Delhi District Court
State vs Jai Bhagwan Etc on 26 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DEEPALI SHARMA,
SPECIAL JUDGE: PC ACT: ACB-01:
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX: NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLCT11-000148-2022
C.C. No. 18/2022
FIR No. 03/2016
U/S: 7/13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act r/w Section 120B IPC
PS: Anti Corruption Branch
State
Versus
1) Jai Bhagwan,
S/o Late Sh. Randhir Singh,
R/o H.No. 49, Near Khatu Shyam Mandir,
PO & Village Dhulsaris, Dwarka, Sector-24,
New Delhi.
2) Harpal Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Ram Chander,
R/o H.No. D-143, West Vinod Nagar,
Delhi-110092.
3) Rajbir Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Dharam Singh,
R/o H.No. RZ-262/63,
New Roshanpura, X-Block,
Najafgarh, Delhi.
Date of Institution : 16.03.2022
Date of Arguments : 18.07.2025
Date of Judgment : 26.07.2025
Appearance :
For the State : Sh. Sukhbeer Singh,
Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor.
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 1 of 72
For accused persons : Sh. Ram Kishan, Ld. Counsel
for accused Jai Bhagwan and
Harpal.
: Sh. Satyakam Saini , ld. counsel
for accused Rajbir.
JUDGMENT
1) Brief facts of the case are that on 23.11.2015 a complaint of one Pramod Kumar was received at PS ACB wherein it was stated that on 11.11.2015 he was going in his vehicle bearing registration no. HR-55S-3383 alongwith the driver. The vehicle was loaded with dust and was going from Haryana via Delhi. On the way at South Extension at about 02.00 am, one team of Enforcement Department was checking the vehicles on the Ring Road. One Head Constable signalled to stop the vehicle at which his driver stopped it. The Head Constable misbehaved with them, at which the complainant switched on the recording on his mobile phone, at which the Head Constable told them to break their head and he also screamed. His name mentioned on the name plate was Harpal. Upon seeing his behaviour, one ASI quickly came there who also spoke rudely and the name indicated on his name plate was Jai Bhagwan, who called one Rajbir. Rajbir came there running and ASI Jai Bhagwan signalled by two fingers and told him to get the vehicle weighed (Kata Karao). Thereafter Rajbir, who was wearing plain clothes, told them that it was Diwali festival and signalled with fingers that Rs. 2,000/- will be required and that Jai Bhagwan would not agree as he was stubborn. At this the CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 2 of 72 complainant went to Jai Bhagwan alongwith Rajbir and handed over Rs. 2,000/- to him, then he allowed them to leave.
2) The complainant further alleged that on 20.11.2015 he took the sting audio to the office of EO/HQ Kuljeet Singh and met him and tried to make him listen to the audio recording, however, he refused and asked him to tell his complaint verbally. The complainant immediately switched on his phone recording. After some time EO Joginder Singh was called via intercom and the complainant told the entire incident to them that they were given the rate of Rs.2000/- to leave the vehicle, at which EO Joginder Singh also told that he also used to check the vehicles on road and leave the vehicle for Rs. 200/- or Rs.300/- for overloading and Rs. 2000/- was not the rate for overloading. Both the EOs spoke to the complainant for 50-55 minutes and agreed that no one charged Rs. 2000/- for overloaded vehicle or used to take lessor amount. Subsequently, Joginder called the complainant on 26.11.2015 at 03.00 pm and Kuljeet Singh told the complainant to bring the photograph of private persons. The complainant stated that corruption was going on due to connivance. He also enclosed the sting operation dated 11.11.2015 and 20.11.2015 in a CD alongwith the complaint for appropriate action. On the basis of the abovesaid complaint Ex. PW2/A the present FIR Ex. PW1/A was registered on 11.02.2016 under Section 7/13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred as PC Act) r/w Section 120B IPC.
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 3 of 723) The investigation was handed over to Insp. Satender Vashisht. On 02.03.2016 the complainant handed over a micro SD card containing the recording dated 11.11.2015 and 20.11.2015 alongwith two copies of the recording in video CD alongwith transcription of the recording, which was seized by the IO in the presence of panch witness Sh. Satish Kumar. The same was deposited in the malkhana at PS Civil Lines. The aforesaid exhibit i.e. one micro SD card, two CDs marked as CD-1 and CD-II alongwith sample seal were sent to FSL Rohini. The FSL result was obtained on 19.07.2017, as per which there was no indication of alteration in the video files on the basis of frame- by-frame analysis. Subsequently, the voice samples of accused HC Harpal Singh, Rajbir Singh and ASI Jai Bhagwan were taken at FSL Rohini in the presence of panch witness Omvir Singh and were seized by the IO and deposited in the malkhana. Subsequently, the exhibits i.e. one micro SD card, two CDs and voice samples of all the three accused persons were sent to FSL Rohini for evaluation and analysis. The FSL result was obtained on 24.05.2018 as per which the voice of speaker Marked -Q1 and Q3 in the questioned recording was stated to be the voice of same person i.e. Rajbir and Harpal respectively. The voice of speaker Marked-Q2 in the questioned recording and the sample voice of accused Jai Bhagwan was stated to be possible voice of same person i.e. Jai Bhagwan.
4) Since the voice sample of the complainant was not taken and his signatures were not obtained on the transcription, CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 4 of 72 therefore, on 23.09.2019 the complainant joined the investigation in the presence of panch witness Lal Babu Bhakt. In the presence of panch witness one CD from the case file which was received by ACB from Harjinder Singh, Chief Editor, The Patriots of India, dated 03.12.2015, was played on the office computer and compared with the transcription provided by the complainant alongwith the complaint and found correct. The complainant and the panch witness signed on the CD and the transcription on the last page. The sample voice of the complainant was obtained and subsequently his voice sample alongwith the questioned exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini. As per the FSL report dated 17.02.2021 the voice of the speaker Marked Exhibit Q-1 and Exhibit X-1 was voice of the same person i.e. Pramod Kumar.
5) Posting details of the accused persons and Duty Rosters were obtained from the office of Enforcement Department. Sanction under Section 19 of PC Act was obtained against the accused persons and after completion of necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused ASI Jai Bhagwan, HC Harpal Singh and driver Rajbir Singh under Section 7/13(1)(d) PC Act (hereinafter referred to as PC Act) punishable under section 13(2) P.C.Act r/w Section 120B IPC. Cognizance of offence was taken against all three the accused persons. Thereafter, accused persons were summoned and after hearing arguments, accused persons namely Jai Bhagwan, Harpal Singh and Rajbir Singh were charged for the offences under CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 5 of 72 section 120-B IPC and under section 7 & 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act, punishable under section 13(2) P.C.Act, read with Section 120-B IPC. All accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6) In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 24 witnesses. The brief summary of deposition of prosecution witnesses is as under:-
i) PW1 SI Sukhdev - Duty Officer, who recorded FIR Ex. PW1/A on 11.02.2016, at about 01:15 pm on the basis of rukka given by Insp. Satender Vashisth. He also made his endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW1/B. He deposed that he handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to Insp. Satender Vashisth for further investigation. PW1 further deposed that due to clerical mistake, inadvertently he mentioned the date of DD no. 10 as 11.02.2015 instead of 11.02.2016 on his endorsement Ex.PW1/B i.e. at point X1.
ii) PW2 Pramod Kumar - the complainant. iii) PW3 SI Bhoop Singh collected the FSL result from
FSL, Rohini, and collected three sealed parcels duly sealed with the seal of FSL and deposited the same with the MHC(M), PS Civil Lines and he handed over the FSL result to the IO.
iv) PW4 ASI Vinay Pal Singh was the MHC(M), PS Civil Lines. He deposed that On 02.03.2016, Insp. Satender Vashisth deposited one sealed pulanda and two yellow colour CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 6 of 72 envelopes duly sealed with the seal of SV, one sample seal of SV alongwith two memos and he deposited the case property vide entry in Register no. 19 Ex.PW4/A. He further deposed that on 15.05.2017, sealed exhibits alongwith two sample seals were sent to FSL, Rohini for examination through ASI Sanjay, vide RC no.
58/21/17 Ex.PW4/B and after depositing the case property acknowledgment Ex. PW4/C was handed over to him.
v) PW5 HC Jitender - MHC(M), PS Civil Lines. He deposed that on 20.11.2017, as per the directions of the IO, he sent the sealed exhibits to FSL, Rohini for examination through Ct. Ajit Singh, vide RC no.160/21/17 Ex.PW5/A and after depositing the case property acknowledgment Ex. PW5/B was handed over to him. PW5 further deposed that on 23.10.2017, Insp. Yashpal Singh deposited one sealed envelope sealed with the seal of YP alongwith sample seal and copy of seizure memo and he made entry in Register no. 19 at serial no. 13/1034 Ex.PW5/C.
vi) PW6 V.D. Sharma deposed that on 29.03.2016, he was posted as Enforcement Officer, Transport Department, GNCT of Delhi, and pursuant to letter of IO Insp. Satender Vashisth U/s 91 Cr.P.C., he provided the requisite information and documents related to accused persons as well as of Sh. Kuljeet Singh and Sh. Joginder Singh, Enforcement Officer, vide his reply alongwith attested copies of the documents Ex.PW6/A (colly).
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 7 of 72vii) PW7 Geetesh Patel, Assistant Chemical Examiner (Physics), FSL, Rohini, Delhi, who proved his reports Ex. PW7/A, PW7/B and Ex. PW7/C. He also correctly identified the case property Ex. PW7/Article-1, Ex. PW7/Article-2 and Ex. PW7/Article-3 before the court.
vii.a) PW7 deposed that on 15.05.2017, three sealed parcels were received by him on 19.05.2017 from case section of Physics Division, FSL, Rohini, Delhi.
vii.b) PW7 further deposed that a cloth parcel-1 sealed with the seal of S.V at three places stated to be containing a micro SD card was opened and one micro SD card was found and it was marked as Exhibit-1 by him. Micro SD card of Sandisk make was found containing relevant folder namely "asa" having recordings in two video files namely "MOV0210A.avi"
and "MOV0218A.avi".
vii.c) PW7 further deposed that Parcel-2 i.e. one envelope sealed with the seal of S.V at five places was opened and it was found containing CD marked "CD-I" and it was marked as Exhibit-2 by him. The said CD-R of 'Writex' make contained recordings in two video files namely "MOV0210A.avi" and "MOV0218A.avi".
vii.d) PW7 further deposed that Parcel-3 i.e. one envelope sealed with the seal of S.V at five places was opened and it was found containing CD marked "CD-II" and it was marked as Exhibit-3 by him. The said CD-R of 'Writex' make contained recordings in two video files namely "01.mp4" and "02.mp4". vii.e) PW7 further deposed that on detailed examination, he gave detailed report Ex.PW7/A to the effect that (i) The CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 8 of 72 laboratory examination of recordings in video files in Exhibit-2 and Exhibit-3, there was no indication of alteration, on the basis of frame by frame analysis using video analyst system and (ii) On content analysis of recording confined in Exhibit-2 and Exhibit-3 were found to be same as Exhibit-1.
vii.f) PW7 deposed that after examination, exhibits were resealed with the seal of FSL x G:P x DELHI and sent to the forwarding authority alongwith his report.
vii.g) PW7 further deposed that on 20.11.2017, four sealed parcels were received in the case section of Physics Division, FSL and same were assigned to him for examination. Parcel-1 was found containing one micro SD card bearing his seal i.e. FSL x G:P x DELHI which was already marked by him as Exhibit-1 containing two video files i.e. "MOV0210A.avi" and "MOV0218A.avi" and Parcel-2 was also sealed with his seal and it found containing one CD-R of Writex which was already marked by him as Exhibit-2 having two video files i.e. "MOV0210A.avi" and "MOV0218A.avi". PW7 further deposed hat Parcel-3 was also sealed with his seal and it found containing Exhibit-3 i.e. CD-R of Writex containing two video files i.e. "01.mp4" and "02.mp4". Parcel-4 was sealed with the seal of YP containing three audio cassettes which were marked as Exhibit-4/A, Exhibit-4/B and Exhibit-4/C respectively. Exhibit-4/A was one audio cassette of SONY make containing recording specimen speech sample of speaker Rajbir Singh which was marked as Exhibit-S1. Exhibit-4/B was one audio cassette of T-Series make containing recording specimen speech sample of speaker Jai Bhagwan which was marked as Exhibit-S2.
