Delhi District Court
State vs Manish Lal on 29 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DEEPALI SHARMA
SPECIAL JUDGE: PC ACT: ACB-01:
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX: NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLCT11-000347-2022
CC No. 39/2022
FIR No. 17/2019
U/S: 7 Prevention of Corruption Act
PS: Anti Corruption Branch
State
Versus
Manish Lal,
S/o Late Sh. Shyam Lal,
R/o WZ-48, Village Nangli Zalib,
near B-1, Janak Puri,
New Delhi-110058.
Date of Institution : 04.06.2022
Date of Arguments : 19.08.2025
Date of Judgment : 29.08.2025
Appearance :
For the State : Sh. Sukhbeer Singh,
Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor.
For accused : Sh. Pranav Gupta and Mohd.
Arif, advocate.
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.11.2019 complainant Vijender came to the office of ACB and gave his complaint regarding demand of bribe in MCD West Zone. The said complaint was assigned to Insp. Kailash Chand, wherein it CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 1 of 73 was alleged that the complainant was residing at Pandav Nagar, Delhi, with his family. His family comprised of his mother and four brothers. His father was a permanent employee of MCD and used to work in Ward No. 111, Rajouri Garden, since 1986. He expired on 27.11.2012. After his death the complainant applied for the dues of his father as well as job on compassionate grounds and was repeatedly following up, however, his work was not done and his file was not moved. He met one employee Manish, who asked for Rs. 1 Lakh to move the file forward, at which the complainant expressed his inability and asked him to reduce the amount, at which he told him to give the amount in installments and had called him on that day i.e. 27.11.2019. He had been able to arrange Rs. 5000/- with difficulty. He stated that his one file was with Suresh Pal and another file was with Manish. He stated that he had no personal animosity against them and he wanted legal action to be taken against Manish and other employees. The complaint is Ex. PW2/A.
2. Insp. Kailash Chand called one panch witness namely Sh. Pradeep Kumar and apprised him of the facts and introduced the complainant to him. The panch witness enquired from the complainant and also put his signatures on the complaint. Thereafter the complainant handed over Rs. 5000/- to Insp. Kailash Chand comprising ten GC notes of Rs. 500/- each. The panch witness checked the serial number of the currency notes, which were noted down in the pre-raid report.
3. Thereafter, Insp. Kailash Chand, the Raid Officer CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 2 of 73 (RO) conducted pre-raid proceedings and the panch witness and the complainant were explained the specialty of phenolphthalein powder and the manner of proceeding with the raid. The raiding team was constituted comprising of Insp. Brijesh Mishra, HC Parvinder, HC Ashok Mishra, HC Arun Kumar, Ct. Ankit Tyagi, driver ASI Rajesh Kumar of govt. vehicle no. DL-4CZ-0021 and driver Ct. Arun Kumar of govt. vehicle no. DL-6CJ-8291 alongwith the complainant and panch witness. Thereafter the raid was conducted at the spot i.e. 4th floor of SDMC Office, West Zone, Rajouri Garden, Delhi, at about 12:30 pm and accused Manish Lal was caught red-handed while accepting the bribe amount on demand from the complainant in the presence of panch witness. Accused Manish Lal was apprehended and on instructions of Insp. Kailash Chand, the panch witness recovered the bribe amount of Rs.5000/- from the right side pocket of wearing pant of the accused. The serial numbers of the recovered GC notes were tallied with the pre-raid report and found to be correct. The recovered GC notes were seized by the RO vide seizure memo.
4. The right hand wash and right side pocket wash of the pant of the accused were taken in colourless Sodium Carbonate solution both of which turned pink. The pink colour solutions were kept in glass bottles which were sealed and seized by the RO. The wearing pant of the accused was kept in a sealed pullanda. The Raid Officer prepared sample seal. Seal after use was handed over to the panch witness. The RO prepared the rukka Ex.PW11/D which was handed over to HC Ashok Mishra CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 3 of 73 for registration of the FIR. Meanwhile, Insp. Brijesh Mishra was called at the spot through Ct. Arun Kumar. Insp. Brijesh Mishra reached the spot and the RO apprised him about the case and handed over the seizure memos, case property and the accused to him. Thereafter, RO Insp. Kailash Chand left the spot.
5. Necessary investigation was conducted by IO Insp. Brijesh Mishra. He made enquiries from the panch witness and the complainant and prepared a site plan at the instance of panch witness vide Ex.PW7/A. HC Ashok reached the spot and handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to the IO. The accused was arrested at the spot vide arrest memo Ex.PW7/B. His personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW7/C and disclosure statement of the accused Ex. PW7/D was recorded. Thereafter they all returned to the office of ACB alongwith the accused and case property. The case property was kept in the Malkhana and the medical examination of the accused was got conducted. The accused was produced before the court and one day PC remand was taken. On the next day, accused was produced before the court and sent to judicial custody. During investigation, IO collected relevant documents including the application of the complainant regarding job on compassionate grounds, the documents such as the service book of the accused, transfer order, duty roster etc.
6. Thereafter, the sealed exhibits were sent to FSL, Rohini for examination. After receipt of FSL result, IO requested the competent authority for grant of sanction. The sanction order CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 4 of 73 was received qua the accused on 22.09.2021. The IO found some discrepancy in the sanction order dated 22.09.2021 regarding the provisions of law mentioned therein and again wrote to the competent authority for correction vide his letter dated 11.10.2021 and 17.01.2022. Thereafter, the sanction order dated 14.02.2022 u/s 19 PC Act was received qua the accused. IO also recorded statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
7. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused Manish Lal u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred as PC Act) on 04.06.2022 and cognizance of offence was taken against the accused. Thereafter, accused was summoned and after hearing arguments, charge for the offence under Section 7 of PC was framed, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 12 witnesses. The brief summary of deposition of prosecution witnesses is as under:-
i) PW1 SI Roop Singh - Duty Officer. He deposed that on 27.11.2019, at about 05:00 pm, HC Ashok came in the DO room and handed over one rukka to him, which was sent by Insp. Kailash Chand. On the basis of the rukka, he recorded the FIR Ex.PW1/A and made endorsement Ex.PW1/B on the rukka and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to HC Ashok to hand it over to Insp. Brijesh Mishra for further investigation.
PW1 also recorded DD no. 21 Ex.PW1/C and DD no. 28 CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 5 of 73 Ex.PW1/D regarding lodging of FIR. Insp. Kailash Chand also lodged his departure entry vide DD no. 16 Ex.PW1/E and IO Insp. Brijesh Mishra also lodged his arrival entry after his return from the spot vide DD no. 32 Ex.PW1/F, in their own handwriting.
ii) PW2 Vijender - complainant. iii) PW3 SI Sushil Kumar - Incharge of MT Section of
ACB. He produced the log books of vehicle no. DL4CZ0021 and DL6CJ8291 pertaining to 27.11.2019 and proved the relevant entries Ex. PW-3/A and Ex. PW-3/B.
iv) PW4 Pradeep Kumar Sharma deposed that in the year 2020, he was posted as Administrative Officer, DEMS/West Zone, MCD, Delhi. With reference to a letter received from Insp. Brijesh Mishra, ACB, he gave reply Ex.PW-4/A, regarding the queries as asked for, alongwith the attested copies of the documents Ex.PW-4/B.
v) PW5 Yogesh Chandra Pandey, Sr. Scientific Officer, Chemistry, FSL, Rohini, deposed that on 09.12.19, he had received two sealed parcels (bottles) from the authorized person of the Director, FSL for the purpose of examination. One sealed parcel was marked as RHW-I and the second sealed parcel was marked as RSPW-I and both the bottles were having pink colour liquid. PW5 examined the exhibits chemically in the laboratory and gave his report Ex.PW5/A wherein he opined that CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 6 of 73 on chemical and TLC examination, exhibits RHW-I and RSPW-I were found to contain Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate. After examination, the remnants were sealed with the seal of YCP FSL DELHI.
v-a) PW5 also correctly identified the exhibits i.e. glass bottle RHW-I ( Ex. PW-2/Article-1) and another glass bottle RSPW-I Ex. PW-2/Article-3), both sealed with the seal of YCP FSL DELHI as the same which were examined by him at the FSL.
vi) PW6 Rajinder Yadav - he was posted as LDC at MCD Office, Rajouri Garden from 2010 to June 2020 with whom the accused was working as a 'Helper'.
vii) PW7 Pradeep Pal - panch witness. viii) PW8 Dr. Sonal Swaroop deposed that in the year
2022, she was posted as Additional Commissioner (DEMC)/ SDMC. A letter no. 295/BKM/RC-17/19/ACB dated 17.01.2022 was received with a request to grant prosecution sanction U/s 19 of PC Act against Manish Lal S/o Late Shyam Lal, Safai Karamchari, who was working as Bill Clerk Helper, DEMS/WZ alongwith statements of witnesses, and material documents. She went through the documents and after applying her mind, she being the competent authority to accord sanction against accused Manish Lal accorded sanction U/s 19 of PC Act for his prosecution for the offences U/s 7 of PC Act vide sanction order Ex.PW8/A and said sanction order was sent to the DCP, ACB CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 7 of 73 through Junior Law Officer vide letter dated 10.02.2022.
ix) PW9 ASI Baljeet Singh - MHC(M) at PS Civil Lines. He deposed that on 27.11.2019, Insp. Brijesh Mishra deposited case property i.e. GC notes of Rs.5,000/-, four sealed glass bottles, one pulanda of pant, sample seal of present case FIR alongwith copy of seizure memos and he made entries in Register no. 19 at serial no. 31/1101 Ex.PW9/A. ix-a) PW9 also deposed that on 09.12.2019, as per directions of Insp. Brijesh Mishra, he handed over to him two sealed glass bottles i.e RHW-I and RSPW-I as well as sample seal of KC for depositing with FSL vide road certificate no. 202/21/19 dated 09.12.2019 Ex.PW9/B (OSR) and in this regard he made entry in Register no. 19 Ex.PW9/A. After depositing the case property at FSL, IO handed over to him the copy of acknowledgment of case acceptance Ex.PW9/C. ix-b) PW9 further deposed that on 23.01.2020, HC Jitender Kumar brought the FSL result and the case property in sealed condition. The envelope containing result was handed over to HC Jitender to hand over the same to IO. PW9 made entry in Register no. 19 in this regard.
x) PW10 ASI Ashok Kumar Mishra deposed that on 27.11.2019, he was posted as Head Constable at ACB and had joined the raiding team alongwith Insp. Kailash Chand, Insp. Brijesh Mishra, HC Parvinder, HC Arun, Ct. Ankit Tyagi, complainant Vijender Singh, panch witness Pradeep Pal and two drivers i.e. ASI Rajesh and Ct. Arun. At about 11:30 am, the CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 8 of 73 raiding team left the office of ACB in two official vehicles and at about 12:30 pm, they reached near SDMC West Zone office, Rajouri Garden and parked both the vehicles at a distance of 150- 200 meters from the said office. Insp. Kailash Chand instructed Insp. Brijesh Mishra and both drivers of the vehicles to remain there and briefed them as well as complainant and panch witness. They all proceeded towards the 4th floor of SDMC West Zone office. Complainant and panch witness went inside the office while the members of raiding team took their position at the 4 th floor of the building. After some time, RO Insp. Kailash Chand called them and they immediately rushed to the spot and apprehended one person whose name revealed as Manish Lal. PW10 correctly identified accused Manish Lal before court. PW10 further deposed that Insp. Kailash Chand conducted the proceedings and prepared one Tehrir and sent him to PS ACB to get the case FIR registered. At about 05:00 pm, he reached at ACB and handed over the rukka to Duty Officer SI Roop Singh who after getting the case FIR registered handed over the rukka and copy of FIR to him. In the meantime, Insp. Brijesh Mishra alongwith other members of raiding team also reached at ACB and he handed over to him, the rukka and copy of FIR. Thereafter, the accused was got medically examined at Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital and was lodged in lockup of PS Civil Lines.
xi) PW11 Insp. Kailash Chand - Raid Officer (RO). He deposed that on 27.11.2019, he was posted in ACB, Vikas Bhawan-II, Delhi and at about 10:30 am, he was called by ACP, ACB to his office and was introduced with one complainant Sh.
CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 9 of 73Bijender, who told that one Manish of MCD Department where his file was pending, was demanding money for moving the file regarding compensation/appointment on compassionate ground after death of his father. PW11 brought complainant Bijender to his office and made enquiries from him and complainant gave him a written complaint Ex.PW2/A. PW11 called one panch witness Sh. Pradeep Kumar and apprised him of the facts and also introduced complainant to him. Pradeep Kumar also satisfied himself regarding the allegations from the complainant. He also signed the complaint of Bijender Ex.PW2/A. PW11 further deposed that thereafter, Bijender gave him Rs.5,000/- which he had brought for giving as bribe to said Manish in the MCD office. The currency notes were 10 GC notes of Rs.500/- denomination. PW11 took the currency notes from the complainant and then he applied Phenolphthalein powder on the said notes. Thereafter, a demonstration was given by touching the hand of panch witness with the currency notes and then putting his hand in the solution of Sodium Carbonate which turned pink. PW11 also explained the characteristics of the Phenolphthalein powder and Sodium Carbonate solution. PW11 instructed the complainant and panch witness to remain together and told the panch witness to listen to the conversation which would take place between the complainant and Manish and that the complainant should give the currency notes to said Manish only upon his demand. PW11 also told panch witness that after the bribe money was accepted by Manish then he should give signal to the raiding party by waving his hand over his head two times. PW11 noted the serial numbers of the GC notes and the CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 10 of 73 GC notes were handed over to complainant Bijender, who kept the GC notes in the pocket of his shirt. The pink solution was thrown away and they washed their hands with soap and water. The bottle of Phenolphthalein powder was sealed and given to DO and thereafter, PW11 took the raid box and they left the office at about 11:30 am regarding which on endorsement was made. PW11 prepared the pre-raid report Ex.PW2/A-1. Thereafter, PW11 alongwith Insp. Brijesh Mishra, HC Parvinder, HC Ashok Mishra, HC Arun Kumar, Ct. Ankit Tyagi in two government vehicles with drivers Ct. Rajesh Kumar, Ct. Arun Kumar and the complainant alongwith panch witness left their office for going to MCD office, Rajouri Garden. xi-a) PW11 further deposed that at about 12:20 pm, they all reached SDMC Office, Rajouri Garden where both the vehicles were stopped near a park about 150-200 meters away from the office. Insp. Brijesh Mishra and both the drivers were left there and they all left for the SDMC office. PW11 had prepared a report in this regard Ex.PW11/A. At 12:30 pm, they all reached in SDMC office and since cabin of Manish was on 4th floor, they all went to the 4th floor. While complainant and panch witness went towards the cabin of Manish, all remaining officials took their positions at different places on 4th floor. PW11 prepared a report in this regard Ex.PW11/B. PW11 deposed that at about 12:50 pm, panch witness Pradeep came out of the cabin of Manish and gave pre-determined signal by waiving his hand over his head two times and then PW11 alongwith his team went to the cabin of Manish. Pradeep pointed out towards a person and stated that he had demanded and CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 11 of 73 accepted Rs.5,000/- as bribe from the complainant and he had taken the GC notes in his right hand and then kept the same in his right side pocket of pant. PW11 confirmed the name of said person to be Manish. PW11 introduced himself to Manish as Inspector of ACB and told him that he had taken the bribe and his search was required to be taken and if Manish wanted, he could take search of the raiding team. At this said Manish became perplexed and did not react in any manner. PW11 instructed Pradeep to take his search and then Pradeep took search of Manish and recovered the bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- i.e. 10 GC notes of Rs.500/- denomination from right side pant pocket of Manish. PW11 tallied the serial numbers of the recovered GC notes, which were found to be same as those mentioned in the raid report. The recovered GC notes were kept in an envelope and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B. Thereafter, right hand wash of accused Manish was taken in Sodium carbonate solution which turned pink and the pink colour solution was poured in two glass bottles which were wrapped with the cloth and cork lid and then sealed with the seal of KC and the bottles were given marking RHW-I and RHW-II. Thereafter, the pant of accused Manish was got changed and portion of right pocket of his wearing pant was dipped in the sodium carbonate solution, which turned pink. The pink colour solution was also poured in two glass bottles and the bottles were wrapped with the help of cork and cloth and the same were given marking RSPW-I and RSPW- II. Paper slips were pasted on all the glass bottles which were seized by PW11, panch witness and complainant. The pant was kept in a yellow envelope and sealed with the seal of KC. The CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 12 of 73 seal impression of KC was put on a plain paper as a sample seal document and a seizure memo Ex.PW2/C in respect of all the four bottles of pink solution, pant and of sample seal was prepared. Seal after use was handed over to panch witness Pradeep. Then PW11 prepared raid report Ex.PW11/C. Thereafter PW11 prepared the rukka Ex. PW11/D and sent Const. Arun Kumar to call Insp. Brijesh Mishra and Insp. Brijesh Mishra came at the spot. PW11 handed over the case property, seizure memos and accused to Insp. Brijesh Mishra and also apprised him about the raid proceedings against accused. At about 04.00 pm PW11 sent the rukka to police station through HC Ashok Mishra for registration of the FIR and he was directed to give the copy of the FIR to Insp. Brijesh Mishra for investigation. Thereafter PW11 left the spot. xi-b) PW11 correctly identified the case property i.e. two sealed glass bottles containing pink colour liquid marked as RHW-1 (Ex. PW2/Article-1) and RHW-II (Ex. PW2/Article-2), two sealed glass bottles containing pink colour liquid marked as RSPW-1 (Ex. PW2/Article-3) and RSPW-II (Ex. PW2/Article-4), one cream colour (off white) pant of accused Ex. PW2/Article-6 and bribe money i.e. ten GC notes of Rs. 500/- denomination Ex. PW2/Article-7 (Colly). PW11 also correctly identified accused Manish Lal before the court.
xii) PW12 Insp. Brijesh Kumar Mishra - IO of the case. He deposed that on 27.11.2019, the investigation of the case was assigned to him. At about 11:30 am, he alongwith RO Insp. Kailash Chand and other members of raiding team CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 13 of 73 consisting of HC Ashok, HC Arun and others proceeded from ACB office and at about 12:20 pm reached at SDMC Office, Rajouri Garden. There he was asked by Insp. Kailash Chand to stay in the vicinity of the spot and to reach the spot when he was specifically called by him. PW12 further deposed that after about 45 minutes to one hour of his stay at the said place, he was asked by RO Insp. Kailash Chand to reach at the spot as raid had been successfully conducted. After reaching at the spot, PW12 was informed by Insp. Kailash Chand that the person who was present there was accused Manish and he was the person who had been caught red-handed by raiding team while taking Rs.5,000/- from the complainant. Panch witness Pradeep was also present there who confirmed the said statement of RO Insp. Kailash Chand. PW12 enquired RO Insp. Kailash Chand, complainant and panch witness Pradeep regarding the veracity of the raid. PW12 further deposed that RO Insp. Kailash Chand handed over the seizure memo/documents alongwith the exhibits to him. HC Ashok reached at the spot alongwith the original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to him. PW12 prepared site plan of the spot Ex.PW7/A at the instance of panch witness Pradeep. PW12 arrested the accused at the spot at about 04:45 pm vide arrest memo Ex.PW7/B and conducted his personal search vide personal search memo Ex.PW7/C. PW12 also recorded disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW7/D. Thereafter, PW12 alongwith the accused and other police officials went to the ACB office. The exhibits were deposited in the Malkhana of PS Civil Lines. PW12 got conducted the medical examination of accused and he was kept in lockup.
CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 14 of 73PW12 further deposed that on the next day, the accused was produced before the court and on an an application filed by him, one day police remand of the accused was granted by the concerned court. PW12 conducted the search of the house of accused in the presence of the accused and panch witness and in this regard PW12 prepared observation memo Ex.PW12/A. Thereafter, the accused was produced before the court and he was sent to J/C. xii-a) PW12 further deposed that during investigation, he collected the attested photocopy of the logbook Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B of the vehicles used by the raiding team and copy of arrival and departure entry of the raiding team. PW12 also collected attested copy of duty proof/attendance register, duty roster, transfer order, service book of the accused Ex.PW4/B (colly) from the concerned office. PW12 also collected application Mark-PW2/DA of the complainant received in the office of DEMS/CSE, West Zone, SDMC regarding his job on compassionate ground after the death of his father. PW12 also collected the photocopy of the documents attached with the said application Mark-PW12/I (running into 17 pages). Xii-b) PW 12 further deposed that duly sealed exhibits were taken by him to FSL from Malkhana of PS Civil Lines vide RC no. 202/21/19. The said exhibits were deposited at FSL, Rohini, vide acknowledgment Ex.PW9/C. xii-c) PW12 further deposed that after receiving the FSL result from FSL, Rohini, he requested the concerned authority for grant of sanction vide request letter dated 17.01.2022 Ex.PW12/B. On 14.02.2022, the sanction order Ex.PW8/A CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 15 of 73 against the accused Manish was received in the office of DCP, ACB and he collected the same. PW12 further deposed that before that he had also collected the sanction order dated 22.09.2021, pursuant to his request dated 28.07.2021 and some discrepancy had been found in the sanction order dated 22.09.2021 in writing the sections of law. Due to this reason, PW12 again wrote to the appropriate authority for correction of the said discrepancy, vide letters dated 11.10.2021 and 17.01.2022.
xii-d) PW12 further deposed that he recorded the statements of RO, panch witness, members of raiding team and other witnesses U/s 161 Cr.P.C. He had also recorded statement of concerned LDC Rajinder under whom the accused was working in the said office. After completion of investigation, he prepared the draft charge-sheet against the accused. PW12 correctly identified accused Manish before the court.
