ahmed inquired from him about the purpose of his visit, to which he conveyed to him that he had come to meet Geeta Rawat with regard to demand of Rs. 20,000/- as made by her and he had came there for reducing Rs. 20,000/- to lessor amount, may be to the tune of Rs. 15,000/-, however, he was stopped by A-2 from meeting A-1.
After some time, A-2 went to meet A-1 and after coming back, he stated that the said amount cannot be reduced and Rs. 20,000/- has to be paid, to which he stated that he wanted to verify the said transaction from A-1 only. Thereafter, he managed to meet A-1 Geeta Rawat. In the following conversation, she told that "20 paper he lagenge".
49. This oral testimony of PW4 in this regard is also corroborated by the recording done in the DVR on the same date and saved in the micro SD card Q-1 and thereafter transcription of which was prepared and proved as Ex. PW4/N. From the overall reading of the alleged conversation dated 17.02.2022 and from the tone and tenor thereof including the conversation which took place between him and A-2 Naushad Ahmed and the fact that in the same running conversation in the end the accused Geeta Rawat is saying "20 paper dene hain, 20 paper dene hain".
CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 59 of 10250. From the context of the said conversation there is a talk of demand of 20,000/- by Naushad Ahmed, to which PW4 is saying that please take 15,000/- and before that A-1 Geeta Rawat was saying that it was election time, therefore, they were requesting him, otherwise they would not say, that in two months there were election to which PW4 says that 20,000/- would be too much, to which she stated that he should sent Sikandar bhai as she wanted to talk to him and in the last part of the conversation in coded language she was saying "20 papers dene hain, 20 papers dene hain", which only means Rs. 20,000/- taking into account the context of the overall conversation, as discussed above.
51. Though the voice identification report relied upon by the prosecution Ex. PW6/A(colly) has already been discarded, as discussed above in detail, the oral testimony of PW4 with regard to the demand of Rs. 20,000/- by accused Geeta Rawat (A-1) on 17.02.2022 is also duly corroborated by the voice recorded through DVR in micro SD card Q-1. PW4 can be said to be in the position to identify the voice of accused no. 1 Geeta Rawat, as he had spent sufficient time with her / said speaker during the conversation on 17.02.2022 and had long interaction with her, therefore, he was in a position to identify her voice in the recorded conversation contained in micro SD card Q-1 and could identify her voice or the CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 60 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
distinctiveness in the same. Though the prosecution should have also got corroborated the testimony of PW4 with regard to the said demand through the testimony of PW12 Amit Kumar Soni, the shadow witness, but he chose not to go inside the office of A-1 on 17.02.2022 for the reasons best known to him.
52. No reason, whatsoever has been given by PW12 as to why he did not shadow PW4 in witnessing and hearing the transaction of demand on 17.02.2022. The very purpose of the shadow witness is to hear the bribe conversation and also how it happens. In this regard, it has been held in the judgment, relied upon by Ld. Counsel for A-1, cited as Joginder Singh Malik Vs. CBI (supra), where in para 41, it has been held as under :
41. A shadow witness, in any given case, must be in a position to depose not only about the passing of money but also about the conversation which takes place between a complaint and an accused so as to find out the basis for the exchange of money/bribe. As expressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meena v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 5 SCC 21, law always favours the presence and importance of a shadow witness in the trap party, who is supposed to be there not only to see but to overhear what happens and how it happens also.
This also puts the case of the prosecution in poor light, as the very reason for having an independent witness is to corroborate the version of the complainant, who is himself interested in the outcome of the trap, so that a independent version could come from the person, unconnected or unconcerned with the CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 61 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
outcome of the trap transaction as to how the transaction of demand and acceptance of bribe money took place in a case of trap of a public servant.
53. Further PW12 in his cross-examination has stated that he was involved as a witness in two other cases of CBI, which leads to an inference that he is a tainted witness, who has already been stock witness of the CBI in such kind of matters, probably that was the reason he was shying away to witness and hear the transaction of demand of bribe and did not intentionally accompany PW4 into the office of Geeta Rawat at the time of verification on 17.02.2022. Be that as it may.
54. As discussed above, the sole testimony of PW4 on the aspect of demand made by Geeta Rawat which is corroborated by the voice recorded in the micro SD card Q-1 and transcription thereof Ex. PW4/N at the time of said conversation of demand between him, A-2 Naushad Ahmed and A-1 Geeta Rawat duly proves the demand of bribe of Rs. 20,000/- by accused Geeta Rawat from him on 17.02.2022.
ACCEPTANCE
55. Regarding acceptance, the following testimonial deposition i.e. examination in chief of PW4 Jitendra Kumar recorded on CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 62 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
16.05.2024 & 17.05.2024 is relevant, same is reproduced as under :
Then again we assembled at CBI office on 18.02.2022. The person gathered in the place included me, Saleem Ali, SI Dharambir, Amit Kumar and other person named Devender and one Negi Sir. SI Dharambir told us that Sh. Negi will lead the team today. Sh. Negi told us about the purpose of meeting today i.e. with regard to the case related to dowry.
Again said, the case related to bribe.
We were shown certain documents in this regard by Sh. Negi, CBI official and the exact documents which were shown to me I am unable to recall. However, the same included the FIR, complaint and the memo prepared as to the proceedings conducted on 17.02.2022. We were also introduced to independent witness Sh. Devender. The amount of Rs.20,000/- was arranged by Saleem Ali in the denomination of Rs.2000/- each containing 10 notes. Thereafter we all were taken to Conference Hall where in the presence of aforesaid persons as well as other CBI officials present there. Thereafter some powder was sprinkled on the said currency notes and one glass jar was called filled with plain water which was transparent in nature. Devender Sir was asked to touch those currency notes CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 63 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
sprinkled with powder. Thereafter in the said glass jar filled with water some powder type substance was mixed. Even after that the colur of the water remained the same. Thereafter Devender Sir put his hand into the said jar and on doing so the colour of the water in the jar turned into pink colour.
