Delhi District Court
State vs Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati on 1 December, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA
SPECIAL JUDGE: (PC ACT): (ACB-01):
RADC: NEW DELHI
CC No.258/2019
CNR No.DLCT11-001573-2019
FIR No. : 02/2014
U/s : 7/13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988
PS : Vigilance
State VERSUS Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati
S/o Sh. Harish Chander Bhati
R/o Village- Salarpur, Noida,
Distt- Gautam Budh Nagar,
UP.
Date of Institution : 28.05.2019
Date of Arguments : 01.12.2022
Date of Judgment : 01.12.2022
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the present case as per the charge- sheet are that on 04.02.14, Sh. L. C. Yadav, ACP/VIU/Vigilance gave a written complaint to Duty Officer, PS Vigilance Unit, Delhi that on 04.02.14, a programme was aired on TV channel Aaj Tak (Hindi) namely "Operation Delhi Police" from 20:00 hours onwards and in the said programme, several police officials of Delhi police are seen accepting bribe for doing some official duty and it is clear from the telecast that Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati of PS Govind Puri, while on official duty is seen accepting gratification from an undercover agent of the said TV channel in lieu of settling a matter and thereby prima facie committed an FIR No. 02/2014, PS Vigilance State vs. Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati Page 1 of 33 offence u/s 7/13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988. It is stated that as per the approval of the senior officer, a case is to be registered against the said officials and accordingly, a case u/s 7/13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 is registered and investigation of case be handed over to Insp. Rajesh Kumar. On the basis of above complaint/directions, the present case FIR no. 2/2014 was registered u/s 7/13 (1) (d) of PC, 1988 Act against accused.
2. During the investigation, one unedited DVD of Operation Delhi Police, which was containing the raw footage of sting operation was obtained from Insp. M. S. Shekhawat (IO of similar case), who had collected the same from Sh. Satya Prakash, Asst. Manager, Legal Deptt. TV Today Network Ltd. From the said DVD, video files of sting operation relating to accused Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati was transferred to a separate DVD by the computer operator of Vigilance branch and the same was played in office computer and shown to Akshay Singh, Special Correspondent, Aaj Tak Channel, who confirmed the footage stating that the same was recorded by him through his I-phone.
3. During investigation, the statement of Akshay Singh was recorded u/s 161 Cr. P.C. The gist of statement of Akshay Singh is that on 27.01.2014 in the evening at about 05 pm, he alongwith Sapan Gupta (Intern reporter, Aaj Tak) went to PS Govind Puri to conduct a sting operation to expose the corruption in Delhi police. He cooked up an imaginary story of dealing of car and told Sapan Gupta to go inside the PS and told the SHO or any Inspector that he had a deal of car with his friend for a sum of Rs.2 lac and he had already paid Rs.80,000/-, but his friend is FIR No. 02/2014, PS Vigilance State vs. Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati Page 2 of 33 neither giving him the car nor returning Rs.80,000/-. He also told him (Sapan Gupta) to agree the police officer to solve his problem without any complaint and also told him to call him (Akshay Singh) inside the PS claiming him to be the elder brother of his friend, so that, he could record demand and acceptance of bribe from that officer in his I-phone. Thereafter, Sapan Gupta went inside the PS and met Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati and apprised him about the imaginary story and after some time, he came outside the PS and told him (Akshay Singh) that he made Madan Pal Singh Bhati agreed that the phone of Umesh is not connecting with whom the deal of the car was finalized and he had talked with the elder brother of Umesh (his friend), who has agreed to come at the PS. Thereafter, after some time Akshay Singh alongwith Sapan Gupta went in the office of Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati and Sapan Gupta introduced Akshay Singh as the brother of his friend to Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati and went outside. Akshay Singh told Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati that he is the elder brother of Umesh, who had taken Rs.80,000/- from Sapan Gupta for selling a car and requested him not to register an FIR as his younger brother Umesh is a student and also told that he will return the money tomorrow. Thereafter, Akshay Singh asked Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati that "yahan kisi ki sewa pani kuch hai", on this Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati replied that "are bhai mere jo khushi se de ke jayega wo thik hai". Thereafter, Akshay Singh took out Rs.2000/- and put the same on the table and Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati had taken the same from the table in front of him. He recorded the entire incident in his I- phone. Thereafter, he went outside and informed the same to FIR No. 02/2014, PS Vigilance State vs. Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati Page 3 of 33 Sapan Gupta. He also transferred the video of sting operation in the computer of Aaj Tak office, Noida and after that, deleted the video from his I-phone as he was always using his I-phone for the other sting operation also.
4. During investigation, statement of Sapan Gupta was also recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., who supported the version of Akshay Singh. CD of sting operation was seized and transcript of sting operation was also prepared. Accused Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati refused to give his voice sample, whereas Akshay Singh and Sapan Gupta have provided their voice sample at CFSL, CBI. Further, Aaj Tak Channel has not provided the original device which was used for recording the sting operation. The channel has intimated that I-phones (recording device) have very limited memory and therefore, all the raw footages recorded on the I-phone are downloaded on the office system as a matter of practice and thereafter deleted from the I-phones, hence, the original source of recording (I-phone) could not be sent to CFSL for definite opinion. Further investigation was carried out and sanction to prosecute u/s 19 of PC Act was obtained against accused and charge-sheet was prepared and filed against accused Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati for offence U/s 7/13(1)(d) PC Act.