Statement of accused :
9. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein he denied the correctness of all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him and stated that he was innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. The entire case against him was instituted on the basis of false and fabricated allegations made by the complainant. The investigating agency also did not conduct the investigation in a fair and impartial manner. Accused further stated that he was CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 16 of 73 working as a Safai Karamchari and he was never posted as Helper of PW6 Rajinder Yadav. He never demanded or accepted any money from the complainant for moving his files as he was never dealing with any such files being a Safai Karamchari. He was not arrested at MCD Office at Rajouri Garden but he was called at the ACB Office for the purpose of investigation and he was arrested there. He did not make any disclosure statement.
No GC notes were recovered from his possession. He further stated that no panch witness was present at the time of search of his house and no observation memo was prepared. He further stated that sanction u/s 19 of PC Act was made without application of mind and without going through the documents and PW8 Dr. Sonal Swaroop was not competent to accord sanction.
10. Accused preferred to lead defence evidence and he examined himself u/s 315 Cr.P.C. as DW1. He deposed that in the year 1996, he joined MCD as a substitute Safai Karamchari. His working hours were from 07:00 am to 03:00 pm. He had worked from 1996 to 2014 in the Circle-20, Hari Nagar, Delhi and thereafter, he was transferred to West Zone, DC Office, Rajouri Garden, Delhi. He was under Sh. Rajbir Chalia, LDC at West zone, DC Office, Rajouri Garden, Delhi. He used to serve tea etc. to him and also used to do work of cleanliness. After 2-3 years, Rajbir Chalia was transferred from the said post and Sh. Rajinder Yadav was transferred to the said post. His office timing in the West Zone, DC Office were 09:00 am to 05:00 pm and his attendance was marked at about 09:30 am and attendance CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 17 of 73 register was kept by Administrative Officer.
11. Accused further deposed that on 27.11.2019, he had not gone to his office and at about 08:00-08:30 am on the same day, he had make a mobile phone call to Sh. Rajinder Yadav that he was not feeling well and Sh. Rajinder Yadav also told him that he was also not coming to the office. Accused told Rajinder Yadav that intimation regarding his leave on medical ground be given to the office. On that day, he was suffering with fever, bleeding with piles and congestion in the stomach. Thereafter, he alongwith his wife went to Ashirward Nursing Home at Vikas Nagar and doctor attended him at about 11:00 am and he remained with the doctor for about two hours. At about 12:30 pm, he left the said nursing home and reached at his house. Accused also produced original prescription slip of doctor dated 27.11.2019 Ex. DW1/A.
12. Accused further stated that after some time, he received a call from unknown number and the caller called him at Vikas Bhawan-II as there was a complaint against him. He went to Vikas Bhawan-II, Azadpur area. The Anti-Corruption officials met him there. They asked him to sign on some documents and after some hesitation, he signed the said documents. Another official came there, who directed him to lift some currency notes lying in the table there and to hand them over to him. He lifted the said currency notes and handed over the same to the said official. The said official also took his handwash. He was confined there. The said officials also took his mobile phone, his CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 18 of 73 purse containing his identity card and some money. The said officials arrested him and falsely implicated in the present case.
13. Accused further stated that ASI Suresh Pal of their department was looking after the files relating to death and retirement of the officials of West zone. A person making enquiries in respect of death and retirement of official, firstly used to meet the guard and then made entry in he entry register and then met the concerned official. Accused further stated that he had no concern with the files and he was just a Safai Karamchari.
14. Thereafter defence evidence was closed by the ld. Counsel for the accused.
Arguments :
15. It is argued by Ld. Chief P.P. for the State that the accused Manish Lal was working as Safai Karamchari and got posted as Helper to PW6 Rajender Yadav, LDC, MCD, Rajouri Garden, SDMC, Delhi. Accused had initially demanded bribe amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, which was reduced to Rs. 50,000/- for moving the file relating to after death dues of the father of the complainant, who used to work as Safai Karamchari in MCD and to help him to get appointment on compassionate grounds in MCD. Pursuant thereto a raid was conducted on 27.11.2019 at 12.50 pm on 4th Floor, SDMC, West Zone, Rajouri Garden, Delhi, and the accused was caught red, while demanding and accepting a bribe amount of Rs. 5000/- from the complainant. It CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 19 of 73 is urged that the complainant has supported the prosecution version regarding demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused. The bribe amount of Rs. 5000/- i.e. phenolphthalein smeared ten GC notes of denomination of Rs.500/- each were also recovered from the accused, which he had accepted with his right hand and kept them in the right side pocket of his wearing pant. It is stated that the right hand-wash and right side pocket wash of his pant turned pink in a solution of sodium carbonate and that the FSL result Ex. PW5/A regarding the right hand wash and the right side pocket wash of the pant indicated presence of Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate. It is urged that the raid proceedings have been described in detail by the complainant PW2. The testimony of the complainant is corroborated by the testimony of panch witness PW7, Raid Officer PW11 and other witnesses of raid. The testimony of the complainant is also corroborated by the testimony of PW6 on material facts. It is urged that the testimony of complainant PW2 alongwith testimony of the panch witness PW7, Raid Officer PW11 and other witnesses of raid as well as testimony of PW6, alongwith the FSL result Ex. PW5/A cumulatively proves the guilt of the accused Manish Lal beyond reasonable doubt and hence he is liable to be held guilty of the offence he is charged with.
16. On the other hand, it is contended by ld. Counsel for the accused that there are contradictions between the initial complaint Ex. PW2/A and the testimony of the complainant recorded before the court in as much as the complainant in his complaint Ex. PW2/A had mentioned about the demand of Rs. 1 CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 20 of 73 Lakh whereas in his testimony recorded before the court, he stated that the demanded amount was Rs. 50,000/-. It is urged that there are contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses of raid in respect of the raid proceedings thereby indicating that no raid proceedings took place. It is argued that the accused was not present at the spot at the time of alleged raid proceedings and he was unwell and had gone to a Nursing Home for his treatment. It is also argued that the accused was merely a Safai Karamchari and was in no position to deal with the files of the complainant. It is also urged that no after death dues of the father of the complainant remained with the department and they had been cleared and hence, there was no question of release of any payments to him by the department and thus there is no basis of the grievance of the complainant. It is contended that no raid proceedings were conducted and the accused was not arrested at MCD Office at Rajouri Garden but he was called at ACB Office for the purpose of investigation and was arrested there in the present false case and that no GC notes were recovered from his possession. It is accordingly argued that neither demand nor acceptance of the bribe amount by the accused has been established on record and hence, the accused is liable to be acquitted of the offence he is charged with.
17. I have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
18. Before proceeding further, it would be pertinent to note that the offence in the present case took place in November CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 21 of 73 2019 and the charge has been framed against the accused under section 7 PC act which stood amended in 2018. The amended Section 7 PC Act provides as under :
''7. 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 which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1. --For the purpose of this section, the obtaining, accepting, or the attempting to obtain an undue advantage shall itself constitute an offence even if the performance of a public duty by public servant, is not or has not been improper.
Illustration.--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.
Explanation 2.--For the purpose of this section,--
(i) the expressions "obtains" or "accepts" or "attempts to obtain" shall cover cases where a person being a public servant, obtains or "accepts" or attempts to obtain, any undue advantage for himself or for another person, by abusing his position as a public servant or by using his personal influence over another public servant; or by any other corrupt or illegal means;
(ii) it shall be immaterial whether such person being a public servant obtains or accepts, or attempts to obtain the undue advantage directly or through a third party."
CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 22 of 7319. Accordingly, the essence of amended Section 7 PC Act is acceptance or obtainment or attempt to obtain undue advantage by any public servant for performance of a public duty improperly and dishonestly or for forbearance to perform such public duty either by himself or another public servant. Hence, the acceptance/obtainment of undue advantage should have nexus with improper or dishonest performance or for forbearance from performing a public duty. Explanation (1) to Section 7 further provides that the acceptance or obtainment or attempt to obtain an undue advantage shall constitute an offence even if the performance of a public duty by public servant is/has not been improper. The illustration to Explanation (1) elaborates that obtainment/acceptance of undue advantage for processing a routine application would also constitute an offence under this section even if the performance of a public duty is not improper. Hence, acceptance or obtainment or attempt to obtain, remain at the core of the amended Section 7 of PC Act as was also provided under the unamended Section 7 of PC Act. The amended Section 7 PC Act uses the term 'undue advantage' which is broader in scope than 'illegal gratification'. The crux of Section 13(i)(d) of the unamended PC Act has also been incorporated in Explanation (2) to Section 7 PC Act as amended in 2018. Accordingly, the judgments of the superior Courts in relation to Section 7 PC Act in connection with acceptance/obtainment of illegal gratification can be adverted to for the purposes of Section 7 of the PC Act as amended in 2018.
CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 23 of 7320. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions that in a case under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the onus is on the prosecution to prove the the foundational facts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in A. Subair v. State of Kerala [(2009) 6 SCC 587] while dwelling on the purport of the statutory prescription of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act ruled that the prosecution has to prove the charge thereunder beyond reasonable doubt like any other criminal offence and that the accused should be considered to be innocent till it is established otherwise by proper proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which are vital ingredients necessary to be proved to record a conviction.
21. The Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta vs. State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Crl. Appeal no. 1669 of 2009, with regard to the nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for offences under Section 7 or 13 (1) (d) (i) & (ii) of the PC Act, summarized as under :-
" 68. (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.CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 24 of 73
(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 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 in turn 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.
CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 25 of 73(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, 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."
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede Crl.Appeal No. 1350 CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 26 of 73 of 2009, d.o.d. 29.07.2009 held that the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. It was also observed that that while invoking the presumption under section 20 of PC Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touch stone of preponderance of probability and not on the touch stone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. The Hon'ble Supreme court made the following observations in this regard:
"16. Indisputably, the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constitution of an offence under the provisions of the Act. For arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of an offence, viz., demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount of illegal gratification have been satisfied or not, the court must take into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on the record in their entirety. For the said purpose, indisputably, the presumptive evidence, as is laid down in Section 20 of the Act, must also be taken into consideration but then in respect thereof, it is trite, the standard of burden of proof on the accused vis-`-vis the standard of burden of proof on the prosecution would differ. Before, however, the accused is called upon to explain as to how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. Even while invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt."
