Delhi District Court
State vs . Ramesh Chander Page 1 Of 22 on 9 May, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAROTTAM KAUSHAL,
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC Act)05, (ACB), (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
STATE
Versus
Ramesh Chandra
S/o Soran Singh
R/o 877, Gali No. 3,
Budh Vihar, Mandoli,
Delhi93.
Corruption Case No. : 14/2013
FIR No. : 33/2010
Case Identification No. : 02401R0262242013
Police Station : Anti Corruption Branch
Under Section : 7/8/13 (1) (d) of Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988.
Date of Institution : 23.05.2013
Date of reserving the Judgment : 03.05.2014
Date of pronouncing the Judgment : 09.05.2014
State Vs. Ramesh Chander Page 1 of 22
2
JUDGMENT
1.1 Surender Nagpal, a transporter working under the name and style of M/s Shalimar Travel filed complaint dated 26.07.2010 (Ex. PW3/A) addressed to Additional Commissioner of PSACB, Delhi. The subject of complaint was regarding 'Demand of bribe by Reader Ramesh Chander'. It was stated by the complainant that on 23.07.2010 conductor of his bus bearing registration No. DL1PB6511 telephonically informed him, at about 4.00 PM, that their bus had been detained at PS Desh Bandu Gupta Road, Delhi. (hereinafter called DBG Road). Conductor made him speak to Ramesh Chander. Ramesh Chander told him that one person was present with him, who claimed that his pocket had been picked for Rs. 13,000/ in his bus. Complainant enquired whether the pocket had been picked by conductor or driver of the bus. At this Ramesh Chander asked him to reach the police station, failing which bus bearing No. DL1PB6511 will be involved in a case. He also took Rs. 1,000/ from complainant's conductor. Thereafter on 26.07.2010 at about 1.45 PM Ramesh Chander again called him up, introducing himself as Reader to SHO and demanded Rs. 5,000/. Complainant then reminded him of Rs. 1,000/ having already been paid by the conductor,. At this accused told him to send balance amount of Rs. 4,000/ at the police station by 6/7.00 PM. Complainant brought Rs. 4,000/ in denomination of one GC note of Rs. 1,000/ and six GC notes of Rs. 500/ for being paid as balance amount to Ramesh State Vs. Ramesh Chander Page 2 of 22 3 Chandra Reader to SHO, PS DBG Road. He prayed for action against Ramesh Chandra.
1.2 On receipt of this complaint, the same was marked to Inspector Megh Raj by the Additional CP. Inspector Megh Raj ( hereinafter called Raid Officer ) associated panch witness Pawan Kumar Fuloria. He conducted preraid proceeding. Currency notes brought by complainant were treated with phenolphthalein powder and serial numbers of the same were noted. RO/Inspector Megh Raj demonstrated the use of phenolphthalein powder to the complainant and the panch witness. They were given the requisite instructions for the trap. A raiding team was constituted, which went to PS DBG Road, wherein accused/Ct. Ramesh Chandra, Reader to SHO, PS DBG Road was nabbed accepting Rs. 4,000/ as bribe in shape of treated GC notes. Hand wash proceedings were carried out. Case property was seized and rukka for registration of FIR was prepared and sent. IO/Inspector Roop Lal was called. He arrested the accused and conducted further investigation at the spot. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the court on 30.05.2013.
2. Cognizance of the offence punishable u/sec.7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'POC Act'). was taken against accused Ramesh Chandra. The accused was summoned and he entered appearance. Proceedings u/sec.207 Cr.P.C. were complied with.
State Vs. Ramesh Chander Page 3 of 22 4
3. Arguments on charge were heard. Vide order dated 30.7.2013, charge for offences punishable u/s 7 and 13 of POC Act was framed. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4.1 Prosecution in support of its case examined 13 witnesses. SI Nathu Ram (PW1) has been examined to prove the posting of accused/Ct. Ramesh Chandra at PS DBG Road. HC Diwakar Prasad (PW7) has been examined to prove the duty roaster and DD Register A & B of PS DBG Road, to establish the presence of accused/Ct. Ramesh Chandra at the police station on 26.07.2010.
4.2 H.C. Krishna Dasan (PW2) was duty officer, PS ACB. He has proved the lodging of FIR No 33/10 and DD entries regarding departure of raiding team. Ct. Vijender (PW10) is a witness of deposit of samples at FSL, Rohini on 2.8.2010 and collection of report and remnants from the laboratory on 06.09.2010 ( wrongly deposed by the witness as 6.6.2010 ). HC Jai Prakash (PW12) was MHC (M) at PS Civil Line. He proved safe custody of case property.