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 9 of 72Exhibit-4/C was one audio cassette of SONY make containing recording specimen speech sample of speaker Harpal which was marked as Exhibit-S3. PW7 further deposed that he examined the exhibits in the laboratory and gave his detailed report Ex.PW7/B. After examining the exhibits the same were sealed with the seal of FSL x G:P x DELHI and sent to the forwarding authority through laboratory.
vii.h) In the report Ex. PW7/B, it is opined that (a) the voice exhibits of speakers marked "Exhibit-Q1" and "Exhibit- S1" are voice of same persons (i.e. Sh. Rajveer); (b) the voice exhibits of speakers marked "Exhibit-Q2" and "Exhibit-S2" are possible voice of same persons (i.e. Sh. Jai Bhagwan) and (c) the voice exhibits of speakers marked "Exhibit-Q3" and "Exhibit- S3" are voice of same persons (i.e. Sh. Harpal). vii.i) PW7 further deposed that on 11.12.2019, four sealed parcels were received in section of Physics Division, FSL and same were assigned to him for examination.
vii.j) PW7 further deposed that Parcel-1 was found containing micro SD card of 'Sandisk' make and it was found containing a relevant folder "asa" having audio-video recording in relevant video file namely "MOV0210A.avi" and same was marked as Exhibit-1 in the laboratory.
vii.k) Parcel-2 was found containing one CD-R of 'Writex' make containing audio-video recording in relevant video file namely "MOV0210A.avi" and the recording was found to be same as in Exhibit-1 on the basis of their hash algorithm and the CD was marked as Exhibit-2.
vii.l) Parcel-3 was found containing one CD-R of CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 10 of 72 'Writex' make containing audio-video recording in relevant video file namely "01.mp4" and the contents of the recording were found to be same with the recording in Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-2 on the basis of their content analysis and the CD was marked as Exhibit-3 in the laboratory.
vii.m) Parcel-4 was found containing one audio cassette of 'Wave' containing recorded specimen speech sample of the speaker namely "Pramod Kumar". The speaker was marked as Exhibit-S1 in the laboratory and the audio cassette was marked as Exhibit-4 in the laboratory.
vii.n) PW7 examined the exhibits and gave his opinion that the voice exhibit of speaker marked "Exhibit-Q1" and "Exhibit-S1" are voices of same person (i.e. Sh. Pramod Kumar). His detailed report is Ex.PW7/C. vii.o) PW7 correctly identified the case property i.e. micro SD card Ex.PW2/Article-2, audio cassette containing voice sample of Pramod Kumar Ex.PW2/Article-8, audio cassette containing voice sample of Rajbir Singh Ex.PW7/Article-1, audio cassette containing voice sample of Jai Bhagwan Ex.PW7/Article-2 and audio cassette containing voice sample of Harpal Ex.PW7/Article-3, as the same which were examined by him and as mentioned in his reports Ex.PW7/A to Ex.PW7/C. vii.p) CD Ex. PW2/Article-4, containing two files i.e. MOV0210A.avi and MOV0218A.avi was played on the court computer and after seeing the CD, PW7 stated that the same was examined by him. CD Ex.PW2/Article-6 containing two files
01.mp4 and 02.mp4 was played on the court computer and after seeing the CD, PW7 stated that the same was examined by him in CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 11 of 72 the laboratory.
viii) PW8 Naveen - the panch witness in respect of taking of specimen voice sample of the complainant Pramod Kumar by the FSL expert at FSL, Rohini, in the presence of IO Insp. Praveen Kumar on 19.11.2019, which was seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/H. He correctly identified audio cassette Ex.PW2/Article-8.
ix) PW9 Arvind - driver of complainant Pramod Kumar (PW2) and an eye witness of the incident.
x) PW10 Satish Kumar - the panch witness. He deposed that on 02.03.2016 complainant Pramod Kumar S/o Sh. Surender Pal was present at ACB in the office of IO/ Insp. Satender Vashisth and in his presence, complainant handed over one micro SD card, two CDs and one transcript to IO. The CDs were marked as CD-1 and CD-2 and kept in separate yellow envelopes, which were marked as Mark-1 and Mark-2 and sealed with seal of SV and seized the same vide seizure memos Ex.PW2/C. He further deposed that micro SD card was kept in an empty match box and converted the same into a white colour pulanda and sealed with the seal of SV and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B. x.a) On a leading questions put to PW10 by Ld. Chief P.P. for the State, he stated that he did not remember if the CDs brought by complainant were also played by IO Insp. Satender Vashishth on his office computer in his presence. He denied that CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 12 of 72 IO had given seal of SV after use to him.
x.b) PW10 correctly identified the micro SD card Ex.PW2/Article-2, CD marked CD-1 Ex.PW2/Article-4 and CD marked CD-II Ex.PW2/Article-6.
xi) PW11 Ombeer Singh - panch witness of voice sample of accused persons deposed that on 23.10.2017, at 09:00 am, at ACB, Insp. Yashpal Singh introduced him with Jai Bhagwan, Harpal Singh and Rajvir Singh and obtained their consent for the voice sample vide memos Ex.PW11/A (ASI Jai Bhagwan), Ex.PW11/B (Rajbir Singh) and Ex.PW11/C (Harpal Singh). He correctly identified all three accused persons before the court. Thereafter, they all went to FSL, Rohini in Physics Department and the official of FSL recorded the sample voices of all the three accused persons in the audio cassettes and prepared three original audio cassettes containing voice samples and three copies of those cassettes and handed over the same to Insp. Yahpal Singh, who kept the three audio cassettes in envelope and took the same into police possession vide seizure memos Ex.PW11/D1 and Ex.PW11/D2. His signatures were also obtained on the audio cassettes. He correctly identified those three audio cassettes Ex.PW7/Article-1 (of accused Rajbir), Ex. PW7/Article-2 (of accused Jai Bhagwan) and Ex.PW7/Article-3 (of accused Harpal) before the court.
xii) PW12 Lal Babu Bhakt - panch witness of the proceedings dated 23.09.2019 relating to verification of transcript, deposed that on 23.09.2019, at about 11.00 am, at CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 13 of 72 ACB, one Pramod Kumar came at the room of Insp. Praveen and Insp. Praveen played one CD on his office computer and it was shown to him and a transcript was also shown. The contents of the CD were similar with the contents of transcript. PW12 put his signature on the transcripts Ex.PW2/E and Ex.PW2/F after hearing the conversation of the CD. He correctly identified his signatures on the CD Ex.PW12/Article-1 as the same CD which was played by the IO on 23.09.2019 for comparing the contents of recording with transcripts Ex.PW2/E and Ex.PW2/F.
xiii) PW13 ASI Jitender Kumar deposed that on 24.05.2018, on direction of IO Insp. Yashpal Singh he went to FSL, Rohini and received sealed envelope containing FSL result, which he handed over IO Insp. Yashpal Singh.
xiv) PW14 SI Sanjay Yadav deposed that on 15.05.2017, on the direction of the IO, he took the sealed exhibits alongwith sample seal from MHC(M) vide Road Certificate Ex.PW4/B and deposited the same at FSL, Rohini and after depositing the exhibits, he handed over the acknowledgment Ex.PW14/A of case acceptance to MHC(M), PS Civil Lines.
xv) PW15 HC Ajit Singh deposed that on 20.11.2017, on the direction of IO, he collected the sealed exhibits alongwith sample seal from MHC(M), PS Civil Lines alongwith forwarding letter with Road Certificate Ex.PW5/A, which he deposited at FSL, Rohini, Delhi. After depositing the sealed exhibits, he obtained the acknowledgment Ex.PW15/A, which he handed CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 14 of 72 over to MHC(M).
xvi) PW16 ASI Mukesh deposed that on 11.12.2019, on the direction of Insp. Praveen Kumar, he collected the sealed exhibits from MHC(M), PS Civil Lines, vide Road Certificate Ex.PW16/A and deposited the same with FSL, Rohini. He obtained case acceptance acknowledgment Ex.PW16/B from FSL, Rohini, which he handed over to MHC(M).
xvii) PW17 Praveen Banjare deposed that on 09.02.2022, he was posted as Depot Manager at Hari Nagar Depot, Delhi and received a request letter of Dy. Vigilance Officer for grant of sanction U/s 19 of PC Act against accused Rajbir Singh, who was posted as driver in DTC and was posted in STA in diverted capacity. He perused the material placed before him and after applying his mind, being competent authority to remove said Rajbir Singh, accorded sanction Ex.PW17/A U/s 19 of PC Act against accused Rajbir Singh, who had already retired in the year 2019 from the services being medically unfit for the post of driver.
xviii) PW18 ASI Baljeet Singh - MHC(M) deposed that on 11.12.2019, the exhibits of this case were sent to FSL, Rohini, vide RC no. 207/21/19 Ex.PW16/A through ASI Mukesh who after depositing the exhibits had come back to PS and had given him acknowledgment Ex.PW16/B obtained from the office of FSL, Rohini. PW18 further deposed that on 19.11.2019, Insp. Praveen had deposited two pulandas of cassettes of the voice CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 15 of 72 sample which he deposited vide entry no. 1100 dated 19.11.2019 Ex.PW18/A in register no. 19, in his handwriting.
xix) PW19 Insp. Satender Vashisth - first IO deposed that on 11.02.2016, he received a complaint dated 23.11.2015 Ex.PW2/A of one Parmod Kumar and after taking approval from competent authority, he prepared rukka Ex.PW19/A and got registered the FIR and the DO handed over him original rukka and copy of FIR.
xix.a) PW19 further deposed that on 12.02.2016, he called the complainant to his office and informed him about the registration of FIR. On 02.03.2016, complainant came to his office and handed over him one micro SD card stating that the said micro SD card contained recordings of some conversations between him and officials of Transport Authority. In the presence of panch witness Sh. Satish Kumar, PW19 seized the said micro SD card vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B. PW19 further deposed that complainant also handed over him two CDs alongwith two transcripts dated 11.11.2015 Ex.PW2/E and 20.11.2015 Ex.PW2/F, stating that the said CDs also contained the recordings of some conversations between him and the officials of Transport Authority. PW19 played both the CDs on his office computer at ACB and checked that the contents of the CDs matched with the contents of transcripts and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/C. Complainant also handed over the certificate U/s 65B of I.E. Act Ex.PW2/D with regard to micro SD card and the two CDs. PW19 recorded statements of complainant Pramod Kumar and panch witness Satish Kumar U/s CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 16 of 72 161 Cr.P.C. PW19 deposited the case property in the Malkhana of PS Civil Lines. PW19 further deposed that upon a notice served upon the Transport Authority at Under Hill Road, Delhi, they gave information regarding the transfer posting orders of alleged persons vide reply Ex.PW6/A. xix.b) PW19 correctly identified before court the case property i.e. one micro SD card Ex.PW2/Article-2 as the same which was handed over to him by the complainant on 02.03.2016, in which complainant had made the recordings. CD Ex.PW2/Article-4 containing two files i.e. MOV0210A.avi and MOV0218A.avi and CD Ex.PW2/Article-6 containing two files
01.mp4 and 02.mp4 were played in the computer of court room and after hearing the same he stated that the contents of the CDs are the same which he had checked on the computer of his office at ACB.