This pink colour solution was transferred into some bottle and sealed. Again said, I cannot recall the same as to what happen. The money sprinkled with powder amounting to Rs. 20,000/- in the denomination of Rs. 2,000/- each of 10 currency notes were kept by me in the right hand pocket of my jacket. The details of the currency notes were noted down before putting the same in the pocket of my jacket. Apart from said currency notes, I was not carrying anything else apart from my mobile phone. My checking was done, may be by Devender Sir. I do not recall whether other team members present there had done checking of each other. A fresh memory card was arranged and DVR was the same old one. the blankness of the memory card was ensured as the DVR was played which was empty at that time Devender Sir and Amit Sir were also present. On that day also the voice of Devender Sir and Amit Sir was recorded in the said memory card/DVR. This CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 64 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
was all done in the office of the CBI before proceeding to the spot.
It was predecided that I will after handing over the said amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the Geeta Rawat or any one else on her behalf then I should make a signal by rubbing both hands on my face. I was also told to make missed call from my mobile phone to the mobile phone of Negi sir, in case the nobody could see me. I am not sure whether the said pink colour solution of which the demonstration was done, was carried by the raiding team or it was kept in the CBI office, however, there was some material including powder kept in some bag by CBI team. A memo as to the proceeding conducted in the CBI office was prepared on that day i.e. 18.02.2022 before the raiding team left the CBI office.
(At this stage the witness is shown D-2 i.e. pre-trap memo prepared on 18.02.2022).
After seeing the same, the witness identifies his signature at Point A and further states that this is the same memo which was prepared on 18.02.2022 before proceeding to the spot i.e. to the office of Geeta Rawat.
At this stage Ld. PP for CBI has shown CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 65 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
one document to the witness to refresh his memory and has been asked as to what was done to the pink solution of which demonstration was given in the CBI office. The witness after reading the document D-2, pre- trap memo i.e. now Ex. PW4/B states that the said pink colour solution was thrown after demonstration in the CBI office.
56. PW4 Jitendra Kumar, in his further examination in chief, recorded on 17.05.2024 has deposed as under :
After completion of the pre-trap proceedings at CBI office, we started for the office of Geeta Rawat situated at Ambedkar Park, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi. In total about 10-12 persons were there in the team. Apart from me, Salim Ali, CMS Negi, Dharambir and Amit Kumar were there in the car with me. Before reaching the aforesaid spot, we stopped abut 500 meters before near Nehru Camp and a call was made by me to Geeta Rawat after putting the phone in speaker mode and after switching the DVR on. I inquired about the whereabouts of Geeta Rawat upon which she told that she would be reaching office in about 10 minutes.
After reaching the spot, DVR was again switched on and put into my left hand side pocket of CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 66 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
the jacket by Dharambir. Thereafter, I accompanied by Amit Kumar started towards the office of Geeta Rawat. However, only I went inside the office of Geeta Rawat and Amit Kumar stayed back as suspicion was raised that someone was watching as to who was coming to the office of Geeta Rawat.
Upon reaching the office, I found that Geeta Rawat was sitting in the office. There were 2-3 other people were also present including two females and one old man who were talking amongst themselves. Thereafter, Geeta Rawat inquired from me whether I received a call from the person whom I met yesterday when I visited the office of Geeta Rawat to which I replied in negative. Then Geeta Rawat inquired about brining of the amount in the language of "kitne paper laye ho, 25 paper" to which I replied that there was talk of "20 ki baat hui thi". The words used were almost the same as shown above.
Thereafter, Geeta Rawat came out of the office while talking on phone and called Bilal. Then Geeta Rawat asked me to meet Bilal. Then I asked Geeta Rawat " ye gin vin lega na" to which she replied "han han". Thereafter, I went to the coconut water and peanut shop of Bilal situated outside the park CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 67 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
though it was not a permanent structured shop. Thereafter, I opened the zip of right hand side pocket of my jacket from which Bilal had taken out the money of Rs. 20,000/- as was kept in my pocket, with his right hand and counted the same with his both hands. I inquired as to whether the amount was complete i.e. Rs.20,000/- to which he affirmed. He kept the said money in the left hand side pocket of his lower/pant after counting.
Thereafter, I had given the pre-decided signal of rubbing my face with both hands upon which the CBI team, which was watching at nearby bus stand, apprehended Bilal. Then I also called TLO CMS Negi who called me to the office of Geeta Rawat. Upon reaching at the office of Geeta Rawat, CBI team inquired from Bilal as to on whose behalf he had accepted the amount to which he replied that he had accepted the amount on behalf of Geeta Rawat. Before this and after the CBI team nabbed Bilal upon giving of pre-decided signal, my DVR was switched off by one of CBI official.
Thereafter, the process of hand wash was done of Bilal after preparation of solution in water by adding some powder into transparent glass jar. The CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 68 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
colour of water remained transparent and same upon addition of this powder before the hand wash of Bilal. Firstly, his right hand was dipped into the said solution which turned pink upon such dipping of hand. Thereafter, the said pink colour solution was transferred into another empty bottle and the said bottle was sealed with the same seal which was used on 17.02.2022 and signed. In fact this was the same seal which was used for sealing on 18.02.2022. The said seal was produced by Sh. Amit Kumar before we proceeded to the spot on 18.02.2022.
(At this stage Ct. Gopal, Malkhana Assistant produced case property i.e. one transparent bottle in sealed condition bearing "RHW in RC 07(A)/2022/CBI/ACB/Delhi).
Upon seeing the said bottle, the witness deposed that this is the same bottle in which right hand wash of liquid of Bilal was transferred, sealed and signed. The same is now Ex. PW4/C. Again the process of hand wash was done of Bilal after preparation of solution in water by adding some powder into transparent glass jar. The colour of water remained transparent and same upon addition of this powder before the hand wash of Bilal.
CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 69 of 102Then his left hand was dipped into the said solution which turned pink upon such dipping of hand. Thereafter, the said pink colour solution was transferred into another empty bottle and the said bottle was sealed and signed.
(At this stage Ct. Gopal, Malkhana Assistant produced case property i.e. one transparent bottle in sealed condition bearing "LHW in RC 07(A)/2022/CBI/ACB/Delhi).
Upon seeing the said bottle, the witness deposed that this is the same bottle in which left hand wash of liquid of Bilal was transferred, sealed and signed. The same is now Ex. PW4/D. Thereafter, money was recovered from the left hand side pocket of his lower/pant by Devender which was found to be Rs.20,000/-. Thereafter, upon matching the denomination of the said currency notes with the details as noted down in the pre-trap memo by both the independent witnesses, it was found to be the same money as was arranged by Salim Ali and which was put into my pocket.
As was the case at the time of verification of demand by PW4 qua A-1 of the bribe money the independent witness PW12 CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 70 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
Sh. Amit Kumar Soni again stayed outside the office of Geeta Rawat (A-1), as per the testimony of PW4. PW12 also admitted in his examination in chief that when PW4 went inside the office of A-1 Geeta Rawat on the day of trap, he was standing near swings, therefore, it appears that the only witness with regard to the alleged transaction of acceptance of bribe money is PW4 and the entire case of the prosecution rests upon his testimonial deposition or the credibility of the same or the probative force of his testimonial deposition which remains after the same has been tested during the cross-examination.
57. In this regard, PW4 has also relied upon the recorded conversation in the micro SD card S-2 with regard to the trap transaction dated 18.02.2022, the transcription of which has been proved by him as Ex. PW4/N, the relevant transcription with regard to the acceptance part is as under :
एस कितने पेपर लाए हो 25 पेपर
जे नहीं मैम कैसी बात कर रही हो
एस कितने पेपर की बात हुई थी
जे 20 अ
एस 20 पेपर की
जे हां
एस उसने 20 बोला था
जे मैम वहीं था ही
एस चलो एक मिनट हैलो जी कौन बोल रहे। अच्छा अच्छा ठीक है। ठीक है मैडम।
CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 71 of 102
CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
बाकी उनसे मिल, मिल लेना एक बार क्योंकि शायद वो उनको भी जानते है भैया को जे किसको एस उनके रिलेशन में आते हैं वो जो कल भैया मिले थे न जे जो कल एस अरे जो कल तुमसे मिला था जो लड़का जे मैं नहीं जानता मैम एस वो भी तू लक्की भैया को लेकर आ रहा है तू direct आता तो बात करती जे तो मैम अब एक बात बताओ मुझे कम कुछ वो करना था तो मेरी हिम्मत हुई आपसे बात करूं direct एस क्यों नहीं हिम्मत हुई जे कैसे बात करेंगे मैम मैं कौन आप कौन या तो एस तुम आकर बोलते मैम से मिलना है जे या तो आप मालिक को बुलाती, मालिक तो आ नहीं रहा, मैं आ रहा हूँ, मैं कौन हूँ एस हम तो तुझे ही मालिक समझ रहे थे जे अरे मैडम एस हँसने की आवाज जे वैसे इतनी औकात नहीं है एस सभी मालिक है भैया अपनी-अपनी जगह। भाई जी चन्दर नहीं आया चन्दर, फोन नहीं उठा रहा है देखो चन्दर आया है जे वो बोल दिया है मैंने मैडम उनको सिकन्दर भाई साहब को बुलवा लिया है वो आपसे एक-दो दिन में मिल लेंगे।
एस अच्छा वैसे कोई काम नहीं है डरने की जरूरत नहीं है।
जे बोल दिया मैडम
एस 93 तुम्हारा तो नहीं है न
जे अ
एस 93
जे नहीं मैम 813, 30 करके है मैम
CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 72 of 102
CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
यू ले आया (बुजर्गु )
एस हाँ कहाँ है, कहाँ है हैलो, हाँ भाई कहाँ है (फोन पर) हैलो, हैलो, हैलो.. अभी वो
माली आ रहा है।
यू उससे मिल लेना न माली से इसे मिलाया तो था माली से उससे मिल ले
(बुजर्गु )
एस आ रहा है (अस्पष्ट) (ढोल की आवाज) अरे इधर तो आओ office मे (ढोल की
आवाज) मिल ले।
जे मैडम भिन्न
एस अ
जे गिन-बिन लेगा न
जे क्या
एस गिन-विन लेगा न वो
जे हाँ-हाँ (ढोल की आवाज)
जे ले 20 हजार रूपए पूरे हैं। 20 हजार गिन ले एक बार गिन ले एक बार हाथ
निकाल ले एक बार, गिनती कर 20 हजार है पूरे
बी एक, दो, तीन, चार, पाँच, छः, सात, आठ, नौ, दस
जे ठीक हैं (हॉर्न की आवाज)
जे सर वो DVR Off करना है अभी धर्मवीर सर को फोन मिला ले.... धर्मवीर सर
को सर ये DVR Off करवा दँ ू सर हैं गाड़ी में सर हैं अपने एक बार बात करेंगे सर लो सर बात तो कर लो अपनी साहब ही तो है पी हैलो सर प्रदीप बोल रहा हूँ गाड़ी कौन सी जगह है ये जे जहाँ खड़ी थी पहले पी पहले जो खड़ी थी वहीं खड़ी कर रखी है जे दँ ू हाँ सर अरे सर मेरे को मत बुलाओ ना सर मैं बाहर वहीं गाड़ी के पास हूँ सर मत बुलाओ ना सर मैं गाड़ी के पास हूँ सर हाँ सर हों सर वो मुझे बुला रहे हैं पी आपको बुला रहे हैं क्या चलो आओ पार्क में जे आप चले जाओ ....हाँ साहब पी गाड़ी में चलना है गाड़ी में चलो जे हाँ साहब ऑ अरे साहब आ गया सर आ गया आ गया साहब। साहब बुला रहे साहब बुला रहे हैं। मैं तो यार मेरे को क्यूं आप लोग फंसा रहे हो करवा दिया जो CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 73 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
भी करना था। मेरी जिंदगी खराब कर दी....(अस्पष्ट)
58. In this recorded conversation, the main players are PW4 Jitendra Kumar, who has been given code as 'J' and accused Geeta Rawat who has been given the code as 'S' and accused Bilal as 'B', Pradeep as 'P'.
