Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Cbi vs . Ram Kishan Sharma on 16 January, 2017

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

CC No. :  08/2013
Case ID :  02401R0647682013
                                                        RC :  32(A)/2013
                                                        PS :  CBI/ACB/New Delhi
                                                        U/s:   Section 7 & 13(2), 
                                                                  r/w Sec. 13(1) (d) of
                                                                The Prevention of Corruption
                                                                 Act 1988.
CBI  Vs.   Ram Kishan Sharma
                  S/o Sh. Kanchan Lal Sharma
                  R/o House No. 395, Gali No. 16, B­Block,
                  Sant Nagar, New Delhi.
                  Permanent r/o  Village Uthrawali, 
                  P.O. Sikarpur, PS Ahmedgarh,
                  District Bulandshahr (U.P.).

Date of Institution                                   :   14.12.2013
Judgment Reserved on                                  :   02.01.2017
Judgment Delivered on                                 :   16.01.2017

                                             J U D G M E N T  

     1.

  In the present case, the accused has been sent up to face the trial for the offences punishable Under Section 7 & 13 (2), read with Section 13 (1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2.   The present case was registered on 17.10.2013 vide RC No. CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  1   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  RC­DAI­2013­A­0032,   under   Section   7   of   The   Prevention   of Corruption Act, 1988, on the basis of a written complaint, dated 15.10.2013,   of   complainant   Pawan   Kumar   son   of   Shri   Prem Chand   Gupta,   resident   of   House   No.   433,   Kashmiri   Bagh, Kishanganj, Delhi, wherein, he alleged that he had given his shop No.232 at Kishan Ganj Market, Delhi, to Sh. Imran, who used to carry out the car repairing work at the said shop. His neighbour of Shop No. 234, has got registered a complaint against him with the   Sub   Divisional   Magistrate,   Kotwali   Sub­Division,   14,   Darya Ganj, Delhi, through PS Sarai Rohilla, for causing noise pollution, due to car repairing work.   It is further alleged that the accused Ram Kishan Mehta, who was working as Reader to S.D.M. Sh. B.L.   Meena,   was   harassing   him   by   giving   him   dates   and demanded a bribe of Rs.25,000/­ from him to settle the complaint matter against him.  As the complainant did not want to pay the bribe, he lodged the compliant with S.P., CBI, ACB, New Delhi.

3.     The complaint was marked to SI Arijit Daripa for verification and registration of the complaint by Shri D.K.Barikh, SP, CBI and accordingly, the verification of the complaint was done by SI Arijit Daripa.   For verification of the complaint, SI Arijit Daripa along with the complainant and one independent witness Maan Singh CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  2   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  reached the office of the accused, on 15.10.2013 at about 4.00 p.m.  A digital voice recorder was handed over to the complainant for   recording   the   conversation   and   conversation   revealed   the demand   of   Rs.20,000/­   as   bribe,   by   the   accused   Ram   Kishan Mehta, from the complainant, for settling his pending complaint matter.  The memory card, containing the said conversation, was removed   from   the   DVR   and   was   seized   and   sealed   and   was marked as 'Q­1'. 

4.    It is further stated in the charge sheet that the verification had established the demand on the part of the accused and therefore, it   was   decided   to   lay   a   trap.     On   17.10.2013,   a   trap   team consisting   of   CBI   officials,   namely,   Inspector   H.S.K.   Singh; Inspector   Joseph   Krelo;   Inspector   Sanjay   Upadhyay;   Inspector Parmod Kumar; SI A.K. Maurya and other subordinate staff, was constituted and the complainant and two independent witnesses, namely, Sh. Maan Singh and Sh. Neel Kamal Srivastava, were also included in the CBI team.  

     

5.   It   is   further   stated   in   the   charge   sheet   that   the   complainant produced a sum of Rs.20,000/­ in cash and a demonstration was given by SI A.K. Maurya about the significance of the use of the CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  3   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  phenolphthalein powder and its chemical reaction with a solution of   sodium   carbonate   in   water.     Thereafter,   the   GC   notes produced by the complainant were treated with phenolphthalein powder and were put in the left side pocket of his pant and he was directed, not to touch the said bribe amount and to hand over the   same   to   the   accused   on   his   specific   demand   and   not otherwise, or on his specific directions to some other person.  A digital voice recorder with a memory card was also arranged and it   was   handed   over   to   the   complainant,   after   explaining   its functioning   and   recording   the   introductory   voice   of   the independent witnesses.  The complainant was directed to switch on   the   DVR   after   reaching   the   spot,   in   order   to   record   his conversation with the accused.   Independent witness Sh. Maan Singh   was   directed   to   act   as   a   shadow   witness   to   see   the transaction and to hear the conversation.  Complainant was also directed   to   give   signal   by   giving   missed   call   on   mobile   No. 9871623837 of TLO Inspector H.S.K. Singh from his own mobile phone No. 9136000602, after completion of the bribe transaction. The   other   independent   witness   Neel   Kamal   Srivastava   was directed   to   remain   with   the   trap   party.     All   the   pre­trap proceedings were recorded in the handing over memo, which was duly signed by all the team members.   The details of the bribe CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  4   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  amount were also prepared as Annexure­A.

6.   It   is   further   stated   in   the   charge   sheet   that   the   trap   team reached   near   the   office   of   District   Magistrate(Central),   Darya Ganj, Delhi at about 03.25 p.m.   The complainant Pawan Kumar alongwith the shadow witness, namely, Maan Singh went inside the office of SDM, Kotwali, Darya Ganj, Delhi.   The other team members   also   took   their   positions   in   close   proximity   and   they were able to see the complainant and the shadow witness and the   accused.     Thereafter,   the   accused   took   the   complainant towards the back side of the office in an under construction room. After sometime, the complainant alongwith with the accused and the shadow witness, came outside the said room.  At around 3.37 p.m., the complainant gave a missed call to the T.L.O. Inspector H.S.K.Singh   and   informed   about   the   completion   of   the   bribe transaction, on which, all the CBI team members rushed towards the accused alongwith the complainant and on the pointing out of the complainant, the accused was challenged for demanding and accepting the bribe amount of Rs.20,000/­ from the complainant. Thereafter,   the   accused   was   caught   hold   by   Inspector   Sanjay Upadhaya and SI A.K. Maurya.  The identity of the accused was established   as   Ram   Kishan   Sharma,   Constable,   Delhi   Police, CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  5   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  working as Naib Court in the office of Sub Division Magistrate, Kotwali, 14, Darya Ganj, New Delhi­110 002.  The washes of both hands of the accused were taken in a colorless solution of sodium carbonate   in   water,   separately,   and   on   doing   so,   both   the solutions had turned pink in color.   The separate solutions were transferred  in separate  glass bottles  and were marked  as right hand wash "RHW" and left hand wash "LHW".

7.   It is further stated in the charge sheet that on the directions of TLO   Inspector   H.S.K.   Singh,   witness   Neel   Kamal   Srivastava recovered the tainted amount of Rs.20,000/­ from the right side back   pant   pocket   of   accused   Ram   Kishan   Sharma   and   the numbers   and   denominations   of   the   same   had   tallied   with   the numbers of the GC notes, produced by the complainant, during the   pre­trap   proceedings   and   recorded   in   the   handing   over memo.    Thereafter, the back side right pant pocket wash of his pant was also taken  in a freshly prepared  colorless  solution of sodium  carbonate,  on  which,  the  said solution  had  also turned pink in color.  The said wash was also transferred in a clean glass bottle and was marked "BRSPPW".  The recovered bribe amount and the pant of the accused were both seized and sealed by the CBI officials.

CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  6   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi 

8.   It   is   further   stated   in   the   charge   sheet   that   accused   Ram Kishan   was   arrested   in   the   present   case   and   his   arrest­cum­ personal  search  memo, dated  17.10.2013 was prepared  at the site.  A rough site plan was also prepared at the spot.

9.   During the investigations, Shri B.L.Meena, SDM Kotwali, Darya Ganj, Delhi, who was the controlling authority of the accused, was apprised about the trap proceedings.  The SDM handed over the file of the  complainant   to the  CBI,  vide production­cum­seizure memo.

 

10.   During the investigations, the recorded conversations were transferred   into   blank   C.D.s   with   the   help   of   a   laptop   and   the micro SD card was taken out from the DVR and was duly sealed in an envelope and the said envelope was marked as 'Q­2'.  The transcription   of   the   conversation   between   the   complainant   and accused was prepared in the presence of independent witnesses, namely, Sh. Maan Singh and Sh. Neel Kamal Srivastava.   The specimen   voice   of   the   accused   was   recorded   in   the   digital recorder and was transferred into another blank CD.   The said CD was duly sealed with the CBI seal and the CD was marked as 'S­1'.

CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  7   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi 

11.   It is further stated in the charge sheet that the complainant identified   the   voice   of   accused   in   the   presence   of   two independent   witnesses   and   a   voice   Identification   Memo,   dated 08.11.2013   was   prepared.     The   specimen   voice   sample   of accused Ram Kishan Sharma was also recorded and was duly sealed with the CBI seal.  The sealed exhibits 'RHW', 'LHW' and 'LPPW', as well as the recorded conversations marked 'Q­1' and 'Q­2'   alongwith   the   specimen   voice   sample   marked   'S­1'   were also   sent   to   the   CFSL,   for   expert   opinion   and   the   chemistry division of the CFSL had given a positive opinion for the presence of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate in the exhibits 'RHW', 'LHW'  and  'LPPW'.   The  report  from  the physical  laboratory  of CFSL, regarding the voice spectrograph was still awaited.

12.   It is further stated in the charge sheet that the investigations had   established   that   accused   Ram   Kishan   Sharma   son   of   Sh. Kanchan   Lal   Sharma,   Constable,   Delhi   Police,   had   demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.20,000/­ from the complainant Pawan Kumar for   settling the complaint matter pending against him in the   office   of   the   Sub­Division   Magistrate,   Kotwali,   Darya   Ganj, New   Delhi   and   thereby,   he   had   committed   the   offences punishable u/s 7 & 13 (2) read with Section 13   (1) (d) of The CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  8   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.  The sanction for prosecution of   accused   Ram   Kishan   Sharma   was   also   granted   by   the competent authority.  

13.  On 25.07.2014, the charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 & 13 (2) read with Section 13(1(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were framed against the accused, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

    Prosecution Evidence

14. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses, namely:

i)    PW­1 Ms. Sindhu Pillai, who was posted as D.C.P. (North), Delhi,   in   December,   2013.     She   has   granted   sanction   for prosecution   of   accused   Constable   Ram   Kishan   Sharma,   vide sanction order Ex.PW1/A. 

ii)  PW­2 Sh. Vishal Gaurav, the Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd., 224, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase­III, New Delhi, has supplied the call   detail   records   of   mobile   phone   No.   9871623837,   for 17.10.2013, registered in the name of the TLO Inspector Huidrom Suresh Kumar Singh.   The call detail record for 17.10.2013 and the certificate u/s 65­B of the Indian Evidence Act, are Ex.PW2/B CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  9   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  & Ex.PW.2/C, respectively.

iii)    PW­3   Sh.   Jyotish   Chandra   Moharana,  the   Nodal   Officer from   MTS,   Sistema   Shyam   Teleservices   Ltd.,   A­194,   Okhla Industrial Area, Phase­I, New Delhi, has supplied the call detail records of mobile phone No. 9136000602, which was being used by   the   complainant,   on   17.10.2013.     The   call   detail   record   is Ex.PW3/B and the certificate u/s 65­B of the Indian Evidence Act, is Ex.PW3/C. 

iv)  PW­4   Sh.   Pawan   Kumar,  who   is   the   complainant   in   the present case.   He has deposed about the demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe amount of Rs.20,000/­ from the possession of accused Ram Kishan Sharma.

v)  PW­5   Sh.   Bharat   Lal   Meena,   who   was   posted   as   SDM, Kotwali, Daryaganj, Delhi.   He has deposed that accused Ram Kishan   Sharma   was   posted   as   Naib   Court   in   his   court,   w.e.f., 19.09.2013   and   the   file   pertaining   to   the   complaint   against complainant Pawan Kumar Gupta was seized by the CBI, vide production­cum­seizure memo dated 02.12.2013, Ex.PW5/C (D­

21).     The   file   has   been   proved   on   record   as   Ex.PW5/B (Collectively) (D­27).  He has categorically stated that no date of hearing   was   fixed   for   17.10.2013.     He   has   also   proved   the attendance   register   of   the   office   of   the   S.D.M.,   Kotwali, CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  10   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  Daryaganj, New Delhi, as Ex.PW5/D.

vi)  PW­6 Neelkamal Srivastava,    who was posted as Assistant Engineer   (P),   CPWD,   Office   of   Chief   Engineer   NDZ­V,   Vidyut Bhawan, Connaught Place, New Delhi.   He has joined the CBI team, as an independent witness on 17.10.2013. He has deposed about the demand, acceptance and recovery of the bribe amount of   Rs.20,000/­   from   the   possession   of   accused   Ram   Kishan Sharma, during the trap proceedings.

vii)  PW­7   Sh.   Pradeep   Kumar,  who   was   working   as   Clerk   in Bank   of   India   at   CGO   Complex   Branch,   New   Delhi.     In   his presence,  Sanjay Bhardwaj,  colleague of accused Ram Kishan Sharma, has identified the voice of accused Ram Kishan Sharma, vide memo dated 02.12.2013, Ex.PW7/A (D­20). 

viii)  PW­8 Sh. Praveen Kumar,  who was posted as LDC in the office of SDM, Kotwali, Daryaganj, Delhi. He has handed over the attendance register of the office of SDM, Kotwali, Daryaganj, to the   IO,   vide   production­cum­seizure   memo   dated   06.12.2013, Ex.PW8/A.

ix)  PW­9   Sh.   Ashish   Juglan,  who   was   posted   as   contractual office assistant in the office SDM, Kotwali, Daryaganj, Delhi, in the year 2013.  He has identified the handwriting of the accused in the file Ex.PW5/B (Collectively).

CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  11   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi 

x) PW­10 Sh. Sanjay Bhardwaj, who was posted in the office of SDM,   Kotwali,   Daryaganj,   Delhi.   He   identified   the   voice   of accused Ram Kishan Sharma, in the CBI office, on 02.12.2013, in the presence of PW­7 Pradeep Kumar, vide voice identification memo dated 02.12.2013 Ex.PW7/A.  

xi)  PW­11   Sh.   Maan   Singh,   who   was   posted   as   Assistant   in MMTC,   Lodhi   Road,   New   Delhi.     He   allegedly   joined   the   CBI team as a shadow  witness on 15.10.2013  and 17.10.2013.  He has   deposed   about   the   verification   of   the   complaint   of   the complainant  dated  15.10.2013,  demand   of bribe  money  by  the accused from the complainant and   acceptance and recovery of the bribe amount of Rs.20,000/­ from the possession of accused Ram   Kishan   Sharma,   during   the   trap   proceedings,   on 17.10.2013.

xii)   PW­12 Sh. H. Suresh Kumar Singh,  Inspector, CBI, ACB, New Delhi, who is the Trap Laying Officer in the present case. He   was   entrusted   with   the   investigation   of   this   case   on 17.10.2013, by SP D.K. Barikh.  He has deposed about the trap proceedings and the recovery of the bribe amount of Rs.20,000/­ from the possession of accused Ram Kishan Sharma.  After the trap proceedings, he handed over the investigations of this case to Inspector Guru Sewak.

CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  12   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi 

xiii) PW­13 Sh. V.B. Ramtek,  who was the Sr. Scientific Officer, Grade­1   (Chemistry),   CFSL,   New   Delhi.     He   has   chemically analyzed the exhibits RHW, LHW & BRSPPW and has submitted his report, Ex.PW13/A, wherein, he has reported that all the three exhibits gave positive tests for the presence of phenolphthalein.

xiv)  PW­14 Dr. Subrat Kumar Choudhury, who was posted as Senior Scientific Officer (Physics) Grade­II at  CFSL, CBI, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.   He has examined the three micro SD cards marked   'Q­1'   &   'Q­2'   and   CD   marked   'S­1',   containing   the questioned   and   specimen   voice   recordings   of   the   accused, respectively.     He   has   proved   his   report   bearing   No.   CFSL­ 2013/P­1868, dated 12.12.2013, as Ex.PW14/A.  

xv)   PW­15 Sh. D.K. Barikh, SP, Interpol, CBI, New Delhi. He was   posted   as  S.P.,   CBI,  New   Delhi,   on   17.10.2013.     He   has ordered for registration of the FIR.  He has also forwarded various exhibits to CFSL, CBI, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, for analysis and examination, on 23.10.2013. He has also forwarded the requisite documents  along with SP report to the competent authority  for obtaining sanction for prosecution of the accused.  xvi)    PW­16 Sh. Arijit Daripa,  Sub Inspector, ACB, CBI, Delhi, who has verified the complaint of the complainant, on 15.10.2013, on the directions of Sh. D.K. Barikh, S.P., CBI.  He has deposed CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  13   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  about   the   verification   of   the   complaint   and   the   demand   of   the bribe   money   by   the   accused.     He   has   proved   his   verification memo   as  Ex.PW4/B.   He   has   also   deposed   about   further verification report, dated 17.10.2013, Ex.PW15/DB.  xvii)   PW­17  Sh. Gursewak  Singh, Sub  Inspector,   Legal  Cell, Delhi Police.  He has deposed that on 17.10.2013, he alongwith the   CBI   officials   conducted   the   search   at   the   residence   of   the accused  Ram Kishan Sharma.   He has proved the search  list, Ex.PW.16/A. xviii)  PW­18 Sh. Deepak Gaur, DSP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi.  He is the Investigating Officer of the case.  He was entrusted with the investigations, on 24.10.2013.

15. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded, u/s 313 Cr.P.C., wherein, the accused has   denied   all   the   incriminating   evidence   against   him   and   has deposed that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.   He has further stated that he was deputed as Naib Court in the office of SDM Kotwali. His duties were to coordinate between  the  court and  various  police  stations  falling  under  the jurisdiction of SDM Kotwali.   He had never worked as reader of the court  nor ever introduced himself as Ram kishan Mehta to CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  14   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  anybody.   He   was   not   capable   of   influencing   any   proceedings pending   before   the   court   of   SDM   Kotwali.     He   had   never demanded any money from anybody or from Sh. Pawan Kumar on any occasion or for closing his complaint.   From 01.10.2013, the SDM Kotwali was deputed for Election Duties and he was not holding the court work. There was a reader and a stenographer in the court of SDM Kotwali, who used to look after the court cases of the SDM, Kotwali.   In the absence of SDM Kotwali, while he was on election duties, the adjournments were given by the court staff of the SDM entirely at the instructions of the then SDM.  The SDM was reported to be on election duty till 04.12.13.   He may have written some ordersheets of adjournments in some of the cases but those were written by him as per the instructions of the then SDM.   He did not write any ordersheet in the case file of PW­4 Pawan kumar.  Even the dates of adjournment were always instructed by SDM in advance. He did not demand any money from  Sh. Pawan  Kumar  on 15.10.2013  or 17.10.2013  nor  ever had   accepted   any   money   from   him.     During   the   trial,   the complainant tried to approach him through his friend HC Satish and demanded money from him for hushing up the case, for that purpose he gave his visiting card and entry passes for Navratra Festival held in his Club, where he was employed. On refusal by CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  15   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  HC Satish, the complainant gave false application of threats in the   Court.   The   complainant   has   called   HC   Satish   on   various dates on the mobile phone of HC Satish, from Landline phone of his Club.  

16.   The   accused   has   also   examined   three   witnesses   in   his defence.  DW­1 HC Satish Kumar has deposed that complainant Pawan Kumar had talked to him on 12­13 occasions in the month of August / September, 2014, and he used to ask him to convince accused Ram Kishan to pay him some money for favouring him in the present case.   DW­2 Ms. Pallavi H. Kumar, Chief Manager from MMTC has produced the record of RTI application bearing reference   No.     MMTC/Pers./RTI/MS/2016   dated   03.03.2016, whereby,   applicant   Mukesh   Kumar   Sharma,   Advocate,   was supplied information about attending of several cases by PW­11 Maan Singh, as shadow witness in various CBI trap cases.     DW­ 3   Sh.   Mukul   Gupta   is   the   Nodal   Officer   from   Sistema   Sham Teleservices Ltd. of MTS, who has produced the call detail record of   mobile   phone   No.   9136000602,   registered   in   the   name   of complainant   Pawan   Kumar,   along   with   the   certificate   under Section 65­B of the Indian Evidence Act.  

CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  16   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi 

17.   After completion of trial, final arguments were addressed by Shri   Praneet   Sharma,   Ld.  Sr.   PP   for   the   CBI  and   Shri  Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, for the accused.

      Arguments on behalf of the CBI / Prosecution 

18.   It has been argued by Shri Praneet Sharma, Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI that the accused was working as Reader to SDM, Kotwali Darya  Ganj,  Delhi   and  he  demanded  a  sum  of  Rs,25,000/­  as bribe   from  the   complainant   Pawan  Kumar  son   of  Prem   Chand Gupta, to settle the complaint against him. He has further argued that a complaint was registered  against  the complainant at the office   of   Sub­Division   Magistrate,   Kotwali   Sub­Division,   Darya Ganj, by the neighour of his shop No. 234, through police station Sarai   Rohilla,   for   causing   noise   pollution,   due   to   car   repairing work   at   his   shop   No.   232,   by   his   tenant.   As   the   complainant Pawan   Kumar   was   not   interested   in   paying   any   bribe   to   the accused,   he   lodged   a   complaint   to   the   S.P.,   CBI,   ACB,   New Delhi, on 15.10.2013 and the same was marked to SI Arijit Daripa PW­16,   for   verification   and   report.     The   complaint   has   been proved on record as Ex.PW4/A.  The allegations in the complaint were verified by PW­16 Arijit Daripa by sending the complainant to the accused Ram Kishan Mehta with a digital voice recorder CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  17   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  along   with   an   independent   witness   PW­11   Maan   Singh.     The demand  of bribe   was negotiated  between  the  complainant   and the accused and was settled at Rs.20,000/­.   The conversation revealed that the accused Ram Kishan Mehta had demanded a bribe amount of Rs.20,000/­ from the complainant for settling his pending   complaint   case.     Thereafter,   a   verification   memo, Ex.PW4/B,   was   prepared   by   PW­16   SI   Arijit   Daripa   and   was submitted to PW­15 Sh. D.K. Barikh, SP, CBI, who directed for registration of the FIR, on which FIR Ex.PW4/C was registered and was marked to Inspector H.S.K. Singh, PW­12, for laying the trap.

19.   The Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI has further argued that a trap was laid by the CBI team, led by PW­12 Inspector H.S.K. Singh at the office   of   the   SDM,   Kotwali,   Darya   Ganj,   on   17.10.2013,   in   the presence   of  two  independent   witnesses,   namely,   PW­11   Maan Singh   and   PW­6   Neel   Kamal   Srivastava   and   during   the   trap proceedings, the  conversations between the complainant and the accused were again recorded.  

20. The   Ld.   Sr.   PP   For   the   CBI   has   further   argued   that   the complainant   PW­4   Pawan   Kumar,   shadow   witness   PW­6   Neel CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  18   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  Kamal Srivastava, PW­11 Maan Singh and Trap Laying Officer PW­12 Inspector H.S.K. Singh, have all deposed in a consistent manner and have proved the prosecution case beyond a shadow of doubt that accused Ram Kishan Sharma had demanded and accepted   a   bribe   of   Rs.20,000/­,   from   the   complainant   Pawan Kumar.  

21.  The Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI has further argued that during the trap   proceedings,   the   bribe   money,   i.e.,   the   tainted   GC   notes worth   Rs.20,000/­   were   recovered   from   the   possession   of   the accused and the hands of accused Ram Kishan Mehta were also got washed in separate solutions of sodium carbonate in water and the hand washes of accused had also turned pink and this fact   had   indicated   that   the   bribe   amount   of   Rs.20,000/­   was accepted   by   the   accused   Ram   Kishan   Mehta   from   the complainant Pawan Kumar. The wash of the right side back pant pocket of the accused was also taken in a separate solution of sodium carbonate and the same had also turned pink in colour.  

22.  The Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI has further argued that during the investigations, the hand wash solutions and the right side back pant   pocket   wash   solution,   marked   as   'RHW',   'LHW'   & CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  19   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  'BRSPPW',   respectively,   were   duly   sealed   with   the   seal   of   the CBI and were sent to the CFSL for chemical analysis and expert opinion.     The   bottles   marked   as   'RHW',   'LHW'   &   'BRSPPW', containing   the   solutions   have   been   proved   on   record   as Ex.PW6/P­1, Ex.PW6/P­2 and Ex.PW6/P­3, respectively.  He has further argued that the CFSL report Ex.PW13/A has proved that the   aforesaid   solutions   marked   'RHW',   'LHW'   &   'BRSPPW', contained in bottles Ex.PW6/P­1, Ex.PW6/P­2 and Ex.PW6/P­3, were containing phenolphthalein.  

23.  The Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI has further argued that during the process of verification of the complaint Ex.PW4/A and during the trap   proceedings,   the   conversations   between   the   complainant Pawan   Kumar   and   accused   Ram   Kishan   Sharma   were   also recorded   and   the   memory   card,   marked   'Q­1',   in   which   the conversation   regarding   verification   of   the   complaint   was   saved has   been   proved   on   record,   as   Ex.P­1.     The   conversation recorded during the trap proceedings in the memory card marked 'Q­2' has been proved on record as Ex.P­3.  After the completion of  the  trap  proceedings,  the  sample  voice  of  the  accused  was also taken on 17.10.2013, in the CD, marked 'S­1', Ex.PW4/DX­1. Both the memory cards and the CD were sent to the CFSL for CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  20   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  expert   opinion   and   the   report   Ex.PW14/A   has   proved   the conversations     between   the   complainant   and   the   accused   and has corroborated the fact that the accused had demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.20,000/­ from the complainant.  

24.   The   Ld.   Sr.   PP   for   the   CBI   has   further   argued   that   the testimonies   of   the   prosecution   witnesses,   the   documentary evidence and the scientific evidence on record has duly proved the demand and acceptance of Rs.20,000/­ by the accused from the complainant for the purpose of settling the complaint pending against him and his tenant and therefore, a presumption, under Section 20 of the P.C. Act, 1988, has to be drawn against   the accused.  

25. Ld.   Sr.   PP   for   the   CBI   has   further   argued   that   the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused beyond a shadow of doubt and therefore, the accused be held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Section 7 &   13(2)   read   with   Section   13(1)(d)   of   The   Prevention   of Corruption Act, 1988.     

26.   The   Ld.   Sr.   PP   for   the   CBI   has   relied   upon   the   following CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  21   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  judgments, in support of his contentions :

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

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

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

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

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

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

         (vii)  State of Maharashtra Through C.B.I. vs. Mahesh G.Jain,                    reported as, (2013) 8 SCC 119;

        (viii)   Narayana  Vs.  State of Karanataka,  reported as, 2011        Cr.L.J. 965 (SC).

       Arguments on behalf of the accused

27.   On   the   other   hand,   Sh.   Sanjay   Gupta,   Advocate,   for   the accused has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove any case against the accused.  He has argued that there are several material   contradictions   in   the   deposition   of   the   prosecution witnesses   and   the   documentary   evidence   on   record,   which makes the entire case doubtful.

28. The Ld. Defence counsel has argued that the sanction order CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  22   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  Ex.PW1/A is not a legally sustainable order as the accused was posted as Naib Court in the office of the SDM Kotwali and was never posted as the reader in the said court. Furthermore, PW­1 has admitted that a draft sanction order was also received by her and after perusal of the same, she passed the sanction order.  He has further argued that the sanction order has been passed in a mechanical   manner   and   without   application   of   mind.     The   Ld. Defence   counsel   has   relied   upon   the   following   judgments   in support of his above contentions :

     (i) State of Karnataka vs. Ameer Jan, reported as, AIR 2008           Supreme Court 108; 

     (ii) Ashok Kumar Aggarwal vs. CBI & Ors., reported as, 2016            (154) DRJ 489;

     (iii) Om Prakash vs. State & Ors. (CBI), reported as, 2009(3)            RCR (Cr.) 293 Delhi.     

29.   The Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that there are a large number of material improvements and contradictions in the depositions of the complainant PW­4 Pawan Kumar and the other independent   witnesses,   namely,   PW­6   Neel   Kumar   Srivastava, PW­11 Maan  Singh and the TLO Inspector  H.S.K. Singh (PW­

12), which makes the entire prosecution case doubtful. He has further argued that the material improvements in the deposition of complainant   PW­4   Pawan   Kumar   makes   him   an   unreliable CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  23   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  witness and therefore, his entire evidence is to be discarded.  The Ld. Defence counsel has relied upon the judgment, in case titled as,  "Vijay   Kumar   vs.   State   of   Rajasthan",  reported   as, "2014(3) LRC 88 (SC)", in support of his above contention. 