xx) PW20 Ashish Kundra, Principal Secretary, Transport, Govt. of Delhi, Delhi, deposed that on 03.12.2021, ACP of ACB sent a request letter alongwith documents for obtaining sanction against accused Jai Bhagwan, Assistant Sub- Inspector and Harpal Singh, Head Constable. He perused all the documents carefully, which revealed that there was enough material for launching prosecution against the accused ASI Jai Bhagwan and HC Harpal Singh. He being the competent authority, accorded the prosecution sanction on 17.02.2022 against ASI Jai Bhagwan and HC Harpal Singh U/s 19 of PC Act 1988 (and its amendments) vide Ex.PW20/A. CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 17 of 72 xxi) PW21 ACP Dr. Rakesh Kumar - second IO deposed that he sent notice to Sh. Pramod Kumar S/o Sh. Surender Pal Singh for joining investigation but he did not join the investigation. PW21 further deposed that on 15.05.2017, sealed exhibits of the present case i.e. one micro SD card, one CD containing audio-video file marked as CD-1, one CD marked as CD-2 containing audio-video file and sample seal of SV were sent to FSL, Rohini through ASI Sanjay Yadav.
xxii) PW22 Parminder - the helper on the vehicle no. HR-55S-3383 (duster truck).
xxiii) PW23 Retired Insp. Yashpal Singh - third IO deposed that on 18.07.2017 further investigation of this case was marked to him. On 19.08.2017, SI Bhoop Singh handed over FSL result alongwith CD, which he deposited with the MHC(M), PS Civil Lines. He further deposed that on 23.10.2017, he obtained the sealed envelope alongwith six empty audio cassettes from MHC(M) and thereafter, he alongwith panch witness Ombir Singh, MHC(M) HC Jitender and three accused persons namely HC Harpal, Driver Rajbir and ASI Jai Bhagwan went to FSL, Rohini, where FSL authority recorded voice sample of all the three accused persons after taking their consent in the presence of panch witness vide consent memo Ex. PW11/A of accused Jai Bhagwan, consent memo Ex.PW11/B of accused Rajbir Singh and consent memo Ex.PW11/C of accused Harpal. After recording voice samples of all the three accused persons, the FSL authority handed over three cassettes separately containing voice CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 18 of 72 samples of aforesaid three accused persons as well as three cassettes of voice samples of aforesaid three accused persons for office copy. PW23 further deposed that aforesaid three original audio cassettes containing voice samples of accused persons were kept in an envelope, sealed and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/D1. Three audio cassettes (office copy) containing voice samples of accused persons were kept in an envelope, sealed and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/D2. PW23 handed over both the sealed envelopes to HC Jitender, MHC(M) to keep the aforesaid exhibits in safe custody in Malkhana. PW23 further deposed that on 24.05.2018, he received the FSL result from Physics Department through HC Jitender, MHC(M). xxiii.a) PW23 correctly identified three audio cassettes containing sample voice of three accused persons i.e. Ex.PW7/Article-1 (of accused Rajbir Singh), Ex.PW7/Article-2 (of accused Jai Bhagwan) and Ex.PW7/Article-3 (of accused Harpal).
xxiv) PW24 Insp. Praveen Kumar - fourth IO deposed that on 22.11.2018, further investigation of this case was marked to him and he recorded statements of the witnesses U/s 161 Cr.P.C. He further deposed that on 22.05.2019, he called driver Arvind, conductor Parvinder and complainant Parmod in his ACB office and recorded their statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C. He collected self attested copy of RC Ex.PW2/G of the vehicle which was involved in this case from the complainant Parmod Kumar. He took the bonds from driver Arvind, conductor Parvinder and complainant Parmod U/s 170.2 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW24/A, Ex.PW24/B CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 19 of 72 and Ex.PW24/C respectively for their appearance in the court. PW24 further deposed that he again called complainant Parmod in ACB office on 23.09.2019 and got verified the transcriptions Ex. PW2/E and Ex. PW2/F from him, in the presence of panch witness Lal Babu. PW24 further deposed that transcription of one spare CD Ex.PW12/Article-1, was also played on desktop computer and the complainant also heard the same and stated that the above mentioned transcript was of this CD. CD Ex.PW12/Article-1 was played on the computer and heard by PW24, who stated that this the same CD which was played by him on 23.09.2019 and was heard by complainant Parmod Kumar in the presence of panch witness Lal Babu. xxiv.a) PW24 further deposed that on 19.11.2019, he took the panch witness Naveen and the complainant Parmod to FSL, Rohini where voice sample of complainant Parmod Kumar was taken and it was recorded in one audio cassette and one copy of same, and both audio cassettes were separately kept in two envelopes, sealed and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/H. PW24 further deposed that on 11.12.2019, he got deposited the exhibits with FSL through ASI Mukesh vide RC no. 207/19. He collected FSL result during investigation.
xxiv.b) PW24 further deposed that on 01.12.2021, he sent the letters alonwith enclosures to DTC and Transport Department for obtaining sanctions for prosecution U/s 19 of P.C. Act. On receipt of the sanctions, he filed chargesheet in the court. xxiv.c) PW24 correctly identified the case property i.e. audio cassette Ex.PW2/Article-8 and stated that it was the same audio cassette wherein his introductory voice, introductory CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 20 of 72 voice of panch witness Naveen and voice of complainant were recorded. He also correctly identified one audio cassette Ex.PW24/Article-1 and stated that it was the copy of the recording made in this cassette from the cassette Ex.PW2/Article-8.
7) After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of all three accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein they denied the correctness of all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them and stated that they were innocent and falsely implicated in the present case.
8) Accused Jai Bhagwan further stated that the truck no. HR-55S-3383 loaded with stone was stopped at about 03.15 am on 11.11.2015. Accused Harpal was wearing a full sleeves jacket over his uniform shirt and his name was not visible on name plate. However, accused Harpal had exchanged hot words with driver/owner/complainant for not stopping the vehicle on getting the signal. He further stated that he had not given any signal while raising two fingers while sitting in the official vehicle. He had only called accused Rajbir driver through Sukhbir Singh SI to get the vehicle weighed ( Kaanta Karao) after hearing the commotion between Harpal and driver/owner. He further stated that accused Rajbir - driver was abducted by complainant in conspiracy with the driver on that night on the pretext of getting the vehicle weighed. He also stated that star on CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 21 of 72 the flap of his uniform shirt was not visible as he was wearing a jacket.
9) Accused Jai Bhagwan and Harpal further stated that they did not commit any offence. The entire case against them was instituted on the basis of false and fabricated allegations made by the complainant. The investigating agency had also not conducted the investigation in a fair and impartial manner. They further stated that during the intervening night of 10/11.11.2015 they were members of the Enforcement Team, in which Rajbir was driver/civilian and SI Sukhbir Singh was the supervisor / leader of the team. They were on duty from 09.30 pm to 04.00 am on that night as per Ex. PW6/A in the area of South District, Main Point at Badarpur for regulating the traffic and prosecution of the violators of traffic rules. They further stated that HC Harpal was having challan book and on that night he prosecuted about 30 drivers for violation of the traffic rules and the copies of challans were part of Ex. PW6/A(colly).
10) Accused Jai Bhagwan and Harpal further stated that on that night as usual they were wearing their official uniform and the same was covered with full sleeves jacket to protect the uniform shirt from being spoiled with dust / pollution and emission of smoke from vehicles, heavy vehicles on the road at night at the crossing border. Star/insignia affixed on the flap of the uniform of the shirt were not visible and covered with the jackets.
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 22 of 7211) Both the accused further stated that on that night around 3.20 or 3.30 am on 11.11.2015 their Enforcement Team in their official vehicle reached at Ring Road, South Extension, New Delhi, for checking of the vehicles. At about the same time a truck bearing no. HR-55S-3383 was seen coming from Dhaula Kuan side being driven at a speed and HC Harpal gave a signal for stopping the vehicle while flashing torch light. The driver did not stop the vehicle and tried to flee but after great resistance the vehicle was stopped at quite a distance. There was exchange of hot words between Harpal and the driver of the truck as he had not stopped the vehicle on getting the signal. HC Harpal asked the driver to produce the documents of the vehicle and the driving licence but the driver did not produce any document despite persistent demand. A person sitting by the side of driver who stated that he was the owner of the truck. The truck was over-loaded with stone dust. Both the accused further stated that in the meantime, on hearing the arguments between Harpal and driver/owner, Jai Bhagwan called Rajbir - driver through SI Sukhbir Singh and directed driver Rajbir to get the vehicle weighed at Kanta (weighing scale) at Ashram Road, Mathura Road. After some arguments driver Rajbir was allowed to sit in the truck with the object to get the vehicle weighed at Kanta. The remaining Enforcement Team continued to wait for quite some time for the return of Rajbir - Driver with the truck but the truck did not return. Later, they came to know that the driver of the truck in connivance with its owner had abducted Rajbir - driver and fled away. On mediation through one SI Pramod Kumar, Delhi Transport Department of Village Palam and known to CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 23 of 72 complainant, it came to their notice that Rajbir had been taken to a building material store at Village Bhopra, UP. SI Pramod Kumar had informed that they could take Rajbir - driver from Bhopra and that thereafter Rajbir was brought back by them in the early hours of the morning of 11.11.2015. Both the accused further stated that Jai Bhagwan had informed the Control Room (Transport Department) and in the morning a report was also made in the office. Since Rajbir-driver had been abducted, therefore, under such peculiar circumstances which were beyond their control, complainant/driver could not be challaned.
12) Accused Jai Bhagwan and Harpal further stated that departmental enquiry under rule 14 CCS (CCA) Rule 1965 was ordered to be initiated against them by the competent authority/Commissioner/ Secretary Transport Department vide orders dated 16.03.2018 and 21.09.2020 respectively, on the basis of the same, similar and identical allegations, as are contained in the present complaint/FIR of this case. Accused Jai Bhagwan and Harpal further stated that after the completion of the defence evidence proceedings, they were exonerated from the said false allegations made in the complaint vide orders dated 18.09.2020 Ex. PW24/DA and 21.09.2020 Ex. PW24/DB respectively passed by Ms. Manisha Saxena, the then Secretary- cum-Commissioner, Transport Department and copy of the said orders were officially given to them. Both the accused further stated that a copy of the order of exoneration was given to IO Praveen PW24 during investigation, but he deliberately and CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 24 of 72 intentionally and knowingly suppressed the said order of exoneration from the competent authority, which caused prejudice to them. They stated that if the IO had brought the order of exoneration to the notice of Sanctioning Authority, it was probable that the Sanctioning Authority might have refused to grant sanction.
13) Accused Rajbir in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. further stated that a truck no. HR-55S-3383 was intercepted/stopped on the night of 10/11.11.2015 at about 03.15 am, when he was sitting in his official vehicle no. DL8CL-7021, Tavera, Chevrolet, alone being its driver at a distance of about 300 sq. feet from the stoppage point of aforesaid truck. He further stated that names of ASI Jai Bhagwan and HC Harpal were not visible as both were wearing full sleeves jackets over their uniform shirt. He further stated that he heard some loud unclear voices from the stoppage point of said truck and at no point of time he saw Jai Bhagwan giving any signal by raising of two fingers while sitting in the official vehicle. He was directed by SI Sukhbir to get the truck no. HR-55S-3383 weighed. When he was about to get in the said truck to get it weighed, PW2 complainant was trying/attempting/offering bribe to the officials of Transport Department to avoid challan of his truck, on the pretext of occasion of Diwali festival, but same was refused. He further stated that he merely suggested/advised PW2 Pramod not to request him and he could request the Incharge of the team for any lenient view, if any, as he was only a driver. Rs. 2000/-
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 25 of 72being the minimum penalty amount of offence of overloading vehicle hence, he had suggested to him to carry with him said amount of Rs. 2000/- to pay minimum penalty amount, if so agreed by the Incharge of the team Sh. Sukhbir SI. He further stated that PW2 Pramod never gave Rs. 2000/- to him or any other official at any time hence, there was no question of keeping the said amount with him or paying to any other official. In fact, when he was accompanying PW2, PW9 and PW22 in the truck to get the said truck weighed at Dharam Kanta near Ashram Chowk, the driver of the vehicle PW9 Arvind on instruction from PW2 did not stop the said truck and all of them kidnapped him in conspiracy and PW2 Pramod snatched his mobile phone while threatening to kill him if made any noise and PW22 Parminder, who was already sitting in the truck, over powered him and all of them did not allow him to get out of the truck. He further stated that he was released at Bhopura, Ghaziabad and they returned his mobile instrument only after intervention of Enforcement Staff and one SI Pramod, r/o Palam, Sector-7, Dwarka, of Enforcement Staff, Transport Department known to the complainant PW2. He further stated that even otherwise there is no iota of evidence that he indulged in any kind of malpractice for which he has been charged in this case, which are false and fabricated.