59. PW4 in his testimony has deposed that upon reaching the office, he found Geeta Rawat sitting in her office i.e. on the day of the trap on 18.02.2022, 2-3 persons were also present including two females and one old man, who were talking to themselves. A- 1 inquired about bringing of the amount in the language "kitney paper laye ho, 25 paper?", to which he replied that there was a talk of "20 ki baat hue thee". Thereafter, A-1 came out of the office while talking on the phone and called Bilal. Then she asked him to meet Bilal.
60. From the CAF and the CDR proved on the record with regard to the mobile no. 9811343853 belonging to Geeta Rawat and mobile no. 8745903834 and the certificate u/S. 65-B Indian Evidence Act, it is apparent that the call was made from the mobile number of A-1 i.e. 9811343853 to the mobile no. 7834873893, which was issued in the name of father of A-3 Sanaullah @ Bilal and there are three outgoing calls from the said mobile of A-1 to CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 74 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
the above said mobile between 12:10 to 12:12 hours on 18.02.2022 and the location was shown as that of plot no. 19, I.P. Extension. Therefore, this version of PW4 that A-1 went outside and made a call on phone and called A-3 is corroborated by the said electronic evidence.
However, from the testimony of PW4 it is not clear as to whether PW4 met Bilal outside the office of A-1 Geeta Rawat. This aspect gets clarified from the testimony of TLO PW14 CMS Negi, who in his examination in chief has deposed that after some time, Geeta Rawat and PW4 Jitendra were seen coming out of the office of Geeta Rawat. Geeta Rawat was also seen talking to someone on her mobile phone, after a while a person came to the office of Smt. Geeta Rawat and it was seen that he left with PW4 Jitendra after a while. Therefore, it is clear that PW4 met A-3 for the first time in the office of A-1 Geeta Rawat on 18.02.2022, thereby it is apparent that the alleged conversation relied upon by the prosecution with regard to the A-1 directing A-3 to accept the money on her behalf took place allegedly in the office of A-1.
61. From the transcription, it is apparent that when A-3 reached the office of A-1, where A-1 was also present and PW4 was also present, then PW4 asked a question to A-1 "gin vin lega na wo", to which A-1 replied "haan-haan", though the said voice was drowned in the high decibel sound of band (dhol). Thereafter, PW4 stated CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 75 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
"le 20000 hazar rupeye pure hain, bees hazar gin le, ek baar gin le, ek baar haath nikal le, ek baar ginti kar, bees hazar hain purey", thereafter there is alleged voice of A-3 "ek, do, teen, char, paanch, chaeh, saat, aath, no, dus".
62. In the report of voice expert Ex. PW9/A, the expert opined that he after comparing the voice contained in micro card S-2 with the voice of A-3 contained in specimen voice S-3 could not give any opinion regarding the fact whether the said voice was of the speaker Sanaullah @ Bilal i.e. A-3 due to insufficient text spoken by the speaker.
Though PW4 has identified the said voice in his testimony when the same was played in the Court as belonging to Sanaullah @ Bilal i.e. A-3, however, if the so called expert of the CFSL could not give any positive opinion regarding the voice of A-3 after comparing the same with the specimen voice of A-3, then it is very difficult to believe that PW4 who had very short interaction with A-3 on 18.02.2024 would have identified his voice after having a very short conversation with him on the said date. PW4 would have not been able to discern the distinctiveness in the voice of A-3 in such short association.
Even otherwise, the voice recognition is much difficult than the visual identification, as in the case of visual identification or identity, there are lot of distinctive factors like colour, height, facial CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 76 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
features, weight, built of an individual which make immediate impact on the human mind, whereas in the case of voice identification, same is solely based on the distinctiveness of the voice of the speaker, which is very difficult to do, as the same can only be done, if there is lot of interaction between two individuals.
63. Further as discussed above, the voice expert report Ex. PW9/A (colly) has already been discarded. Even in that voice report qua A-3, it has been held by the expert that he could not give any conclusive opinion that the voice contained in the questioned voice sample S-2 when compared with the voice sample S-3 was of A-3.
64. Further it is apparent from the said evidence that the transaction of acceptance of bribe was made at the office of the A-1 when allegedly A-3 counted the money i.e. 10 currency notes of Rs. 2000/- each and after he had done so, the PW4 had affirmed regarding the completion of the transaction by saying "theek hai". As already discussed above, the said voice has not been proved to be the voice of A-3. Also nowhere in the said transcription it has come that A-1 was telling A-3 to take or collect money on her behalf nor any such directions were got recorded in the DVR which was being carried out by PW4 stealthy.
It is not clear when the acceptance had already taken place CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 77 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
inside the office of the A-1, when allegedly A-3 counted the currency notes one by one on behalf of A-1 and after he did so, PW4 nodded in affirmative which may lead to an inference that the transaction of trap was complete then and there only.
It is not clear if the said transaction had been completed in the office of A-1 only, then why and under what circumstances, A- 3 alongwith PW4 went outside the coconut water and peanut shop of A-3, situated outside the park and thereafter PW4 opened the zip of his right hand side pocket of his jacket from which A-3 himself took out Rs. 20,000/-, as was kept in his pocket with his right hand and counted the same with both his hands. He inquired as to whether the amount was complete i.e. Rs. 20,000/- to which he affirmed. Thereafter, he kept the said money in the left hand side of his lower / pant after counting.