30.   The   Ld.   Defence   counsel   has   further   argued   that   the complainant has alleged that the accused demanded bribe from him,   firstly,   in   the   month   of   April,   2013,   but   he   waited   till 15.10.2013,  to  lodge  the   complaint,  despite  of  the  fact  that  he was   in   constant   touch   with   the   CBI   officials   w.e.f.   24.09.2013. Furthermore, the FIR was registered only on the complaint of the alleged demand of bribe and no offence was committed by that time.   Therefore, the delay in registration of the FIR makes the entire prosecution case doubtful.   The Ld. Defence counsel has relied   upon   the   following   judgments,   in   support   of   his   above contentions :

         (i)  Gulam Mahmood A. Malek vs. The State of Gujarat,        reported as, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1558;

(ii) V. Venkata Subbarao vs. State, represented by Inspector     of Police, A.P., reported as, 2007 (1) RCR (Cr.) 519 SC;

(iii)   V.   Sejappa   vs.   State   by   Police   Inspector   Lokayukta,            Chitradurga, reported as, 2016 (2) RCR (Cr.) 860 SC.

31.   The Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that there is no CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  24   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  evidence on record to show that the copy of the FIR was sent to the court of the concerned Ld. Special Judge within 24 hours of its registration and non­compliance of the provisions of Section 157 Cr.P.C. also casts a doubt on the prosecution case.  He has relied upon the judgment, in case titled as, "Jagdish Murav vs. State   of   U.P.   &   Ors.",  reported   as,   "2006   (3)   JCC   1569",  in support of his above contention.  

32. The Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that there are a lot   of   material   contradictions   in   the   deposition   of   PW­4   Pawan Kumar   complainant   and   the   deposition   of   the   shadow   witness PW­11   Maan   Singh,   regarding   the   demand   of   bribe   by   the accused from the complainant, during the trap proceedings.   He has   further   argued   that  no  demand   of   bribe  was   made   by   the accused during the trap proceedings and  different versions have come on record in the depositions of PW­4 Pawan Kumar and PW­11   Maan   Singh.     Furthermore,   the   complainant   has introduced   a   new   story   in   his   examination­in­chief   and   he   has made  material  improvements  in his deposition  before  the court from his earlier complaints and the conversation, as deposed by him   in   his   examination­in­chief,   was   also   not   recorded   in   the alleged CD, which makes his entire deposition doubtful.  The Ld. CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  25   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  Defence counsel  has also pointed out various contradictions in the   depositions   of   complainant,   PW­4   Pawan   Kumar,   PW­11 Maan Singh and the TLO PW­12 Inspector HSK Singh and has argued  that the demand  and handing  over  of the bribe  money could not be proved by these independent witnesses, beyond a shadow of doubt.   The Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that   the   demand   of   bribe   by   the   accused,   during   the   trap proceedings,   was   mandatory,   but,   no   such   demand   was   ever raised   by   the   accused   at   that   time.     He   has   relied   upon   the following judgment, in support of his above contentions :

          (i)   Ram Chander Vs. State (GNCTD), reported as, 2009 (4)              RCR (Criminal) 880;

             (ii) B. Jayaraj Vs. State of A.P.,  reported as  2014 (2) RCR            (Criminal) page 410;

  (iii) P Satyanarayana Murthy vs. The District Inspector of          Police & Anr., reported as, 2015 (7) Law Reports on Crime,        page­1 (SC);

  (iv) N. Sunkanna vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported as,          2015 Cri. L. J. 4927 (SC).

33. The Ld. Defence  counsel  has further  argued that during  the trap proceedings neither the TLO nor the other members of the CBI   team   had   offered   their   personal   search   to   the   accused, before   conducting   his   personal   search,   after   the   alleged   bribe transaction. He has further argued that complainant PW­4 Pawan CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  26   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  Kumar,  PW­6  Neel  Kamal   Srivastava,  PW­11  Maan  Singh  and TLO   PW­12   Inspector   H.S.K.   Singh,   have   all   admitted,   during their deposition before the court, that no offer of personal search of the members of the CBI team was given to the accused, prior to conducting his personal search.  Therefore, this fact is fatal to the entire prosecution case.  He has relied upon the judgment, in case   titled   as,   "Naunihal   Singh   vs.   State   (though   CBI/ACB Punjab)   Chandigarh",  reported   as,   "2009   (2)   RCR   (Cr.)   307 (P&H)", in support of his above contention.

34.   The   Ld.   Defence   counsel   has   further   argued   that   different versions   have   come   on   record,   regarding   the   recovery   of   the tainted   bribe money from the possession of the accused in the depositions of the complainant PW­4 Pawan Kumar, PW­6 Neel Kamal   Srivastava   and   PW­11   Maan   Singh,   which   makes   the alleged   recovery   doubtful.     He   has   further   argued   that   PW­11 Maan Singh has categorically stated that the recovered tainted GC notes were not sealed during the trap proceedings, but, the alleged   recovered   tainted   GC   notes   were   produced   before   the court   in   a   sealed   condition.     Furthermore,   as   per   prosecution witnesses, the seized currency notes were never deposited at the Malkhana of the CBI and were deposited in the bank of the CBI.  

CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  27   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi 

35.   The Ld defence counsel has further argued that the material discrepancies   have   also   come   on   record,   regarding   the   glass bottles, in which the alleged handwash solutions of the accused were   kept,   after   the   trap   proceedings.     Furthermore,   the complainant PW­4 Pawan Kumar, PW­6 Neel Kamal Srivastava and PW­11 Maan Singh, have given different versions regarding the shape, size and capacity of the glass bottles, which makes the entire prosecution case doubtful.  

36. He has further argued that the seized glass bottles Ex.PW6/P­ 1 to Ex.PW6/P­3, in which the alleged pink hand wash solutions and the pant pocket wash solution were kept by the CBI, after the trap   proceedings,   were   not   bearing   any   entry   or   seal   of   the Malkhana   of   the   CBI,   which   indicates   that   these   bottles   were never   deposited   at   the   Malkhana   of   the   CBI.     He   has   further argued that no record  or register from  the Malkhana has been produced before the court to corroborate the fact that these glass bottles were deposited in the Malkhana in sealed condition.  

37.  The Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that during   the verifications   of   the   complaint   and   the   trap   proceedings,   the CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  28   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  conversation   between   the   complainant   and   the   accused   were allegedly   recorded   on   the   DVR   but,   the   said   DVR   was   never seized   or   sealed   by   the   IO.     Furthermore,   during   the   trial,   no evidence   has   been   produced   before   the   court,   regarding   the deposition of the seized articles, i.e., the recovered tainted bribe amount, the seized hand wash and pant pocket wash solutions and the recorded conversations in the alleged CDs, either at the Malkhana or at the CFSL.  The Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that the document Ex.PW14/DA, clearly indicate that the sealed memory card mark 'Q­1' & 'Q­2 and the sealed compact disc mark 'S­1' were initially sent to the CFSL on 23.10.2013, but, due to objections, these articles were returned back to the CBI for re­submitting  the  exhibits,  along  with the  transcription  and  with legible seal impressions.  Thereafter, these three sealed parcels marked   'Q­1',   'Q­2'   &   S­1   were   redeposited   at   CFSL   on 26.11.2013.     But,   no   evidence   has   been   brought   on   record, regarding all these facts and no record of the Malkhana of the CBI has  been  produced  before  the   court,  to  show  as  to  when these   articles   were   deposited   or   re­deposited   in   the   Malkhana and who was the person to whom these articles were entrusted by the Incharge of the Malkhana.  The Ld. Defence counsel has relied   upon   the   following   judgments,   in   support   of   his   above CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  29   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  contentions :

          (i)  Ashish Kumar Dubey vs. State through CBI, reported as,               2014 IV AD (Delhi) 473; 

          (ii) The State of Rajasthan vs. Daulat Ram, reported as, AIR          1980 Supreme Court 1314.

38.   The   Ld.   Defence   counsel   has   further   argued   that   the   link evidence   regarding   the   receipt   of   the   CFSL   reports   is   also missing, as the CFSL report Ex.PW14/A has been prepared on 12.12.2013,  but, the same  was received  by PW­15 D.K. Barik, S.P, CBI, on 10.03.2014. Even the IO DSP Deepak Gaur (PW­

18) has reported that he received the investigation on 12.11.2013 from   Inspector   Gurusewak   Singh,   but,   he   was   having   no information that the case property was returned back to the CBI with objections on 23.10.2013 and the same was redeposited at CFSL on 26.10.2013. No evidence has been brought on record about   the   custody   of   these   reports   during   the   period   w.e.f. 12.12.2013 to 10.03.2014 and therefore, it also casts a doubt on the authenticity of these CFSL reports.  

  

39. The Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that the site plan Ex.PW4/E   could   not   be   proved   by   the   prosecution,   during   the trial, in accordance with law, as none of the witnesses, including CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  30   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  the   complainant   PW­4   Pawan   Kumar,   PW­6   Neel   Kamal Srivastava and PW­11 Maan Singh, has deposed anything about the site plan and has not deposed that the site plan Ex.PW4/E was  prepared  at  his instance.    He has  further  argued  that  the discrepancies   in   the   preparation   of   the   alleged   site   plan   also casts a doubt on the prosecution case.  The Ld. Defence counsel has relied upon the following judgments, in support of his above contentions : 

          (i)  State vs. Sunil Kumar @ Sagar @ Rahul & Ors., reported                as, 2015 (3) LRC  380 (Del)(DB) High Court of Delhi;

  (ii)  Pyare Lal vs. State, reported as,  I (2008) DMC 806

40. The   Ld.   Defence   counsel   has   further   argued   that   there   are several   material   contradictions   in   the   depositions   of   the prosecution   witnesses,   from   the   documentary   evidence   on record,   regarding   the   lodging   of   the   complaint   Ex.PW4/A,   its verification   vide   verification   report   Ex.PW4/B,   regarding registration of the FIR and preparation of the various documents in the case.  

41.   The Ld. Defence counsel  has further argued that there are material   contradictions   in   the   depositions   of   the   witnesses regarding the time of the arrest of the accused.   He has further CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  31   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  argued that the complaint Ex.PW4/A was lodged on 15.10.2013, but, PW­15 DSP D.K. Barik has deposed before the court that he received   the   complaint   on   17.10.2013.     Furthermore,   the complaint   bears   C.O.   No.   122/13,   but   the   same   has   been corrected   as   121/13.     Furthermore,   PW­15   D.K.   Barik   had admitted   during   his  examination  in  the   court   that   C.O.  number was   not   mentioned   on   the   complaint,   when   the   FIR   was registered but, his deposition is in contradiction to the documents on   record.     It   is   further   argued   that   the   verification   report Ex.PW4/B indicates that the same was prepared on the basis of the complaint bearing C.O. No. 121/2013, whereas the complaint of the complainant was initially given C.O.No. 122/2013. 

42.   The   Ld.   Defence   counsel   has   further   argued   that   the verification report Ex.PW4/B, the handing over memo Ex.PW4/D and recovery memo Ex.PW4/F bear the seal of the Malkhana of the CBI, New Delhi, which indicates that these documents were duly   deposited   at   the   Malkhana   of   the   CBI,   but   the   other documents   does   not   bear   any   seal   of   the   Malkhana   and therefore, it can be safely inferred that the other documents and the exhibits were never deposited at the Malkhana of the CBI.

 

CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  32   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi 

43.   The   Ld.   Defence   counsel   has   further   argued   that   the depositions   of   the   prosecution   witnesses   and   specifically   the deposition   of   PW­15   D.K.   Barik   clearly   indicate   that   these documents have been forged and fabricated and were prepared later   on.     He   has   further   argued   that   the   recovery   memo Ex.PW4/F has mentioned that the trap team of the CBI reached near the Office of District Magistrate (Central) at Darya Ganj at about   15:25   hrs.   and   at   about   15:37   hrs.,   a   missed   call   was received on the mobile phone of TLO Inspector H.S.K. Singh from the mobile phone of the complainant which indicated about the completion   of   the   transaction   of   bribe.     But,   the   arrest   cum personal  search  memo Ex.PW6/A mentions the date, time and place   of   arrest   of   the   accused   as   17.10.2013   at   15:30   hrs,   at SDM   Office,   Kotwali,   PS   Darya   Ganj,   New   Delhi,   which   is  not possible,  as the accused  could  not  have  been  arrested  by the CBI, even prior to the completion of the alleged trap proceedings. Furthermore,   the   prosecution   witnesses   have   deposed   in   the court   that   after   the   trap,   the   accused   was   taken  to   CBI  office, where he was arrested in the present case at about 6.00 p.m.  

44. The Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that the original voice sample of the accused is not on record and a copy of the CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  33   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  sample was prepared in the CD marked 'S­1' and the same was sent to CFSL for comparison with the questioned conversations marked   'Q­1'   &   'Q­2',   but,   the   original   SD   card   in   which   the sample voice of the accused was recorded was never sent to the CFSL and was never seized and has not been produced before the court during the trial. Furthermore, no certificate u/s 65­B of the Indian Evidence Act, has been filed on record along with the CD marked 'S­1'.  Furthermore, the voice sample of the accused was taken by A.K. Maurya, but, the original SD card was never seized by him. Furthermore, the DVR, in which the sample voice of the accused was recorded was never seized and was never sent to the CFSL for forensic analysis.  The Ld. Defence counsel has   further   argued   that   there   are   a   large   number   of   material discrepancies   in   the   transcripts   of   the   alleged   recorded conversations with the actual conversations, as recorded in the SD cards marked 'Q­1' & 'Q­2'.

45.   The Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that during the investigations,   the   relevant   DD   entries   from   the   movement register of the CBI were never seized and were therefore, never produced before the court to show the actual movement of the CBI officials, regarding the verification of the complaint and the CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  34   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  trap proceedings.

46. The Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case and the complainant was in touch with one constable Satish (DW­1) and the complainant had been requesting the said constable Satish to pressurize the accused to cancel his pending case.   The Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that DW­2 Ms. Pallavi H. Kumar has produced the details of the RTI application moved by one Mukesh Kumar Sharma,   Advocate,   vide   which   the   details   of   the   duties   of   PW Maan Singh were supplied to applicant Mukesh Kumar Sharma. The   RTI   reply   has   been   proved   on   record   as   Ex.DW2/A. Annexure­I   attached   to   the   said   reply   indicates   that   PW   Maan Singh   had   appeared   before   the   CBI   in   various   matters   on   27 occasions, during the period w.e.f. 02.05.2013 24.08.2015.  The Ld.   Defence   counsel   has   argued   that   the   RTI   reply   clearly indicates that the PW Maan Singh was a stock witness of the CBI and he connived with the CBI officials to implicate the accused in the present case.