14) All three accused persons preferred to lead evidence in their defence and they examined the following witnesses :
i) DW-1 Satish Kumar - TTC, Hari Nagar Depot, CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 26 of 72 Delhi, who produced the summoned record i.e. disciplinary proceedings dated 03.05.2016 of Rajbir Singh and statement of Parmod Kumar dated 03.05.2016 Ex. DW1/A (colly) as well as copy of complaint dated 23.11.2015 addressed to Chief Minister, as record in case no. HND-11/AIT/CS/2016/207 dated 19.01.2015 Mark-DW1/X.
ii) DW2 Insp. Parmod Kumar deposed that on 11.11.2015, it was the festival of Diwali and he was at his house and not in his office on that day. At about 04:00-04:15 am, ASI Jai Bhagwan called him on his mobile phone and told that his driver Rajbir was sent to weigh the truck of Parmod, who was known to him, and Rajbir had not returned and told him to enquire about his whereabouts. DW2 called Rajbir on his mobile phone but same was picked up by someone else hence, he told him to let him talk to Rajbir. Rajbir was weeping and told him that he was sent to weigh the truck but the driver of truck took him to Bhopra, Ghaziabad. Thereafter DW2 talked to the person, who was with Rajbir and probably it was Parmod, who used to be a transporter and the said truck belonged to him, and he asked Parmod to leave Rajbir. Thereafter, ASI Jai Bhagwan again called DW2 and DW2 told him the whereabouts of Rajbir being taken to Bhopra border, Ghaziabad.
(iii) DW3 - accused Rajbir Singh, who got examined himself as a witness under Section 315 Cr.P.C.
15) Thereafter vide order dated 16.05.2025, the defence CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 27 of 72 evidence was closed.
Arguments :
16) It is argued by the ld. Counsel for the accused persons that they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is contended by ld. Counsel for accused Rajbir that the allegation against him is that he had demanded Rs. 2000/- from the complainant for not impounding his truck which was overloaded with dust. It is stated that the complainant is a disgruntled transporter, who used to ply trucks carrying materials which were challaned regularly by the Enforcement Officials and hence, he has falsely implicated the accused persons in the present case. It is stated that the incident took place on 11.11.2015 and the present complaint was lodged on 23.11.2015 as an afterthought.
It is urged that the minimum fine for overloaded trucks in terms of Section 194 M.V.Act is Rs. 2000/- and the accused had merely told the complainant to send his driver with that amount to the Incharge to avoid getting his truck weighed. It is contended that the complainant did not produce his mobile phone with which he had made the alleged video recording in issue and hence, the micro SD card which is merely a storage device cannot be relied upon by the prosecution to prove its case against the accused persons in absence of proved source of the video recording. It is stated that though the complainant has claimed that the alleged video recording in issue was of the entire incident of demand and acceptance, however, the recording is incomplete and not of the entire incident as thereafter the complainant had made accused Rajbir sit in his truck and abducted him and took him to CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 28 of 72 Bhopra in his truck. It is further asserted that the transcription Ex. PW2/E is not in accordance with the alleged video recording. It is contended that neither demand nor acceptance has been proved by the prosecution. It is accordingly urged that no case under section 7/13 of PC Act is made out against accused Rajbir and he is liable to be acquitted.
17) It is argued on behalf of accused Jai Bhagwan and accused Harpal that there is no evidence of either demand or acceptance of bribe amount of Rs. 2000/- by them or on their behalf. It is urged that there are material contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses and none of the witnesses have corroborated each other on material particulars. It is stated that the sanction for prosecution under Section 19 PC Act granted by PW20 sh. Ashish Kundra vide sanction order Ex. PW20/A is invalid. It is also argued that the original recording instrument i.e. the mobile phone with which the audio-video recording was allegedly made by the complainant was never produced before the court nor seized during investigation and hence, in absence of the original recording instrument or any details with respect to its make, model etc., the Micro SD card Ex. PW2/Article-2, CD-1 Ex. PW2/Article-4 and CD-II Ex. PW2/Article-6 cannot be relied upon by the prosecution as the primary or secondary evidence. It is stated that the complainant allegedly also produced an undated transcription Ex. PW2/E and no effort was made by the IO to make an independent transcription of the audio-video recording. Moreover, the person who has made the transcription has not been examined before the court. It is stated that the complainant CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 29 of 72 himself deposed that he knew little English, hence, he could not have prepared a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act nor he was aware of the contents thereof. It is stated that during their testimony the complainant PW2 or PW9 or PW22 did not identify any voices in the alleged audio-video recording. Moreover, there is no basis of the manner in which the names were mentioned against conversation in the transcription Ex. PW2/E. It is stated that as per Ex. PW7/A only the video of the recording was analyzed and no analyses of the audio of the recording was done. It is urged that as per the FSL report Ex. PW7/B when the voices were analyzed, the video was not analyzed and there is no analysis as to whether the audio was superimposed on the video in the recording in issue. It is stated that there are no documents in support of the FSL reports.
18) It is also argued that there is no site plan on record in the present case and hence, an essential aspect of the investigation is missing and therefore the exact location of the incident cannot be ascertained which goes to the root of the prosecution case. It is stated that even the possibility of tampering of the case property cannot be ruled out.
19) It is urged that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs. 2000/- by the accused persons. It is urged that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses. There are no allegations of demand by accused Jai Bhagwan or by accused Harpal either in the complaint or in the testimony recorded CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 30 of 72 before the court and in absence of any evidence, a conspiracy between the accused persons cannot be assumed. It is accordingly prayed that accused Jai Bhagwan and Harpal are liable to be acquitted of the offences they are charged with.
20) On the other hand, it is argued by ld. Chief P.P. for the State that there was no delay in registration of the FIR and the delay, if any, has been sufficiently explained. It is further urged that the allegations of demand and acceptance are proved through the testimony of PW2, PW9 and PW22 even though PW22 is hostile on certain aspects. It is urged that PW2 and PW9 corroborate each other on material points. It is argued that the complainant PW2 has categorically made the allegations of demand and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs. 2000/- by the accused persons. He also handed over a video recording of the incident in the Micro SD card Ex. PW2/Article-2, CD-1 Ex. PW2/Article-4 and CD-II Ex. PW2/Article-6, which corroborate the version of the complainant. It is also urged that the FSL reports Ex. PW7/A, Ex. PW7/B and Ex. PW7/C are incriminating against the accused persons as there was no indication of alteration in the audio-video recording. Moreover, the voice of Rajbir and Harpal were found to be the voice of speakers in the recording and the voice of accused Jai Bhagwan was stated to be his possible voice in the recording. It is thus argued that the oral testimony of witnesses alongwith scientific evidence in the form of audio-video recording is sufficient evidence to prove the charges against the accused persons. It is further urged that there is nothing on record to show that the complainant had any reason CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 31 of 72 to falsely implicate the accused persons. It is accordingly prayed that the accused persons are liable to be held guilty of the offences they are charged with.
21) I have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
22) It is argued by ld. Counsel for accused Jai Bhagwan- ASI and Harpal-HC that perusal of the sanction order dated 17.02.2022 Ex. PW20/A reveals that there was no application of mind by the sanctioning authority before grant of sanction. It is stated that there is nothing on record to show that any request letter was sent by IO for the sanctioning authority PW20 for grant of sanction. It is stated that even the dispatch number is not mentioned on the prosecution sanction dated 17.02.2022 Ex. PW20/A to indicate that the same was sent to ACB through proper channel. It is argued that the sanction order was prepared by the IO and was got signed directly from the sanctioning authority, therefore, no request letter or the dispatch number of the sanction order are available on record. It is further argued that the prosecution sanction in the list of documents mentions "statement of witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C." thereby indicating that only statement of one witness was a part of documents sent for obtaining the sanction and the statements of all witnesses were not sent. It is further urged that the allegations against the accused persons are not mentioned in the sanction order and the sanction order does not state that the accused CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 32 of 72 persons had demanded any illegal gratification from the complainant or any other witnesses and it merely states that "they took Rs. 2000/- from him to avoid prosecution". It is stated that the IO had suppressed the fact before the sanctioning authority that the accused persons had been exonerated in the Departmental Enquiry vide order dated 18.09.2020. Moreover, the sanction order Ex. PW20/A does not mention that the CD containing the recording in issue was sent to it, thereby implying that the CD was not sent to the sanctioning authority at the time of grant of sanction. It is also urged that the sanctioning authority did not apply its mind properly in as much as the word 'audio' recording has been used in relation to the alleged recording of the incident and not the word 'audio-video' recording.
23) As regards application of mind by sanctioning authority, in State of Maharashtra through CBI Vs Mahesh Jain, 2013 (8) SCC 119, which has also been relied upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of CBI vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2014) 14 SCC 295, cited by ld. Counsel for the accused, following principles were culled out:-
"14.1 It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out.
14.2 The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before it and, after consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction for prosecution.CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 33 of 72
14.3 The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and its satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the material placed before it.
14.4 Grant of sanction is only an administrative function and the sanctioning authority is required to prime facie reach the satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute the offence.
14.5 The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order.
14.6 If the sanctioning authority has perused all the materials placed before it and some of them have not been proved that would not vitiate the order of sanction.
14.7 The order of sanction is a prerequisite as it is intended to provide a safeguard to a public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigants, but simultaneously an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hypertechnical approach to test its validity."
24) It was further held that :
"True it is, grant of sanction is a sacrosanct and sacred act and is intended to provide a safeguard to the public servant against vexatious litigation but simultaneously when there is an order of sanction by the competent authority indicating application of mind, the same should not be lightly dealt with. The flimsy technicalities cannot be allowed to become tools in the hands of an accused."
(emphasis supplied)
25) Thus, grant of sanction is an administrative function and only prima facie satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is needed. The adequacy or inadequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 34 of 72 does not sit in appeal over the sanction order and when there is an order of sanction by the competent authority indicating application of mind, the same should not be lightly dealt with. Also, flimsy technicalities cannot be allowed to become tools in the hands of accused.
26) The sanction order dated 17.02.2022 Ex. PW20/A was passed by PW20 Ashish Kundra, who deposed that he perused all the documents carefully and it was revealed that there was enough material for launching prosecution against accused ASI Jai Bhagwan and HC Harpal and after considering all the facts and circumstances and material placed on record, he accorded sanction under Section 19 of PC Act against accused ASI Jai Bhagwan and HC Harpal. He also detailed the documents sent alongwith the draft charge-sheet. In his cross- examination he denied that the sanction order was already prepared by the police official and was handed over to him for signatures or that he had simply appended his signatures thereon at the asking of the IO. He denied that he had not applied his mind before grant of sanction or that he had granted sanction in a mechanical manner. He denied that he had not perused the documents mentioned in the sanction order or that he had not viewed any CD before passing sanction order.