23. As regards raising of presumption under section 20 of the PC Act, it was held in Mukut Bihari Vs State of Rajasthan, 2012 (11) SCC 645 as under :-
CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 27 of 73"The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the 1988 Act. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused, when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as bribe. Mere receipt of amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten the guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification but the burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under section 20 of the 1988 Act, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of the 1988 Act. While invoking the provisions of section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However, before the accused is called upon to explain as to how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. The complainant is an interest and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap and his evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness and in a proper case the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused persons."(emphasis supplied)
24. As regards drawing the presumption, it has been held in Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi Vs State of Maharashtra, (2000) 8 SCC 571 as under:-
"The premise to be established on the facts for drawing the presumption is that there was CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 28 of 73 payment or acceptance of gratification. Once the said premise is established the inference to be drawn is that the said gratification was accepted "as motive or reward" for doing or forbearing to do any official act. So the word "gratification" need not be stretched to mean reward because reward is the outcome of the presumption which the court has to draw on the factual premise that there was payment of gratification. This will again be fortified by looking at the collocation of two expressions adjacent to each other like "gratification of any valuable thing". If acceptance of any valuable thing can help to draw the presumption that it was accepted as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act, the word "gratification" must be treated in the context to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to the public servant who received it." (emphasis supplied)
25. The presumption under section 20 of the PC Act is rebuttable either through cross-examination of witnesses of prosecution or by adducing reliable evidence as held in C. M. Girish Babu vs CBI, Cochin High Court of Kerala (2009) 3 SCC
779.
26. In State of Punjab v. Madan Mohan Lal Verma , (2013) 14 SCC 15, the Hon'ble Supreme court made the following observations as regards the burden of proof upon the prosecution and the accused in light of presumption under section 20 PC Act.:
"11. The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the 1988 Act. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 29 of 73 that the money was taken voluntarily as a bribe. Mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. Hence, the burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under Section 20 of the 1988 Act, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of the 1988 Act. While invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However, before the accused is called upon to explain how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. The complainant is an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap and his evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness. In a proper case, the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person. (Vide Ram Prakash Arora v. State of Punjab [(1972) 3 SCC 652 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 696 : AIR 1973 SC 498] ,T. Subramanian v. State of T.N. [(2006) 1 SCC 401 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 401] , State of Kerala v. C.P. Rao [(2011) 6 SCC 450 :
(2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 1010 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 714] and Mukut Bihari v. State of Rajasthan [(2012) 11 SCC 642 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 1089 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 136] .)" (emphasis supplied)
27. Viewed in light of law discussed herein-above, it has to be examined as to what extent the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge against the accused.
Testimonies of Material Public Witnesses:
28. The complainant Vijender was examined as PW2.
He deposed that his father was working as Safai Karamchari in CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 30 of 73 MCD, who expired on 27.11.2012. Earlier his elder brother applied for service in MCD on compassionate ground but as his age was above the limit, they were asked to apply afresh through some other legal heir. Thereafter, their family decided to apply for job on compassionate ground, for the complainant. Accordingly, he had moved an application in the year 2018 for release of dues of his father which were payable on account of his death and also for providing a job to him on compassionate ground. PW2 visited the office of MCD many times to know about the outcome of his application and the status of dues of his late father but no response was given to him. PW2 met Suresh Pal and Manish with regard to his application but they did not pay any heed to his request. PW2 correctly identified accused Manish before the court. PW2 further deposed that earlier he was asked by accused to pay Rs.5,000/- for release of dues of his father as the said amount was to be given for issuance of No Dues Certificate pending against his father. PW2 accordingly on one occasion handed over Rs.5,000/- to the accused, however, even after passage of more than one month, the dues of his late father were not released. PW2 visited the office of MCD several times and met the accused but he did not get cleared the dues of his late father. Thereafter, accused demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- from PW2 for processing his file with regard to his request for getting job on compassionate ground and also for releasing dues amounting to Rs.4-5 Lakhs of his late father, as was informed to PW2 by the accused. PW2 further deposed that he told the accused that he was unable to give the entire amount in one-go and that he could give the same in installments of CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 31 of 73 Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- as available with him. PW2 consulted with his maternal father in law who advised him to approach ACB.
29. PW2 further deposed that on 26.11.2019, he visited ACB and the officer at ACB asked him to make a call to the accused to confirm the time when he wanted to call him for accepting bribe. Accordingly, PW2 made a call to accused who called PW2 the next day.
30. PW2 deposed that on the next day i.e. on 27.11.2019, he reached at ACB and met with Insp. Kailash Chand who asked him to give his complaint in writing. Accordingly, PW2 gave a written complaint Ex.PW2/A, which was also read over by panch witness, whose name he could not recollect and who also signed the complaint. PW2 was carrying Rs.5,000/- i.e. 10 GC notes of Rs.500/- denomination which were to be given as bribe amount. PW2 handed over the GC notes to the IO who noted the serial numbers of the GC notes on a paper and thereafter, IO gave demonstration by applying phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes. PW2 identified his signatures on the pre-raid report Ex.PW2/A-1.
31. PW2 further deposed that the panch witness was asked to touch the powder smeared notes and thereafter, his handwash was taken in a glass in colourless solution and the colour of the solution turned to pink. Thereafter, the pink solution was thrown away and the glass was cleaned. The powder CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 32 of 73 smeared notes were handed over to PW2 and he kept the same in the pocket of his wearing shirt. PW2 and panch witness also washed their hands with soap and water. The RO also explained the panch witness to remain with PW2 and to hear and see the transaction and when the bribe amount was accepted by the accused on demand, only then to give signal to the raiding team by waving his hand over his head. PW2 was also told to give the bribe amount on demand by the accused.
32. PW2 further stated that at about 11:30 am, he alongwith panch witness and other members of raiding team in two official vehicles i.e. Maruti Van and Gypsy of white colour, went to the office of MCD situated at Rajouri Garden. The vehicles were parked at a distance of 200-250 meters from the gate of the office. PW2 and panch witness were again briefed by the RO and they were asked to proceed towards the office of accused and that the raiding team would follow them while maintaining some distance. Thereafter, PW2 and panch witness went to the 4th floor of the office of MCD where accused Manish was sitting. PW2 told the accused that he had brought the amount which was demanded by him, at which the accused replied "thik hai de de". Thereupon PW2 handed over the bribe amount i.e. powder smeared notes, to the accused and the accused put the bribe amount in the right hand side pocket of his wearing pant. Panch witness was also near PW2 and was watching the transaction. The panch witness gave the pre- determined signal to the raiding team and thereupon Insp. Kailash Chand and other members of team came there. Insp.
CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 33 of 73Kailash Chand gave his introduction and enquired from the accused that he had taken bribe from PW2. Accused refused that he accepted the bribe, however, panch witness informed the RO that accused had accepted the bribe in his presence. Thereafter, RO asked the panch witness to recover the bribe amount from the possession of the accused at which panch witness took out the powder smeared notes from the right hand side pocket of the wearing pant of the accused. PW2 stated that the RO had taken one box with him and he took out colourless solution in a glass and the right handwash of the accused was taken and the colour of the solution changed to pink. The pant wash of the right hand side pocket of the accused was also taken in colourless solution and the same also turned pink. One pant was provided to the accused by the RO. The right hand-wash of the accused was put in two glass bottles. Similarly, the pant-wash of the accused was also put into two glass bottles and some mark was given to those bottles. All the glass bottles were sealed with the help of cork and cap and IO also put some seals on the bottles. The pant of the accused was also converted into a pulanda of yellow colour envelope and the recovered GC notes were also kept in an envelope. All the glass bottles and pant as well as recovered GC notes were taken into possession by the RO, vide seizure memos Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/B respectively. The accused also took out file of PW2 which was lying in the almirah in his room and showed it to the RO. PW2 deposed that it was the same file about which the accused used to tell him that he had sent the file. After some time, Insp. Brijesh Mishra, who had accompanied them and was waiting outside, came there. Thereafter, RO CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 34 of 73 handed over all the exhibits and accused to Insp. Brijesh Mishra, who also enquired from him. Thereafter, they all alongwith accused returned to ACB.
33. PW2 correctly identified the case property i.e. glass bottles containing pink colour liquid marked as RHW-I and RHW-II as the same containing right handwash of the accused and same were exhibited as Ex.PW2/Article-1 and Ex.PW2/Article-2 respectively. PW2 also correctly identified two sealed bottles containing pink colour liquid and marked as RSPW-I and RSPW-II as the same containing right hand side pocket wash of wearing pant of the accused and bottles were exhibited as Ex.PW2/Article-3 and Ex.PW2/Article-4. PW2 also correctly identified the one cream colour (off white) pant as the pant in which accused kept the bribe amount and the pant was exhibited as Ex.PW2/Article-6. PW2 also correctly identified ten GC notes of Rs.500/- denomination Ex.PW2/Article-7 (colly), serial numbers of which were compared with the serial numbers mentioned in pre-raid report and also with the serial numbers mentioned in seizure memo and were found correct.
34. After obtaining permission from the court, Ld. Addl. PP for the State put a leading question to PW2 and PW2 affirmed that he had mentioned in his complaint and it so happened that the accused demanded bribe of Rs. One Lakh from him and when he told accused that he was unable to pay such amount and asked him to reduce his demand, the accused told him to give in installments (thode thode karke de dena). PW2 also affirmed that CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 35 of 73 the name of panch witness was Pradeep Pal and due to lapse of time he could not recollect the same.
35. PW7 Pradeep Pal- panch witness deposed that in the year 2019, he was posted as LDC in Food and Supply Department, Circle-24, Patel Nagar, Delhi. On 27.11.2019, he was assigned the duty of panch witness at ACB. Accordingly, he visited at ACB at 09:30 am and reported for his duty on that day. At about 10:30 am, he was called by Insp. Kailash Chand in his office where he introduced him with one person namely Vijender and informed that he had given one written complaint to him. PW7 was asked to go through the complaint. Accordingly, he perused the complaint and got satisfied himself about the contents of the complaint and thereafter, he also put his signatures on the complaint Ex.PW2/A. PW7 further deposed that complainant Vijender had brought Rs.5,000/- i.e. 10 GC notes of Rs.500/- denomination and he handed over the same to Insp. Kailash Chand. Thereafter, RO got checked the serial numbers of those GC notes and mentioned the same in his raid report. Thereafter, RO applied Phenolphthalein powder on the GC notes and asked PW7 to touch those notes with his right hand. Accordingly, he touched powder smeared GC notes and thereafter, his hand was dipped in a colourless Sodium Carbonate solution which turned pink. RO explained the specialty of the Phenolphthalein powder to him as well as to the complainant that whosoever would touch the powder smeared GC notes and if his handwash is taken in colourless Sodium Carbonate solution, the colour of the solution would change to pink. Thereafter, they CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 36 of 73 cleaned their hands with soap and water. RO handed over the powder smeared GC notes to the complainant who kept the same in the left pocket of his wearing shirt. RO directed PW7 to remain with the complainant and to see and hear the conversation regarding transaction of bribe and when he become satisfied after hearing and seeing the demand and acceptance of bribe then to give the signal by waving his hand two times over his head. Complainant was also directed that he should remain with PW7 and that bribe be given only on demand by the suspect. Thereafter, PW7, complainant, RO and other police staff left the office of ACB in two official vehicles at about 11:30 am.