 

47.   The   Ld.   Defence   counsel   has   prayed   that   in   view   of   the various   material   contradictions   in   the   depositions   of   the CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  35   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  prosecution witness and a large number of discrepancies in the documents   on   record,   the   prosecution   has   miserably   failed   to prove its case against the accused, beyond a shadow of doubt, and therefore, the accused may be acquitted of all the charges in the present case. 

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

FINDING / OBERVATIONS     Demand of Bribe, Its Acceptance and Recovery

49.   In order to prove the charges for the offences under Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) (i) & (ii) of the P.C. Act, it is mandatory for the prosecution   to   prove   the   demand   of   illegal   gratification,   its' acceptance and recovery of the bribe money.  The legal position in this regard has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as, "B. Jayaraj Vs. State of A.P." (Supra), as relied by the Ld. Defence counsel, wherein, it has been held as under : ­   "7.   In so far as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  36   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless   it is proved  beyond   all   reasonable   doubt   that   the   accused  voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe.  The above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court. By  way of   illustration  reference  may be  made to the decision   in C.M. Sharma Vs. State of A.P. (2010) 15 SCC 1 and C.M. Girish Babu Vs. C.B.A. (2009) 3 SCC 779.

  xxx         xxx          xxx

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

                  (emphasis supplied by me)

50.   The   above   judgment   was   followed,   in   the   case   of   "P Satyanarayana Murthy vs. The District Inspector of Police & Anr." (Supra), as relied by the Ld. Defence counsel, wherein, it was held as under : ­   "  20.  In   a   recent   enunciation   by   this   Court   to   discern   the imperative per­requisites of Section 7 and 13 of the Act, it has been underlined in B. Jayaraj (supra) in unequivocal terms, that mere   possession   and   recovery   of   currency   notes   from   an accused   without   proof   of   demand   would   not   establish   an offence under Section 7 as well as 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) of the Act.  It has   been   propounded   that   in   the   absence   of   any   proof   of demand   for   illegal   gratification,   the   use   of   corrupt   or   illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  37   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  valuable   thing   or   pecuniary   advantage   cannot   be   held   to   be proved.    The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable   essentiality   and   of   permeating   mandate   for   an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act.  Qua Section 20 of the Act, which permits a presumption as envisaged therein, it has   been   held   that   while   it   is   extendable   only   to   an   offence under Section 7 and not to those under Section 13(1) (d) (i)&(ii) of the Act, it is contingent as well on the proof of acceptance of illegal gratification for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Such   proof   of   acceptance   of   illegal   gratification,   it   was emphasized,   could   follow   only   if   there  was   proof   of   demand. Axiomatically, it was held that in absence of proof of demand, such legal presumption under Section 20 of the Act would also not arise.  

  21.       The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the grevamen of the offence under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) (i)&(ii) of the   Act   and   in   absence   thereof,   unmistakably   the   charge therefor, would fail.   Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by   way   of   illegal   gratification   or   recovery   thereof,   dehors   the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act.                                                          (emphasis supplied by me)

51.   The aforesaid  judgments were followed in case titled as, "N. Sunkanna vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (Supra), as relied by the Ld. Defence counsel, wherein, it was held as under : 

  "6.   .......... It is settled law that mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7, since demand of   illegal   gratification   is   sine­qua­non   to   constitute   the   said offence.     The   above   also   will   be   conclusive   insofar   as   the offence under Section 13(1)(d) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification the use of corrupt or   illegal   means   or   abuse   of   position   as   a   public   servant   to obtain   any   valuable   thing   or   pecuniary   advantage   cannot   be CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  38   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  held   to   be   established.     It   is   only   on   proof   of   acceptance   of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing   to   do   any   official   act.     Unless   there   is   proof   of demand   of   illegal   gratification   proof   of   acceptance   will   not follow.  Reference may be made to the two decisions of three­ Judge   Bench   of   this   Court   in   B.   Jayaraj   v.   State   of   Andhra Pradesh [(2014) 13 SCC 55] : (AIR 2014 SC (supp) 1837 : 2014 AIR SCW 2080) and P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. The District Inspector of Police and another [(2015) (9) SCALE 724]: (AIR 2015 SC 3549 : 2015 AIR SCW 5263).

                                                         (emphasis supplied by me)

52.    The above legal position, as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, was also summarized by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi,   in   case   titled   as,  "Ram   Chander   vs.   State   (GNCTD)", (Supra),   as   relied   by   the   Ld.   Defence   counsel,   in   following words :

    "23.    Thus   the   legal   position   which   emerges   regarding appreciation of evidence in a trap case can be summarized as under: 

(i)  To succeed in such a case the prosecution is obliged to prove the previous demand of bribe, its acceptance and the recovery of tainted money ;

(ii)  The demand can be proved by the testimony of the complainant as well from the complaint made by him if proved in accordance with law ;

(iii)   However if the complainant is unable to appear for whatever reason such as his death, the demand can be also proved by way of circumstantial evidence ;

(iv)  A presumption as to the demand of bribe can also be drawn if the tainted money i.e. the money tendered as bribe money is recovered   from   the   possession   of   the   accused,   which presumption of course is rebuttable ;

CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  39   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi 

(v)    However,  if  the  explanation given  by  the accused about  the recovery of such money is false, it may be taken as an adverse circumstance against the accused ;

(vi)   If the accused gives some defence that can be scrutinized by the test of preponderance of probability while the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt ; and 

(vii)   However   if   the   explanation   given   is   false   it   may   be   used adversely   against   the   accused   and   may   strengthen   the presumption under Section 20 of the Act.  

                                                         (emphasis supplied by me)

53.   It is also held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as,  "P.K. Gupta Vs. CBI,  reported as  2011(4)  JCC 2352", as under:

  14.   In A. Subair v. State of Kerala, (2009) 6 SCC 587, the Supreme Court held as under:

  "The   legal   position   is   no   more   res   integra   that   primary requisite   of   an   offence   under   Section   13(1)   (d)   of   the   Act   is proof of a demand or request of a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage   from   the   public   servant.     In   other   words,   in   the absence of proof of demand or request from the public servant, for a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, the offence under Section 13(1) (d) cannot be held to the established."

  15.    It   is   settled   law   that   mere   recovery   of   bribe   money, divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid, is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantial evidence of demand and acceptance in the case is not reliable.  (See M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P. 2001 (1) JCC 118 : 2001(1) SCC

691. In view of above propositions of law, it is recapitulated that the   statutory   presumption   under   Section   20   of   the   Act   is available for the offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 and not for Clause (d) of Section 13(1).   For offence under Section   13(1)   (d),   it   will   be   required   to   be   proved   that   some initiative   was   taken   by   a   person   who   receives     and   in   that context demand or request from him will be a prerequisite.

  (emphasis supplied by me) CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  40   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi 

54.   When the evidence brought on record, in the present case, is analysed in view of the above settled legal position, it is observed that  in   order   to   prove   the   demand   of   bribe   money,   by   the accused,  from  the complainant,  the  prosecution  has examined, the complainant Pawan Kumar Gupta as PW4.  There is no other witness to prove the 'demand of bribe' by the accused, from the complainant.  The complainant Pawan Kumar Gupta has proved his complaint dated 15.10.2013,  as Ex.PW4/A, wherein, he has stated   that   he   was   the   owner   of   shop   No.   232   Kishan   Ganj Market Delhi­7 and he had let out his shop to Imran Khan on rent for   repairing   work.     His   neighbour   of   shop   No.   234   had complained against his shop for noise pollution and the same was pending before Sub­Divisional Magistrate, Kotwali Sub­Division, Darya Ganj, New Delhi.   He further reported that he visited the said office many times and Sh. Ram Kishan Mehta (Reader to SDM Mr. B.L. Meena) harassed him a lot by giving dates.   He further complained that the said person was demanding a bribe of Rs.25,000/­ to settle the complaint and had told him that he will not be permitted to settle the matter until he paid bribe to him. The complainant further reported that he was not willing to pay any bribe to said Ram Kishan Mehta and therefore, his complaint may be registered in this matter.

CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  41   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi 

55.   On the above complaint Ex.PW4/A, the then S.P., C.B.I. Sh. D.K.   Barik   (PW­15)   made   an   endorsement,   "register   a complaint   and   verify   and   report"   and   marked   it   to   SI   Arijit Daripa (PW­16).  

56. On the same day on 15.10.2013, SI Arijit Daripa verified the complaint and prepared the verification report Ex.PW4/B, dated 15.10.2013.     But,   no   action   was   taken   on   the   said   verification report till 17.1`0.2013.   On 17.10.2013, SP CBI Sh. D.K. Barik (PW­15) made endorsement on this verification report Ex.PW4/B as, "register a case and lay trap".  The said verification report was marked   to   Inspector   H.S.K.   Singh,   TLO   (PW­12),   and accordingly,   pre­trap   proceedings   were   conducted   at   the   CBI office   on   17.10.2013   and   after   preparations,   the   trap   was conducted at the office of SDM Kotwali at Darya Ganj, at about 3.30 p.m., on 17.10.2013 itself.

57. Perusal   of   the   record   further   shows   that   the   complaint Ex.PW4/A was initially registered with number as, "C.O. 122/13", which   has   been   corrected   as,   "C.O.   121/13".     It   is   relevant   to mention   here   that   the   verification   report   Ex.PW4/B   was   also CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  42   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  prepared on "C.O.­121/2013" as this fact finds mentioned as the heading   of   the   said   report.     Ex.PW4/B   bears   the   heading   as, "verification  report on C.O. ­121/2013".   It is also relevant  to note that a copy of the complaint Ex.PW4/A and the verification report Ex.PW4/B was also a part of the FIR bearing No. RC­DAI­ 2013­A­0032 dated 17.10.2013, which is Ex.PW4/C.  It is further relevant   to   note   that   a  "further   verification   report   in   C.O.­ 121/2013/CBI/ACB/New   Delhi",  dated   17.10.2013,   also   forms the part of the FIR Ex.PW4/C.  It is also relevant to note that the verification report Ex.PW4/B bears two seal impressions of ACB, CBI, New Delhi, as seal No. 28/2013 and seal No.29/2013, both of ACB/CBI/ND.  But, there is no order or endorsement on any of   the   documents,   by   Sh.   D.K.   Barik,   SP,   CBI,   regarding further verification of the complaint. 

58.   Perusal  of the record further shows that  a large number of material contradictions and discrepancies have come on record, in the statement of complainant Pawan Kumar, regarding the date and time of the demand of bribe money by the accused from him. The complainant has made a large number of improvements in his deposition before the court, from his complaint Ex.PW4/A.  In his deposition before the court, he has stated that he let out his CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  43   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  shop No. 232, Kishan Ganj Market to Imran in November, 2012 for   doing   repair   work   of   vehicles   and   his   neighbours   were annoyed   with   the   noise   produced   during   the   repair   work   and therefore,  they  lodged  a complaint  with the  SDM concerned  at Darya Ganj through PS Sarai Rohilla.  Summons were issued by the concerned SDM to him and the said Imran.   He has further stated that he visited the SDM court for the first time in April, 2013 and on that day he was told to contact Ram Kishan, on which, the accused told him to contact Mr. Mehta, the reader of the SDM court.  Thereafter, the accused told him that he was talking to Mr. Mehta himself.  Therefore, at that time, he presumed the accused as Mr. Mehta, the reader of the said court and started identifying him as Ram Kishan Mehta.   This deposition clearly indicates that   till   the   date   of   the   alleged   trap   on   17.10.2013,   the complainant   was   not   aware   about   the   actual   name   of   the accused   as   Ram   Kishan   Sharma.     He   was   also   not   aware about  his  designation  as  the  Naib  Court of  the  SDM court and   he   knew   the   accused   only   as   the   reader   of   the   said court.  

59.  PW­4 Pawan Kumar  has further deposed that on the first date of hearing, the accused asked him to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/­ to CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  44   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  him and told him that he should return back to his shop and stop the work there and he will look­after his case.   He had further deposed   that   he   asked   the   accused,   that   in   case,   any   other person or police official or some other summons is again sent to him from the SDM court, then what should be the course of action for him.   On which, the accused told him that he should tell the said   person   that   he   had   already   talked   with   Mr.   Mehta   and therefore, nobody will trouble him. Thereafter, he refused to pay the amount of Rs.2,000/­ to the accused and told him that since he had received the summons of the court, he should meet the SDM   concerned   and   mark   his   present   in   the   court   and   only thereafter, he  shall think about making the payment of Rs.2,000/­ to   him.  All   these   averments   do   not   find   mention   in   the complaint   Ex.PW4/A   dated   15.10.2013.   PW­4   complainant Pawan Kumar has further deposed that on the same day he was produced before the SDM concerned, who told him to stop the work at the shop and to submit an affidavit regarding closure of the work within a period of two weeks and he gave him the date of hearing after about two weeks.  He has further stated that the accused followed him and again demanded the money from him, but,   he   refused   to   make   the   payment   to   him,   on   which,   the accused   threatened   him   of   dire   consequences.  These CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  45   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  averments   are   also   not   mentioned   in   the   complaint Ex.PW4/A. 

60.   PW­4 has further deposed that in July 2013, he again went to the court of the SDM, concerned where he came to know that the SDM Sh. Vinod Verma as well as the accused had already been transferred from there and Sh. B.L. Meena has taken over as the new SDM.  Thereafter, the concerned official produced him before Mr. Meena, SDM, who accepted his affidavit and told him that a police verification regarding closure of the work at his shop shall   be   conducted   and   thereafter,   the   proceedings   shall   be closed.   All these averments  are also  not  mentioned in his complaint Ex.PW4/A.