27) Perusal of the sanction order Ex. PW20/A reveals that the documents supplied alongwith the draft charge-sheet also included transcription of the recording with CD, thereby CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 35 of 72 implying that the CD was also supplied to PW20 alongwith other material/record for grant of sanction. Hence, the contention of ld. Counsel for the accused in that regard holds no ground.
28) Perusal of the sanction order further indicates that the stamp of ACB upon receipt of sanction order is reflected on the sanction order Ex. PW20/A. The dispatch number is also mentioned as a part of reference number of the sanction order dated 17.02.2022 i.e. F.4(21)/Vig/TPT/2020/138-139/13432, hence, the contention that the sanction order was prepared by IO and got signed by the IO himself from the sanctioning authority, without it being accorded in due manner by the sanctioning authority or sent through proper channel, is without any basis.
29) The contention of ld. Counsel for the accused persons that the word "audio" recording of the incident made by the complainant, indicates that the sanctioning authority did not apply its mind properly to the entire material before it and referred to the recording as audio recording whereas the recording in issue was an audio-video recording. In that regard, it may be noted that the video in the audio-video recording in issue is entirely dark and only voices can be heard, hence, reference to the audio-video recording in issue as an audio recording cannot be viewed as fatal to the sanction order.
30) Additionally, the contention that the sanction order CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 36 of 72 merely states that the accused persons had stopped the vehicle and "took Rs. 2000/- from the complainant to avoid prosecution"
does not reveal any demand of illegal gratification from the complainant or any other witness, is without any merit. The sanction order Ex. PW20/A refers to the complaint dated 23.11.2015 Ex. PW2/A of the complainant Pramod and also refers to the allegations made in the said complaint, in brief. It also mentions that it was alleged in the complaint that at about 2:00 AM on 11.11.2015 the complainant was passing from South Extension area Ring Road on his loaded truck number HR-55 S-3383 where an Enforcement team of Delhi Transport Department comprising ASI Jai Bhagwan, H/C Harpal Singh and Driver Rajbir Singh were conducting vehicle checking. Merely because further details of the complaint are not mentioned in the sanction order does not lead to the conclusion that the sanction order is vitiated. Non-mention of the words that Rs. 2000/- were obtained from the complainant by the accused persons as illegal gratification, specifically, does not entail that the sanction order does not reveal that Rs. 2000/- were obtained from the complainant as illegal gratification in as much as the import of the words "they stopped him and took Rs. 2000/- from him to avoid prosecution" reflects obtainment of Rs. 2000/- from the complainant as illegal gratification to avoid challan.
31) Nothing was revealed in the cross-examination indicating that there was no application of mind by the sanctioning authority. Accordingly, no ground is made out to CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 37 of 72 show that the sanction was accorded without considering the relevant material or without application of mind. Accordingly, the challenge to the sanction order Ex. PW20/A is without any basis and is misconceived.
32) Before appreciating evidence in this case, it is important to note that even in a case under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the onus is on the prosecution to prove the the foundational facts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede Crl.Appeal No. 1350 of 2009, d.o.d. 29.07.2009 held that the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. It was also observed that that while invoking the presumption under section 20 of PC Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touch stone of preponderance of probability and not on the touch stone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. The Hon'ble Supreme court made the following observations in this regard:
"16. Indisputably, the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constitution of an offence under the provisions of the Act. For arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of an offence, viz., demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount of illegal gratification have been satisfied or not, the court must take into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on the record in their entirety. For the said purpose, indisputably, the presumptive evidence, as is laid down in Section 20 of the Act, must also be taken into consideration but then in respect thereof, it is trite, the standard of burden of proof on the accused vis-`-vis the standard of burden of proof on the prosecution would CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 38 of 72 differ. Before, however, the accused is called upon to explain as to how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. Even while invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt." (emphasis supplied)
33) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in A. Subair v. State of Kerala [(2009) 6 SCC 587] while dwelling on the purport of the statutory prescription of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act ruled that the prosecution has to prove the charge thereunder beyond reasonable doubt like any other criminal offence and that the accused should be considered to be innocent till it is established otherwise by proper proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which are vital ingredients necessary to be proved to record a conviction.
34) The Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta vs. State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Crl. Appeal no.
1669 of 2009, with regard to the nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for offences under Section 7 or 13 (1) (d) (i) & (ii) of the PC Act, summarized as under :-
" 68. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and(ii) of the Act.
(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 39 of 72 demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.
(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue.
In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 40 of 72 demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
(f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point
(e) as the former is a mandatory presumption CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 41 of 72 while the latter is discretionary in nature." (emphasis supplied)
35) Viewed in light of law discussed herein-above, it has to be examined as to what extent the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge against the accused persons. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons namely Jai Bhagwan, Harpal Singh and Rajbir Singh conspired and demanded and accepted illegal gratification of a sum of Rs. 2,000/- from the complainant for not impounding the overloaded vehicle i.e. truck carrying dust and accordingly they committed the charged offences.
TESTIMONIES OF MATERIAL WITNESSES :
36) Prosecution has examined complainant Pramod as PW2. He deposed that in the year 2015, he was having 3-4 trucks and was a transporter. On 11.11.2015, he alongwith his driver Arvind were going on vehicle no. HR-55S-3383 i.e. truck carrying dust from Gurgaon to Ghaziabad, U.P. At about 02:00 am (night) when they reached at South Extension Point, one team of enforcement was present and they pointed torch light towards their vehicle in order to stop the truck. Thereupon one member of the enforcement team whose name was mentioned on the name plate as Harpal came and he started talking rudely with them while saying "maarunga bahut" when his driver Arvind alighted from the truck. He also told the driver Arvind that he would break his head "sar fod dunga". Upon hearing this, PW2 CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 42 of 72 also alighted from the truck and enquired from that official while saying "isme maarne ki kya baat hai". PW2 also put his phone on recording mode to record the incident. Meanwhile one official whose name was revealed as Rajbir came there and he asked them not to quarrel. Another official whose name was later revealed as Jai Bhagwan, who was sitting in the official vehicle, gave signal by raising two fingers. Thereafter, Rajbir asked them to get the vehicle weighed (kaanta karaane ke liye kaha) and to impound the vehicle. PW2 told them that it was the occasion of Diwali festival on that day and not to spoil their festival. Thereupon Rajbir asked his driver Arvind to come on a side and PW2 also followed them. Rajbir told them that the officer was stubborn (afsar adiyal hai) and that they had no experience and asked them to give Rs.2,000/- for getting the vehicle released. PW2 told them that Rs.2,000/- was too much and they did not have so much saving but Rajbir did not agree for less than Rs.2,000/-. PW2 gave Rs.2,000/- to Rajbir, who kept the said amount with him and thereafter they were allowed to go from there with their truck. The entire incident was recorded in his mobile phone. PW2 correctly identified all the three accused persons before the court.
37) PW2 further deposed that after 4-5 days i.e. on 20.11.2015, he alongwith his maternal uncle Raj Kumar went to the office of Enforcement Department and met with Sh. Kuljeet Singh, Enforcement Officer. PW2 narrated the entire incident to Kuljeet Singh. PW2 also recorded the conversation between him and Kuljeet Singh on his mobile phone. PW2 stated that Kuljeet CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 43 of 72 Singh threatened them to impound the vehicles of the complainant. Thereupon Kuljeet Singh called his ACP Joginder Singh in his office and told him about the grievance. He asked them to come after two days to his office. After enquiring his caste, Joginder Singh talked with PW2 properly while saying "aap bhi jaat ho hum bhi jaat hai".
38) PW2 further deposed that on 23.11.2015, he gave his complaint to ACB Ex.PW2/A and also annexed two CDs regarding the incidents of 11.11.2015 and 20.11.2015 alongwith his complaint. After about three months of his complaint, PW2 was called at the ACB and he handed over the micro SD card on which he recorded the incidents of 11.11.2015 and 20.11.2015 on his mobile phone. The micro SD card was taken into possession by Insp. Satender Vashishth vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B. The copies of CDs were also taken into possession and both the CDs were played in the office computer of ACB and PW2 identified the same as the one which were recorded by him. PW2 also handed over the transcript of both the recordings to the IO and same were taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PW2/C. PW2 also gave the certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW2/D. PW2 got prepared the two CDs which he handed over to IO with the computer which was at his home and PW2 stated that the transcription was got prepared with the help of his children. The copy of the transcripts regarding recording of 11.11.2015 and 20.11.2015 are Ex.PW2/E and Ex.PW2/F respectively.
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 44 of 7239) PW2 further stated that he handed over the copy of RC of his truck bearing registration no. HR-55S-3383 Ex.PW2/G.
40) PW2 further deposed that his voice sample was taken at FSL, Rohini in presence of one another person whose name he did not remember and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW2/H.
41) PW2 correctly identified case property i.e. one cloth pulanda Ex.PW2/Article-1 containing one micro SD card Ex.PW2/Article-2 and stated that it was the same micro SD card on which the recordings were made by him.
42) PW2 also correctly identified one CD Ex.PW2/Article-4 on which CD-I and Exhibit-02 etc. were mentioned. The CD Ex.PW2/Article-4 was found containing two files i.e. MOV0210A.avi and MOV0218A.avi and after seeing the said files in the CD, PW2 stated that as the recordings were done during night hours, the picture was not clearly visible but the voice in CD was very clear and he identified the CD as containing the recordings made by him on 11.11.2015 and 20.11.2015 regarding the accused persons.
43) PW2 also correctly identified the CD on which CD- II and Exhibit-03 were mentioned as Ex.PW2/Article-6 containing two files 01.mp4 and 02.mp4 and after seeing the said files in the CD, PW2 submitted that the CD contained recordings CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 45 of 72 of 11.11.2015 and 20.11.2015.
44) PW2 also correctly identified his sample voice in the audio cassette Ex.PW2/Article-8.
45) On being cross-examined by Ld. Chief PP for the State, PW2 affirmed that accused Rajbir took him to the accused Jai Bhagwan, who was sitting in his official vehicle. PW2 denied that the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- was given to accused ASI Jai Bhagwan. He was confronted with the relevant portion of his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in that regard. PW2 also affirmed that when he paid Rs.2,000/-, accused Jai Bhagwan did not issue challan and released his truck. PW2 also denied that he had been won over by accused Jai Bhagwan or that he was trying to save him.
46) PW9 Arvind was driver of complainant PW2. He deposed that on 11.11.2015, he was working as a driver with Pramod Kumar and driving his vehicle i.e. truck no. HR-55S-3383. On that day at about 02:00-02:30 am, he alongwith Sambhu, conductor and Pramod, owner were coming from Naurangpur, Haryana after loading dust in the said vehicle for its supply at Bhopra, Ghaziabad. When they reached at South Extension, one police official whose name was revealed as Rajbir gave signal to stop the truck and PW9 stopped the truck at a little distance. Rajbir came to them and asked them to make the entry of the vehicle. 11.11.2015 was the day of Choti Diwali and he told Rajbir that they did not have money for making entry and CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 46 of 72 Rajbir demanded Rs.5,000/- and PW9 took Rs.2,000/- from Pramod and handed over the same to Rajbir. Thereafter, they were allowed to leave. PW9 further deposed that Jai Bhagwan told them to give the money otherwise they would give them beatings. PW9 further deposed that he did not remember other facts due to lapse of time.
47) During his examination PW9 pointed towards accused Rajbir and Jai Bhagwan and stated that he did not know the name of third person who was present in court, although he was present at the spot. It was observed that PW9 wrongly identified accused Harpal as accused Jai Bhagwan.