5. Thereafter, accused Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati was summoned and after hearing the arguments on charge, charge for the offence under Section 7 of PC Act was framed against the accused vide order dated 26.07.2019, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 21 FIR No. 02/2014, PS Vigilance State vs. Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati Page 4 of 33 witnesses. The brief summary of the evidence of prosecution witnesses is as under:
7. PW-1 is Sh. Jayesh Bhardwaj, Lab Assistant, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi, who deposed that on 09.05.2014, on request of investigating agency, he alongwith Ms. Anuradha Dey, Lab Assistant (PW-6) recorded the voice samples of Akshay Singh and Sapan Gupta in the Micro SD cards directly by using the system i.e. digital voice recorder make Sony as Ex. P1 and Ex.P2 and handed over the same to IO vide memo Ex. PW-1/A and Ex. PW-1/B. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that the transcription which was read over by Akshay Singh and Sapan Gupta was brought by the IO himself and he does not know, who had prepared the transcription.
8. PW-2 is Sh. R. K. Srivastava, Principal Scientific Officer, CFSL, who deposed that on 10.11.2014, he received one DVD marked as Exhibit-Q1 in unsealed condition from physics division for computation of hash value and he reported that DVD Exhibit Q1 was found fully functional and undamaged and mentioned its MD5 hash value in his report as Ex. PW-2/A. In his cross-examination, Ld. Defence counsel asked about the word "with 2369 errors" mentioned in Ex. PW-2/A and witness replied that during hashing process "2369 errors" were encountered but with repeatability, it means that DVD reproduced the hashing. He further deposed that the sector which are not readable are marked as bad sectors and the bad sectors are counted as errors. He confirmed that there was no bad sector FIR No. 02/2014, PS Vigilance State vs. Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati Page 5 of 33 recorded in the file i.e. .7.mov. He further confirmed that if the data copied is the same, the hash value would be same.
9. PW-3 is Sh. A. D. Tiwari, Principal Scientific Officer (Photo), CFSL, who deposed that on 17.11.2014, he received one unsealed parcel containing DVD Exhibit Q1 from physics division and he examined the video file named as .7mov and opined that there is conversation present in the video recording and no tampering in the video file named .7mov was found between the first to last frame and proved his report as Ex. PW-3/A. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he confirmed that he was not provided the original recording to compare the same with the recording contained in DVD Ex.P-3. He further confirmed that to verify that the recording has been done with the device with which it is alleged to have been recorded, then the original recording device is required.
10. PW-4 is SI Dalip Singh, who deposed that on 04.02.2014 he was posted as Duty Officer at PS Vigilance and recorded the present case FIR as Ex.PW-4/A on the basis of rukka handed over to him by ACP Sh. L. C. Yadav. He further deposed that he had made an endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW7/B and proved the certificate under section 65B Indian Evidence Act, 1872 regarding the present FIR as Ex.PW-4/C.
11. PW-5 is ASI Barmeshwar Goswami, who brought the printout of detailed bio-data of accused Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati i.e. Ex. PW-5/A and proved certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in this regard as Ex. PW-5/B. FIR No. 02/2014, PS Vigilance State vs. Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati Page 6 of 33
12. PW-6 is Ms. Anuradha Dey, Lab Assistant-Physics, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi, who deposed that on 09.05.2014, she alongwith Sh. Jayesh Bhardwaj (PW-1) recorded the voice samples of Akshay Singh and Sapan Gupta which were seized vide memo already Ex.PW-1/A and Ex. PW-1/B and also identified the micro SD cards as Ex.P1 and P2.
In her cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, she deposed that consent of witnesses before recording the voice samples was obtained which is Ex. PW-6/D1. To a specific question, she confirmed that except relying on the statement of IO that the person produced for recording the voice sample was Sh. Akshay Singh and Sapan Gupta, no other document was seen by her.