It is not clear if the transaction of bribe had already taken place or completed in the office of A-1, then why PW4 and A-3 went outside to the shop of A-3 where, PW4 opened the zip of right side pocket and A-3 took out the money with his right hand. The inference which can be drawn in these circumstances is that etiher PW4 failed to complete the transaction of bribe inside the office of A-1, as A-3 did not accept the money on behalf of A-1 for one reason or another or A-1 backtracked from the said tansaction for the reasons known to her, may be she got suspicious of the entire thing or PW4 could not communicate regarding the failure of the CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 78 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
same to the trap team.
65. Therefore, he again took the money in his jacket and to ensure that every member of the trap team sees the money being taken by A-3 from him in open area, visible to everyone, that is why he took him out from the office of A-1, however there is no evidence that A-1 asked A-3 to collect or accept the bribe money on her behalf from PW4.
66. Further as per the testimony of PW4 in his examination in chief that Geeta Rawat came out of his office while talking on phone and called Bilal and then she asked him to meet Bilal. This part of the testimony of PW4 does not inspire any confidence, as if it was so, then the same would have been recorded in the DVR that A-1 had called Bilal on the telephone, which conversation was even heard by PW4, therefore, the conversation must have been made in a loud and audible manner, then the same would have been recorded in the DVR, which was on at that time being carried by PW4, which is not the case, as there is no such recording found in the micro SD card S-2.
This also puts doubt on the case of the prosecution that A-3 was called by A-1. Though as discussed above, there is call exchange between the mobile phone of A-1 and A-3 on 18.02.2022 at around 12:00 PM, which shows that A-1 had some sort of conversation with A-3, but what conversation had actually taken CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 79 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
place has not been produced before the Court, moreso when every conversation, which took place at the office of A-1 and whatever was spoken by A-1 during the presence of PW4 was being recorded word by word and as already discussed above, the alleged conversation regarding the counting of money has not been proved either by the voice expert nor the same could have been identified by PW4 to be in the voice of A-3, therefore, there is no link that A- 1 asked A-3 to collect or accept the bribe money on her behalf from PW4.
67. Further as per the testimony of PW4, 2-3 persons were present in the office of A-1 when he went inside the office of A-1 for completing the bribe transaction on 18.02.2022 including two females and one old man. It is no clear why those independent persons were not joined in the investigations to lend independent corroboration to the case of prosecution or to lend strength to the sole testimony of PW4, as admittedly the shadow witness of the prosecution chose to remain outside on both the occasions i.e. at the time of verification and also at the time of trap. Therefore, there was no independent corroboration to the testimony of PW4 regarding the completion of bribe transaction or alleged acceptance of bribe money by A-3 on behalf of A-1.
68. Further the testimony of PW4 that from the office of Geeta CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 80 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
Rawat he went to the coconut and peanut shop of A-3 situated outside the park, where he opened the zip of the right hand side pocket of his jacket, from which A-3 had taken out the money of Rs. 20,000/- as was kept in his pocket with his right hand and counted the same with his both hands and he inquired whether the amount was complete i.e. Rs. 20,000/- which he affirmed. He kept the said money in left hand side pocket of his lower / pant. This part of the testimony of PW4 is corroborated by the testimony of PW12 Amit Kumar Soni as well as PW13 independent witness Devender Kumar. Therefore, the receipt or exchange of money i.e. Rs. 20,000/- by A-3 from PW4 (albeit not on behalf of A-1) has been proved by the prosecution, but the prosecution has been failed to prove that the said acceptance made by A-3 on behalf of A-1, as there is no such credible evidence available on the record, as discussed above.
69. Further as per the complaint Ex. PW4/A made by Salim Ali PW11, the said demand was initially made through husband of A-1 Sh. Diwan Rawat. The said witness i.e. Dilwan Singh Rawat, husband of A-1 has appeared in the witness box as DW1 and has deposed that his wife was municipal councilor was 2017 to 2022. He does not know what was the work profile of A-1, as he did not interfere in her work and he was called at the CBI office after the arrest of A-1 and was asked about knowing three persons Sikander, CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 81 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
Salim Ali and Jitendra to which he stated that he never knew them or ever met them.
In his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he ever visited the site i.e. House No. D-572, West Vinod Nagar which was being constructed by Sikander Hassan through Salim Ali and Jitender, his munshi. He denied that he called PW4 several times and threatened him that he will not allow the lenter and will not get the electricity connection installed, if Rs. 20,000/- is not paid or if the said amount is not paid, the said construction would be demolished. He also denied that A-1 demanded Rs. 20,000/- from PW4 by using 20 papers. In view of the testimony of DW1 he denied that he ever visited the site in question i.e. D-572, West Vinod Nagar or threatened Salim Ali or PW4 or demanded bribe of Rs. 20,000/- or that if the said amount is not paid, then he will get the construction demolished and would not allow the electricity connection installed.
70. This testimony of DW1 also dilutes the probative force of the prosecution case as a whole, specially with regard to making of initial demand of bribe, allegedly through DW1, when more so, when no specific date, time or place thereof has been specified in the initial complaint Ex. PW4/A or in the testimonies of PW4, PW6 and PW11. Further this also impinges upon the acceptance part, thereby greatly diminishing the probative force of the CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 82 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
testimonial deposition of PW4 to a large extent on the said aspect, thereby making the same further highly unreliable.
71. As already discussed above, when A-3 could have safely accepted the bribe money within the precincts of the closed premises i.e. the office of A-1 within the realms of secrecy, then it is not clear why the alleged transaction of receipt of money by PW4 was carried out as per the prosecution case by A-3 in open within the public glare and which could be visible to everyone and could be seen by anyone. This also makes the case of the prosecution highly doubtful.
72. Further there is no videography or photography of the said handing over of money by PW4 to A-3, which could have been easily done, as per the prosecution case was done in a public place open to everyone and within the sight of CBI officials. Further as admitted by PW4 in his cross-examination, no videography or still photograph of the pre and post trap proceedings were done by the TLO to support the said case and lend corroboration to the same. In these circumstances, an inference can be drawn that the A-3 may have taken the money from PW4 for some other reasons, other than the purpose of bribe, for which it was agreed by PW4 and A-1 at the time of verification proceedings.
CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 83 of 10273. Further there are lot of other factors which dilutes the probative force of testimonial deposition of PW4 and severely dents or denudes his credibility, as for instance PW1 stated that PW4 was doing the work of rori-bazri, whereas PW4 has claimed that he was working as munshi of PW11 Salim Ali. Further PW15 IO admitted in his cross-examination that he did not collect any document during the investigations to prove that PW4 was employed with PW11. Further no document in shape of any financial dealing between PW11 and PW4 has been proved to show that he was receiving any remuneration for his job from PW11.
Further it is not clear or has been explained by the prosecution as to why he was sent for verification of the complaint made by PW11 when complainant was PW11 Salim Ali. This itself casts lot of shadow on the case of the prosecution. Further PW4 in his cross-examination stated that he knew Manoj Aggarwal @ Lucky who was builder in the said area and one Gaurav who was running security service in Laxmi Nagar area and both of them were known to PW11 Salim Ali and PW6 Sikander Hassan. This also dents the credibility of the said witness that he may have been set up by someone to somehow implicate the A-1 to settle some scores with aforementioned persons, as argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons during the course of his arguments.
74. Further in the last part of the conversation of the transcript / CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 84 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
conversation dated 18.02.2022, PW4 says that his life has been destroyed and why he was being entangled in all this. This also shows that he may be a planted witness to implicate the accused somehow.
Further PW8 says he did not conduct any independent verification whether PW11 was actually constructing any property in West Vinod Nagar and as to whether PW4 was infact employee of PW11 nor he conducted any independent inquiry whether A-1 was capable of doing any favour or disfavour to PW11 or PW4.
75. PW14 TLO says he did not visit the site of construction of property no. D-572, West Vinod Nagar to verify the stage of construction, IO PW15 says that during investigations , he visited the property, however, he did not remember whether he mentioned this fact in the charge sheet or not. Further no photographs regarding the alleged construction being taking place in the property no. D-572, West Vinod Nagar has been filed by the IO to show that the construction was indeed being carried out in the said property as per the case of prosecution.
Further the agreement Ex. PW6/B i.e. the construction agreement allegedly executed between Sikandar Hassan PW6 and Salim Ali PW11 appears to be suspicious in nature as the stamp paper for the same was purchased on the date of verification i.e. on 17.02.2022 at 8:05 PM, which appears to be after the verification CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 85 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
was done. This shows that the said construction agreement was entered in haste to make the prosecution case strong.
Further PW11 Salim Ali has deposed in his cross- examination that four lenters were already laid on the property before 17.02.2022. He did not pay any money either to any MCD official or police official in connection with those lenters laid on the said property by him. It was correct that he was never given any threat directly by anybody for getting the lenters demolished or for not allowing electricity connection on the said property, if the money was not paid. This also leads to doubt that PW4 may have been a planted witness to settle the scores between some opposite parties inimical to A-1 due to political reasons or otherwise. Therefore, the overall probative force of the testimonial deposition of PW4 has been diluted to large extent due to aforesaid reasons, discussed above.
76. Therefore, it is extremely hazardous to rely upon the sole, uncorroborated testimony of PW4, which is neither corroborated by the voice expert report, which has been discarded nor by the testimony of shadow witness who chose to remain outside at the time of alleged acceptance of bribe, thereby to say that the force of testimonial deposition of PW4 at the start of his examination in chief and after the completion of his examination in chief was say 100% credible, however, due to all this factors the said credibility CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 86 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
of his testimony has been greatly diluted to say around 60% thereof, out of 100% has been knocked out, thereby leaving as per my approximation the credibility after the conclusion of cross- examination of PW4 at around 40% and on such kind of testimony, it is not safe to convict any person.
RECOVERY OF BRIBE MONEY
77. PW4 Jitendra Kumar has stated that after the money was taken by A-3 from his jacket, he gave pre-decided signal of rubbing his face with both hands, upon which the CBI team which was watching from nearby bus stand apprehended A-3, then he also called TLO, who called him to the office of A-1, upon reaching the office of A-1, CBI team inquired from A-3, as to one whose behalf, he had accepted the amount, to which he replied that he had accepted the amount on behalf of A-1. This last part of the testimony of PW4 that A-3 disclosed that the bribe money was being accepted on behalf of A-1 is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as the confession made to the police officer, same is not admissible.
It is further deposed by PW4 that thereafter the process of hand wash was done of A-3 after preparing of solution by adding some powder into the transparent glass jar. The right hand of the A-3 was dipped into the same, which turned into pink colour which was transferred into empty bottle and sealed. The said bottle was CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 87 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
also identified by PW4 in the Court.
78. Similar procedure was proceeded with the left hand, which on putting into the solution also turned pink. Same was also transferred into empty bottle and sealed. This testimony of PW4 is also corroborated by PW12 Amit Kumar Soni. The chemical examination report pertaining to the said hand washes giving the positive test of presence of phenolphthalein, has been proved by PW10 V.B. Ramteke vide his report Ex. PW10/A.
79. Further regarding the recovery part, PW4 has deposed that the money was recovered from the left hand side pocket of the lower / pant worn by A-3. Upon matching the denomination of the said currency note as noted down in the pre-trap memo by both the independent witnesses, it was found to be the same money, as was arranged by PW11 Salim Ali. He also identified those currency notes in the Court which was collectively Ex. PW4/F. His testimony regarding the recovery of the said bribe money from the possession of A-3 is also corroborated by PW12 and PW13 as well as the TLO PW14. Nothing has come out in the cross-examination of aforesaid witnesses which could show that the above said amount was not recovered from the possession of A- 3 on the date of trap i.e. 18.02.2022. Admittedly no public witness who were present outside and inside the office of A-1 were joined CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 88 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
in the investigations to lend credence to the case of the prosecution or to the testimony of PW4 nor any videography or photocopy was done, which could have been easily done to strengthen the case of the prosecution.