36. PW7 further deposed that at about 12:20 pm they reached near the office of SDMC, West Zone, Rajouri Garden and parked the vehicles on the side of road at a distance of about 150-200 meters from the office. RO again repeated the instructions which he had given to PW7 and complainant at ACB that PW7 had to remain with complainant and to see and hear the conversation and when he became satisfied that bribe had been accepted by the suspect only then to give the signal. After leaving the drivers, PW7 alongwith the complainant proceeded towards the office of accused and members of raiding team were following them after maintaining some distance. They went to the 4th floor of the building in the office of accused. PW7 was following the complainant at that time. One person was sitting in the last cabin of the office and complainant went to him and started talking. PW7 was also hearing the conversation. The person who was sitting there i.e. accused demanded bribe from CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 37 of 73 the complainant for processing his file ( aage file bhejne ke liye) but PW7 could not hear the amount demanded by the accused and thereupon complainant handed over to him the powder smeared GC notes i.e. Rs.5,000/- after taking out from his pocket and accused after taking the said amount kept the same in the right pocket of his wearing pant. PW7 correctly identified accused Manish Lal before the court. PW7 further deposed that thereafter, he gave pre-determined signal from the last cabin, where accused was sitting, on which RO alongwith other members of raiding team came there. RO gave his introduction and told the accused that he had to take his search as he accepted the bribe. PW7 was asked by the RO to take the search of the accused and on his direction PW7 took the search of the accused and recovered the bribe amount i.e. 10 GC notes of Rs.500/- denomination from the right side pocket of wearing pant of the accused. RO tallied those recovered GC notes from the pre-raid report which was prepared before proceeding for the raid and same was found correct. Thereafter, RO took right handwash of the accused in colourless Sodium Carbonate solution on which the colour of the solution turned pink. RO transferred the pink colour solution in two glass bottles and closed those bottles with the help of cork, cloth and cap and put his seal of KC. Thereafter, RO got arranged one pant for accused through his staff and thereupon the pant-wash was also taken in colourless Sodium Carbonate solution and the colour of the solution changed to pink. Thereafter, the RO transferred the pink colour solution in two glass bottles and closed the same with the help of cork, cloth and cap and sealed the same with the seal of KC. RO CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 38 of 73 gave mark of right hand wash as RHW-I and RHW-II and to the pant wash as RSPW-I and RSPW-II. Thereafter, the pant of the accused was got dried and my signatures were also obtained on the pocket of the pant. Thereafter, the pant was converted into a yellow colour envelope and same was sealed with the seal of KC. The GC notes were taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PW2/B. The sealed glass bottles containing hand-wash and pant wash of the accused, pulanda of his pant and sample seal were also taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PW2/C. PW7 put his signatures on the glass bottles after affixing paper slips. After use the seal was handed over to PW7. Thereafter, one another Inspector who told his name as Brijesh Mishra came at the spot and the RO explained him about the incident and handed over him the exhibits. Thereafter, Insp. Brijesh Mishra also made enquiries from PW7 and prepared the site plan i.e. Ex.PW7/A. Thereafter, accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW7/B and his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW7/C and his disclosure statement Ex.PW7/D was also recorded. At about 05:30 pm, they left the spot and went to the ACB. PW7 was relieved at about 10:00-10:30 pm.
37. PW7 also correctly identified the case property i.e. two sealed glass bottles containing pink colour liquid marked as RHW-I and RHW-II i.e. Ex.PW2/Article-1 and Ex.PW2/ Article-2 i.e. Ex.PW2/Article-3 and Ex.PW2/Article-4, as the same containing right handwash of the accused. PW7 also correctly identified two sealed glass bottles containing pink colour liquid and marked as RSPW-I and RSPW-II as the same CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 39 of 73 containing right hand side pocket wash of wearing pant of the accused. PW7 also correctly identified one cream colour (off white) pant Ex.PW2/Article-6 as the same pant in which accused kept the bribe amount. PW7 also correctly identified ten GC notes of Rs.500/- denomination Ex.PW2/Article-7 (colly), serial numbers of which were tallied with the serial numbers mentioned in pre-raid report as well as in seizure memo and the same were found to be correct.
38. With the permission of the court, Ld. Chief PP for the State put a leading question to PW7 and he affirmed that RO also prepared two sample seal on white plain paper in his presence.
39. PW6 Rajender Yadav - UDC at House Tax Department, Kakrola Mor since June 2020. He deposed that prior thereto he was posted as LDC at MCD Office, Rajouri Garden from 2010 to June 2020. His duty was in Dems Branch and his job was to prepare the salary bills of Safai Karamchari of MCD Ward. PW6 correctly identified accused Manish Lal before the court and stated that he was also working as Safai Karamchari and was posted as his helper since 2017. He stated that the accused was helping him as there was excess load of work with PW6. The accused used to carry bills, files and made entries in the salary register. Sometimes accused was also asked to visit at headquarters to deliver a particular file. PW6 further deposed that on his direction, accused used to take out files from the almirah and thereafter took those files to other branches.
CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 40 of 73Accused Manish Lal was posted to assist him as he was educated and was looking after the work of files prior to his posting with him. PW6 had a file relating to one Safai Karamchari of Ward no. 111 namely Premchand who had expired. His file for payment of his after death dues was with PW6. PW6 did not have charge of Ward no. 111 but the file of deceased Premchand came to him three months before the incident for release of payment of his after death dues. PW6 deposed that some documents regarding bank statement and IDs of the deceased were required for processing that file as same was to be sent to Accounts Branch for release of payment. PW6 further deposed that the aforesaid file came to him on 30.07.2019 but as those were salary days, he was busy in some other work related to issue of salary bills, therefore he could not process the file of Premchand. In November 2019, PW6 was on leave for 3-4 days on account of marriage of his brother. After joining his duties, PW6 again proceeded for leave as he met with an accident. PW6 was on leave on 27.11.2019 and 28.11.2019. Later when PW6 came to his office, he came to know that accused Manish Lal was apprehended by ACB. PW6 further deposed that he also came to know that accused Manish Lal got released some payment to the LRs of the deceased from LDC namely Sh. Rajbir Chaliya, who was earlier having charge of the file of late Sh. Premchand.
40. PW6 was cross-examined by ld. Counsel for accused. During his cross-examination PW6 affirmed that accused Manish was not having personal knowledge regarding the files which were dealt by him and accused was not asked to CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 41 of 73 put any noting on any file which was pending with him. PW6 further affirmed that he was not doing work on asking of accused Manish regarding any kind of work in files which were pending with him. Sometimes accused Manish told PW6 to expedite the process of bills in case of any file of any person/employee known to him. Complainant once came to PW6 also in relation to his file. Complainant had not given any letter to expedite the file regarding dues of his late father. PW6 further deposed that accused was sitting on a chair alongwith him while working as a helper. Except one payment, the remaining entire payment was already released to the LRs of the deceased. PW6 further deposed that no file regarding appointment on compassionate ground was pending with him and the same was dealt on a separate seat by another dealing hand. No such application was given to him by the complainant. Complainant had not verbally requested PW6 regarding appointment on compassionate ground. PW6 had not seen complainant with accused when he came to him. PW6 denied that he deposed falsely.
41. It is settled law as discussed hereinabove that in order to prove an offence under Section 7 P.C. Act proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant has to be proved as a fact in issue by the prosecution and the same is a sine qua non in order to sustain conviction of the accused under Section 7 of PC Act. It has further been held that the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. The same can be proved either by direct evidence which can be oral CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 42 of 73 or documentary. The said fact in issue can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in absence of direct evidence.
Demand :
42. It is alleged by the prosecution that accused Manish Lal was working as Safaai Karamchari and got posted as Helper to Sh. Rajender Yadav, LDC, MCD, Rajouri Garden, SDMC, Delhi. Accused demanded a bribe amount of Rs. 1 Lakh from the complainant, which was settled at Rs. 50,000/- and the complainant was asked to pay the same in installments of Rs. 5,000/- - Rs. 10,000/- and thereafter on 27.11.2019 the accused demanded and accepted the bribe money of Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant for moving his files relating to release of the dues of his late father and for job on compassionate grounds.
43. The prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW2 complainant Vijender to prove demand of bribe by accused Manish Lal. In reference to the initial demand of bribe by accused Manish Lal, PW2 deposed that after the demise of his father on 27.11.2012, who was a Safai Karamchari in MCD, he applied for job on compassionate grounds and moved an application in this regard. He also sought release of dues of his father payable on account of his death. He visited the office of MCD many times to find out the outcome of his application and to know about the status of the dues of his late father, however, there was no response. He met one Suresh Pal and accused Manish Lal in this regard but no heed was paid to his request. He further stated that earlier accused Manish Lal had asked for Rs.
CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 43 of 735,000/- for issuance of No Dues Certificate of his father and for release of dues of his late father. Accordingly, the complainant had handed over Rs. 5,000/- to the accused, however, despite the same the dues of his father were not released even after a month. The complainant visited the office of MCD several times but the accused did not get the dues of his late father cleared.
44. PW2 further stated that the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from him for processing his file regarding job on compassionate grounds and for releasing dues of his late father amounting to Rs. 4-5 Lakhs as was told to him by the accused. The complainant told the accused that he was unable to give the entire amount in one go and could give the same in installments of Rs. 5,000/- - Rs. 10,000/-.
45. In his complaint Ex. PW2/A, the complainant PW2 did not mention about the previous demand of Rs. 5,000/-. The complainant alleged that the accused had demanded Rs. 1 Lakh for moving his files and when he expressed his inability to pay the said amount and to reduce it, the accused told him to give it in installments. Hence, there is contradiction in the amount demanded by the accused in as much as in his complaint Ex. PW2/A, the complainant averred that the demanded amount was Rs. 1 Lakh whereas in his testimony recorded before the court the complainant stated that the amount demanded was Rs. 50,000/-.
46. It may however be noted that the complainant CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 44 of 73 affirmed the suggestion of Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State that the accused had demanded Rs. 1 Lakh from him and when he told him that he was unable to pay the said amount and to reduce it, the accused told him to give the amount in installments (Thode- Thode Kar Ke De Dena).