13. PW-7 is Sapan Gupta, who deposed that in the year 2014, he was working as an intern trainee in Aaj Tak News under the guidance of Deepak Sharma and Akshay Singh (now deceased) and at that time, there were lot of reports regarding corruption in Delhi police and they were directed to detect the corruption for the purpose of news reporting. He further deposed that Akshay Singh was leading his team and they planned to create some imaginary story and to approach the officials of Delhi police to detect corruption. They both reached at PS Govindpuri, where he was briefed by Akshay Singh to put an imaginary story inside the PS regarding sale and purchase of a car and that he must speak to some senior official. He further deposed that he went inside PS Govindpuri and he approached the accused and told him with an imaginary name that Sh. Om Parkash had sent him and that he had a dealing of second-hand FIR No. 02/2014, PS Vigilance State vs. Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati Page 7 of 33 car for Rs.2 lac and already paid Rs.80,000/- to his friend namely Umesh, but the said person was neither returning his money nor giving the car. He further deposed that he asked the accused for calling his friend to PS and if the accused would speak to his friend on phone, his friend would be pressurized and would give the car to him, on which, accused asked him to call his friend. He further deposed that thereafter, he went outside the PS and after some time, he again went inside the PS and told the accused that his friend would not come but he had spoken to his elder brother and whether he should call the elder brother of his friend to PS, upon this, the accused consented. As per PW-7, he again went outside the PS and told the entire facts to Akshay Singh and after about 30 to 45 minutes, he alongwith Akshay Singh again went inside the PS, where he introduced Akshay Singh as the elder brother of his friend to the accused. He further deposed that after some conversation, he was told to go out of the room and Akshay Singh remained inside the room and after some time, Akshay Singh came out of the room and told him that the deal has been completed with accused and he had paid Rs.2,000/- bribe to him and had recorded the incident in the device i.e. I-phone S5. He further deposed that they had also perused the recording and submitted the same in the office and after sometime, the television show regarding this incident and various incidents of acceptance of bribe money by the accused and other police officials was telecasted.
14. PW-7 Sapan Gupta further deposed that on 25.03.2014, he alongwith Akshay Singh went to Vigilance office and confirmed the footage contained in DVD, which was played FIR No. 02/2014, PS Vigilance State vs. Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati Page 8 of 33 in the office of Vigilance as the same, which was recorded by Akshay Singh in his I-phone and transferred in the computer system of the office. He also proved the seizure memo of the DVD as Ex. PW-7/A and identified the signature of Akshay Singh at point A. He further deposed that he had given consent letter Ex.PW-7/B for his voice sample which was recorded in micro chip SD Card at CFSL, Lodhi Road, Delhi where he went alongwith Akshay Singh. He also identified the audio-video recording, recorded by Akshay Singh after seeing the DVD Ex. P-3 and his voice sample recorded at CFSL, Lodhi Road in SD Card as Ex.P2.
In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that the audio-video recording seen by him in the Court was not recorded in his presence. He further confirmed that he was not present at the time of the incident displayed in video as he was not the eye witness. He further deposed that Akshay Singh used to delete the original recording after submitting the copy with the channel Aaj Tak and also confirmed that original recording of the alleged sting footage was also deleted and is not available. He admitted that he was not involved in the procedure of depositing the recording and deleting the original recording in I-phone and it was controlled by Akshay Singh.
15. PW-8 is Sh. L. C. Yadav, Retd. ACP, who deposed that on 04.02.2014, he saw a programme namely Operation Delhi Police on Aaj Tak Channel in which several police officials were seen accepting bribe and in one of the sting operations, accused Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati of PS Govind Puri was visible while accepting bribe. He further deposed that on the instruction FIR No. 02/2014, PS Vigilance State vs. Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati Page 9 of 33 of senior officers, he prepared separate tehrir for each sting operation and in respect of accused Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati, the tehrir is proved as Ex. PW-8/A, on the basis of which present FIR was registered. He further deposed that he had written a letter to Aaj Tak Channel for providing raw footage of sting operation i.e. Ex.PW-8/B and in response of his letter, he received reply i.e. Ex.PW-8/C from Sh. Punit Jain, Legal Head of Aaj Tak Channel/TV Today Network alongwith three CD/DVDs of raw footage and one CD/DVD containing the telecasted footage and upon his direction, HC Mahesh of PS Vigilance prepared the DVDs of relevant sting operation separately and provided to the IO.
In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel to a specific question, PW-8 deposed that he is not aware as to from which record the Aaj Tak TV news channel prepared the CDs/DVDs provided to him but the same were copies and not the original. He further confirmed that no certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act was received alongwith CDs/DVDs by him from Aaj Tak Channel. He further deposed that he does not know who had prepared the CDs/DVDs in the office of Aaj Tak Channel and whether the footage in the CDs/DVDs were copies of the original or were copies of the copies.
16. PW-9 is Sh. Om Prakash, Ahlmad, who deposed that on 05.07.18, IO of present case had moved an application for taking consent/willingness of accused for obtaining his voice sample and accused had refused to give his voice sample vide ordersheet of the Hon'ble Court as Ex. PW-9/A
17. PW-10 is HC Mahesh, who deposed that on FIR No. 02/2014, PS Vigilance State vs. Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati Page 10 of 33 07.02.14, ACP Sh. L. C. Yadav gave him three DVDs stated to be containing unedited footage with direction to prepare separate DVD pertaining to each case. He further deposed that there were totally 11 files in the DVDs and he segregated the 11 files from the three DVDs qua the seven FIRs registered at PS Vigilance pertaining to sting operations and he prepared separate DVD of each case and handed over the same to the concerned IOs of the FIRs. He also proved certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act in present case as Ex.PW-10/A and also identified the three DVDs i.e. Ex.P5, P2 and P6, which were given to him by ACP L. C. Yadav for preparation of separate DVD of each case and from those DVDs, he prepared the DVD of presence case i.e. Ex.P-3.