4.3 ACP Roop Lal ( PW11), Inspector Naresh (PW8) and ACP Ravinder Kumar (PW4) remained part IOs and proved various stages of investigation. DCP A.K. Singh (PW13) proved sanction of prosecution of the accused u/s 19 POC Act.
State Vs. Ramesh Chander Page 4 of 22 5 4.4 Satish Kumar (PW5) was the victim of pick pocketing in bus No. DL1PB6511, belonging to the complainant. Surender Nagpal (PW3) is the complainant of the present case. He has deposed about demand of bribe by the accused and being protagonist of the prosecution case has proved the entire raid. Pawan Kuar Fuloria (PW6) was associated as a panch witness to the raid. He, however, did not support the entire case of the prosecution.
4.5 Inspector Megh Raj (PW9 ) is the Raid Officer. He proved the recovery of tainted GC notes from the possession of the accused and the entire raid proceeding.
5. Prosecution evidence was put to the accused and his statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded. He admitted having stopped the bus of the complainant at PS DBG Road, on being reported by Satish Kumar of a pick pocketing incident in the said bus. He denied having spoken to Surender Nagpal on mobile phone of his conductor Pradeep for not involving the bus in criminal case. He also denied having made a demand of Rs. 5,000/ on 26.7.2010. He denied having agreed to accept Rs. 4,000/ and acknowledging receipt of Rs. 1,000/ through conductor Pradeep. He denied knowledge of preraid proceedings. He denied demand and acceptance of Rs. 4,000/ as bribe from the complainant on 26.7.2010 at about 4.40 PM. He denied recovery of bribe money from State Vs. Ramesh Chander Page 5 of 22 6 his fist. He denied his right hand wash having turned pink. He explained that complainant came to him for handing over amount of Rs. 4,000/ to the victim of pick pocketing, to compensate him. Complainant offered the money to him claiming that he was in a hurry. On refusal of accused to accept the money he pushed the money in his hand. Accused was making a call to the victim to come and take money, when raiding team apprehended him. Accused sought opportunity to lead defence evidence and examined seven witnesses in his defence evidence.
6. Ct. Jai Kishan ( DW1), Ct. Inderjeet Singh (DW3) and HC Mahender Singh (DW4) proved various FIRs registered against the complainant at PS Jahangirpuri, Shalimar Bagh and Civil Line respectively. Sita Ram ( DW2), SSO, MTNL proved the call details record of land line No. 23537374 to show phone calls having been made from this phone to mobile phone of Satish Kumar on 26.7.2010 at 4.36 PM Ct. Shah Alam (DW5) of PS DBG Road deposed that accused made a phone call from the land line number of PS DBG Road from duty officer's room at about 4.35/4.40 PM. Ct. Manju (DW7) deposed that she was sitting in the room of accused on 26.7.2010, when complainant and panch witness came to that room. She has further proved the defence version of the incident. Pawan Kumar (PW6) claims to be the bus driver of bus No. DL1PB6511. He has deposed that on 23.7.2010 State Vs. Ramesh Chander Page 6 of 22 7 Conductor Pradeep had given Rs. 1,000/ to victim of pick pocketing on the advise of complainant Surender Nagpal, with the promise to pay balance amount subsequently.
7. Sh. Sanjay Soni, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of State has argued that prosecution case stands fully proved in the testimony of complainant, Surender Nagpal (PW3) and the RO/ Inspector Megh Raj (PW9). It is argued that the testimony of Surender Nagpal (PW3) cannot be doubted. He had no reasons to falsely implicate the accused. There is no personal enmity or grievance with the accused. Recovery of treated GC notes from the fist of the accused is proved by Pawan Kumar Fuloria (PW6), Surender Nagpal (PW3) and Inspector Megh Raj (PW9). Drawing the presumption u/s 20 of the PC Act, the testimony of Surender Nagpal (PW3) is corroborated. It is submitted that the raid report Ex. PW3/B being a record of the proceeding prepared at the time of raid is itself admissible in evidence, which proves the entire case of the prosecution.