61.   PW­4   Pawan   Kumar   has   further   deposed   that   on 24.09.2013, he again visited the court of Sh. B.L. Meena, SDM, along   with  Imran,   on   receiving   the   fresh   summons   and   at  that time, the accused was sitting near the gate of the court and he hurled abuses at him and threatened him that he shall be sent to jail as he had not obliged him.   Thereafter, the accused asked Imran to went inside the court and he was shown the ordersheet of   the   court   proceedings   wherein,   bailable   warrants   had   been CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  46   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  issued against him.  The complainant has further deposed that he apologize   to   the   accused,   on   which,   the   accused   told   him   to spend some money and on receipt of the money he shall get his BW cancelled.   Thereafter, he made an application, as per the directions of the accused and handed over the application to Mr. Ashish the other official of the court and the said Mr. Ashish took the  application  inside  the chamber  of  the SDM concerned  and made   corrections   in   the   order   sheet   and   cancelled   his   BW. Thereafter, the said Ashish took the amount of Rs.600/­, out of the  entire  amount  of  Rs.640  from  his  purse  and  thereafter,  he came   out   of   the   court   room.   The   accused   was   standing   just outside the court room and he again demanded money from him for   closing   his   case.    All   these   averments   also   do   not   find mention in the complaint Ex.PW4/A dated 15.10.2013.   It is also very relevant to note that as per the above deposition, the   alleged   demand   of   bribe   amount,   for   closing   the   case against the complainant, was allegedly made by the accused, for the first time on 24.09.2013.  

62.  PW­4 complainant Pawan Kumar has further deposed that on 24.09.2013, after returning to his residence, he talked about the conduct of the accused and the officials of the SDM court with his CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  47   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  friends   and   known   persons   as   he   was   very   scared   and   they advised  him   to  contact   the  Anti  Corruption   Branch   or  the   CBI. Thereafter, he obtained the phone numbers of the CBI office from the internet and contacted the officials at the CBI office, where, they told him that he shall be required to give his complaint in writing and when a written complaint is submitted by him they will verify his complaint and will take legal action against the accused. These   averments   are   also   not   mentioned   in   the   complaint Ex.PW4/A dated 15.10.2013.  From these averments, it is also clear   that   the   complainant   was   in   contact   with   the   CBI officials   from   24.09.2013   itself,   but   he   chose   to   file   the complaint on 15.10.2013 only, for the reasons best known to him. 

63.   PW­4, complainant Pawan Kumar has further deposed that after 24.09.2013, he again visited the concerned SDM on several dates of hearing and the accused had given him very short dates of hearings and during his visits, the accused had demanded a sum  of Rs.25,000/­   from  him for  closing  the case  against  him. However,   he   has   admitted   that   he   was   not   remembering   the exact date, on which, the accused made the specific demand of Rs.25,000/­ from him.  He had volunteered again that the demand CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  48   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  was made in the month of October, 2013. 

64.   Perusal of the record shows that the case file pertaining to the   kalandra   u/s   133   Cr.P.C.,   filed   by   SI   Bacchu   Singh   of   PS Sarai Rohilla, dated 14.03.2013, against the complainant Pawan Kumar   Gupta   and   his   tenant   Imran,   was   seized   by   the   CBI officials / IO, during the investigations of the present case and the same   has   been   proved   on   record   as   Ex.PW5/B   (Collectively). PW­4 Sh. B.L.Meena, SDM, Kotwali, had identified his signatures on   the   various   ordersheets   of   this   file.     Perusal   of   the   file Ex.PW5/B   (collectively),   indicates   that   the   bailable   warrants against both the accused were cancelled by the SDM concerned (PW­5   Sh.   B.L.   Meena)   on   24.09.2013   and   the   matter   was adjourned   for   03.10.2013.   On   03.10.2013,   the   SDM   was   busy and   therefore,   the   matter   was   adjourned   for   08.10.2013.   On 08.10.2013, the matter was again adjourned for 15.10.2013, as the SDM was again busy.  From the ordersheets of this file, it is clear that after 24.09.2013, the complainant had visited the SDM office only on 03.10.2013 and 08.10.2013, prior to 15.10.2013.  

65.   PW­4,   complainant   Pawan   Kumar   Gupta   has   further deposed that when the accused made the demand of Rs.25,000/­ CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  49   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  for closing his case, he asked the accused to give some time to arrange the money, on which, the accused gave him a very short date of 3­4 days.  He  has further deposed that he requested the accused   to   reduce   his   demand,   but,   the   accused   had   not accepted his request and the accused again gave him the date of hearing as 15.10.2013 and told him to come to the court with the amount and threatened him that in case, he failed to make the payment to him, he shall be sent to jail.  All these averments are also   not   mentioned   in   the   complaint   Ex.PW4/A,   dated 15.10.2013.  

66.   PW­4,   complainant   Pawan   Kumar   Gupta   has   further deposed   that   he   was   not   willing   to   make   the   payment   of   the demanded  money  and  was not  able  to arrange  the  demanded amount of Rs.25,000/­ and therefore, he reached the CBI office in the morning on 15.10.2013 and contacted the SP there and told him   about   the   facts   of   the   case.     Thereafter,   SP   CBI   called Inspector Arijit and introduced him to Inspector Arijit and he told the entire facts of the case to Mr. Arijit, on which, he asked him to lodge   a   written   complaint.     Thereafter,   he   lodged   the   written complaint   Ex.PW4/A,   on   which,   Inspector   Arijit   got   instructions from the SP CBI.  He has further deposed that at about 2.00 ­2.30 CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  50   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  p.m. Inspector Arijit called PW­11 Maan Singh   and introduced him   to   the   said   Maan   Singh   and   thereafter,   got   a  DVR   and   a sealed memory card.  The memory card was inserted in the DVR and   introductory   voice   of   said   Maan   Singh   was   recorded   in  it. Thereafter, he made a phone call to Mr. Ashish, the official at the office of the SDM concerned and told him that he was on his way to the SDM office and shall be reaching there shortly. Thereafter, he along with Mr. Arijit, Maan Singh and the driver left the CBI office   and   reached   the   SDM   court   at   Kotwali.     Thereafter, Inspector Arijit handed over the DVR to him and asked   him to enter the court premises and to talk with the accused about the transactions.  Sh. Maan Singh was also asked to accompany him. Thereafter, he went inside the court premises and talked with the accused and requested him to reduce the demanded amount of Rs.25,000/­, on which, he told him that the same was not possible as he will have to talk again to the SDM concerned and on his persistent   request,   he   agreed   to   receive   the   amount   of Rs.20,000/­.   Thereafter, he made a request to the accused for grant of some time to make the payment and thereafter, he came out of the court premises.  

67.   Perusal of the record shows that the conversation which was CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  51   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  recorded   during   the   above   verification   process   has   been recorded, with the help of a DVR,   in a SD card mark 'Q­1' and the transcript of the conversation has been placed on record as Ex.PW4/T­2.   The said transcript has been prepared vide voice identification memo dated 08.11.2013, Ex.PW4/G. This transcript was prepared at the instance of the complainant Pawan Kumar, in the presence of independent witness Maan Singh (PW­11) and Neel Kamal Srivastava (PW­6), who had identified his voice and the voice of the accused in the said conversation.  Perusal of the transcript indicates that a large number of sentences, as allegedly spoken by the accused, are not clear and therefore, could not be mentioned   in   the   transcript.     Furthermore,   it   is   specifically mentioned that the words spoken by the accused were not clear. Perusal of this transcript further indicates that the accused was demanding   a   sum   of   Rs.1,000/­   from   the   complainant   as expenses.  As per this transcript, it is not clear as to why the accused   has   demanded   the   sum   of   Rs.25,000/­   from   the complainant.  There are no words or sentences, attributable to the accused, which indicate that the accused had agreed to   receive   the   amount   of   Rs.20,000/­   for   disposal   of   his pending case and the said amount also included the part of the   amount   to   be   paid   to   the   concerned   SDM.     During   the CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  52   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  investigations,   the   role   of   Sh.   B.L.Meena,   SDM   Kotwali, Daryaganj, Delhi and Sh. Ashish Juglan, Office Assistant at the office   of   SDM,   Kotwali,   were   also   investigated,   but   nothing incriminating was found against any of them.

68.   PW­4,   complainant   Pawan   Kumar   Gupta   has   further deposed   that   after   coming   out   of   the   court   premises,   the recording   in   the   DVR   was   heard   by   Inspector   Arijit   and   after hearing the recorded conversation, Inspector Arijit asked him to go inside the court premises again and to request the accused to grant some time to make payment and therefore, he went  inside the court premises with the DVR and requested the accused to grant   some   more   time   to   make   the   payment.     Thereafter,   the accused   gave   him   the   date   of   hearing   as   17.10.2013   and   he promised to make the payment of Rs.20,000/­ to the accused, on which, the accused promised to close his case.   Thereafter, he came out of the court premises and all of them returned back to the CBI office, where, the recorded conversation was transferred to   a   laptop   and   the   CDs   of   the   recorded   conversation   were prepared.   Thereafter, the SP CBI, directed him to come to the CBI office on 17.10.2013 at about 10.00 a.m., as his complaint was found by the CBI officials, as correct.  He was also asked to CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  53   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  bring the cash amount of Rs.20,000/­ on 17.10.2013, which was to be used for the trap proceedings.  He has further deposed that a verification report was also prepared by Inspector Arijit and the said report has been proved on record as E.xPW4/B.  

69. It is relevant to mention here that as per the deposition of the complainant, the accused has given him the date of hearing as 17.10.2013   and   had   directed   him   to   make   the   payment   of   the bribe amount on 17.10.2013 itself.  But, as per the file Ex.PW5/B (Collectively), the date of hearing was given to the complainant as 29.10.2013.   No   date   of   hearing  was   fixed   for  17.10.2013.   The order sheet dated 15.10.2013 has been proved on record by the SDM   Sh.   B.L.   Meena   (PW­5)   and   the   order   sheet   dated 15.10.2013, also bears the signature of the complainant at point 'Y'.   It indicates that the complainant was well aware about the fact that his case has been adjourned for 29.10.2013 and not   for   17.10.2013.     But   still,   in   his   deposition   before   the court, he has stated that the accused has given him the date of hearing as 17.10.2013.  

70. It is also relevant to note that the verification report Ex.PW4/B was prepared on 15.10.2013, but, the further verification report CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  54   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  Ex.PW15/DB   has   been   prepared   on   17.10.2013.     The complainant has identified his signatures on the verification report Ex.PW4/B   dated   15.10.2013,   but,   the   further   verification   report Ex.PW15/DB does not bear signatures of either the complainant or any of the other two independent witnesses.  Furthermore, the further verification report Ex.PW15/DB, mentions that the further verification   was   conducted   on   the   orders   of   the   SP,   on 16.10.2013, but, no such order is on judicial record.  Furthermore, the   further   verification   report   Ex.PW15/DB   mentions   that,  "a secret   verification   was   conducted   on   16.10.2013,   through various sources about the conduct of the suspect official Sh. Ram   Kishan   Mehta,   reader   to   SDM,   SDM   Sh.   B.L.   Meena, Kotwali   Sub­Division,   Darya   Ganj,   Delhi   and   it   was   found that the suspect official is habitual bribe taker.   It was also revealed that in any  matter  which  comes  to SDM court  he tries to settle the case with the concerned party and mostly he interacts with the parties during lunch period".  From this report,   it   is   clear   that   the   further   verification   was   allegedly conducted by SI Arijit Daripa on 16.10.2013 from various sources. But, still, this further verification has wrongly mentioned the name and designation of accused Ram Kishan Sharma, Naib Court, as Sh. Ram Kishan Mehta, reader to SDM, Kotwali.   Therefore, it CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  55   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  cannot be accepted that a further verification of the complaint, as alleged by SI Arijit Daripa, was conducted by him from various sources.  Despite   the   further   verification,   the   CBI   officials were not aware about the correct name and designation of the   accused   till   the   time   of   the   arrest   of   the   accused   on 17.10.2013,   which   indicates   that   the   further   verification report   Ex.PW15/DB   dated   17.10.2013,   was   a   false   and fabricated document and was prepared, only to corroborate the prosecution story.  

71. PW­4,   Pawan   Kumar   Gupta   has   further   deposed   that   on 17.10.2013, at about 10.00­10.30 a.m., he again went to the CBI office.     But,   he   has   not   deposed   anything   about   the   further verification report Ex.PW15/DB dated 17.10.2013.  He has further deposed that he produced the cash amount of Rs.20,000/­ before the   SP   CBI   ,   who   told   him   that   Inspector   H.S.K.   Singh   shall handle his case.  Thereafter, Inspector H.S.K. Singh took him to his   room,   where   PW   Maan   Singh   and   Neel   Kamal   Srivastava were already present.   Thereafter, as per directions of Inspector H.S.K. Singh, he handed over the cash amount of Rs.20,000/­, in 40 GC notes of Rs.500/­ denomination, to them.  He has further deposed that both the aforesaid persons noted down the number CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  56   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  of the GC notes on a white paper.  Thereafter, Inspector Maurya gave   a   demonstration   regarding   the   chemical   reaction   of   the solution of sodium carbonate with some chemical powder.  During demonstration, Inspector Maurya put a chemical powder on the currency notes and PW Neel Kamal was asked to put the tainted GC notes in his pant pocket.   He has further deposed that PW Neel Kamal dipped his hands in the solution of sodium carbonate, on which, the said solution turned pink.  He has further deposed that during the above proceedings, a copy of the FIR was also handed over to him and the same was signed by him.  He has not deposed that the further verification report Ex.PW.15/DB was also a   part   of   the   F.I.R.   and   was   attached   with   verification   report Ex.PW.4/B.    He has admitted that the FIR was registered in the   name   of   Ram   Kishan   Mehta,   as   by   that   time   he   was identifying the accused by the name of Ram Kishan Mehta only.   This admission by the complainant further  indicates that none of the CBI officials, including the verifying officer SI Arijit Daripa  and  the  trap laying  officer  Inspector  H.S.K. Singh,  were aware about  the correct  name and  address of the accused, by that time, despite of alleged verification and re­verification of the complaint.

 

CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  57   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi 

72.  PW­4, complainant Pawan Kumar Gupta has further deposed that a handing over memo Ex.PW4/D was prepared by the CBI officials   during   the   aforesaid   proceedings,   at   the   CBI   office, before leaving the CBI office for trap.  Perusal of the handing over memo Ex.PW4/D, shows that it is a typed document running into six pages and it bears the signatures of the complainant PW­4 Pawan   Kumar   Gupta,   independent   witnesses   Neel   Kamal Srivastava   and   Maan   Singh,   Inspector   H.S.K.   Singh,   SI   A.K. Maurya, Inspector Joseph Crelo, Inspector Sanjay Updhyay and Inspector   Pramod   Kumar,   on   each   and   every   page.   The signatures   of   all   these   witnesses   also   bear   the   date   of 17.10.2013,   i.e.,   the   date   of   the   alleged   trap.     Perusal   of   this handing   over   memo   further   shows   that   Inspector   H.S.K. Singh/TLO,   who   prepared   this   handing   over   memo,   has specifically mentioned that, "the distinctive number of the GC notes so produced by the complainant were noted separately which   are   enclosed   as   Annexure­A,   duly   signed   by   all concerned".   But,   the   alleged   Annexure­A,   containing   the numbers   of   the   40   GC   notes   of   Rs.500/­   denomination   each, produced by the complainant, is not on judicial record and is not attached with this handing over memorandum.  

CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  58   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi 

73.   Perusal   of   the   record   also   shows   that   two   white   papers containing   the   numbers   of   40   currency   notes   of   Rs.500/­ denomination each, have been placed on record and have been attached with the recovery memo dated 17.10.2013, Ex.PW4/F. These two pages are handwritten pages and bear the signatures of   only   the   two   independent   witnesses,   namely,   PW­11   Maan Singh and PW­6 Neel Kamal Srivastava.  These two pages does not bear the signatures of either the complainant Pawan Kumar Gupta or the signatures of the TLO Inspector H.S.K. Singh or any other   CBI   official,   who   was   the   member   of   the   alleged   raiding team.  Furthermore, these two pages does not mention that these two   pages   constitute   the   Annexure­A,   which   was   part   of   the handing over memo Ex.PW4/D.   Furthermore, the handing over memo Ex.PW4/D has been duly numbered from page­1 to page­ 6,   but,   these   two   white   pages,   containing   the   numbers   of   the currency   notes   have   not   been   paginated.     Furthermore,   the recovery   memo   Ex.PW4/F   is   also   a   typed   document   and   is bearing page numbers from page­1 to page­13, but, this recovery memo   does   not   mention   about   attaching   any   document   or annexure with it, containing the numbers of the recovered tainted GC notes. This recovery memo is also bearing the signatures of all   the   aforesaid   eight   persons,   besides   the   signatures   of   the CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  59   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  accused, on first twelve pages. 

74.   It is very relevant to note that when the aforesaid two white pages, which contained handwritten numbers of the 40 GC notes of Rs.500/­ denomination, are perused, it is observed that these two pages are bearing the folding marks, indicating that these two pages might have been kept by either PW Maan Singh or PW Neel Kamal, with him, in folded condition and the numbers of the currency notes have been noted by them at an unknown time and date.  These   circumstances   create   a   doubt   about   the preparation of the handing over memo Ex.PW4/D, as well as these   two   handwritten   white   pages,   prior   to   the   trap.     It appears   that   these   documents   have   been   prepared   by   the CBI   officials,   lateron,   at   the   CBI   office,   as   per   their convenience.  

75.   PW­4,   complainant   Pawan   Kumar   Gupta   has   further deposed that they left the CBI office for conducting the trap at about 2.00 p.m. and they reached SDM Court, Kotwali, within 15­ 20 minutes. Thereafter, PW Maan Singh was directed to act as shadow  witness  and   to remain  close  with  him  and  to  see  and hear the transaction. He has further deposed that the DVR was CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  60   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  also kept in his front side pant pocket in switch 'on' mode and inspector   H.S.   K.   Singh   gave   him   his   mobile   number   and instructed him to give him a call on the said mobile number, after completion of transaction, as a predecided signal. He has further deposed that after entering the court room, he found the accused sitting at his place and told him that he had brought the agreed amount, on which, the accused asked him to wait for some time and thereafter, he took him to one under­constructed room from back side gate of the office.  At that time shadow witness Maan Singh was also with him. The complainant has further deposed that   in   the   said   under­constructed   room,   he   told   the   accused about bringing the money, on which, the accused demanded the money   by   way   of   hand   gesture.     Thereafter,   he   took   out   the money from his pant pocket and forwarded it to the accused.  He has further deposed that on his offer, the accused replied not to give the money in this manner and asked him to wrap the same in an   envelope.     Thereafter,   he   showed   his   ignorance   about   the manner   of   giving   the   money,   on   which,   accused   accepted   the money with his right hand and took the same in his right back pocket of the pant.  Thereafter, the accused asked him about the amount,   on   which,   he   told   the   accused   that   it   was   complete Rs.20,000/­ and asked the accused to count the same. He has CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  61   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  further deposed that after some conversation, the accused took out   the   bribe   money   from   his   pocket   and   counted   the   same properly and passed smile and asked him to leave the place by pointing towards the back door.   Thereafter, the accused while counting the money went towards the main room and he followed the   accused,   on   which,   he   asked   him   to   leave   the   place   from other side with hand gesture. Thereafter, he followed the accused and asked him to offer water and when accused was counting the GC notes with his both hands, he gave a missed called to TLO by pretending to make a call to Imran.  

76.   The complainant Pawan Kumar (PW­4), has further deposed that PW Maan Singh was also watching the entire transaction, as there was no door in the said under­constructed room and after the transaction, the accused went to his seat and sat there.  He has further deposed that Inspector Maurya was also sitting in the same   room   opposite   the   seat   of   the   accused   and   Inspector Sanjay   was   sitting   outside,   at   the   place   meant   for   accused persons.  Thereafter, when Inspector Maurya saw him he nodded his head and gave a signal regarding completion of transaction with   his   head.   Thereafter,   Inspector   Maurya   called   inspector Sanjay inside the room and thereafter, Inspector Maurya caught CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  62   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  hold   of   the   accused   with   his   right   hand,   whereas,   Inspector Sanjay caught hold of him with his left hand.   In the meantime, TLO Inspector H.S.K Singh came inside the room and he showed his identity card to the accused and gave his introduction to him. Thereafter,   the   accused   was   taken   to   a   nearby   room   and Inspector   H.S.K.   Singh   called   Dori   Lal   with   the   trap   kit. Thereafter, he handed over the DVR to Inspector Arijit.  

77. Complainant Pawan Kumar (PW­4) has further deposed that PW Neel Kamal was also called inside the room.   The accused became perplexed and Inspector Sanjay told him that he was in CBI   custody   and   he   should   co­operate   with   the   CBI   team. Thereafter, the accused was asked about the bribe money. But, initially, the accused refused to tell about the same, but, later on, he informed the CBI team that the money was in his back side pant   pocket   and   thereafter,   PW   Neel   Kamal   took   out   the   GC notes   from   the   pant   pocket   of   the   accused   and   tallied   the numbers of the same with the list prepared at the CBI office.  The numbers of the GC notes had tallied.  The above deposition also casts   a   doubt   on   the   alleged   recovery   of   GC   notes   from   the possession of the accused because, if PW­11 Maan Singh had accompanied the complainant, during the trap proceedings and CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  63   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  had   watched   the   entire   transaction   and   handing   over   of   the tainted GC notes by the complainant to the accused, then where was the need for the CBI officials to ask the accused about the trap money.  PW­11 Maan Singh should have himself recovered the tainted GC notes from the pant pocket of the accused and there was no need for PW­6 Neel Kamal Srivastava to recover the tainted GC notes.

78.   It is pertinent to mention here that Inspector A.K. Maurya and Inspector Sanjay Updhyay, who allegedly caught hold of the accused with his hands, have not been examined by the prosecution during the trial.  Sh. Dori Lal, the official of CBI, who   allegedly   brought   the   trap   kit,   is   not   even   cited   as   a prosecution witness and has not been examined during the trial.  It is also relevant to note that none of the prosecution witnesses   has   deposed   anything   about   the   offer   of   their personal search to the accused, by the members of the CBI trap   team,   before   conducting   the   personal   search   of   the accused   or   before   the   alleged   recovery   of   the   tainted   GC notes   from   his   possession.     Furthermore,   even   Inspector Joseph Krelo and Inspector Pramod Kumar, who were also the members of the CBI trap team, are also not examined, CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  64   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  during the trial. 

 

79.    PW­4,   complainant   Pawan   Kumar   Gupta,   has   further deposed that Dori Lal opened the trap kit and prepared a water solution   of   sodium   carbonate   in   a   glass   tumbler   and   the   right hand of the accused was dipped in it, on which, it turned pink. The   said   solution   was   transferred   to   a   clean   glass   bottle   of capacity of a quarter bottle of the liquor.  He has further deposed that the process was repeated with the left hand of the accused. He has  further   deposed  that  some  officials of  the office  of  the accused had also brought a track pant as the pant pocket of the pant of the accused was also got washed similarly and the colour of the said wash had also turned pink. He had further deposed that the said pink solution was also transferred to a  clean glass bottled   of   the   same   capacity.     He   has   also   deposed   that   the bottles   were   sealed   with   the   seal   of   the   CBI.   He   has   further deposed that the bottles containing the right hand wash solution, left hand wash solution and the pant pocket wash solution were also marked as RHW, LHW & BRSPPW.  He has further deposed that the three bottles were of liquor make Aristrocrat whisky, but none of the sealed bottles were bearing his initials / signatures. He   has   further   deposed   that   the   accused   was   arrested   in   the CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  65   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  case and some writing work was done at the office of the accused and the CBI official also prepared a rough site plan Ex.PW4/E at the office of the accused and thereafter, they returned back to the CBI office.  

  

80.   Perusal   of   the   record   further   shows   that   during   the examination  of  the  complainant,  when  the  sealed   glass  bottles were produced before the court,  this court had observed that the   glass   bottles   were   of   some   liquor   brand   of   180   ml. Capacity and a white slip  was pasted on all the three bottles in such a manner that the white slip was covering the entire paper slips, indicating the liquor brand, affixed on the liquor bottles.   Accordingly, a court observation was recorded during the examination of the complainant, in this regard.

81.   Perusal of the record further shows that during the trial, the pant   of   the   accused   was   also   produced   before   the   court   on 06.04.2015,   during   the   examination   of   PW­6   Neel   Kamal Srivastava   and   the   same   has   been   proved   on   record   as Ex.PW6/P­4.    It   was   observed   by   the   court   that   the   pant Ex.PW.6/P­4 was a greenish color stripped trouser on which the right side back pocket was bearing the signatures of two CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  66   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  witnesses on the inside white pocket lining.   It was further observed that the white lining of the right side pant pocket of the   pant   Ex.PW.6/P­4,   which   was   allegedly   washed   during the trap proceedings with a solution of sodium carbonate in water, is having no trace of such washing and there was no trace of pink color in it.   Accordingly, a court observation was recorded, during the deposition of PW­6 Neel Kamal Srivastava. These   circumstances   caste   a   further   doubt   on   the   prosecution story   about   recovery   of   the   tainted   bribe   amount   from   the possession of the accused, from his right side pant pocket.   In case,   the   tainted   GC   currency   notes,   duly   sprinkled   with phenolphthalein   powder,   have   been   kept   in   the   said   right   side pant   pocket,   by   the   accused,   as   alleged   by   the   prosecution witnesses, then on a wash with the solution of sodium carbonate in water, the white lining of the right side pant pocket should have also turned pink in color and there must have been some trace of the pink color  on  the  white lining of the right  side pant  pocket Ex.PW.6/P­4.  But, no such trace of pink color was present on the white lining of the pant pocket, when it was produced before the court.      

82. PW­4, complainant Pawan Kumar Gupta has further deposed CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  67   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  that at the CBI office, the recovery memo Ex.PW4/F was signed by  him  at about  8.30  p.m.     But, he  has  not   deposed  anything about the preparation of any document containing the numbers of the   recovered   tainted   GC   notes,   from   the   possession   of   the accused.  Even the recovery memo Ex.PW4/F does not mention this fact.  However, it finds mention that, "both the independent witnesses were requested to cross check the denomination numbers   of   the   recovered   bribe   amount   with   the denomination   numbers   mentioned   in   the   handing   over memo.   The same were tallied and were found correct with the denomination as mentioned in the handing over memo". It   is   relevant   to   mention   again   that   the   handing   over   memo Ex.PW4/B does not contain the number or denomination of any of the   40   GC   notes   of   Rs.500/­   denomination,   as   alleged.     It mentions   that   the   numbers   of   the   GC   notes   were   noted   down separately in 'Annexure­A', but, the said 'Annexure­A' is not on record.

83.  Perusal of the record further shows that a rough sketch map of the alleged trap site has been placed on record as Ex.PW4/F. But,   the   same   bears   the   signatures   of   only   the   complainant Pawan Kumar, PW­6 Neel Kamal Srivastava, PW­11 Maan Singh CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  68   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  and Inspector H.S.K. Singh, TLO. It does not bear the signatures of the remaining four members of the alleged raiding team of the CBI.   None of the prosecution witnesses has deposed that this sketch was prepared at his instance.

84.   Perusal   of   the   record   further   shows   that   various   material contradictions   have   also   come   on   record   in   the   testimonies   of PW­11 Maan Singh and PW­6 Neel Kamal Srivastava.   PW­11 Maan Singh has deposed before in the court that on 17.10.2013 he   again   visited   the   CBI   office   at   about   3.00   p.m.,   as   per   the direction of Mr. Arijit Daripa.  Why Mr. Arijit Daripa instructed PW­ 11 Maan Singh to visit the CBI office on 17.10.2013, is another unexplained   query,   because,   after   registration   of   the   FIR   on 17.10.2013, the further investigation of the case was marked to Inspector H.S.K. Singh and Inspector H.S.K. Singh was the trap laying officer and SI Arijit Daripa was not even a member of the alleged CBI trap team.   Furthermore, this witness has deposed that he reached the CBI office at about 3.00 p.m. and 6­7 CBI officials   were   present   there   along   with   the   complainant   and independent witness Neel Kamal.   But, this deposition is also in contradiction to the deposition of the complainant PW­4 Pawan Kumar Gupta, who has deposed before the court and the pre­trap CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  69   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  proceedings and preparation had already been concluded at the CBI office by 2.00 p.m. and they left the CBI office for conducting the trap at about 2.00 p.m. and they reached SDM Court Kotwali within 15­20 minutes.  