48) On being cross-examined by Ld. Chief PP for the State, PW9 affirmed that their truck was signalled to stop by the staff of 5 number (i.e. Transport Department) and as the truck was loaded with dust, he stopped the truck little ahead of the spot where the signal was given to stop it. He also affirmed that thereupon one Hawaldar came there and started abusing them for stopping the truck at a distance from where he gave them the signal and that they objected to being abused by the said Hawaldar. PW9 also affirmed that initially accused Harpal had abused them. He also affirmed that the three of them alighted from the vehicle and went alongwith papers to an officer of one star (phool) who checked their documents and asked for weight slip (kaanta parchi) of the vehicle.
49) Upon the attention of PW9 being drawn towards CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 47 of 72 accused Jai Bhagwan by Ld. Chief P.P. for the State with a suggestion that he was the same person who had checked the documents of the vehicle and asked for the weight slip ( kaanta parchi) of the vehicle, PW9 affirmed the same.
50) PW9 affirmed that thereupon Jai Bhagwan called accused Rajbir and asked him to get their truck weighed by a weighing machine (kaanta) and that when they reached near the vehicle accused Rajbir demanded Rs.2,000/- from them and that upon not paying the same, he threatened them to impound their vehicle. PW9 affirmed that thereafter, he alongwith his employer Pramod returned to the officer, who was of one star ( ek phool wala), and in his presence, Pramod gave Rs.2,000/- to accused Jai Bhagwan and thereafter, they were allowed to take their truck from there. He stated that he was illiterate and could only put his signatures and that due to lapse of time he could not recollect complete facts.
51) PW22 Parminder deposed that Parmod was the owner of the vehicle no. HR-55S-3383 truck carrying dust on which Arvind was the driver and he was the helper. On 11.11.2015, he alongwith driver Arvind and Parmod Kumar were going from Gurgaon to Bhopra, Ghaziabad, U.P. and while they were on the way from Gurgaon towards Delhi, their truck was stopped somewhere in the area of Delhi but he did not remember the exact place where it was stopped. He deposed that there were four persons at the point where their vehicle was stopped. Out of those four persons, one person came to their truck and told them CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 48 of 72 to stop it but their truck stopped some distance away from where they were given signal to stop. The person who came to them asked as to why they had not stopped the vehicle and told him to show the papers of the vehicle but they did not show any papers.
52) PW22 was unable to identify the accused person who had signalled to stop the vehicle and submitted that his left eye was severely damaged and he could not see properly with his right eye as well as it had 30% vision.
53) PW22 further deposed that the person who stopped the vehicle told him to get the weight of the load of the truck "kaanta karwao". PW22 further stated that he did not remember anything further about the case.
54) During cross-examination by Ld. Chief PP for State, PW22 was unable to identify accused Harpal, Rajbir despite the accused being pointed out to him and PW22 stated that he could not identify the accused persons as he was unable to see properly.
55) PW22 denied that accused Harpal started abusing him when they stopped the vehicle some distance away. PW22 affirmed that their vehicle was stopped at South-Extension area in Delhi. He denied that they protested when accused Harpal abused. He further denied that he alongwith driver Arvind and owner Parmod went to another person who was standing at the point and was bearing a star on his uniform or that the said officer also abused them and asked the third person to get the CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 49 of 72 vehicle weighed. PW22 was confronted with the relevant portions of his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Mark-PW22/A.
56) PW22 affirmed that the person who was wearing one star asked the other person calling him as Rajbir and said to him "kaanta karwa ke laao" and he correctly identified accused Rajbir who was present in the court.
57) PW22 denied that accused Rajbir demanded Rs.2,000/- and threatened that the vehicle would be impounded on non-payment. PW22 denied that driver Arvind and owner Parmod went to accused Jai Bhagwan to pay Rs.2,000/- and accused Rajbir was also with him. PW22 denied that after paying Rs.2,000/- to accused Jai Bhagwan, driver Arvind told him that he had paid Rs.2,000/- to Jai Bhagwan.
58) PW22 further deposed that he was getting treatment of his eyes after the incident. However, he did not produce any document of his treatment. PW22 denied that he was deposing falsely to save the accused persons or that he had been won over by the accused persons. He denied that he had seen accused Rajbir demanding Rs.2,000/- at the spot for allowing them to go with their truck or that Rs.2,000/- was paid to accused Jai Bhagwan by his driver Arvind on the demand made by accused Rajbir.
59) PW22 denied that accused Harpal also abused and CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 50 of 72 stopped their truck on 11.11.2015 at around 02:30 am. He denied that he had compromised with the accused persons due to which he had deposed falsely to save the accused persons.
60) From the testimony of complainant PW2 it is emerges that accused Harpal stopped their vehicle and upon being signalled by accused Jai Bhagwan, accused Rajbir asked them to get the vehicle weighed and to impound the vehicle. Upon the complainant telling them that it was Diwali festival, accused Rajbir asked the driver of the complainant to come on a side and the complainant also followed. Accused Rajbir told them that the officer was stubborn and asked them to give Rs. 2000/- for getting the vehicle released. Despite telling accused Rajbir that Rs. 2000/- was too much, accused Rajbir did not agree for less than Rs. 2,000/- and PW2 gave Rs. 2,000/- to Rajbir, who kept the said amount with him and thereafter they were allowed to go from there with the truck.
61) In his cross-examination by the Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State, PW2 denied that bribe amount of Rs. 2000/- was given to accused Jai Bhagwan or that he had been won over by accused Jai Bhagwan or that PW2 was trying to save him.
62) It may be noted that in the initial complaint Ex. PW2/A the complainant had alleged that accused Rajbir, who was in plain clothes, had told them that it was the occasion of Diwali and they will have to give Rs. 2000/- ( Do Hazar Rupay Lagenge) and that accused Jai Bhagwan will not agree as he was CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 51 of 72 stubborn, at which the complaint went to accused Jai Bhagwan alongwith accused Rajbir and took Rs. 2000/- with him and gave the money to him, at which he allowed them to go.
63) Hence, in the initial complaint Ex. PW2/A the complainant stated that accused Rajbir told them to get the vehicle weighed and that they will have to give Rs. 2000/- ( Do Hazar Rupay Lagenge) and that the said amount was later handed over to accused Jai Bhagwan and then they were allowed to leave. However, in his testimony recorded before the court, the complainant stated that the said money was given to accused Rajbir who kept the said money with him and he allowed them to go from there with their truck. Hence there is a material contradiction in the testimony of the complainant vis a vis his complaint Ex. PW2/A, regarding the person to whom Rs. 2000/- was handed over by him and who also allowed them to leave.
64) The driver of the truck PW9 Arvind stated in his testimony that accused Rajbir demanded Rs. 5000/- for making entry and after taking Rs. 2000/- from Pramod, PW9 gave the same to accused Rajbir and thereafter they were allowed to go. He stated that accused Jai Bhagwan told them to give the money or they will give them beatings. PW9 wrongly identified accused Harpal as accused Jai Bhagwan before the court. However, in his cross-examination by ld. Chief P.P. for the State, upon his attention being drawn to accused Jai Bhagwan with the suggestion that he was the person who checked the documents of the vehicle and asked for weight slip, he affirmed the suggestion CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 52 of 72 of the Ld. Chief P.P. He also affirmed that accused Rajbir demanded Rs. 2000/- from them and he threatened them to impound the vehicle for not paying the amount and that in his presence PW2 gave Rs. 2000/- to accused Jai Bhagwan and thereafter they were allowed to take their truck from there. Thus, in his examination-in-chief PW9 deposed that Rs. 2000/- were given by PW2 to accused Rajbir and in his cross-examination, he simply affirmed that PW2 gave the said amount to accused Jai Bhagwan, thereby contradicting his own version given in examination-in-chief and no satisfactory explanation was given by PW9 regarding the said inconsistency.
65) The aforesaid facts reveal that the testimony of PW2 and PW9 is not unblemished and entirely trustworthy and their testimonies have to be dealt with a pinch of salt and cautiously. It is the case of the prosecution that an amount of Rs. 2000/- was handed over to accused Jai Bhagwan by the complainant, who after accepting the same allowed them to leave with the truck. Both PW2 and PW9 stated in their examination-in-chief that the amount of Rs. 2000/- was given to accused Rajbir, who allowed them to leave with the truck. From the aforesaid discussion, it is manifest that both PW2 and PW9 did not state in their examination-in-chief that any amount was handed over to accused Jai Bhagwan by PW2 complainant Pramod Kumar and PW2 even in his cross-examination denied that the bribe amount of Rs. 2000/- was given to accused Jai Bhagwan, despite the fact that he had stated so in his complaint Ex.PW2/A. PW9 in his cross-examination by ld. Chief P.P. for the State only affirmed a CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 53 of 72 suggestion in that regard. Hence, there is contradiction in the testimony of PW2 and PW9 inter-se as well, on a material aspect regarding the person to whom the amount of Rs. 2000/- was handed over. In these circumstances, the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the amount of Rs. 2000/- was handed over to accused Jai Bhagwan in as much as both PW2 and PW9 did not aver about handing over to bribe money to accused Jai Bhagwan in their testimony and PW9 merely affirmed a suggestion in that regard by ld. Chief P.P. for the State in his cross-examination after identifying accused Jai Bhagwan as accused Harpal in his examination-in-chief.
66) Furthermore, PW22 Parminder, driver of the vehicle did not support any allegations against the accused persons regarding demand or acceptance of bribe amount of Rs. 2000/- by the accused persons. He was cross-examined in detail by the Ld. Chief P.P. for the State, however, he stuck to his version despite being confronted with his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He denied that he had compromised the matter with the accused persons. Accordingly, the testimony of PW22 does not incriminate the accused persons.
67) As regards incident of demand, PW2 deposed that the truck was stopped by accused Harpal who misbehaved with them and after stopping the truck and alighting from it, he put his phone on recording mode. Meanwhile, accused Rajbir came there and asked them not to quarrel and accused Jai Bhagwan, who was sitting in an official vehicle, gave signal by raising two CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 54 of 72 fingers. Thereafter accused Rajbir asked them to get the vehicle weighed and to impound their vehicle. PW2 told them that it was occasion of Diwali festival and not spoil their festival. Thereupon accused Rajbir told them "Afsar Adiyal Hai" and that they had no experience and asked them to give Rs. 2000/- for getting the vehicle released. PW2 told him that Rs. 2000/- was too much but accused Rajbir did not agree for less than Rs. 2000/-. PW2 gave Rs. 2000/- to Rajbir, who kept the same with him, and thereafter they were allowed to leave from there.
68) PW9, the driver of the vehicle, who was also a witness to the incident, stated that accused Rajbir gave signal to stop the vehicle and he came to them and asked them to get done the entry of the vehicle. It was the day of Chotti Diwali on 11.11.2015 and PW9 told accused Rajbir that they did not have money for making entry and accused Rajbir demanded Rs. 5000/- and PW9 after taking Rs. 2000/- from complainant Pramod gave the same to accused Rajbir. Thereafter they were allowed to go. In his cross-examination by ld. Chief P.P. for the State, PW9 affirmed that accused Harpal had abused them initially and that accused Jai Bhagwan called accused Rajbir and asked him to get the truck weighed from the weighing machine (Kaanta). He also affirmed that when they reached near the vehicle, accused Rajbir demanded Rs. 2000/- from them and threatened them to impound the vehicle, if the amount was not paid.
69) Hence, there are inconsistencies in the version of CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 55 of 72 PW2 and PW9, both of whom are eye witnesses to the incident, in as much as, PW2 did not state any demand of Rs. 5000/- was made by accused Rajbir and PW9 did not state about any signal of two fingers being made by accused Jai Bhagwan to accused Rajbir. The object of demand of money was stated by PW9 in his examination-in-chief to be for making an entry, though in his cross-examination by ld. Chief P.P. for the State, he affirmed that accused Jai Bhagwan called accused Rajbir and asked him to get the truck weighed at the weighing machine and further affirmed that accused Rajbir demanded Rs. 2000/- from them and threatened them to impound the vehicle, if the money was not paid. PW2 stated at the outset that the money was demanded for release of the vehicle without getting it weighed. Essentially, both PW2 and PW9 stated that accused Rajbir demanded Rs. 2000/- for release of vehicle/non-impounding of vehicle, without getting it weighed.