In his cross examination, he deposed that there was no sequence of connection regarding continuity amongst the 11 files found on three DVDs. He confirmed that the 11 files found in the three DVDs were the copies of the original recordings. He further confirmed that he never saw the original recordings nor compared the same with the eleven files found on three DVDs at any time before preparation of Ex.P-3. He admitted that proforma of certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act was already in the computer and he made relevant changes in the proforma and prepared the same and that he is aware about the conditions laid down in Section 65-B (2) (a) and 65-B (2) (d) of Indian Evidence Act.
18. PW-11 is SI Ram Het, who deposed that on 26.03.2014, he prepared transcription of one video-audio footage pertaining to the sting operation carried out by Aaj Tak New channel i.e. Ex. PW-11/A running into six pages.
FIR No. 02/2014, PS Vigilance State vs. Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati Page 11 of 33In his cross-examination, he deposed that he reached at Vigilance office at about 01:30 pm and ACP Vigilance handed him over the DVD which was played in the office computer of ACP L. C. Yadav and he prepared the transcription in about 5-6 hours. He further deposed that SHO Vigilance R. R. Khatana and ACP L. C. Yadav and 2-3 staff persons were present there and none of them helped him in preparation of the transcription.
19. PW-12 is Sh. Puneet Jain, who deposed that in the year 2014, he was designated as Head, Legal & Compliances, Company Secretary and Vice President, Internal Audit in India Today Group. He further deposed that sting operation related to exposing corruption in Delhi police was conducted by Editorial Team headed by Akshay Singh and same was broadcasted on 04.02.2014 on Aaj Tak Channel. He further deposed that a certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act was also provided by him since the requisite footage as a process was transferred from the I-phone used by Akshay Singh and the CDs/DVDs were made by the library under his direct supervision and handed over to the police through Sh. Satya Prakash, who was working as an Assistant Manager, Legal vide his letter already Ex. PW-8/C. PW-12 further deposed that the I-phone was also used for other coverages and as per his knowledge was lastly handed over to the Vidhan Sabha, UP in some other related sting operation and that he also informed the Investigating Agency that Akshay Singh has expired after the aforesaid sting operation. He further deposed that he also provided the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act related to present FIR i.e. Ex. PW-12/B dated 20.12.2017 alongwith forwarding letter Ex. PW-12/C. FIR No. 02/2014, PS Vigilance State vs. Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati Page 12 of 33 In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he confirmed that the transfer of recordings from the mobile phone to the computer system was done in his presence and he was supervising the same, but he had not seen the original recording. He further confirmed that the edited version was telecasted and therefore, the recording was edited for telecasting, but he had not supervised the editing process. He further deposed that Sh. Deepak Sharma was the Incharge of computer of the channel and he downloaded the sting footage as informed vide letter Ex.PW- 12/DA. To a specific question, PW-12 admitted as correct that he does not supervise the library section which controls these recordings in the main computer system of the channel. He further confirmed that vide his letter Ex. PW-12/DA, he informed that Sh. Akshay Singh was the Incharge of the computer and had downloaded the raw footage of the sting from the device to the office system into a DVD.
20. PW-13 is Sh. Sunil Garg, Special CP, who granted prosecution sanction u/s 19 of PC Act against accused Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati as Ex. PW-13/A. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel he deposed that he read the entire case file including FSL report, sting operation report, denial of accused to give his sample voice, statement of TV reporters Sapan and Akshay etc before granting sanction. He further deposed that he does not remember whether he had perused the CD or concerned audio-video recording before granting sanction.
21. PW-14 is ASI Saji Varghese, who deposed that on 30.06.2017, on the direction of IO, he gave him the attested copy FIR No. 02/2014, PS Vigilance State vs. Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati Page 13 of 33 of DD no. 31 dated 27.01.2014 in respect of briefing by Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati alongwith copy of duty roster Ex. PW- 14/A and Ex. PW-14/B and the seizure memo of abovesaid document Ex. PW-14/C. He further deposed that PW-15 WHC Ramita was also present with him, who also deposed in the same manner.
22. PW-16 is Ct. Sikender Maan, who deposed that on 09.05.2014, voice sample of Akshay Singh and Sapan Gupta was recorded at CFSL, Lodhi Road, New Delhi and was seized by IO vide memo already Ex. PW-1/A and Ex.PW-1/B. He further deposed that on 26.02.2015, on the direction of ACP Vigilance, he took the sealed exhibits alongwith FSL report from CFSL, Lodhi Road and deposited the same in the malkhana of PS Vigilance.
23. PW-17 is Retd. ACP Sh. M. S. Shekhawat, who deposed that on 06.02.2014, he collected three unedited DVDs of sting operation, one edited DVD and transcription of telecast from Sh. Satya Prakash, Asst. Manager, Legal Department, TV Today Network and seized the same and handed over to Sh. L. C. Yadav after coming back to Vigilance office.