47. In this connection it may further be relevant to refer to the cross-examination of the complainant PW2, wherein PW2 stated that accused demanded a bribe of Rs.1 Lakh for processing of the files relating to the dues of his late father and job on compassionate grounds and that he told the accused that he was unable to pay Rs.1 Lakh, at which accused told him to give Rs.50,000/- and when PW2 told the accused that he was unable to pay Rs.50,000/- at one go, the accused told him to pay the same in the installments of Rs.5000/-Rs.10000/-.
48. Hence, it emerges from the testimony of the complainant that the initial demand of Rs. 1 Lakh as bribe amount was reduced to Rs. 50,000/- which the accused directed the complainant to pay in installments of Rs. 5,000/- - Rs. 10,000/-. Accordingly, the contents of the complaint Ex. PW2/A cannot be stated to be at variance with the testimony of the complainant PW2 recorded before the court regarding the amount of bribe demanded, in as much as PW2 in his cross- examination by ld. Counsel for the accused explained that the initial demand of bribe amount of Rs. 1 Lakh was reduced to Rs. 50,000/- by the accused upon his request. Hence, the initial demand of Rs. 50,000/- by the accused Manish Lal for moving CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 45 of 73 the file of the complainant relating to job on compassionate grounds and releasing dues of his late father, stands established on record.
49. As regards the demand at the spot i.e. 4 th Floor, SDMC, West Zone Office, Rajouri Garden, Delhi, at the time of raid, PW2 deposed that he alongwith the panch witness went to the 4th Floor of the said office where accused Manish was sitting. PW2 told the accused that he had brought the amount which was demanded by him, at which the accused replied " Theek Hai De De", thereupon PW2 handed over the powder smeared GC notes to the accused and the accused put the bribe amount in the right side pocket of his wearing pant. The panch witness was also near him and was watching the transaction.
50. In this regard, the panch witness PW7 deposed that he alongwith the complainant went to the 4th Floor of the building in the office of SDMC, West Zone, Rajouri Garden, Delhi. PW7 followed the complainant at that time. One person was sitting in the last cabin of the office and the complainant went to him and started speaking with him and PW7 heard the conversation. PW7 deposed that the said person sitting there i.e. the accused demanded bribe from the complainant for processing his file but he could not hear the amount demanded by the accused and thereupon the complainant handed over powder smeared GC notes i.e. Rs. 5,000/- after taking out from his pocket and accused took the said amount and kept it in the right pocket of his wearing pant. Hence, the panch witness CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 46 of 73 corroborated the version of the complainant regarding demand of bribe from the complainant for processing his file. Though he stated that he could not hear the amount demanded by the accused, however, even the complainant had not specified the amount at the time of raid and had stated that he had told the accused that he had brought the demanded amount. The demand was made earlier when the accused had told the complainant to give an amount of Rs. 50,000/- in installments of Rs. 5,000/- - Rs. 10,000/-. Hence, non-mention of the specific amount by the panch witness at the spot, in fact corroborates the version of the complainant, who also did not depose about demand of a specific amount at the spot and stated that he told the accused that he had brought the demanded amount.
51. Thus the complainant has consistently maintained his version regarding demand at the spot at all stages of investigation and trial. There is no major contradiction between the version of the complainant during investigation and trial. The testimony of the complainant appears to be natural, trustworthy and inspires confidence of the court and is reliable. His testimony is also corroborated by the testimony of the panch witness PW7 regarding demand at the spot. The complainant PW2 and panch witness PW7 were also cross-examined at length by ld. Counsel for the accused, however, nothing was revealed to demolish the version of the complainant and panch witness regarding demand of bribe by the accused Manish Lal at the spot.
CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 47 of 73Acceptance :
52. The panch witness PW7, who had accompanied the complainant at the spot and was also an eye witness to the incident, corroborated the testimony of the complainant regarding handing over of powder smeared GC notes of Rs. 5,000/- to the accused after taking out from his pocket and that the accused after accepting the same, kept the amount in the right side pocket of his wearing pant. Both the complainant and the panch witness also deposed about giving the pre-determined signal to the members of the raiding team, who reached the spot and that the RO asked the panch witness to recover the bribe amount from the accused, at which the panch witness PW7 took out the bribe amount i.e. ten powder smeared GC notes of denomination of Rs. 500/- from the right hand side pocket of wearing pant of the accused. A pant was provided to the accused by the RO.
53. Their testimonies in relation to further raid proceedings are also consistent with each other regarding taking right hand wash of the accused in colourless solution of Sodium Carbonate, which turned pink and that the solution was transferred to two glass bottles. Similarly, both the complainant PW2 and the panch witness PW7 deposed regarding taking wash of the right side pocket of the wearing pant of the accused, which was also transferred into two glass bottles and that all the glass bottles were seized by the IO vide seizure memos. They also deposed that the recovered GC notes and the pant of the accused were also seized by the RO. Both PW2 and PW7 also identified CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 48 of 73 the accused correctly before the court as well as the glass bottles containing the aforesaid washes, the GC notes Ex. PW2/Article-7 (colly) and the pant of the accused Ex. PW2/Article-6.
54. Hence, it emerges from the testimony of PW2 as well as panch witness PW7, the right hand wash of the accused and the right side pocket wash of pant was taken and the colourless Sodium Carbonate solution turned pink. As per the FSL result Ex. PW5/A, the pink colour solution in the said glass bottles containing right hand wash and right side pocket wash of pant of the accused were found containing Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate.
55. Accordingly, the testimony of the complainant PW2 and the panch witness PW7 are consistent regarding acceptance of bribe money by the accused with his right hand and that the accused kept the said bribe money in the right side pocket of his wearing pant. The testimonies of the complainant and the panch witness regarding acceptance of bribe money by the accused and recovery of Phenolphthalein powder smeared GC notes from the accused also stand fortified by the FSL result Ex. PW5/A, as per which the right hand wash and the right side pocket wash of pant of the accused were found to contain Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate. In these circumstances, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has been able to prove acceptance of bribe amount of Rs. 5000/- i.e. ten GC notes of denomination of Rs. 500/- each, by the accused at the spot.
CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 49 of 7356. Accordingly, the demand of bribe from the complainant by the accused and acceptance of Rs.5,000/- i.e. ten GC notes of denomination of Rs. 500/- each, from the complainant in presence of panch witness stands established on record.
Contradictions In The Testimonies of Witnesses:
57. Ld. Counsel for the accused has also pointed out that there are contradictions in the statements of witnesses regarding the time of handing over of rukka and registration of FIR. It is stated that Duty Officer PW1 deposed that on 27.11.2019 HC Ashok handed over the rukka to him at about 05:00 pm, which was sent by Insp. Kailash Chand, whereas HC Ashok PW10 stated in his cross-examination that he reached from the spot to the office of ACB with rukka at about 01.30 pm and the Duty Officer handed over the FIR to him at about 05.00 pm and he handed over the rukka to Insp. Brijesh at about 05.00 pm. Furthermore, PW11 Insp. Kailash Chand - Raid Officer stated that he sent rukka to police station through HC Ashok for registration of FIR at 04.00 pm. It is accordingly, urged that there is discrepancy regarding time at which PW10 was handed over the rukka for registration of FIR.
58. It is further urged that the complainant PW2 stated in his cross-examination that the accused was arrested in his presence at 02.00/02.30 pm and that the arrest memo was prepared at ACB and further that they left the MCD office at about 02.30 pm. It is contended that PW7 panch witness, CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 50 of 73 however, stated that the arrest memo was prepared in his presence at the spot and they left MCD office at about 05.30 pm and went to ACB. It is urged that PW11 has deposed that they reached ACB at 05.00 - 06.00 pm.
59. Accordingly, it is contended by ld. Counsel for the accused that there are discrepancies regarding the time when the rukka was sent to PS ACB for registration of FIR, time of arrest of the accused and the time when raiding team alongwith the accused reached PS ACB after the raid. It is argued that the aforesaid discrepancies point to the fact that the raid proceedings are concocted and fabricated and that no raid was conducted.
60. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shahaja alias Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 739 of 2017, Decided on July 14, 2022 dealt with appreciation of ocular evidence of witnesses and observed as follows:
"27.The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task. There is no fixed or straight-jacket formula for appreciation of the ocular evidence. The judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case can be enumerated as under:
I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 51 of 73 witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
II. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details.
III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence.
IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 52 of 73
VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another. IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on. XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him.
XIII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness.
[See Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, 1983 Cri LJ 1096 : (1983) 3 SCC 217 :CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 53 of 73
AIR 1983 SC 753, Leela Ram v. State of Haryana, (1999) 9 SCC 525 : AIR 1999 SC 3717, and Tahsildar Singh v. State of UP, AIR 1959 SC 1012]
28. To put it simply, in assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, the circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence. Although in cases where the plea of the accused is a mere denial, yet the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea or puts forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence.
29.There is nothing palpable or glaring in the evidence of the two eye-witnesses on the basis of which we can take the view that they are not true or reliable eye-witnesses. Few contradictions in the form of omissions here or there is not sufficient to discard the entire evidence of the eye-witnesses.
30. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, 1988 Supp SCC 686 : AIR 1988 SC 1998, wherein in para 15, it is observed thus: "15. It is also our experience that invariably the witnesses add embroidery to prosecution story, perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved. But that is no ground to throw the case overboard, if true, in the main. If there is a ring of truth in the main, the case should not be rejected. It is the duty of CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 54 of 73 the court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy confidence in the witnesses It is necessary to remember that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the other Both are public duties which the Judge has to perform."
61. Accordingly, in the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it is likely that the witnesses are overtaken by events and therefore their mental faculties cannot absorb the details. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed that regarding the exact time of incident or the time/duration of an occurrence, usually people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of moment at the time of their examination and people cannot be expected to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters and it depends upon the time sense of individual which varies from person to person. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also took note of the fact that ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to accurately recall the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short span of time and they are liable to get confused when examined later.
62. Viewed in light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it may be noted that the complainant PW2, panch witness PW7, PW10 HC Ashok, PW11 Insp. Kailash Chand - Raid Officer as well as PW12 Insp. Brijesh Kumar - IO have corroborated each other regarding the raid proceedings and CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 55 of 73 that they reached near the office of SDMC, West Zone, Rajouri Garden, at about 12.20 - 12.30 pm and what transpired thereafter to the extent that they witnessed those proceedings. It may be noted that once the raid proceedings commenced, the events transpired in quick succession and therefore it is likely that the witnesses get confused regarding the time lines.