70) It is argued by ld. Counsel for accused Rajbir that he had never demanded an amount of Rs. 2000/- as bribe from the complainant or his driver. He referred to the statement of accused Rajbir recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he detailed his version of facts that transpired and he also stated that when he was going to get the truck weighed, PW2 tried to bribe the officials of the Transport Department stating that it was occasion of Diwali festival, however, it was refused. Accused Rajbir had advised PW2 not to request him and to request the Incharge of the Team for a lenient view as he was only a driver. He stated that since Rs. 2000/- was the minimum penalty amount of CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 56 of 72 offence of overloading of the vehicle, hence, he had suggested him to carry an amount of Rs. 2000/- with him for the minimum penalty amount, if the Incharge of Team SI Sukhbir agreed to the same.
71) Accused Rajbir also examined himself as DW3 and he deposed that in the year 2015 he was employed as driver in DTC. On 10.11.2015 he was on duty between 09:00 pm to 05:00 am on Tavera vehicle bearing no. DL-8CL-7021, in Enforcement Department, Transport Department. On that day, Incharge of Team No. 18 was SI Sukhbir Singh alongwith ASI Jai Bhawan and HC Harpal Singh and at about 03.00-03.15 am when they were on checking duty at South Extension, New Delhi, the checking staff stopped a truck bearing registration no. HR-55S-3383. At that time, accused Rajbir was sitting in the Tavera vehicle on the driver seat. The truck stopped at about 300 feet from the checking point and heated arguments took place between the checking staff and the truck driver. SI Sukhbir Singh, who was standing near the Tavera vehicle told him that accused Jai Bhagwan was calling him to get the truck weighed. When he reached near the truck, the owner of the truck was requesting to leave the truck without challan after taking Seva Pani due to Diwali festival. When the checking staff did not agree, the truck owner Pramod started requesting him " Diwali Ka Tauhar Hai, Kaanta Mat Karwao, Seva Pani Rs.500/- le lo" . Accused Rajbir told them that he was only a driver and did not have any authority to get the vehicle weighed. He told the owner of the truck Pramod to send the driver Arvind to the Checking CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 57 of 72 Incharge with Rs. 2000/- which was the minimum challan amount for overloaded vehicle. But the Team Incharge also did not agree. Thereafter he told them to come to Kaanta at Ashram Chowk, which was under the flyover to get the vehicle weighed. Thereafter he alongwith driver Arvind and owner of the truck Pramod sat in the truck and they left for Ashram for getting the vehicle weighed. The aforesaid facts were also stated by accused Rajbir in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. and the said defence was also put to PW2 and PW9 during their cross-examination.
72) It is thus manifest from the defence taken by accused Rajbir that he admitted that the accused persons were on checking duty at South Extension, New Delhi, on 11.11.2015 at about 03.00-03.15 am. He also admitted that the truck bearing registration no. HR-55S-3383 i.e. truck of the complainant was stopped and further that the truck stopped some distance away from the checking point. He also admitted that heated arguments took place between the checking staff and the driver of the truck. He also admitted that he was told by accused Jai Bhagwan to get the truck weighed and that the complainant was requesting to leave the truck as it was Diwali festival. He also admitted that he had told the owner of the truck Pramod to send the driver with Rs. 2000/- to the checking Incharge. Hence, accused Rajbir has admitted the essential facts comprising the incident, however, it is stated by him that Rs. 2000/- was the minimum challan amount and therefore he had asked the driver to take the said amount to the checking Incharge and not any lessor amount.
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 58 of 7273) Ld. Counsel for accused Rajbir has referred to Section 194 of Motor Vehicles Act relating to driving a vehicle that exceeds permissible weight limit. Section 194 of MV Act 1988 is provides as follows :
"194. Driving vehicle exceeding permissible weight.
- [(1) Whoever drivers a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be driven in contravention of the provisions of section 113 or section 114 or section 115 shall be punishable with minimum fine of two thousand rupees and an additional amount of one thousand rupees per tonne of excess load, together with the liability to pay charges for off- loading of the excess load.] (2) Any driver of a vehicle who refused to stop and submit his vehicle to weighing after being directed to do so by an officer authorised in this behalf under section 114 or removes or causes the removal of the load or part of it prior to weighing shall be punishable with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees."
74) Thus, section 194 of M.V.Act 1988 provides for a minimum fine amount of Rs. 2000/- for overloading of a vehicle.
75) As discussed hereinabove, the testimony of PW2 contains contradictions on material points vis a vis his initial complaint Ex.PW2/A and similarly there are contradictions in the testimony of PW9 also. The testimonies of PW2 and PW9 are also inconsistent with each other regarding the person to whom Rs. 2000/- were handed over by the complainant amongst other facts as discussed hereinabove. Their testimonies therefore cannot be treated as wholly trustworthy and reliable and thus the court has to be circumspect while evaluating their testimonies and their testimonies cannot be made sole basis to arrive at the CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 59 of 72 guilt of the accused persons unless corroborated.
76) The prosecution has also relied upon the audio- video recordings made by the complainant Pramod Kumar of the incident on 11.11.2015 and another video recording made by the complainant on 20.11.2015 with his mobile phone when he met with Sh. Kuljeet Singh, Enforcement Officer.
77) The complainant annexed two CDs regarding the incidents of 11.11.2015 and 20.11.2015 alongwith his complaint Ex. PW2/A. Subsequently, the complainant handed over the Micro SD card Ex. PW2/Article-2 containing the abovesaid recordings made by him with his mobile phone to the IO, which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/B dated 02.03.2016. The complainant also handed over two CDs i.e. CD-I Ex. PW2/Article-4 and CD-II Ex. PW2/Article-6 to the IO alongwith two transcripts of the recordings dated 11.11.2015 Ex. PW2/E and 20.11.2015 Ex. PW2/F, which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/C dated 02.03.2016.
78) Complainant PW2 identified the Micro SD card on which the recordings were done by him and which was handed over to the IO as Ex. PW2/Article-2. He also identified the CD Ex. PW2/Article-4 containing two files i.e. MOV0210A.avi and MOV0218A.avi and stated that the said recordings relating to the accused persons were made by him on 11.11.2015 and 20.11.2015 and since the said recordings were made during night hours, the picture was not clear but voice was clear. He also CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 60 of 72 identified another CD Ex. PW2/Article-6 containing the said recordings in two files i.e. 01.MP4 and 02.MP4.
79) No charge has been framed qua the recording dated 20.11.2015 as it does not relate to any demand or acceptance by the accused persons and is merely a recording of the subsequent meeting between the complainant PW2 with Sh. Kuljeet Singh in relation to the incident and is a fact subsequent to the incident in issue.
80) During final arguments of this case, CD Ex. PW2/Article-4 containing the aforesaid audio-video recording in issue was played and the picture in the video was not visible, as also stated by the complainant PW2 in his testimony, however, the audio of the recording could be heard.
81) During investigation, the complainant handed over the transcription Ex. PW2/E of the incident dated 11.11.2015 to the IO on 02.03.2016 alongwith the audio video recordings. In his cross-examination the complainant stated that the said transcript was prepared by him with the help of his son Aditya on his computer. His son, who had typed the transcription never joined the investigation. PW2 denied the suggestion that the transcript Ex. PW2/E was not in accordance with the recordings. It may be noted that no further transcript of the recordings was prepared by the IO during investigation and the initial transcript Ex. PW2/E, which was handed over by the complainant with his CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 61 of 72 complaint has been relied upon by the prosecution. It is deposed by Insp. Praveen Kumar PW24 that on 23.09.2019 he called the complainant at ACB Office and got verified the transcription from him and again obtained his signatures on the last page of transcription dated 11.11.2015. He further deposed that the panch witness Lal Babu also verified the said transcript and appended his signatures thereon. In this regard, PW12 Lal Babu Bhagat deposed that Insp. Praveen played on CD on his office computer and showed him the transcript and the contents of CD were similar to the contents of the transcript. He identified the CD played before him as Ex. PW12/Article-1. In his cross- examination PW24 Insp. Praveen Kumar deposed that he had never met Harjinder Singh, who was Chief Editor of the Patriots of India and on scrutiny of the file, one complaint of the complainant alongwith the CD, which was forwarded by Harjinder Singh was on record. The said CD was got played by him in his office in the presence of complainant and panch witness. He had not examined Harjinder Singh regarding the source of CD.
82) Hence, it is revealed in the testimony of IO/ PW24, that the CD Ex. PW12/Article-1 was played by PW24 on 23.09.2019 in the presence of panch witness Lal Babu Bhakt PW12 and the complainant to verify the contents of the transcription. The said CD had been forwarded alongwith the complaint by one Harjinder Singh, Chief Editor of the Patriots of India. The said CD had not been handed over by the complainant CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 62 of 72 during investigation and the transcript had been verified on the basis of the said CD Ex. PW12/Article-1. The said CD was not put to the complainant during recording of his testimony to verify if it contained the same recording as he had handed over alongwith his complaint. Infact the complainant has deposed that he had prepared two CDs of the recordings dated 11.11.2015 and 20.11.2015 i.e. Ex. PW2/Article-4 and Ex. PW2/Article-6. The complainant PW2 specifically deposed that he had not sent any complaint or CD to Sh. Harjinder Singh Grover, Chief Editor of the Patriots of India. He further stated that he did not know if his complaint or CD was also sent by Sh. Harjinder Singh Grover to Chief Minister of Delhi, LG and State Transport Authority. Hence, the complainant categorically denied having sent any complaint or CD to Sh. Harjinder Singh Grover, Chief Editor of the Patriots of India. Moreover, even the complainant PW2 has not deposed regarding the proceedings dated 23.09.2019. There is no observation memo on record regarding the proceedings dated 23.09.2019 and PW12 stated that no separate memo was prepared regarding those proceedings. PW12 denied that he had signed the transcript at the instance of the IO without comparing the same with the CD. No fresh transcript was got prepared by the IO and the Panch Witness is stated to have merely compared the contents of the transcription handed over by the complainant with CD Ex. PW12/Article-1. In these circumstances, the transcripts Ex. PW2/E and Ex. PW2/F, which have been stated to have been tallied with the said CD Ex. PW12/Article-1, the source of which is not established on record, cannot be stated to have been properly verified during investigation.
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 63 of 7283) Additionally, it is contended by ld. Counsel for the accused persons that the recording contained in the micro SD card Ex. PW2/Article-2 or in the CDs i.e. CD-I Ex. PW2/Article-4 and CD-II Ex. PW2/Article-6 cannot be stated to be complete recording as it does not indicate that any money was handed over to any accused person and hence the same cannot be relied upon by the prosecution to establish the guilt of accused persons. It is further stated that the transcript Ex. PW2/E which is based on an incomplete recording cannot be treated as a proper and complete transcript and the complainant had manufactured the transcript Ex. PW2/E to suit his own version.
84) It may be noted that in his testimony, the complainant PW2 stated that accused Rajbir had asked them to give Rs. 2000/- for getting the vehicle released and he did not agree for less than Rs. 2000/-. Thereafter he gave Rs. 2000/- to Rajbir, who kept the said amount with him and thereafter they were allowed to go from there with their truck. The complainant thus did not depose regarding the words used by accused Rajbir when the demand of Rs. 2000/- was made by him and has merely stated that accused Rajbir demanded Rs. 2000/- for releasing the vehicle without detailing the specific manner in which the demand was made.