85. PW­11 Maan Singh has further deposed that on 17.10.2013, during the pre­ trap proceedings, the complainant brought a sum of  Rs.20,000/­  in cash   and  the  numbers  of  the  said  GC  notes were  noted  down   by the   CBI  officials  and  some  chemical  was sprinkled on these GC notes and thereafter, the tainted GC notes were handed over to the complainant.  But, the complainant PW­ 4 Pawan Kumar has deposed that he handed over the GC notes to  PW­11   Maan   Singh   and   PW­6  Neel  Kamal   Srivastava,   who noted down the numbers of the GC notes on a white paper and after demonstration, PW­11 Neel Kamal Srivastava was asked to put the tainted GC notes in his pant pocket.  PW Maan Singh has further stated that a demonstration of chemical reaction was also given   and   he   was   instructed   to   remain   with   complainant   Mr. Gupta.     He   has   categorically   stated   that   no   document   was prepared   by   the   CBI   officials   in   the   CBI   office   and   all   the documents were prepared by them at the SDM office.   He has further deposed that they all left the CBI office at about 3.30 p.m CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  70   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  and reached the office of the SDM Darya Ganj at about 4.00 p.m. He has further  deposed  that after  the transaction, the accused handed over the amount of Rs.20,000/­ to the CBI officials from his back pant pocket.   This deposition is also in contradiction to the deposition of the complainant PW­4 Pawan Kumar PW­6 Neel Kamal Srivastava, who have both deposed that the tainted GC notes were recovered from the pant pocket of accused by PW­6 Neel Kamal Srivastava.

86. PW­6   Neel   Kamal   Srivastava   has   also   given   contradictory deposition on various material points.   He has deposed that on 17.10.2013, he visited the CBI office on written orders of his Chief Engineer, where he was introduced with the complainant and the other   CBI   officials   and   the   other   independent   witness   Maan Singh.     He   has   also   deposed   about   the   demonstration   of chemical reaction of the powder sprinkled on the currency notes with   the   solution   of   sodium   carbonate   in   water.     He   has   also deposed that during the demonstration, he was asked to touch the   tainted   GC   notes   with   his   hands   and   thereafter   to   dip   his hands in a freshly prepared solution of sodium carbonate in water and  on  doing  so, the solution  of sodium  carbonate  had turned pink in color.   He has further stated that the pink color solution CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  71   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  was kept by the CBI officials in their office.   He has also stated that he was not remembering whether he signed any document, prior   to   leaving   the   CBI   office   for   conducting   the   raid.     This witness has also categorically stated that the tainted GC notes were kept by the CBI officials with him, after the demonstration and no specific directions were given by the CBI officials to any person before leaving the CBI office.

Discrepancies   regarding   sealing   of   GC   notes and deposition with Bank / Malkhana  

87. Perusal   of   the   record   further   shows   that   several   material contradictions   have   come   on   record   in   the   deposition   of   the prosecution witnesses, regarding the sealing of the recovered GC notes and deposition of the same at the malkhana of the CBI. 

88.   During   the   examination   of   the   complainant   PW­4,   Pawan Kumar, the recovered tainted GC notes were produced before the court   on   02.02.2015   by   the   MHC(M),   in   a   white   envelope, wrapped   in  a  transparent  polythene.    The   said  white   envelope was bearing the seal of "C.B.I. A.C.B. N.D." and "83/12", in the middle   of   the   seal   and   the   envelope   was   also   bearing   the particulars of the case and the stamp of the malkhana of the CBI, ACB, New Delhi, alongwith the information that it contained the CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  72   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  tainted bribe money of Rs.20,000/­, recovered from the accused Ram   Kishan   Sharma.   The   40   currency   notes   of   Rs.500/­ denomination,  have  been  proved  on  record   as Ex.PW.4/P­1  to Ex.PW.4/P­40, respectively.    After examining the envelope, the complainant   deposed   that   the   envelope   was   not   bearing   his signatures.   PW­6 Neel Kamal Srivastava has also not deposed anything about the sealing of the GC notes or about depositing the same at the malkhana of the CBI.   But, PW­11 Maan Singh has   deposed   that   the   recovered   tainted   GC   notes   were   not sealed by the CBI officials and the same were deposited by the CBI   officials   in   the   bank,   which   was   situated   in   the   Electronic Building, just opposite the CBI office.   The Trap Laying Officer Inspector  H.S.K.Singh (PW­12) has deposed  contrarily  that  the recovered bribe amount was sealed in an envelope.   He has also not   deposed   anything   about   depositing   the   recovered   currency notes at the malkhana of the CBI or at the locker of the banker of the CBI.   It is pertinent to mention here that during the trial, no record from the malkhana of the CBI, ACB, New Delhi, has been produced before the court to show that the recovered GC notes were duly deposited at the malkhana of the CBI, in a sealed condition.  These tainted GC notes were never sent to   CFSL   for   chemical   analysis   to   prove   the   presence   of CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  73   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  phenolphthalein powder on these GC notes. 

   Link Evidence

89.   Perusal   of   the   record   further   shows   that   no   evidence   has been   led   by   the   prosecution   about   the   deposition   of   the   case property at the Malkhana of the CBI.  The entire link evidence has remained   missing,   during   the   trial.     No   document   has   been produced before the court, regarding the deposition of the case property at the Malakhana.   The MHC(M)   of the Mlakhana has not   been   examined.     No   register   of   the   Malkhana   has   been produced before the court, to prove that the case property was duly   deposited   at   the   Malkhana   of   the   CBI,   after   the   trap proceedings, on 17.10.2013. No evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove that the case property was sent to the CFSL on 23.10.2013 or on 26.11.2013.  The official who deposited the case property at CFSL, on 26.11.2013 has not been examined or produced   before   the   court.     No   document   has   been   produced before the court to indicate the date or time, on which, the case property was received back at the Malkhana of the CBI, after its examination at CFSL, CBI, Delhi.

90. Perusal of the record further shows that the trap laying officer CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  74   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  Inspector H.S.K.Singh had deposited three sealed glass bottles marked   'RHW',   'LHW'   and   'BRSPPW',   all   containing   light   pink colored solution, at the chemistry division of the CFSL at Block No.4, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi on 24.10.2013, vide forwarding   letter   dated   23.10.2013  Ex.PW.13/DX.     There   is  no evidence on record to show about the custody of the aforesaid three exhibits.  No evidence has come on record to show that the aforesaid   three   exhibits   were   deposited   by   the   TLO   Inspector H.S.K.Singh   at   the   malkhana   of   the   CBI   on   17.10.2013,   itself, after   the   trap.     The   photocopy   of   the   forwarding   letter   dated 23.10.2013 bearing the endorsement and signatures of Inspector H.S.K.Singh regarding the deposition of the three sealed bottles at the CFSL, CBI, New Delhi on 24.10.2013, has been proved on record  as Ex.PW.13/DY.   Since these  articles  / exhibits  had been   deposited   at   the   chemistry   division   of   the   CFSL,   by Inspector H.S.K.Singh himself, it appears that these exhibits had   remained   in   his   custody   for   the   entire   period   w.e.f. 17.10.2013   to   24.10.2013.     Therefore,   the   possibility   of tampering   of   these   articles   /   exhibits   cannot   be   ruled   out. PW­6, Neel Kamal Srivastava, had also categorically stated in the court that the pink color solution, which was obtained during the demonstration   of   the   chemical   reaction   of   the   phenolphthalein CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  75   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  powder with the solution of sodium carbonate in water, was kept by the CBI officials in their office. 

91. Even in the case of the recorded conversations, which were allegedly transferred to the audio cassettes, there is no evidence on record to prove that the recorded audio cassettes and the SD cards, alongwith the DVR were duly deposited at the Malkhana of the CBI, in duly sealed condition.   No register of the Malkhana has   been   produced   before   the   court   even   in   this   regard.   No evidence has been led to indicate as to when the SD cards and C.Ds were sent to the CFSL for expert opinion.

92. Perusal  of the record further shows that the sealed memory cards,   marked   Q­1   and   Q­2,   containing   the   alleged   recorded conversations   between   the   complainant   Pawan   Kumar   and accused   Ram   Kishan,   dated   15.10.2013,   allegedly   recorded during   the   verification   process   of   the   complaint   on   15.10.2013 and containing the conversation between them, during the trap proceedings   on   17.10.2013,   respectively,   alongwith   a   compact disc   mark   'S­1',   allegedly   containing   the   specimen   voice   of accused Ram Kishan, recorded on 17.10.2013, were sent to the Physics   Division   of   CFSL,   CBI   at   Block   No.4,   CGO   Complex, CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  76   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  Lodhi   Road,   New   Delhi   on     23.10.2013   vide   forwarding   letter dated 23.10.2013 Ex.PW.15/A.   It is pertinent to mention here that   neither   the   original   DVR   in   which   the   alleged conversations were recorded, nor the memory card on which the   specimen   voice   of   the   accused   Ram   Kishan   was recorded, were seized nor sent to the physics division of the CFSL, CBI, for expert opinion.  None of the CBI officials has submitted   any   certificate   under   Section   65­B   of   Indian Evidence Act regarding the C.D., marked 'S­1'.  

93. Perusal  of the  record  further   shows that  on  23.10.2013,  the forwarding   letter   dated   23.10.2013   was   marked   by   the   HOD, Physics  Division,  CFSL,  CBI, New  Delhi,  to  the  case  assistant Shri Sunil Kumar with remarks "Please check and receive the case   exhibits".   After   checking,   Shri   Sunil   Kumar   raised   the following two objections: 

(i)     Seal   impression   on   the   parcels   marked   Ex.Q­2   is   not clearly visible;

(ii)  Transcription is not provided .

Thereafter,   the   HOD   Physics   Division,   CFSL,   CBI,   returned back the forwarding letter dated 23.10.2013 to the SP, CBI, ACB, New   Delhi,   with   the   remarks   :   "Kindly   re­submit   the   case CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  77   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  alongwith   required   transcription   and   with   legible   seals impressions". Thereafter, the exhibits, as well as the forwarding letter was returned back to the SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi.

94.   The   articles   /   exhibits   were   resubmitted   to   the   Physics Division, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi, on 26.11.2013, after removal of the objections, by Constable Suresh Chandra of CBI, ACB, New Delhi.   On   26.11.2013,   the   HOD   Physics   Division,   CFSL,   CBI, again   marked   the   exhibits   to   case   assistant   Sunil   Kumar,   vide endorsement   on   the   forwarding   letter   dated   23.10.2013   as, "Please   check   and   receive   the   case   exhibits".     Shri   Sunil Kumar,   Case   Assistant   has   duly   received   the   three   sealed parcels   marked   'Q­1',   'Q­2'   and   'S­1'   in   the   Physics   Division, CFSL, CBI, from Constable Suresh Chandra on 26.11.2013 and he gave acknowledgment in this regard by making endorsement on the forwarding letter dated 23.10.2013, itself.  The photocopy of the forwarding letter dated 23.10.2013 Ex.PW.15/A bearing all these   endorsements,   objections   dated   23.10.2013   and   the endorsements and acknowledgment regarding redeposition of the exhibits   on   26.11.2013   have   been   proved   on   record   as Ex.PW.14/DA.  The document Ex.PW.14/DA clearly indicate that the sealed envelope containing memory card marked 'Q­2' was CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  78   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  not having clearly visible seal impressions and no transcript of the recorded conversations marked 'Q­1' and 'Q­2' were prepared or received at the Physics Division of the CFSL, till 23.10.2013.  The exhibits   were   sent   back   to   SP,   CBI,   ACB,   New   Delhi   on 23.10.2013   itself   and   were   resubmitted   at   Physics   Division, CFSL, CBI, on 26.11.2013.   There is no evidence on record about the custody of these exhibits during the period w.e.f. 23.10.2013   to   26.11.2013.     Neither   Shri   Sunil   Kumar,   Case Assistant   of   Physics   Division,   CFSL,   CBI,   nor   constable Suresh Chandra of ACB, CBI, New Delhi have been cited or examined as a prosecution witness, during the trial.

95.  It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case titled as,  "Ukha   Kolhe   Vs.   State   of   Maharashtra,  reported   as  AIR 1963 SC 1531", as under: 

8.  But there is no evidence on the record about the person in whose custody this phial remained till it was handed over to the Sub­Inspector   of   Police   on   April   13,   1961   when   demanded.

There   is   also   no   evidence   about   the   precautions   taken   to ensure against tampering with the contents of the phial when it was in the Civil Hospital and later in the custody of the police between April 13, 1961 and April 18, 1961.   Even the special messenger   with   whom   the   phial   was   sent   to   the   Chemical Examiner   was   not   examined:  and   Ext.   43   which   was   the acknowledgment signed by some person purporting to belong to the establishment of the Chemical Examiner does not bear the official designation of that person.   The report of the Chemical CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  79   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  Examiner mentions that a sealed phial was received from the police officer by letter No. C/010 of 1961 dated April 18, 1961, but there is no evidence that the seal was the one which was affixed   by   Dr.   Rote   on   the   phial.     These   undoubtedly   were defects   in   the   prosecution   evidence   which   appear   to   have occurred on account of insufficient appreciation of the character of   the  burden   which   the   prosecution   undertakes   in   proving   a case   of   an   offence   under   S.   66   (1)   (b)   relying  upon   the presumption under S. 6 (2).

                                                           (emphasis supplied by me)  

96.   The   absence   of   the   entire   link   evidence   regarding   the deposition   of   the   case   property   in   sealed   condition   at   the Malkhana   of   the   CBI   and   sending   of   the   case   property   to   the CFSL for chemical analysis and expert opinion, also makes the prosecution case doubtful.

  Non­compliance of Section 157 Cr.P.C.

97.   Perusal of the record further shows that the FIR   Ex.PW4/C could not be proved in accordance with law, during the trial, as only   carbon   copy   of   the   FIR   has   been   filed   on   record. Furthermore,   there   is  no   evidence   on   record   to   prove   that   the copy of the FIR was sent to the court of the Ld. Special Judge, CBI, Delhi, immediately, after its registration, in compliance of the provisions of Sec. 157 Cr.P.C.  

CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  80   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi 

98.   It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in case titled as Devender @ Kallu  vs.  State, reported as 2011 (2) JCC 1453,  as under :­ "26. This court is also of the opinion that the prosecution had an obligation to explain if, and when the report under Section 157 Cr.P.C.   had   been   sent   to   the   magistrate.     This   obligation   is positive   one,   in   order   to   eliminate   any   suspicion   of   false implication of an accused in a criminal case, and the authorities have underscored the mandatory character to prove this as a fact.  The prosecution's lapse is telling on its case.  Equally, this court notices that the Death report (Ex. PW­19/A); the brief facts and the request for post mortem of the dead body (Ex. PW­19/B and Ex. PW­19/C) are all dated 10­9­1999.  The death occurred in   the   early   hours   of   09­09­1999,   in   this   case.     Yet   the prosecution   has   not   furnished   any   explanation   why   the   post­ mortem of the body was sought late.