In his cross-examination, he deposed that Sh. Satya Prakash handed over the four DVDs to him which were already prepared at their end before his arrival to their office and he is not aware who prepared those DVDs from the original recordings if any. He further confirmed that it is in his knowledge that these four DVDs are the copies of the original recordings and that he did not obtain any certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act alongwith the DVDs received by him. To a specific question, FIR No. 02/2014, PS Vigilance State vs. Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati Page 14 of 33 PW-17 deposed that Sh. L. C. Yadav handed over the DVDs and transcripts prepared by him in his presence to the respective IOs and Sh. L. C. Yadav might have taken 1/1:30 hours in order to prepare the copies of DVDs and transcripts.
24. PW-18 is Sh. Amitosh Kumar, Sr. Scientific Officer, CFSL, CBI, who deposed on 07.11.2014, he examined the parcel marked S-1 and S-2 containing the voice samples of Akshay Singh and Sapan Gupta and opined that questioned voice Marked Q-1/(I) (A) and S-1 (I)(A) are of same person namely Akshay Singh, but the voice of Sapan Gupta could not be detected. He also opined that the recorded conversation in the audio-video files is in continuity and no form of tampering could be detected on the basis of wave form, spectographic examination and critical auditory examination and proved his report i.e. Ex.PW- 18/A. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he identified the voice of Akshay Singh after tallying the same from the sample voice. He further admitted that in the absence of original recording, he was not in a position to form a definite opinion upon the tampering/editing.
25. PW-19 is Ct. Harish Kumar, who deposed that on 29.05.2014, upon instruction of IO, he collected the sealed exhibits Q1, S1 and S2 from the malkhana of PS Vigilance and deposited the same at CFSL, Lodhi Road, Delhi vide RC No. 4/21/14 as Mark-Z.
26. PW-20 is Sh. Deepak Sharma, who deposed that he was Editor at TV Today Network Ltd and between 2002 to 2015, FIR No. 02/2014, PS Vigilance State vs. Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati Page 15 of 33 he was Incharge of SIT. He further deposed that in the month of January and February, 2014, his team headed by Late Akshay Singh conducted sting operations of Delhi police officials and the recording of sting operations was handed over by Late Akshay Singh to Sh. Punit Jain, Head of Legal Department and Sh. Punit Jain used to issue certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act regarding the copies of sting operations prepared at their office.
In his cross-examination, he deposed that recordings of Late Akshay Singh were not handed over to Sh. Punit Jain in his presence. He further confirmed that he did not give any directions on the making of the story for the purpose of sting operations and all such preparations related to story making/script were done by Late Akshay Singh himself.
27. PW-21 is ACP Rajesh Kumar (IO), who deposed that on 04.02.2014, investigation of present case was marked to him and during investigation, one unedited DVD containing raw footage of sting operation relating to accused Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati was obtained from the IO of similar case i.e. Insp. M. S. Shekhawat. PW-21 further deposed that he called Akshay Singh and Sapan Gupta and played the DVD regarding the accused Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati on the office computer of Vigilance branch and Sh. Akshay Singh confirmed that it was the same footage which was recorded by him in his I-phone. PW-21 further deposed that on 26.03.2014 on his instruction, ASI Ram Het had prepared the transcription i.e. PW-11/A of audio-video footage pertaining to accused and both the witnesses namely Sapan Gupta and Akshay Singh were taken to CFSL, CBI, Lodhi Road where their voice samples were recorded. PW-21 further FIR No. 02/2014, PS Vigilance State vs. Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati Page 16 of 33 deposed that he had given two notices u/s 91 Cr.P.C. i.e. Ex.PW- 21/B and Ex.PW-21/C for providing the original I- phone/equipment used during the sting and also issued two notices to Sh. Punit Jain i.e. PW-21/E and Ex.PW-21/F for providing certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. PW-21 further deposed that on 05.07.2018 he had moved an application before the Court for recording the voice sample of accused Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati, but the accused refused to give his voice sample in present case. After investigation, he applied for sanction u/s 19 of PC Act and the same is already proved as Ex. PW-13/A. In his cross-examination, he deposed that Mr. Deepak Sharma was the person Incharge of the computer on to which the sting footage was downloaded and that no certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act was obtained from Deepak Sharma at any point of time during investigation. He further confirmed that he did not examine any person who actually might have prepared the four DVDs handed over to Insp. M. S. Shekhawat at any point of time. He has also admitted that as per his version, the four DVDs were prepared from the computer which was carrying the recordings from original source i.e. Iphone of Akshay Singh and that he never examined Deepak Sharma as to how and from which source he prepared the four DVDs which were handed over to Insp. M. S. Shekhawat. PW-21 further admitted that inspite of his knowledge that Deepak Sharma prepared the four DVDs, he did not obtain certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act from Deepak Sharma or issued any notice to him for furnishing the certificate u/s 65-B of Indian FIR No. 02/2014, PS Vigilance State vs. Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati Page 17 of 33 Evidence Act. To a specific question, he further confirmed that since he did not examine Deepak Sharma on the point of preparation of four DVDs, therefore, he cannot say if the four DVDs were prepared from the copies of the copies or the personal laptop or from the other computer belonging to Deepak Sharma or to some other person.