80. Further the lower / pant which was seized, in which the alleged bribe money was kept by A-3 has also not been produced in the Court as an article for perusal of the Court, yet from the testimony of aforementioned witnesses, the prosecution has been able to prove the recovery of Rs. 20,000/- which was handed over to A-3, though it has not been proved that the same had to be given to A-1 directly or had been accepted on her behalf. Further it has not been proved that the said money was accepted by A-3, acting as an agent of or on the directions of A-1 or A-3 had done so i.e. accepted the said amount on the implicit or explicit directions of A-1.
81. Regarding the prosecution case that there was conspiracy between A-1, A-2 and A-3 regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe money, in view of the above discussion, it cannot be said that A-1, A-2 and A-3 were acting in furtherance of the common objective of the conspiracy i.e. to demand and accept the bribe from PW4 for allowing the construction in the premises bearing no. D-572, West Vinod Nagar or to say that in case the said bribe of Rs.
CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 89 of 10220,000/- is not paid then whatever construction had been done in the same would be demolished and further no electricity connection would be allowed to install.
82. In the present case besides oral uncorroborated testimony of PW4, which is highly unreliable, the prosecution has failed to prove that A-2 and A-3 were working for A-1 as servants, agents or liaisoners, besides showing some call(s) made between the mobile phone between A-1, A-2 and A-3 inter se nor it has been shown that either A-2 or A-3 were engaged by A-1 for doing these sorts of things in the past or otherwise nor it is the case of the prosecution that A-2 and A-3 were ever sent for reconnaissance at the premises no. D-572, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi where they might have met with PW4, PW6, PW11 at any point of time in relation to any demand of money with regard to the alleged construction being carried at the said premises. Therefore, it is not proved that there was any meeting of mind or agreement to commit an offence between A-1, A-2 or A-3 or to say that they were acting in furtherance of common objective of the conspiracy.
In view of the above discussion the prosecution has failed to establish that A-1, A-2 and A-3 were acting in tandem with each other in furtherance of common objective of the conspiracy. Therefore, no offence u/S. 120-B IPC has been made out by the prosecution.
CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 90 of 10283. Regarding raising of the legal presumption u/S. 20 of the PC Act, 1988 (as amended in the year 2018), the Section 20 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in the year 2018) is reproduced as under :
20. [ Presumption where public servant accepts any undue advantage. [Substituted by Act No. 16 of 2018, dated 26.7.2018.]
- Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under section 7 or under section 11, it is proved that a public servant accused of an offence has accepted or obtained or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any undue advantage from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or attempted to obtain that undue advantage, as a motive or reward under section 7 for performing or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly either by himself or by another public servant or, as the case may be, any undue advantage without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate under section 11.] [Inserted by Act No. 16 of 2018, dated 26.7.2018.] Section 20 of the PC Act, 1988 before amendment in the year 2018 is reproduced as under :
20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration.--
(1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 91 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
under section 7 or section 11 or clause (a) or clause
(b) of sub-section (1) of section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.
84. On comparison of the old provision of Sec. 20 of the PC Act prior to amendment in the year 2018 with the new provision as amended in the year 2018, further it appears that Sec. 2(d) has been inserted in the year 2018 in the Amended Act, which defines undue advantage as under :
2[(d) "undue advantage" means any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this clause,--
(a) the word "gratification" is not limited to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications estimable in money;
(b) the expression "legal remuneration" is not restricted to remuneration paid to a public servant, but includes all remuneration which he is permitted by the Government or the organisation, which he serves, to receive.] Explanation 1.--Persons falling under any of the CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 92 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
above sub-clauses are public servants, whether appointed by the Government or not.
Explanation 2.--Wherever the words "public servant" occur, they shall be understood of every person who is in actual possession of the situation of a public servant, whatever legal defect there may be in his right to hold that situation Therefore, it appears that Section 2(d) has been inserted in the year 2018, wherein undue advantage means gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration. In the explanation the expression gratification has been further expanded as also the expression "legal remuneration".
Earlier the words in the Section 20 were any gratification (other than legal remuneration), whereas it now reads as defined u/S. 2(d), the word undue advantage as any gratification whatever other than legal remuneration with the explanation to Section 2(d) of the expression gratification and legal remuneration. However, on comparison, it appear only the word whatever has been added in the definition of undue advantage in Section 2(d) along with explanation of the expression gratification and legal remuneration.
However, on comparison of Section 20 before amendment in the year 2018 and the new Section 20 after post amendment, it appears that both the said provisions are in pari materia with each other and there is no major change in the same CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 93 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
and substantially they are the one and same.
85. The relevant law with regard to Section 20 is being discussed hereunder :
It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in recent Constitutional Bench judgment titled as Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) in Criminal Appeal No. 1669 of 2009 decided on 15.12.2022 as under :
68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under:
(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and(ii) of the Act.
(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.
(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 94 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)
(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act.
Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and inturn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
(f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 95 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.
69. In view of the aforesaid discussion and conclusions, we find that there is no conflict in the three judge Bench decisions of this Court in B. Jayaraj and P. Satyanarayana Murthy with the three judge Bench decision in M. Narasinga Rao, with regard to the nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for offences under Sections 7 or 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act, when the direct evidence of the complainant or "primary evidence"
of the complainant is unavailable owing to his death or any other reason. The position of law when a complainant or prosecution witness turns "hostile" is also discussed and the observations made above would accordingly apply in light of Section 154 of the Evidence Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that there is no conflict between the judgments in the aforesaid three cases.
70. Accordingly, the question referred for consideration of this Constitution Bench is answered as under:
In the absence of evidence of the complainant (direct/primary, oral/documentary evidence) it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 96 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution.
71. We direct that individual cases may be considered before the appropriate Bench after seeking orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India.