63. It may further be noted that though PW10 in his cross-examination stated that he reached the office of ACB from the spot with rukka at about 01.30 pm and that the Duty Officer handed over the FIR to him at about 05.00 pm, he also stated that the raiding party reached the ACB Office at about 05.00 pm. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that he reached the ACB Office at 05.00 pm and handed over the rukka to the Duty Officer for registration of FIR. Accordingly, there is no major contradiction in the testimony of PW10 viz-a-viz the testimony of other witnesses i.e. PW11-Raid Officer, who stated that he sent PW10 with rukka to the police station at about 04.00 pm. Pertinently no suggestion was given to PW1 Duty Officer that DD No. 21 regarding handing over of Rukka by HC Ashok at 05.00 pm on 27.11.2019, was forged and fabricated.
64. Though the complainant PW2 in his cross-
examination stated that the accused was arrested at about 02.00 - 02.30 pm and that the documents regarding arrest were made at ACB, however, it may be noted that the complainant has also mentioned about apprehension of the accused at the spot, though he has not specifically stated about the arrest of the accused at CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 56 of 73 the spot. The complainant being a layman is not expected to know the difference between the apprehension or arrest of the accused. The other witnesses i.e. PW7 panch witness, the IO/PW12 have stated that the accused was arrested at the spot and that they left the spot at about 05.30 pm and reached the office of ACB at about 05.45 pm. Be that as it may, there is no doubt even in the testimony of the complainant that accused was apprehended at the spot. Hence, there is no major contradiction in the testimonies of witnesses to doubt the raid proceedings and the contention of ld. Counsel for the accused in this regard is unsustainable.
Miscellaneous Arguments :
65. It is contended by ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused was merely a Safia Karamchari and he was not dealing with any file of the complainant regarding either his appointment on compassionate grounds or with the file relating to dues of his late father. The said fact was also stated by the accused in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he also stated that he was never posted as a 'Helper' of PW6 Sh.
Rajender Yadav.
66. The accused also examined himself as witness as DW1 wherein he deposed that he had joined MCD in 1996 as a substitute Safai Karamchari. He was transferred to West Zone Office, Rajouri Garden, Delhi, and was working under one Sh. Rajbir Chalia and after 2-3 years, Sh. Rajender Yadav got posted in place of Sh. Rajbir Chalia. He stated that Sh. Suresh Pal of CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 57 of 73 their department was looking after the files relating to death and retirement of the officials of the West Zone. He further stated that he had no concern with the aforesaid files of the complainant as he was only a Safai Karamchari.
67. The prosecution has examined PW6 Sh. Rajender Yadav with whom the accused was posted. PW6 deposed that he used to prepare the salary bills of Safai Karamchari of MCD Ward. PW6 stated that the accused was working as Safai Karamchari and was posted as his helper since 2017. He stated that the accused used to help him as PW6 had excess work load. He stated that the accused used to carry bills, files and made entries in the salary register and sometimes he was asked to visit the headquarters to deliver files. PW6 further deposed that on his direction, accused used to take out files from the almirah and thereafter took those files to other branches. PW6 stated that accused Manish Lal was posted to assist him as he was educated and was looking after the work of files prior to his posting with him.
68. PW6 deposed that he was dealing with a file relating to one Safai Karamchari of Ward no. 111 namely Premchand i.e. father of complainant, who had expired. His file for payment of his after death dues was with him. PW6 did not have charge of Ward no. 111 but the file of deceased Premchand came to him three months before the incident for release of payment of his after death dues. PW6 deposed that some documents regarding bank statement and IDs of the deceased were required for CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 58 of 73 processing that file as same was to be sent to Accounts Branch for release of payment. The aforesaid file came to him on 30.07.2019 but as those were salary days, he was busy in some other work relating to issuance of salary bills, therefore he could not process the file of Premchand. In November 2019, PW6 was on leave for 3-4 days on account of marriage of his brother. After joining his duties, PW6 again proceeded for leave as he met with an accident. PW6 was on leave on 27.11.2019 and 28.11.2019. Later when PW6 came to his office, he came to know that accused Manish Lal was apprehended by ACB. PW6 further deposed that he also came to know that accused Manish Lal got released some payment to the legal representatives of the deceased from LDC namely Sh. Rajbir Chaliya, who was earlier having charge of the file of late Sh. Premchand.
69. In his cross-examination, PW6 stated that the accused did not put notings on the file pending with him and that he did not work at the asking of the accused. However, he further stated that sometimes accused asked him to expedite the billing in case of a person known to him. Nothing was revealed in his cross-examination to show that the accused was not working as a 'Helper' to PW6 or that PW6 was not dealing with file relating to dues of late father of the complainant or that accused had not dealt with any file of the complainant.
70. It is relevant to note that the prosecution has placed on record the office order dated 06.09.2019 which is a part of Ex. PW4/A (colly) regarding allocation of work in the Zonal Office, CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 59 of 73 DEMS/West Zone, SDMC, as per which accused Manish Lal was allocated as a 'Helper' to Sh. Rajender, JSA.
71. Furthermore, PW2, the complainant in his cross- examination stated that he had met the accused in the office of MCD West Zone, Rajouri Garden, whenever he visited there to pursue his application, however, he did not remember any specific date. He stated that he had met with the accused 5-6 times prior to the raid. After the file of his late father came to accused Manish Lal, he used to meet him frequently. He stated that the file of his late father came to the accused 3-4 months prior to the raid. Before that the said file was with Sh. Rajender Yadav. When he used to meet with the accused in his office, he was under the impression that the accused was a Clerk and that he used to deal with the office files. He had seen the accused working on many files when he visited him in his office. He did not notice the accused putting his signatures on the files, which were being dealt with by him. The accused used to make notings in the files and hear the grievance of the parties. PW2 stated that he was not aware prior to the raid that accused Manish was working as a Peon and volunteered that he came to know that the accused was working as a Peon in MCD after the raid. PW2 denied that Sh. Rajender Yadav was Incharge of the file of his late father and that the accused had no concern with the said file. PW2 stated that he was aware that Sh. Rajender Yadav was the Incharge of the file of his late father and he used to meet Sh. Rajender Yadav and accused used to be sitting with him.
CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 60 of 7372. Hence, it emerges from the testimony of PW2 and PW6 that the accused was not merely working as a ' Safai Karamchari' as deposed by the accused. Vide Ex. PW4/A, he was posted as a 'Helper' to PW6 Rajender Yadav. The accused was also handling the files of PW6, as he was educated. The file of father of complainant, Sh. Premanand, who was a Safai Karamchari, relating to his after death dues, was being dealt with by PW6. The accused was looking after the work of files even before he was posted with PW6 and he used to handle the files, and even used to make entries in the salary register. Furthermore, PW2 stated that he was under the impression that the accused was a Clerk and he used to deal with the office files and he had also seen him working on files and making notings in the files.
73. It is deposed by the accused that Sh. Suresh Pal of their department was looking after the files relating to death and retirement of the officials of West Zone. The complainant PW2 also stated that he had met Sh. Suresh Pal and accused Manish regarding his application, however, they did not pay any heed. In his cross-examination, the complainant PW2 stated that he was informed about the dues of his late father one day prior to the raid, by Sh. Rajender Yadav and Sh. Suresh Pal. No suggestion was given to the complainant that he had not met Sh. Suresh Pal or Sh. Rajender Yadav. PW6 deposed in his cross- examination that no file regarding appointment on compassionate ground was pending with him and the same was dealt with on a separate seat by another dealing-hand. The Office order dated CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 61 of 73 06.09.2019 Ex. PW4/A indicates that Sh. Suresh Pal was posted at Zonal Office, DEMS/West Zone, SDMC.
74. From the aforesaid, it is manifest that Sh. Rajender Yadav PW6, with whom the accused was posted as a helper, was dealing with the file of Sh. Premchand, father of the complainant, relating to release of after death dues and that another dealing hand Sh. Suresh Pal, whom the complainant had met alongwith accused, was dealing with the file of the complainant regarding appointment on compassionate grounds.
75. In these circumstances, it cannot be urged by the accused that he was merely a 'Safai Karamchari' and had no connection with the files of the complainant relating to after death dues of his father and file relating to his appointment on compassionate grounds.
76. It is also contended by ld. Counsel for the accused that no after death dues of father of the complainant were pending with MCD and hence there was no occasion for the accused to have sought any bribe for moving the file relating to after death dues of father of the complainant. He referred to the cross-examination of the complainant PW2 in this regard wherein PW2 admitted that he, his mother as well as his brothers received some dues of his late father and they received Rs.62,061/- per head in their five accounts as dues of his late father after about two years of death of his father in year 2014. He stated that he had not mentioned about receipt of the said CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 62 of 73 amount by him and his family members in his complaint.
77. He also referred to the testimony of the IO/PW12, who stated in his cross-examination that he did not collect the original or the copy of the file which was being dealt with by accused Manish regarding service dues of father of the complainant. PW12 also stated that when he enquired from the complainant, he told him that part payment of the service dues/terminal benefits had been received by him and that he had not recorded supplementary statement of the complainant to that effect. PW12 also deposed that he did not mention the exact amount of pending dues of the father of the complainant with the department, on the date of raid. At the time of raid, the file pertaining to compassionate appointment was pending with Suresh Pal.
78. It is thus contended that the prosecution has not proved on record that any pending dues of late father of the complainant were pending with the department and no documents to prove the same have been placed on record. It is thus stated that in absence of any proof that any dues were pending with the department, it cannot be asserted by the prosecution that the accused had taken money to move the file regarding pending dues of late father of the complainant.
79. In this context, PW2 complainant in his cross- examination has stated that he had informed about the remaining dues of his late father to the IO one day prior to the CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 63 of 73 raid and that they had received half of the dues of his late father and the other half was still pending. PW2 also deposed that the accused had told him that 4-5 lakhs of his late father were due when his senior Sh. Rajinder Yadav had shown him the file. PW2 also stated that he had himself not seen the file regarding pending dues of his late father. He stated that they had not received the remaining dues of his late father till that date. He denied that they had received entire dues of his late father and that no dues were pending. He further stated that after the initial payment of dues of Rs.62061/-, his mother later on received a sum of around Rs.99000/- in her account and thereafter they had not received any pending dues.
80. Accordingly, as per PW2 the complainant, he himself had not seen the file relating to pending dues of his father, however, he was told about the pending dues by the accused and Sh. Rajinder Yadav and Sh. Suresh Pal. Moreover, PW6 Sh. Rajinder Yadav in his cross-examination deposed that except one payment remaining, entire payment had already been already released to the legal representatives of the deceased. Hence, even according to PW6, the entire dues of the late father of the complainant had not been released and one payment remained pending. The IO/PW12 also stated that upon enquiry from the complainant he told that part payment of the dues of deceased father of the complainant had been received. PW12 also placed on record the service book of deceased father of the complainant Mark PW4/B (colly) Accordingly, it cannot be urged that no dues of deceased father of the complainant remained CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 64 of 73 pending with the department or that the entire dues had been cleared. Hence, the contention of ld. Counsel for the accused is untenable.