28. PW-21 further deposed that Akshay Singh was the sole eye witness of alleged giving bribe sting operation and he wrote notice Ex. PW-21/E to Sh. Punit Jain to issue certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act on the sole ground that he was Legal Head of Aaj Tak.
29. After completion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence was put to him which he denied as false and incorrect and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He did not opt to lead evidence in his defence.
30. Arguments have been advanced by Sh. Vikash Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and by Sh. Manoj Chaudhary, Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused.
31. Ld. Addl. PP for State argued that the footage of sting operation was played in the office of Vigilance in the presence of Akshay Singh and Sapan Gupta and as Sh. Akshay Singh expired after the sting operation, Sapan Gupta, who has been examined as PW-7 has confirmed that the footage shown to them is the same which was recorded by Sh. Akshay Singh in the I-phone and transferred in the computer system of office of Aaj FIR No. 02/2014, PS Vigilance State vs. Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati Page 18 of 33 Tak. It has been submitted that PW-12 Sh. Punit Jain, who was Head of Legal & Compliances, TV Today Network Ltd. has specifically deposed that the footage was transferred from the I- phone to the company computer and the CDs/DVDs were made by the library under his direct supervision and therefore his certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is admissible in support of DVD Ex.P-3 relating to the sting of present case being secondary evidence. Ld. Addl. PP for State further argued that the accused had refused to give his voice sample when an application was filed by the IO before the Court and therefore adverse inference should be drawn against him. It has been submitted that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
32. Per contra, Ld. Defence counsel argued that the original source of alleged sting operation i.e. I-phone was neither seized nor produced before the Court and the sole eye witness Sh. Akshay Singh, who allegedly recorded the sting operation regarding the imaginary story for giving bribe to accused could not be examined as he expired. Ld. Defence counsel vehemently contended that the DVD produced before the Court as a secondary evidence is the copy of the copy of original recording, but the same has not been proved in accordance with law.
33. Ld. Defence counsel further argued that prosecution has failed to prove that initially who transferred the data from the original device to the office computer of Aaj Tak and thereafter who prepared the copy of the original recording from the office computer for the purpose of handing over the same to Investigating Officer. It has been submitted that not only this, there are material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution FIR No. 02/2014, PS Vigilance State vs. Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati Page 19 of 33 witnesses that as to how the complainant Sh. L. C. Yadav received the copies of the original recording from the office of Aaj Tak. It has been submitted that PW-10 HC Mahesh who as per prosecution case, segregated 11 files of three DVDs allegedly containing the unedited footage and prepared seven DVDs pertaining to each FIRs has admitted that he does not know if the 11 files copied from the original recording on the three DVDs were edited or not prior to their copying.
34. Ld. Defence counsel further argued that no certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act of the concerned person who transferred the data from the original device to the office computer or the person who was Incharge of the said computer is collected by the IO during the investigation. It has been submitted that PW-12 Sh. Punit Jain, who deposed before the Court that the footage was transferred from the I-phone to the company computer under his direct supervision has stated in his reply given to the IO i.e. Ex. PW-12/DA that the person Incharge of the computer on to which the sting footage was downloaded is Mr. Deepak Sharma, the then SIT Editor, but he was neither cited as a witness nor any certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act was given by him. It is thus submitted by Ld. Defence counsel that prosecution has failed to prove that DVD Ex.P-3 containing alleged sting operation is the copy of the copy of original recording by way of secondary evidence and as such there is no evidence against accused that he had accepted any bribe from Akshay Singh who had conducted the sting operation by way of an imaginary story.
35. Ld. Defence counsel has drawn my attention in FIR No. 02/2014, PS Vigilance State vs. Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati Page 20 of 33 respect of authorities titled as Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Khusanrao Gorantyal, Civil Appeal no. 20825-20826 of 2017; Anvar P. V. vs. P. K. Basheer & Ors., (Civil Appeal no. 4226 of 2012); Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam (Crl. Appeal No. 1323 of 2011); Pravin vs. Ghanshyam (M.P. No. 1144 of 2017); Jahan Singh vs. CBI-The State, (Crl. A. No. 106/2013); Ram Singh & Ors. vs. Col. Ram Singh; Mahant Ram Prakash Dass vs. Ramesh Chandra and Ors., Appeal (Civil) 3131 of 1998; Sudhir Chaudhary Etc. vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Crl. Appeal Nos.700- 701 of 2015; Ashish Kumar Dubey vs. State Through CBI, Crl. A. No. 124 of 2008 Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar vs. State of Maharashtra, Crl. Appeal no. 537 of 2009.
36. 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 fundamental requirement of criminal law viz., the guilt of an accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. In this regard, reliance is placed upon State of Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede 2009 (4) RCR (Cr) 217 SC and State of Punjab Vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma 2013 (7) LRC 34 (SC). In both these cases, it was held that the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution.
37. It is well settled that it is one of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved to be guilty. It is also well settled that suspicion however strong can never take the place of proof. There is a long distance between the fact that accused 'may have committed the offence' and 'must have committed the offence', FIR No. 02/2014, PS Vigilance State vs. Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati Page 21 of 33 which is to be proved by the prosecution by adducing reliable and cogent evidence. Presumption of innocence is recognized as human right which cannot be wished away.