8.1 Shri Narender Sharma, Ld. defence counsel has strongly contested the case of the prosecution. It is submitted that conductor Pradeep from whom the alleged demand of bribe was first made, has been with held by the prosecution. Even the driver of the bus was not examined by the prosecution. Woman constable, who as per the case of State Vs. Ramesh Chander Page 7 of 22 8 prosecution itself, was present with the accused in his room has also not been associated as a witness. Phone call made from the land line of duty officer's room at PS DBG Road, to the mobile phone of Satish Kumar, victim of pick pocketing, has not been explained by the prosecution. It is further argued that the complainant bears a grudge against the police, in general, as he is facing several prosecutions. He was looking for an opportunity to lodge a complaint against any police officer and went to PS ACB on 23.7.2010, even before meeting his conductor and getting to know of payment of Rs. 1,000/ by him.
8.2 Shri Narender Sharma has further submitted that on 23.7.2010 itself Satish Kumar, victim of pick pocketing, had entered into a settlement with complainant through his conductor, wherein complainant had agreed to compensate him. On instructions of complainant, his conductor had paid Rs. 1,000/ to Satish and promised him to pay more amount subsequently. The balance amount of Rs. 4,000/ which was to be paid to Satish to compensate him, was given the colour of bribe money by complainant. Referring to the testimony of Pawan Kumar Fuloria (PW6) panch witness and Ct. Manju ( DW7), it is argued that complainant came to PS DBG Road on 26.7.2010 for the purpose of handing over Rs. 4,000/ to Satish Kumar. He offered the said amount to accused which accused declined to accept. Complainant thrust the amount towards the accused who pushed away the same and State Vs. Ramesh Chander Page 8 of 22 9 went to make a phone call to Satish to come and collect the amount. This sequence of events is proved in the testimony of DW6, DW7 and PW5. It is, thus, argued that prosecution case has failed and the defence propagated by the accused creates a reasonable doubt about the prosecution version. The Ld. defence counsel has relied upon the law laid down in State of Maharashtra Vs Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede 2009 Cri. L.J. 4425 & State of Punjab Vs Sohan Singh AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1887.
9.1 In rebuttal Sh. Sanjay Soni, Ld. Additional PP has argued that there is no evidence of any complaint having been made by Satish Kumar or having settled the same. Any settlement, if arrived at, should have been in writing. Receipt of Rs. 1,000/ by Satish, is also not proved. Testimony of Ct. Manju (DW7) and Ct. Shah Alam (DW5) cannot be relied upon as none of the two officers ever reported to any authority or court that Ct. Ramesh Chandra had been falsely implicated. Challenge is also made to call details record sought to be proved by Sita Ram (DW2) on the ground that certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act has not been proved by the said witness.
9.2 It is next submitted that the prosecution story of pushing currency notes is not proved as recovery was effected from the fist of accused.
State Vs. Ramesh Chander Page 9 of 22 10
10. I have heard the Ld. counsels and with their assistance perused the record and statement of witnesses. To prove the charges framed against the accused, prosecution has to establish following ingredients, beyond reasonable doubt :
(i) Accused demanded Rs. 5,000/ as bribe from complainant for no implicating his bus in a criminal case;
(ii) Accused accepted and demanded Rs. 4,000/ as bribe at the time of trap on 26.07.2010;
(iii) Treated GC notes of Rs. 4,000/ were recovered from the possession of the accused.
11. I shall take up all the three ingredients one by one and analyze the evidence that has come up on record.
(i) Accused demanded Rs. 5,000/ as bribe from complainant for no implicating his bus in a criminal case; 12.1 To prove the initial demand of bribe on 23.07.2010, prosecution has examined only Surender Nagpal (PW3). The witness has deposed that on 23.7.2010 at about 4.00 PM he received a call from his conductor Pradeep informing him that his bus had been stopped at PS DBG Road. Conductor Pradeep made him speak to police man Ramesh Chandra, from his mobile phone, who threatened to involve State Vs. Ramesh Chander Page 10 of 22 11 the bus in the case and asked him to report at police station. He has further deposed that at night when conductor met him, he told that he paid Rs. 1,000/ to Ramesh Chandra for not involving the bus in pick pocketing case. The witness has further deposed that on 26.7.2010 he received a phone call on his mobile phone from Ramesh Chandra demanding Rs. 5,000/ for not involving his bus in the pick pocketing case. On being reminded that Rs. 1000/ has already been paid to him, Ramesh Chandra agreed to accept Rs. 4,000/ and asked him to reach PS DBG Road till 6/7.00 PM. On being cross examined by ld. defence counsel he deposed that he had gone to PS ACB on 23.7.2010, as well, when he was sent back saying that time was insufficient to conduct a raid. He had not spoken to his conductor on 23.7.2010, after the phone call in the evening, till he reported to him in the night.