85) At this stage, without going into the veracity of the audio-video recording, its admissibility and the authenticity of the transcript, upon perusal of the transcript Ex. PW2/E and upon CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 64 of 72 hearing the conversation contained in the audio video recording in issue i.e. CD Ex. PW2/Article-4, it is noted that the initially the conversation between the speakers is regarding stopping the vehicle and for showing the papers of the vehicle for checking. (Harpal: Malik Hai To Kagzat Check Karva.) The conversation as mentioned in the transcript Ex. PW2/E reveals that an argument took place between accused Harpal and the complainant regarding stopping of the vehicle. (Harpal: Gadi Bhaga Raha Tha, Jhooth Bolta Ja Raha Tha; Pramod: Kamal Kar Rahe Hai, Hamne to Bhai Gadi Side Mein Lagai; Jai Bhagwan:
O Kaante Par Chada Gadi Ko Bhejiyo) Thereafter accused Jai Bhagwan insisted upon getting the vehicle weighed and the complainant repeatedly requested accused Jai Bhagwan that it was the occasion of Diwali festival and therefore, he should leave the vehicle. (Jai Bhagwan: Pahle Kaanta Kara Le, Phir Dekhenge Tere Tauhar Ka Din Hai.) The complainant also gave reference of one Pramod, a police official, known to the complainant, however, despite the same, accused Jai Bhagwan still insisted upon getting the vehicle weighed and complainant continued to request him to leave them. (Pramod : Bhai Sahab Pramod Hai Palam Ka Aapke Staff Ka Hai, Jaankar Hai; Jai Bhagwan: Mai Dekh Lunga, Kitne Jaankar Hai, Kya Karega, Gadi Chudwa Dega, Mere Se Order Dega Ki Gadi Chodh De; Jai Bhagwan : Rajbir Gadi Le Ja Kaante Per, Dekh Lunga Gadi Chudwata Hai.) Thereafter the complainant started requesting accused Jai Bhagwan and told him to take something ( Jai Bhagwan : Pahle Kaanta Kara La; Pramod: Tyohar Ka Din Hai, Chote Chote Balak Baant Dekh Rahe Hai, Aap Batao Seva-pani;CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 65 of 72
Jai Bhagwan: Kaanta Kara Lo) and upon insisting accused Rajbir told him that the vehicle could be released by the Incharge for Rs. 2000/- who was stubborn and would not agree for a lessor amount. (Rajbir: Bola Hath Jodaa, Bola Ki Len Den Ki, Bola Hath Jode; Pramod: Aap Bol Do; Rajbir: Do Hazar Chodh Dega; Pramod: Do Hazar Rupey To Ghane Ho Jayge Bauji; Pramod:
Do Hazar Rupey Jyada Hai; Rajbir: Na Mane, Bahut Akad Hai.) Thereafter, complainant Pramod requested him to take Rs. 500/-, at which accused Rajbir told him that if he went to Jai Bhagwan, he would scold him and told the complainant to send the driver with minimum Rs. 2000/-. (Pramod: Do Hazar To Ghane Hai, 500 Rupey Le Lo; Rajbir: To Ise Band Kara Lega, Mai Udhar Jauga To Mere Daant Maar Dega, Do Lekar Chala Ja, Manega Nahi, Kamse Kam Do Lekar Chala Ja; Pramod: Aacha; Rajbir:
Tu Mat Ja, Ye Kaya Karega; Driver: Ye Malik Hai; Rajbir: Kaun Hai Malik,Tere Se Bat Na Bane, Driver Mana Liya Kare, In Chijo Ka Hum To Uske Samne Bol Bhi Na Sakte.) Complainant Pramod again insisted accused Rajbir to request accused Jai Bhagwan (Pramod: Bhai Hath Jodkar Pav Pakarke), at which accused Rajbir told that it will not resolve if the owner goes to Jai Bhagwan. (Rajbir: Jey Jid Le Hai, Malik Jane Se Bat Nahi Le, Mai Jakar Kahu.). Thereafter the transcription and the audio- video recording ends. It may be noted that the transcription Ex. PW2/E is not entirely in consonance with the audio-video recording dated 11.11.2015 and as discussed the transcription Ex. PW2/E was not verified properly during investigation.
86) Be that as it may, it is revealed in the aforesaid CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 66 of 72 transcription Ex. PW2/E and the recording in issue dated 11.11.2015 relied upon by the prosecution that there is no conversation regarding money between the complainant and accused Harpal and the conversation is limited to stopping the vehicle and checking the papers; that accused Jai Bhagwan insisted upon getting the vehicle weighed despite requests by the complainant to leave the truck as it was the occasion of Diwali;
that subsequently complainant requested accused Jai Bhagwan by telling him to take seva paani, thereby suggesting an offer of bribe by the complainant and it does not indicate any demand by the accused persons; that despite the same, accused Jai Bhagwan does not demand any bribe or money and continues to insist upon getting the vehicle weighed; that accused Rajbir suggested to the owner Pramod to send Rs. 2000/- through his driver to the officer for releasing the truck and not any lessor amount; that the complainant PW2 was told by accused Rajbir that the officer was stubborn, which would imply that he would not have left the complainant with his truck without getting it weighed; that accused Rajbir did not ask the money to be handed over to him for release of the truck. The fact that accused Rajbir did not take the money himself and continued to suggest to the owner complainant Pramod to send Rs. 2000/- to the officer through the driver for releasing the truck, cannot be termed as demand or acceptance of the offer of any bribe of Rs. 2000/- by accused Rajbir.
87) It is also noteworthy that the transcription Ex. PW2/E and the audio-video recording dated 11.11.2015, which is CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 67 of 72 in issue in the present case, ends abruptly after accused Rajbir was suggesting to the complainant how to get the vehicle released by sending the driver to the Incharge alongwith Rs.2000/-. In his testimony the complainant PW2 stated that he had handed over Rs. 2000/- to accused Rajbir and thereafter challan was not issued and his truck was released. In his cross- examination he stated that accused Rajbir was not interested in taking them to accused Jai Bhagwan as he was demanding bribe from them but thereafter, they along with accused Rajbir went to accused Jai Bhagwan, who was sitting in the car, in order to confirm whether demand was raised for release of vehicle. Hence, it is the version of the complainant PW2 himself that they were not sure if the demand was raised for release of vehicle and therefore, they went along with accused Rajbir to accused Jai Bhagwan, who was sitting in the car, in order to confirm the same. It is noteworthy that neither the recording in issue nor the transcription indicates that the complainant alongwith driver and accused Rajbir went to accused Jai Bhagwan and what conversation took place between them in that regard which also demonstrates that the recording or the transcription Ex. PW2/E cannot be taken as a complete record of the entire incident.
88) As discussed, there are no words in the audio-video recording whereby accused Rajbir asked the complainant to give Rs. 2000/- to him or that he would leave the vehicle after getting that amount. He was suggesting to the complainant to send his driver with the money to the officer as the officer was stubborn and would not agree. Since the audio-video recording ends CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 68 of 72 abruptly, therefore, it cannot be deciphered as to what happened thereafter. Considering the fact that as per Section 194 M.V. Act, Rs. 2000/- was also the minimum fine amount for overloading of the vehicle, the version of accused Rajbir that he had asked complainant Pramod to send driver Arvind with Rs. 2000/-to request the Incharge so that the vehicle could be released with minimum fine, appears plausible. The tenor of conversation in the transcription Ex. PW2/E and the recording in issue also supports the version given by the accused.
89) Moreover, even if the audio video recording dated 11.11.2015, which is in issue in the present case, is taken into account without going its admissibility and authenticity, the same does not appear to be a complete record of the entire incident, hence, it would not be prudent to rely upon the said recording or the transcript Ex. PW2/E as evidence against the accused persons.
90) In these circumstances, it cannot be stated without reasonable doubt that the amount of Rs. 2000/- was demanded and accepted by accused persons in conspiracy with each other as a bribe amount. The fact that the complete audio-video recording is not brought before the court, casts a shadow of doubt over the version of the complainant in as much as the complainant appears to be hiding the true and complete facts from the court. In Dhyaneshwar Laxman Rao case (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even while invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the P.C. Act, the court is required to CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 69 of 72 consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. The version of accused Rajbir has to be viewed in light of the law as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
91) Additionally, as discussed above, accused Rajbir has stated in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as well as while examining himself as DW3 that when he accompanied PW2, PW9 and PW22 in the truck to get it weighed at Dharam Kaanta near Ashram Chowk, the driver of the vehicle PW9 on the instructions of PW2 did not stop the said truck and he was abducted by them.
92) PW9 Arvind, driver of the vehicle, in his cross- examination by the accused Jai Bhagwan and Harpal stated that after remaining there for 10 minutes, they proceeded for Bhopra. Accused Rajbir sat with them for getting the truck weighed at Dharam Kaanta. He affirmed the suggestion that there was a weighing machine (Kaanta) at Ashram Chowk, Mathura Road. He stated that the vehicle was not got weighed at Ashram Chowk, Mathura Road, and that they ran away with the truck towards Bhopra so that they were not stopped by the police officials at any other point. They reached Bhopra at about 03.30/04.00 am and unloaded the truck. The said facts have been denied by PW2 complainant in his cross examination by the accused persons.
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 70 of 7293) From the aforesaid testimony of PW9, it emerges that accused Rajbir sat in the truck alongwith PW2, PW9 and PW22 to get it weighed at Dharam Kaanta at Ashram Chowk. It may be noted that as per the testimony of PW2 and PW9, the amount of Rs. 2000/- was taken by accused Rajbir and after the same was handed over, they were allowed to leave with the truck. In the event the bribe amount of Rs. 2000/- stood accepted and they were allowed to leave with the truck, then there was no occasion for accused Rajbir to have sat in the truck for getting it weighed. These facts as deposed by PW9, lend credibility to the version of accused Rajbir that money was not demanded as bribe or was handed over to the accused persons. Hence, the accused persons have been able to create a dent in the prosecution version regarding demand and acceptance of bribe money of Rs. 2000/- by the accused persons.
94) As discussed hereinabove, the recording or the transcription Ex. PW5/B cannot be taken as a complete record of the entire incident and thus the same cannot be relied upon by the prosecution. Moreover, as discussed the oral testimony of the witnesses PW2 and PW9 is not entirely reliable and hence cannot be made the basis of arriving at the guilt of accused persons without due corroboration. Since an incomplete audio-video recording or the transcript Ex. PW5/B cannot afford corroboration of the version of the said witnesses, therefore, their testimonies remain uncorroborated. Even otherwise as discussed, the audio-video recording dated 11.11.2015 does not reveal that any demand of bribe amount of Rs. 2000/- was made by the CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 71 of 72 accused persons in conspiracy with each other. The prosecution has thus failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the amount of Rs. 2000/- was demanded by accused Rajbir in conspiracy with accused Jai Bhagwan and Harpal. The prosecution has also not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the amount of Rs. 2000/- was accepted as illegal gratification by accused Jai Bhagwan in conspiracy with accused Rajbir and Harpal.
95) The cumulative impact of the aforesaid discussion is that the prosecution has not been able to discharge the onus upon it to prove the foundational facts regarding demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused persons through the oral testimony of the witnesses PW2, PW9 and PW22. The allegations of demand and acceptance are also not corroborated through the video recording in issue and the transcript Ex.PW2/E of the incident. The prosecution has thus not been able to prove the guilt of accused persons regarding demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, accused Jai Bhagwan, Harpal Singh and Rajbir Singh are given benefit of doubt and are acquitted of the offences they are charged with. Their bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties stand discharged.
96) File be consigned to Record Room after due
compliance. Digitally signed by
DEEPALI DEEPALI SHARMA
Announced in the open Court SHARMA Date: 2025.07.26
16:13:01 +0530
on 26th July, 2025 ( Deepali Sharma )
Special Judge (PC Act) (ACB-01)
Rouse Avenue Courts Complex
New Delhi
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 72 of 72