38. Sh. Akshay Singh, Special Correspondent of Aaj Tak channel who had conducted and recorded the sting operation related to present case passed away on 04.07.2015 and his death certificate was forwarded by Sh. Punit Jain alongwith his letter Ex.PW-12/D. The original device i.e. I-phone through which Sh. Akshay Singh recorded the sting operation was not produced before the Court and it has come on record in the evidence of PW-12 Sh. Punit Jain that the original I-phone was lastly handed over to Vidhan Sabha, UP in some other related sting operation. PW-7 Sh. Sapan Gupta, who was assisting Sh. Akshay Singh at the time of present sting operation has admitted in his cross examination that the audio-video of the sting operation i.e. Ex.P- 3 was not recorded in his presence and he is not eye witness of the incident played in the video as he was not present at the time of happening of the incident displayed in the video.
39. As noted above, there is no direct ocular evidence or primary evidence against the accused that he demanded or obtained any bribe from Akshay Singh which was allegedly recorded by him through his I-phone. As the original device through which the sting operation was recorded has not been produced before the Court, the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the DVD Ex.P-3, which was played before the Court. Admittedly as per case of prosecution, the DVD Ex.P-3 was prepared at the office of ACB from the four DVDs i.e. three raw and one edited DVD which were copied from the office computer FIR No. 02/2014, PS Vigilance State vs. Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati Page 22 of 33 of Aaj Tak Channel on which, allegedly the data was transferred from the original device, therefore, DVD Ex.P-3 being a secondary evidence is to be proved as per Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act.
40. In case titled as Anvar P. V. Vs P. K. Basheer, AIR 2015, SC 180, it has been observed that :
"Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and 65A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65B. Section 65B deals with the admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these provisions is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a computer. It may be noted that the Section starts with a non obstante clause. Thus, notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer shall be deemed to be a document only if the conditions mentioned under sub-section (2) are satisfied, without further proof or production of the original. The very admissibility of such a document, i.e., electronic record which is called as computer output, depends on the satisfaction of the four conditions under Section 65B(2). Following are the specified conditions under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act:
(i) The electronic record containing the FIR No. 02/2014, PS Vigilance State vs. Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati Page 23 of 33 information should have been produced by the computer during the period over which the same was regularly used to store or process information for the purpose of any activity regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of that computer;
(ii) The information of the kind contained in electronic record or of the kind from which the information is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity;
(iii) During the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly and that even if it was not operating properly for some time, the break or breaks had not affected either the record or the accuracy of its contents; and
(iv) The information contained in the record should be a reproduction or derivation from the information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity.
Under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an electronic record, it is permissible provided the following conditions are satisfied :
(a) There must be a certificate which identifies the electronic record containing the statement;
(b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced;
(c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device involved i the production of that FIR No. 02/2014, PS Vigilance State vs. Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati Page 24 of 33 record;
(d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act; and
(e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device.
It is further clarified that the person need only to state in the certificate that the same is to the best of his knowledge and belief. Most importantly, such a certificate must accompany the electronic record like computer printout, Compact Disc (CD), Video Compact Disc (VCD), pen drive, etc. pertaining to which a statement is sought to be given in evidence, when the same is produced in evidence. All these safeguards are taken to ensure the source and authenticity, which are the two hallmarks pertaining to electronic record sought to be used as evidence. Electronic records being more susceptible to tampering, alteration, transposition, excision, etc. without such safeguards, the whole trial based on proof of electronic records can lead to travesty of justice."
41. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar Vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors. in Civil Appeal no. 20825-20826 of 2017 in its decision dated 14.07.2020, on the issue of certificate under section 65B Indian Evidence Act, 1872 observed as under:
"............We may reiterate, therefore, that the certificate required under Section FIR No. 02/2014, PS Vigilance State vs. Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati Page 25 of 33 65B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record, as correctly held in Anvar P.V. (supra), and incorrectly clarified in Shafhi Mohammed (supra). Oral evidence in the place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice as Section 65B(4) is a mandatory requirement of the law. Indeed, the hallowed principle in Taylor v. Taylor (1876) 1 Ch.D 426, which has been followed in a number of the judgments of this Court, can also be applied. Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act clearly states that secondary evidence is admissible only if lead in the manner stated and not otherwise. To hold otherwise would render Section 65B(4) otiose...
84. But Section 65-B(1) starts with a non obstante clause excluding the application of the other provisions and it makes the certification, a precondition for admissibility. While doing so, it does not talk about relevancy. In a way, Sections 65-A and 65-B, if read together, mix up both proof and admissibility, but not talk about relevancy.
Section 65-A refers to the procedure prescribed in Section 65-B for the purpose of proving the contents of electronic records, but Section 65-B speaks entirely about the preconditions for admissibility. As a result, Section 65-B places admissibility as the first or the outermost checkpost, capable of turning away even at the border, any FIR No. 02/2014, PS Vigilance State vs. Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati Page 26 of 33 electronic evidence, without any enquiry, if the conditions stipulated therein are not fulfilled".