12. 2 Prosecution ofcourse has not examined conductor and driver of the bus. Satish Kumar (PW5) who was the victim of pick pocketing has deposed that after his pocket had been picked, he asked the conductor to take him to the nearest police station. Driver slowed down the bus and conductor pushed him out of the bus. On a call to PCR, he was taken to PS DBG Road and accused HC Ramesh Chandra was assigned to him. HC Ramesh Chander stopped the bus in front of the police station and made inquiries from the conductor and the driver. On being cross examined by Ld. defence counsel, he admitted that State Vs. Ramesh Chander Page 11 of 22 12 owner of the bus got Rs. 1000/ paid to him by his conductor, promising to compensate him subsequently. He also admitted that he had withdrawn his complaint at PS DBG Road, as he had been promised to be compensated. He admitted being user of mobile phone No. 9911310091. On reexamination by Ld. Additional PP he denied having made addition and improvement in his statement regarding receipt of Rs. 1,000/, to save the accused.
12.3 Another witness to this part of the occurrence is, driver of the bus namely, Pawan Kumar (DW6). He has deposed that he and conductor of the bus talked to Satish Kumar, victim of pick pocketing, in the presence of accused. Pradeep made a phone call to Surender Nagpal who advised Pradeep to settle the matter with victim of pick pocketing. Pradeep then gave Rs. 1000/ to the victim of pick pocketing, promising to pay the balance amount subsequently. Accused did not demand and accept any bribe from him and Pradeep. On being cross examined he admitted that no receipt was taken by Pradeep of Rs. 1000/ given to Satish. No written compromise was arrived at. He did not possess any documentary evidence to indicate that he was driver on the bus of Surender Nagpal at the time of incident. 12.4 From the evidence as noticed above, demand of Rs. 1000/ as bribe and acceptance thereof on 23.7.2010 is not proved at all. It is the case of the prosecution itself that this demand was made from State Vs. Ramesh Chander Page 12 of 22 13 conductor Pradeep. Said Pradeep has not been examined as witness but this allegation is sought to be proved through complainant. This part of testimony of complainant is inadmissible, being hearsay evidence. In fact complainant Surender Nagpal in his testimony as PW3 has not deposed having been informed by his conductor regarding demand or acceptance of the amount of Rs. 1000/ at the time of first phone call. He has deposed that in the night when conductor returned to him, he reported to have paid Rs. 1000/ to Ramesh Chandra. There was thus no occasion for the complainant to have gone to PS ACB on 23.7.2010 in the evening hours to report about demand of bribe by the police officials namely Ram Chander. It is not his case that during telephonic talk in the evening with his conductor Pradeep he had been informed of any demand of bribe by Ramesh Chander. It is his best case that in the night when conductor Pradeep came to him after concluding the day's work, he was informed of payment of Rs. 1000/ as bribe to Ramesh Chander. Ld. defence counsel is absolutely right in his argument that complainant was looking for an opportunity to lodge a false complaint against police officials and that is why he approached PS ACB in the evening of 23.7.2010 itself, without even knowing the complete facts or even before having been informed by his conductor Pradeep of the alleged demand by accused. Further doubt is created as regards this demand of Rs. 1000/ as bribe from the testimony of Satish Kumar (PW5) and Pawan Kumar (DW6). Both these witnesses have deposed that Rs. 1000/ was State Vs. Ramesh Chander Page 13 of 22 14 paid to Satish Kumar as part compensation for his loss in pick pocketing incident. Ld. Additional PP has rightly pointed out that this part of testimony of Satish Kumar is an improvement over his statement made to the IO. Even if the improvement in testimony of Satish Kumar (PW5) is ignored, prosecution case regarding demand of Rs. 1,000/ as bribe on 23.7.2010 is not supported by any admissible evidence. 12.5 The demand of Rs. 5,000/ as bribe is sought to be proved again from the testimony of Surender Nagpal (PW3). He has deposed about this demand having been made on 26.07.2010 by telephonic call made by accused. There ofcourse is no call details record of any such call having been received by the complainant on his mobile phone. Complainant was the best person to be possessing evidence of this call in the log book of his phone or in the call details record of his phone. IO has chosen not to collect this vital piece of evidence. It is thus only the bald statement of complainant relied upon by prosecution to prove this fact. Subsequent conduct of accused is also relevant to prove this fact. However, as discussed in subsequent para no. 13, conduct of accused does not indicate that he had demanded Rs. 5,000/ or a balance of Rs. 4,000/ from the complainant as bribe. The oral testimony of complainant would be a totally unsafe piece of evidence to hold the accused guilty especially in the circumstances when complainant's evidence is not unimpeachable, as discussed in para No. 12.4 above. State Vs. Ramesh Chander Page 14 of 22 15 Complainant seems to be to eager to report the matter to PSACB, without even having been informed of the alleged demand. Moreover his involvement in other criminal cases as deposed by DW1, DW3 and DW4 also caste a doubt on his impartiality. I, therefore, hold that prosecution has miserably failed to prove demand of Rs. 1,000/ on 23.7.2010 and Rs. 4,000/ on 26.7.2010 by the accused towards bribe, for not implicating complainant's bus in the criminal case.