                                                        (emphasis supplied by me)

99.   It was again held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as   Rajesh Kumar   vs.   State, reported as  2011 (4) JCC 2522, as under : ­ "9. Similarly, with respect to the argument concerning the delay in   lodging   the   FIR,   the   Court   does   not   find   the   same   to   be substantial.     The   FIR,   in   this   case,   was   lodged   almost simultaneously with the receipt of the information through DD No. 13A.  The police moved in and took steps to secure the spot and   carried   on  the  investigation.     The   appellant's   arrest   took place on 14.6.1990, it matches PW­14's statement that after the attack he threw down the chhuri (knife) and fled the spot.   No doubt,   the   prosecution   did   not   establish   by   positive   evidence that the report which the police was to, mandatorily furnish to the concerned Magistrate in terms of Section­157, had indeed been   done.     However,   the   Trial   Court   noticed   that   the CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  81   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  endorsement in this regard by the Magistrate was timed at 8:00 AM on 12.6.1990.  We are of the opinion that too much cannot be made out having regard to the circumstances in this case. However, this would not, in our opinion, absolve the police of the   obligation   to   furnish   such   report   which   have   been emphasized   time   and   again   by   several   judgments   of   the Supreme Court as well as this Court.  We have, of late, noticed the tendency, in the cases that have been considered by this Court, of the police, not to send these reports except in a case of   Section­302   IPC.     We   emphasized   that   the   mandate   of Section­157 is clear and unequivocal, a report must necessarily be   sent   in   compliance   of   this   provision   to   the   concerned Magistrate in all classes of offences mentioned in the provision. We direct the Commissioner of Police to take appropriate steps in this regard  and  issue necessary  instructions  for  immediate compliance.   

                                     (emphasis supplied by me)

100.   In the present case also, the FIR Ex.PW4/C was allegedly registered on 17.10.2013, at about 12.30 p.m. but only a carbon copy of the same has been placed on record during the trial.  The concerned duty officer, who actually recorded the FIR, has not been   examined.     Even   the   original   FIR   register   has   not   been produced, before the court, during the trial.  Furthermore, there is no evidence on record to show that the copy of the FIR was sent to the concerned court, immediately, after its registration.  Perusal of the record shows that another carbon copy of the FIR has been sent   to   the   court   of   Shri   Rakesh   Kumar   Singh,   Duty   MM,   on 18.10.2013 and the same was received in the court of the Ld. Special Judge, CBI, only on 21.10.2013.   The said carbon copy CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  82   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  has   been   proved   on   record   as   Ex.PW.15/DA.   There   is   no explanation on record, as to why the copy of the FIR was not sent to   the   concerned   court   of   the   Ld.   Special   Judge,   CBI,   on 17.10.2013 itself, immediately after its registration at 12.30 p.m. There is no explanation as to why the said carbon copy of the FIR was   delivered   in   the   court   of   the   Ld.   Duty   Magistrate   on 18.10.2013, despite bearing an endorsement that the said copy of the FIR was to be delivered in the court of the Ld. Special Judge at   Tis   Hazari.     As   the   Provisions   of   Sec.   157   Cr.P.C.   are mandatory   in   nature,   the   non­compliance   of   the   same,   in   the present case, also casts a further doubt on the prosecution story.

     Sanction for Prosecution

101.  The sanction for prosecution of the accused, who was working as Constable in Delhi Police, as required under the provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, has been granted by   PW­1   Ms.   Sindhu   Pillai,   Deputy   Commissioner   of   Police (North),   Delhi,   vide   order,   Ex.PW1/A.   The   perusal   of   the testimony of PW­1 Ms. Sindhu Pillai, indicates that the sanction for   prosecution   has   been   granted   in   a   routine   and   mechanical manner, without any application of mind.

102.  It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case, titled CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  83   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  as "C.B.I.  Vs.  Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, reported as  2014 Cri. L.J. 930", as under :­

7. The prosecution has to satisfy the court that at the time of sending   the   matter   for   grant   of   sanction   by   the   competent authority, adequate material for such grant was made available to   the   said   authority.     This   may   also   be   evident   from   the sanction order, in case it is extremely comprehensive, as all the facts  and circumstances  of  the  case  may be spelt  out  in the sanction order.  However, in every individual case, the court has to find out whether there has been an application of mind on the part   of   the   sanctioning   authority   concerned   on   the   material placed before it.  It is so necessary for the reason that there is an obligation on the sanctioning authority to discharge its duty to give or withhold sanction only after having full knowledge of the material facts of the case.  Grant of sanction is not a mere formality.   Therefore,  the provisions in  regard to  the  sanction must be observed with complete strictness keeping in mind the public   interest   and   the   protection   available   to   the   accused against whom the sanction is sought. 

It is to be kept in mind that sanction lifts the bar for prosecution. Therefore, it is not an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct   act   which   affords   protection   to   the   government servant against frivolous prosecution.  Further, it is a weapon to discourage   vexatious   prosecution   and   is   a   safeguard   for   the innocent, though not a shield for the guilty. Consideration of the material   implies   application   of   mind.     Therefore,   the   order   of sanction  must  ex  facie  disclose that  the sanctioning  authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it.  In every individual case, the probability has to establish and satisfy   the   court   by   leading   evidence   that   those   facts   were placed before  the sanctioning  authority  and the  authority  had applied its mind on the same.   If the sanction order on its face indicates   that   all   relevant   material   i.e.   FIR,   disclosure statements,   recovery   memos,   draft   charge   sheet   and   other materials   on   record,   were   placed   before   the   sanctioning authority  and if   it  is  further   discernible  from  the recital  of   the sanction   order   that   the   sanctioning   authority   perused   all   the CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  84   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  material, an inference may be drawn that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law.   This becomes necessary in case the court is to examine the validity of the order of sanction inter alia on the ground that the order suffers from the vice of total non application of mind.

                                (emphasis supplied by me)

103.   PW1 Ms. Sindhu Pillai, has deposed that she was competent to remove the subordinate staff in the North District of Delhi upto the level of Sub Inspector.  She has further stated that her office received   a   request   from   ACB,   CBI,   New   Delhi,   for   granting sanction for prosecution of the accused and her office processed the file and put up before her alongwith the SP report.   The SP report   consisted   of   statement   of   witnesses   and   documents collected   by   the   IO   during   investigation.     In   her   cross examination,   she   had   admitted   that   no   personal   hearing   was given   to   the   accused   and   the   audio   cassette   /   CDs   were   not received in her office when she perused the case file for grant of sanction   against   him.     She   has   volunteered   that   only   the transcription   of   the   recorded   conversations   were   on   record. She had admitted that a draft sanction order was also attached in the case file.  However, she had denied the suggestion of the Ld. Defence   counsel   that   she   granted   sanction   for   prosecution   of accused Ram Kishan in a mechanical manner and without any application of mind.  

CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  85   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi 

104.   The   sanction   order   has   been   proved   on   record   as Ex.PW.1/A.     This   sanction   order   mentions   that   constable   Ram Kishan   Sharma,   Delhi   Police,   Batch   No.   691/N,   PIS   No. 28881188,   was   posted   as   Naib   Court   in   the   office   of   Sh. B.L.Meena, SDM, Kotwali, Daryaganj, Delhi.  This sanction order does not mention anywhere that accused Constable Ram Kishan Sharma   was   posted   or   working   as   the   Reader   in   the   office   of SDM, Kotwali, Daryaganj, Delhi.   Perusal of this sanction order Ex.PW.1/A dated 13.12.2013 further shows that the CFSL reports Ex.PW.13/A,   dated   28.10.2013   and   Ex.PW.14/A,   dated 12.12.2013   were   not   produced   before   PW­1   Ms.   Sindhu   Pillai, alongwith the SP report, for her perusal, before granting sanction for prosecution of the accused.  Even otherwise, the CFSL report Ex.PW.14/A dated 12.12.2013 has been received in the office of the SP, SDoP, CBI, ACB, only on 10.03.2014 vide diary No. 392, dated 10.03.2014.  Sh. D.K.Barik, SP, CBI, had duly marked this report   to   I/c   Malkhana   (5   Packets   in   sealed   condition)   on 10.03.2014 and therefore, there was no occasion for PW­1 Ms. Sindhu Pillai to peruse the CFSL report on 13.12.2013.   These circumstances   clearly  indicate  that  PW­1 Ms. Sindhu  Pillai  has passed the sanction order Ex.PW.1/A in a mechanical manner, without  any application  of mind.    Therefore,  the sanction  order CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  86   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  Ex.PW.1/A cannot be held to be a valid sanction order.

      DEFENCE EVIDENCE

105.    It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case   titled   as  Krishna   Janardhan   Bhatt   vs.   Dattatraya   G. Hegde, reported as (2008) 2 SCC Crl. 166, as under: 

34.     Furthermore, whereas prosecution must prove the guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof so   as   to   prove   a   defence   on   the   part   of   an   accused   is "preponderance of probabilities".  Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on   record   by   the   parties   but   also   by   reference   to   the circumstances upon which he relies.

  (emphasis supplied by me)  

106.   It was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case titled as Sanjiv Kumar vs. State of Punjab, reported as (2010) 3 SCC Crl. 330, as under:­

  20.        We cannot  lose  sight   of   the  principle  that   while   the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the defence of the accused has to be tested on the touchstone of probability.   The burden of proof lies on the prosecution in all criminal trial,  tough the onus may shift to the accused in given circumstances,   and   if   so   provided   by   law.    Therefore,   the evidence has to be appreciated to find out whether the defence set up by the applicant is probable and true.

  23.       It has been observed that defence witnesses are often untruthful,  but   that   is   not   to   say   that   in   all   cases   defence witnesses must be held to be untruthful, merely because they support   the   case   of   the   accused.     The   right   given   to   the CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  87   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  appellant to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him serves a purpose, and cannot be ignored outright. In every case the court has to see whether the defence set up by the accused is probable, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case.  If the defence appears to be   probable,   the   court   may   accept   such   defence.    This   is primarily a matter of appreciation of evidence on record and no straitjacket formula can be enunciated in this regard.                                                 (emphasis supplied by me)

107.   During the trial, the accused has examined Head Constable Satish   Kumar,   Ms.   Pallavi   H.Kumar   and   Shri   Mukul   Gupta,   as DW­1,  DW­2  and  DW­3 respectively.    The   deposition  of  DW­2 Ms. Pallavi H. Kumar, Chief Manager (Personnel) from MMTC, (i.e. from the office of PW­11 Maan Singh), has demolished the entire prosecution case.  It has come on record that PW­11 Maan Singh   allegedly   remained   with   the   CBI   team   during   the verification process of the complaint on 15.10.2013 and he also accompanied the CBI team during the alleged trap proceedings on 17.10.2013.  He also joined the investigations on 08.11.2013 when the transcripts of the recorded conversations were allegedly prepared   at   the   CBI   office,   vide   voice   identification   memo Ex.PW.4/G.

108.  DW­2 Ms. Pallavi H. Kumar has produced the record of a RTI application,   moved   by   Sh.   Mukesh   Kumar   Sharma,   Advocate, CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  88   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  with the MMTC on 03.03.2016.   In the said RTI application, Sh. Mukesh   Kumar   Sharma,   Advocate,   had   sought   the   information about the attendance of Sh. Maan Singh, as a shadow witness, in the CBI cases.  The said application has been proved on record as   Ex.DW2/A   (2   sheets   collectively).   In   reply   to   this   RTI application, it was reported that PW­11 Maan Singh had attended the   CBI     office   as   a   shadow   witness   and   the   details   of   his attendance were also furnished as Annexure­I.  As per Annexure­ I, PW­11 Maan Singh had attended the CBI office on a total of 27 occasions/dates,   during   the   period   w.e.f.   02.05.2013   to 24.08.2015.     It   further   indicate   that   PW­11   Maan   Singh   had attended the CBI office on 15.10.2013 as well as on 08.11.2013. But,   interestingly,   the   date   of   trap   i.e.   17.10.2013   is   not mentioned in this Annexure.   It implies that PW­11 Maan Singh had   not   attended   the   CBI   office   on   17.10.2013.     Therefore,   it makes his presence during the trap proceedings on 17.10.2013 doubtful.  

109. The   above   RTI   details   constrains   this   court   to   make   an adverse   opinion   against   the   CBI   investigation   and   to   draw   an adverse   inference   that   PW­11   Maan   Singh   had   never accompanied   the   raiding   team   of   the   CBI   during   the   trap CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  89   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  proceedings   on   17.10.2013   and   his   signatures   have   been obtained   by   the   CBI   officials   on   the   handing   over   memo Ex.PW4/B, the recovery memo dated 17.10.2013 Ex.PW4/F, the sketch map Ex.PW4/E and the arrest­cum­personal search memo Ex.PW6/A, lateron.   This inference also finds corroboration from the fact that during the pre­trap proceedings on 17.10.2013, the services   of   the   other   witness,   namely,   PW­6   Neel   Kamal Srivastava   were taken by SI A.K. Maurya, while demonstrating the chemical reaction of phenolphthalein powder with the solution of sodium carbonate in water.  Furthermore, the CBI officials have also   taken   his   services   during   the   trap   proceedings,   for   the purposes  of recovering  the  tainted  bribe  amount  from  the  pant pocket of the accused.  If PW­11 Maan Singh was available with the   trap   team,   allegedly   as   a   shadow   witness,   then   why   the services of Neel Kamal Srivasatava were taken by the CBI team for recovering the alleged bribe amount.  These RTI documents therefore,   casts   a  serious   doubt  on   the  entire   prosecution case and points towards fabrication of documents by the CBI officials, at a later stage.    

110.   In view of the large number of material contradictions and the discrepancies on record, as discussed above, this court is of the CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  90   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi  considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand of bribe, acceptance of the bribe money and recovery of the tainted GC notes from the possession of the accused, beyond a shadow of doubt.  Therefore, he is entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly, he is hereby acquitted, for the  offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

111.   The bail bond, submitted by the accused on 09.01.2017, as per the provisions of Section 437(A) of the Cr.P.C, shall remain in force   for   a   period   of   six   months   from   today.     The   accused   is further   directed   to   appear   before   the   Appellate   Court,   as   and when, any  notice is issued to him by the Appellate Court, in any appeal, if preferred by the prosecution/ CBI, against his acquittal.   It is ordered accordingly.

  File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.  

Announced in open Court      on 16th day of January, 2017                   BRIJESH KUMAR GARG              Special Judge:CBI­01          Central District. Delhi CBI  Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma(CC No. 08/2013)      Page  91   of  91                Special Judge, CBI­01, Central, Delhi