Plea of alibi :
81. During examination of the accused as DW1, he stated that on 27.11.2019 i.e. the date when the raid took place, he had not gone to his office and at about 08:00-08:30 am on the same day, he had made a mobile phone call to Sh. Rajinder Yadav that he was not feeling well and Sh. Rajinder Yadav told him that he was also not going to office. Accused told Rajinder Yadav that intimation regarding his leave on medical ground be given to the office. DW1, accused deposed that on that day, he was suffering with fever, bleeding with piles and congestion in the stomach. He alongwith his wife went to Ashirward Nursing Home at Vikas Nagar and doctor attended him at about 11:00 am and he remained with the doctor for about two hours. At about 12:30 pm, he left the said nursing home and reached at his house. Accused also produced original prescription slip of doctor dated 27.11.2019 Ex. DW1/A.
82. Accordingly, the accused has sought to take plea of alibi stating that he was not present in his office on the date of trap i.e. 27.11.2019 as he had gone to a Nursing Home on that day at about 11.00 am and remained there till 12.30 pm and thereafter he returned to his house. The raid proceedings took place around that time on 27.11.2019.
CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 65 of 7383. It may be noted that it is settled law that plea of alibi has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the accused and the said plea has to be proved with absolute certainty so as to exclude the possibility of presence of the accused at the spot i.e. SDMC Office, West Zone, Rajouri Garden, Delhi, at the relevant time. The burden of proof to prove the plea of alibi lies upon the accused and the said plea has to be established by the accused by leading positive evidence.
84. The Supreme Court in the case of Shaikh Sattar vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2010) 8 SCC 430 has held as under:-
"35. Undoubtedly, the burden of establishing the plea of alibi lay upon the appellant. The appellant herein has miserably failed to bring on record any facts or circumstances which would make the plea of his absence even probable, let alone, being proved beyond reasonable doubt. The plea of alibi had to be proved with absolute certainty so as to completely exclude the possibility of the presence of the appellant in the rented premises at the relevant time. When a plea of alibi is raised by an accused it is for the accused to establish the said plea by positive evidence which has not been led in the present case. We may also notice here at this stage the proposition of law laid down in the case of Gurpreet Singh v. State of Haryana, (2002) 8 SCC 18 as follows: (SCC p. 27, para 20) "20... This plea of alibi stands disbelieved by both the courts and since the plea of alibi is a question of fact and since both the courts concurrently found that fact against the appellant, the accused, this Court in our view, cannot on an appeal by special leave go behind the abovenoted concurrent finding of fact".
85. The Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 66 of 73 vs. State of Haryana reported in (2012) 6 SCC 204 has held as under:-
"71. Once PW 10 and PW 11 are believed and their statements are found to be trustworthy, as rightly dealt with by the Courts below, then the plea of abili raised by the accused loses its significance. The burden of establishing the plea of alibi lay upon the appellants and the appellants have failed to bring on record any such evidence which would, even by reasonable probability, establish their plea of alibi. The plea of alibi in fact is required to be proved with certainty so as to completely exclude the possibility of the presence of the accused at the place of occurrence and in the house which was the home of their relatives. (Ref. Sk. Sattar v. State of Maharashtra (2010) 8 SCC 430)."
86. The Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in (2012) 5 SCC 201 has held as under:-
"32. Drawing a parallel between the plea of minority and the plea of alibi, it may be worthwhile to state that it is not uncommon to come across criminal cases wherein an accused makes an effort to take shelter under the plea of alibi which has to be raised at the first instance but has to be subjected to strict proof of evidence by the court trying the offence and cannot be allowed lightly in spite of lack of evidence merely with the aid of salutary principle that an innocent man may not have to suffer injustice by recording an order of conviction in spite of his plea of alibi."
87. The Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Pal vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 749 has held as under:-
CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 67 of 73"25. At this juncture, we think it apt to deal with the plea of alibi that has been put forth by the appellant. As is demonstrable, the trial court has discarded the plea of alibi. When a plea of alibi is taken by an accused, burden is upon him to establish the same by positive evidence after onus as regards presence on the spot is established by the prosecution. In this context, we may profitably reproduce a few paragraphs from Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (1997) 1 SCC 283. (SCC p. 293, paras 22- 23) "22. We must bear in mind that an alibi is not an exception (special or general) envisaged in the Penal Code, 1860 or any other law. It is only a rule of evidence recognised in Section 11 of the Evidence Act that facts which are inconsistent with the fact in issue are relevant. Illustration (a) given under the provision is worth reproducing in this context:
'(a) The question is whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain day. The fact that, on that date, A was at Lahore is relevant.'
23. The Latin word alibi means 'elsewhere' and that word is used for convenience when an accused takes recourse to a defence line that when the occurrence took place he was so far away from the place of occurrence that it is extremely improbable that he would have participated in the crime. It is a basic law that in a criminal case, in which the accused is alleged to have inflicted physical injury to another person, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused was present at the scene and has participated in the crime. The burden would not be lessened by the mere fact that the accused has adopted the defence of alibi. The plea of the accused in such cases need be considered only when the burden has been discharged by the prosecution satisfactorily. But once the prosecution succeeds in discharging the burden it is incumbent on the accused, who adopts the plea of alibi, to prove it with absolute certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the place of occurrence. When the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence has been established satisfactorily by the prosecution CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 68 of 73 through reliable evidence, normally the court would be slow to believe any counter-evidence to the effect that he was elsewhere when the occurrence happened. But if the evidence adduced by the accused is of such a quality and of such a standard that the court may entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his presence at the scene when the occurrence took place, the accused would, no doubt, be entitled to the benefit of that reasonable doubt. For that purpose, it would be a sound proposition to be laid down that, in such circumstances, the burden on the accused is rather heavy. It follows, therefore, that strict proof is required for establishing the plea of alibi." [Emphasis supplied] The said principle has been reiterated in Gurpreet Singh v. State of Haryana (2002) 8 SCC 18, S.K. Sattar v. State of Maharashtra (2010) 8 SCC 430 and Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana (2012) 6 SCC 204."
88. Viewed in this light, it has to be seen if accused has been able to establish the plea of alibi. It is also to be noted that before the onus is cast upon the accused to prove his plea of alibi, the initial burden is on the prosecution to establish his presence at the spot.
89. As discussed hereinabove, in the present case the prosecution has proved through the testimony of complainant PW2, panch witness PW7, Raid Officer PW11 as well as PW10 HC Ashok that the accused was present at the spot when the trap proceedings took place and the accused was caught red handed while demanding and accepting bribe amount of Rs. 5000/-. Bribe money was also recovered from the accused.
90. It has to be now seen if the accused has been able to CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 69 of 73 discharge the burden of proving plea of alibi in his favour while stating that he had not gone to office on the day of trap proceedings and that he was at a Nursing Home at the relevant time. He has also placed on record the original prescription slip of the doctor dated 27.11.2019 Ex. DW1/A on record to prove his plea of alibi. In his cross-examination by Ld. Chief P.P. for the State he stated that he did not give the aforesaid prescription slip to the IO nor was the same tendered before the court during recording of testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. He denied that the said prescription slip was a forged one. He deposed that it had not been submitted alongwith his bail application through his Parokar and volunteered that he was behind bars at that time.
91. Perusal of the record reveals that the said defence of plea of alibi has been taken for the first time by the accused while examining himself as a defence witness. No suggestion was given to any prosecution witness that the accused was not present at his office on that day or at the time when the raid proceedings were conducted. Perusal of the said prescription slip Ex. DW1/A reveals that there is no time of examination mentioned in the said prescription slip. The OPD timings of the doctor have been indicated to be between 10.00 am to 02.00 pm and 06.00 pm to 08.00 pm. Hence, it is possible for the accused to have got himself examined in the morning and thereafter reached office. Hence, his presence at the spot at the time of raid, cannot be entirely ruled out.
92. It is pertinent to note that PW4 placed on record the CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 70 of 73 attendance record of the accused for the month of November 2019, which was a part of Ex. PW4/B (colly). As per the said attendance record, accused Manish Lal was present in office on 27.11.2019 i.e. the date of raid. No suggestion has been put to PW4 or to the IO that the attendance record is forged and fabricated.
93. Furthermore, during recording of statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused did not state that he was not present in his office on the date of raid nor did he dispute his attendance record at that stage. Accordingly, at no stage of trial till the recording of the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C., did the accused take the defence that he was not present in his office at the time of trap proceedings. The plea of alibi has been raised for the first time by the accused at the stage of defence evidence. The said plea thus has manifestly been raised as an afterthought. In these circumstances, the accused has not been able to prove with absolute certainty the plea of alibi taken by him so as to exclude the possibility of his present at the spot during raid proceedings. Hence, the accused has not been able to discharge the heavy burden of establishing the plea of alibi and thus, the said defence is not proved on record.
Presumption Under Section 20 of PC Act
94. Once the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved, Section 20 of the PC Act mandates the Court to raise a presumption against a public servant that the CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 71 of 73 undue advantage was received as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act improperly or dishonestly. The Prosecution has established the foundational facts through the direct evidence of complainant, PW2 that the accused had demanded a bribe amount of Rs. 1 Lakh from the complainant, for moving his files relating to release of the dues of his late father and for job on compassionate grounds and the bribe amount was settled at Rs. 50,000/- and the complainant was asked to pay the same in installments of Rs. 5,000/- - Rs. 10,000/- and in pursuance of that demand he obtained Rs.5,000/- from the complainant PW2 on 27.11.2019 and the events that followed in quick succession led to the recovery and seizure of the bribed amount from the accused. The testimony of the complainant stands corroborated by the testimony of PW6 Rajinder Yadav, Panch Witness PW7 and other witnesses of raid proceedings as well as the FSL result Ex PW5/A. The fact of demand of bribe by the accused and acceptance of Rs.5,000/- pursuant to said demand has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, presumption under Section 20 of Act is drawn against the accused that he accepted bribe of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant as a motive for moving his files relating to release of the dues of his late father and for job on compassionate grounds. However, the plea of accused that he was on leave on the date of raid proceedings and that he was merely a Safai Karamchari who was not dealing with the files of the complainant in any manner, is not proved on record.
CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 72 of 7395. In view of the discussion hereinabove, in the instant case, the accused failed to rebut the said presumption, thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case and hence the accused Manish Lal is held guilty for the offence under section 7 of PC Act.
96. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved on record that accused Manish Lal committed the offence u/s 7 of PC Act and is therefore held guilty and convicted for the said offence.
Digitally signed Announced in the open court DEEPALI by DEEPALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.29 on 29th August, 2025 14:52:38 +0530 (Deepali Sharma) Special Judge (PC Act) (ACB-01) Rouse Avenue Court Complex, New Delhi CC No. 39/2022 FIR No. 17/2019, PS ACB, State vs. Manish Lal Page 73 of 73