(ii) Accused accepted and demanded Rs. 4,000/ as bribe at the time of trap on 26.07.2010;
13.1 To prove demand and acceptance of Rs. 4,000/ as bribe at the time of trap, prosecution relies upon the testimony of Surender Nagpal (PW3) and Pawan Kumar Fuloria, Panch witness (PW6). Towards this part of the prosecution case, the complainant has deposed that he reached PS DBG Road along with the raid party at about 4.35 PM. He along with the panch witness went inside PS DBG Road and made inquiries about HC Ramesh Chander. They went to first floor room of the accused where one female police official was also present. The lady police officer pointed out towards the accused to be HC Ram Chander. Witness identified himself to the accused stating himself to be the bus owner. Accused then came out of the room and walked with the witness towards the staircase. He asked for money and complainant handed over the treated GC notes of Rs. 4,000/ to him. Accused State Vs. Ramesh Chander Page 15 of 22 16 accepted treated GC notes and kept the same in his right hand fist. On being cross examined by Ld. defence counsel he denied the suggestion that the money was to be paid to victim of pick pocketing and that he offered money to accused to be handed over to victim. He denied that accused came with him to the duty officer's room to make phone call to victim of pick pocketing. He also denied the suggestion that when the money was offered to the accused, he pushed away the same. 13.2 Panch witness Pawan Kumar Fuloria (PW6) has deposed that on reaching the room of the accused at PS DBG Road, accused was found outside his room at the door. Complainant informed his arrival to the accused and accused told him to give money to victim of pick pocketing. Complainant then asked the accused to collect the money on behalf of the victim of pick pocketing and pay the same to him. Complainant claimed to be in a hurry and accused took the money in his right hand and kept the same in his fist. The witness was declared hostile by the Ld. Additional PP and cross examined by him. During his cross examination he admitted that accused demanded Rs. 4,000/ from the complainant and on his demand complainant handed over the treated GC notes to him. On being cross examined by Ld. defence counsel he admitted the presence of a lady constable in the room of the accused. He reiterated that complainant told the accused that he had come to pay money for the person whose pocket had been picked. State Vs. Ramesh Chander Page 16 of 22 17 Accused had then told him to pay the money to the said person only. Complainant told that he was in a hurry as his children were sitting in the car.
13.3 From the testimonies of witnesses as noticed above, prosecution case cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, as regards the demand and acceptance of Rs. 4,000/ as bribe at the time of trap. Surender Nagpal (PW3) in his testimony has not deposed that the amount of Rs. 4,000/ was demanded as 'bribe'. Witness has chosen words 'money' and avoided use of word 'bribe'. This supports defence suggested by the accused that it was money towards compensation to the victim of pick pocketing and not bribe. Though, this witness has deposed that at the time of handing over money to the accused he requested him not to stop the bus any further. The request even if held to have been proved, can be explained in context of the complaint made by victim of pick pocketing regarding his pocket having been picked in the bus of the complainant. Pawan Kumar Fuloria (PW6) panch witness has not supported the case of the prosecution, as regards the amount of Rs. 4,000/ having been demanded as bribe. He deposed in the examination in chief and also in cross examination by Ld. defence counsel that the amount was towards compensation to the victim of pick pocketing.
State Vs. Ramesh Chander Page 17 of 22 18 13.4 Both these witnesses have admitted the presence of lady constable in the room of the accused. Ct. Manju ( DW7) claims to be the said lady constable in whose presence incident of 26.7.2010 had taken place. She has deposed on oath regarding the money having been offered by complainant towards compensation to victim of pick pocketing. Her testimony even if not accepted to be complete truth, the same does create a doubt as regards the prosecution version and serves the purpose of defence. Her presence though challenged by the Ld. Additional PP in cross examination, cannot be disputed as it is the case of the prosecution itself that a lady constable was present in the room of accused at the time of occurrence. Name of no other lady police official has been suggested or proved by the prosecution, to be present in the room of accused at the time of trap. I, therefore, hold that prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charged sequence of events of 26.07.2010, that demand and acceptance of Rs. 4,000/ as bribe was made at the time of trap.