86. Based on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above Constitutional Bench judgment, it has been held in the judgment Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi of Delhi) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 211, in the relevant paras as under :
11. Even the issue of presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act has been answered by the Constitution Bench by holding that only on proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the Court to raise a presumption that illegal gratification was for the purpose of motive or reward as mentioned in Section 7 (as it existed prior to the amendment of 2018). In fact, the Constitution Bench has approved two decisions by the benches of three Hon'ble Judges in the cases of B. Jayaraj1 and P. Satyanarayana Murthy2. There is another decision of a three Judges' bench in the case of N. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu5, which follows the view taken in the cases of B. Jayaraj1 and P. Satyanarayana Murthy2. In paragraph 9 of the decision in the case of B. Jayaraj1, this Court has dealt with the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act. In paragraph 9, this Court held thus:
"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 CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 97 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
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 added) The presumption under Section 20 can be invoked only when the two basic facts required to be proved under Section 7, are proved. The said two basic facts are 'demand' and 'acceptance' of gratification. The presumption under Section 20 is that unless the contrary is proved, the acceptance of gratification shall be presumed to be for a motive or reward, as contemplated by Section 7. It means that once the basic facts of the demand of illegal gratification and acceptance thereof are proved, unless the contrary are proved, the Court will have to presume that the gratification was demanded and accepted as a motive or reward as contemplated by Section 7. However, this presumption is rebuttable. Even on the basis of the preponderance of probability, the accused can rebut the presumption.
12. In the case of N. Vijayakumar5, another bench of three Hon'ble Judges dealt with the issue of presumption under Section 20 and the degree of proof required to establish the offences punishable under Section 7 and clauses (i) and (ii) Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act. In paragraph 26, the bench held thus:
"26. It is equally well settled that mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused. Reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI [C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, (2009) 3 SCC 779 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] and in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. [B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 543] In the aforesaid judgments of this Court while considering the case under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 it CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 98 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
is reiterated that to prove the charge, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe. Absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence. In the said judgments it is also held that even the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. It is also fairly well settled that initial presumption of innocence in the criminal jurisprudence gets doubled by acquittal recorded by the trial court."
(emphasis added) Thus, the demand for gratification and its acceptance must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
13. Section 7, as existed prior to 26th July 2018, was different from the present Section 7. The unamended Section 7 which is applicable in the present case, specifically refers to "any gratification". The substituted Section 7 does not use the word "gratification", but it uses a wider term "undue advantage". When the allegation is of demand of gratification and acceptance thereof by the accused, it must be as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act. The fact that the demand and acceptance of gratification were for motive or reward as provided in Section 7 can be proved by invoking the presumption under Section 20 provided the basic allegations of the demand and acceptance are proved..."
87. In view of the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, it is crystal clear that presumption u/S. 20 of the PC Act can only be invoked when two basic facts required to be proved u/S. 7 of PC Act are proved. The said basic facts are demand and acceptance of gratification. It means that once the basic facts of the demand of illegal gratification and acceptance thereof are CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 99 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
proved, unless the contrary is proved, the Court will presume that the gratification was demanded and accepted as a motive or reward as contemplated by Sec. 7 of the PC Act. This presumption is rebuttable on preponderance of probabilities.
88. Since the basic ingredients of Sec. 7 before amendment of 2018 and post 2018 remain the same i.e. the prosecution has to prove demand, acceptance and recovery of the bribe money on the day of trap. Further as discussed above, the Section 20 prior to amendment of 2018 and post 2018 are almost pari materia with each other, therefore, the law with regard to the basic ingredients which leads to triggering of presumption u/S. 20 PC Act is the same as laid down in the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
89. Here in the case under discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the acceptance of illegal gratification on behalf of A-1 by A-3, which in turn has been defined as any gratification whatever, other than the legal remuneration. Though the prosecution has been able to prove the other ingredient of demand of undue advantage by A-1 or illegal gratification other than legal remuneration, in view of the foregoing discussion therefore the presumption u/S. 20 of the PC Act post amendment of 2018 is not triggered or does not come into play for the benefit of the CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 100 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
prosecution.
To Sum up
90. In view of the law laid down in the judgment(s) B. Jayaraj vs. State of AP, 2014, Cr. L J 2433, SeJappa vs. State, AIR 2016, SC 2045 and Mukhtiar Singh (Since deceased) Through his LR vs. State of Punjab (supra), the ingredient of acceptance of bribe is sine qua non of Section 7 of the PC Act (as amended in the year 2018), which has not been proved vide the above discussion and taking into account the overall evidence with regard to evidentiary facts, as discussed above, consequently the prosecution has failed to make out a case u/S. 7 of the PC Act (as amended in the year 2018).
91. Since the yardstick which is to be achieved by the prosecution in criminal trial is probabilistic in nature i.e. the prosecution should prove its case against a accused beyond reasonable doubt i.e. the probabilities of the prosecution case or probative force of its case as a whole, or weigh thereof as a whole should be beyond any sort of reasonable doubt against the accused, which the prosecution has failed to achieve in the present case.
90. As a resultant, all the accused persons namely Geeta Rawat (A-1), Naushad Ahmed (A-2) and Sanaullah @Bilal (A-3) CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 101 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.
stand acquitted of the charge(s) u/S. 120B r/w Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018).
Further the accused Geeta Rawat (A-1) also stands acquitted for the substantial charge(s) u/S 7 of the PC Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018).
The above accused persons are stated to have already furnished their bail bond(s) in compliance of Section 437-A CrPC, which shall remain valid for a period of six months from today, as per the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC.
File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed bySANJEEV SANJEEV AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2025.01.27 15:45:24 +0530 Announced in the Open Court (Sanjeev Aggarwal) on this 27 day of January, 2025. Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-10 th Rouse Avenue District Courts New Delhi/27.01.2025 CNR No. DLCT 11-000175-2023 Page 102 of 102 CBI Vs. Geeta Rawat & Ors.