(iii) Treated GC notes of Rs. 4,000/ were recovered from the possession of the accused.
14. To prove recovery of treated GC notes from the possession of accused, Surender Nagpal (PW3), Pawan Kumar Fuloria (PW6) and Raid Officer Inspector Megh Raj (PW9) had been relied upon by the prosecution. All the three witnesses have concurrently deposed that the State Vs. Ramesh Chander Page 18 of 22 19 treated GC notes were recovered from the right hand fist of the accused. Though it was suggested by Ld. defence counsel that the recovery was from the hand of complainant; however, the overwhelming evidence proves to the contrary. Thus, I hold that the prosecution has proved recovery of treated GC notes from the fist of accused. Nevertheless, it is settled law that mere recovery of treated GC notes is not sufficient to prove the offences of section 7 or section 13 POC Act. The defence suggested that the money was towards compensation to the victim of pick pocketing seems to be plausibly possible version. The doubt thus having been created on the prosecution story, benefit goes to the aid of the accused. In C.M. Girish Babu Vs CBI 2009 II AD SC (Cri) 591, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: 'Mere recovery of tainted money divorced from the circumstances under which it was paid, is not sufficient to convict the accused when evidence in the case is unreliable.'
15. Sanctity of case property or sanction for grant of prosecution sought to be proved through PW10, PW12 and PW13 would not be sufficient evidence to hold the accused guilty for the charged offence. I, therefore, hod that prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. State Vs. Ramesh Chander Page 19 of 22 20 16.1 Another material fact which creates a doubt on the prosecution version is phone call having been made from the land line number of PS DBG Road 23537374 to the mobile number of Satish Kumar on 26.7.2010 at 4.36 PM. As per the prosecution version trap proceeding were conducted between 4.35 to 4.45 PM and accused was apprehended at about 4.35 PM. CDR Ex. DW2/A record a 53 minutes telephonic call from the land line of police station to the mobile number of Satish Kumar at 4.36PM. There is no explanation in the prosecution case as to who made this phone call and why this phone call was made. Satish Kumar (PW5) claims this phone call to have been received from the accused informing him to come to the police station to collect the compensation from owner of bus. Ld. Prosecutor has challenged the CDR on the ground that it is not accompanied with certificate u/s 65B of the Evidence Act. However, the record cannot be totally disbelieved for lack of the requisite certification, especially when the subscriber of mobile phone No. 9911310091 admits having received the call at the time indicated in CDR. The prosecution version, therefore, further becomes doubtful.
16.2 The argument of Ld. Additional PP that there is no documentary evidence of settlement between the complainant and Satish Kumar to prove the oral version of Satish Kumar; does not cut State Vs. Ramesh Chander Page 20 of 22 21 any ice with this count. It is the case of the prosecution itself that Satish Kumar had approached PS DBG Road, complaining about pick pocketing in bus of the complainant. Admittedly no written complaint to this effect has been proved by the prosecution. When the prosecution does not claim the complaint of Satish Kumar to have been reduced into writing, there was no occasion to reduce the settlement into writing or to issue a written receipt for the amount of Rs. 1,000/. Moreover it is not necessary that every settlement has to be reduced into writing.
17. Ld. defence counsel has rightly placed reliance on the law laid down in Dnyaneshwar Laxma Rao Wankheda 's and Sohan Singh's cases (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in both the cases gave benefit of doubt to the accused when the prosecution evidence was found to be lacking and the defence version was accepted on the touch stone of preponderance of probability.
18. For the reasons stated in para 9 to 17, I am of the considered opinion that accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. Prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was any demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. Accused is thus acquitted of the charged offences punishable u/s 7 & 13 (2) POC Act. State Vs. Ramesh Chander Page 21 of 22 22
19. However, in terms of sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C., accused is directed to furnish a bail bond for the amount of Rs.50,000/ with one surety in the like amount, to appear before the appellate court, as and when such notice is issued, in respect of any appeal, which may be filed against this judgment.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (NAROTTAM KAUSHAL)
on 09.05.2013 SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)05
(ACB), TIS HAZARI COURTS
DELHI
State Vs. Ramesh Chander Page 22 of 22