42. Thus, for the admissibility of any secondary evidence in digital form, the certificate under section 65B Indian Evidence Act is a mandatory requirement. The requirement of certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is to rule out any tampering with the electronic evidence produced on record. Source and authenticity are the two hallmarks pertaining to electronic record. Firstly, the question arises, how PW-8 Sh. L. C. Yadav, who got registered the present case FIR received the DVDs of sting operation conducted by Sh. Akshay Singh, undercover reporter of the Aaj Tak TV Channel. In this regard, PW-8 deposed that he had written a letter to senior officials of Aaj Tak channel to provide raw footage of sting operation vide letter Ex.PW-8/B dated 05.02.2014 and in response thereof, one representative of Aaj Tak Channel came to his office with letter of Sh. Punit Jain, Legal Head of the Aaj Tak channel and provided three CD/DVDs of raw footage and one CD/DVD containing the telecasted footage. However, PW-17 Retd. ACP M. S. Shekhawat deposed that on 06.02.2014, he was posted as Inspector in Vigilance branch and on that day, he alongwith Insp. Kapil Dev and Insp. Virender Singh Punia went to the office of Aaj Tak i.e. FC-8, Sector 16-A, Noida, UP where Sh. Satya Prakash, Assistant Manager, Legal Department, TV Today Network met and handed over three unedited DVDs of sting operation of Delhi Police, one edited DVD titled as "Operation at Delhi Police 04.02.2014, 08:00 pm to 11:00 pm" and transcript of the telecast and he seized the aforesaid three unedited DVDs, FIR No. 02/2014, PS Vigilance State vs. Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati Page 27 of 33 one edited DVD and transcript of telecast and returned from Aaj Tak office to Vigilance and handed over the sealed exhibits and transcripts to Sh. L. C. Yadav, Supervising Officer of the sting operation cases. Similarly, PW-12 Sh. Punit Jain, Head, Legal & Compliances of Aaj Tak channel deposed that in response to the letter of Sh. L. C. Yadav i.e. Ex.PW-8/B, the CDs/DVDs were handed over to police through Sh. Satya Prakash, who was working as an Assistant Manager, Legal vide his letter Ex.PW- 8/C, but IO of the present case i.e. PW-21 ACP Rajesh Kumar deposed that during investigation, one unedited DVD containing raw footage of the aforesaid sting operation relating to accused Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati was obtained from the IO of similar case i.e. Insp. M. S. Shekhawat. Thus, the prosecution witnesses contradicts each other and deposed two different versions regarding receiving of the three unedited CDs/DVDs containing raw footage and one edited DVD from the Aaj Tak channel.
43. Next question comes as to who transferred the data regarding sting operation from the original device i.e. I-phone of Akshay Singh to the office computer of Aaj Tak channel and under whose supervision, the data was copied in the DVDs i.e. raw footage of the sting operation. In this regard, prosecution has examined three witnesses of Aaj Tak channel i.e. PW-7 Sh. Sapan Gupta, PW-12 Sh. Punit Jain, who was Head of Legal & Compliances of Aaj Tak channel and PW-20 Sh. Deepak Sharma, who was Editor of TV Today Network Limited and whose team conducted the sting operations of Delhi Police officials. PW-7 Sh. Sapan Gupta, who was assisting Sh. Akshay Singh deposed that after the sting operation, Akshay Singh submitted the FIR No. 02/2014, PS Vigilance State vs. Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati Page 28 of 33 recording in the office and further admitted in his cross examination that he was not involved in the procedure of depositing the recording and deleting the original recording in I- phone and it was controlled by Sh. Akshay Singh. Thus, the evidence of PW-7 Sapan Gupta is not helpful to the case of prosecution to prove how the original data regarding the sting operation was transferred from the original device to the office computer of Aaj Tak channel and downloaded on the CDs/DVDs. PW-20 Sh. Deepak Sharma, Editor of TV Today Network Limited deposed that the recordings of the sting operation was handed by Late Sh. Akshay Singh to Sh. Punit Jain, Head of Legal Department at that relevant time. Though, in his cross- examination, he admitted that recordings by Late Sh. Akshay Singh were not handed over to Sh. Punit Jain in his presence. Thus, PW-20 Sh. Deepak Sharma is also not an eye witness of the fact to whom the original device was handed over for the purpose of transferring the data to the office computer of Aaj Tak channel. PW-12 Sh. Punit Jain, Head, Legal & Compliances of Aaj Tak channel appears to be little confused about the person who transferred the data from original device to the office computer of Aaj Tak channel. In his cross examination, in one breath, he deposed that transfer was done in his presence in the library section, but he does not remember the name of the person who had transferred the same in his presence and under his supervision but in the another breath, he admitted that vide his letter Ex. PW-12/D, he informed that Sh. Akshay Singh who was the Incharge of the computer and had downloaded the raw footage of sting operation from the device to the office system FIR No. 02/2014, PS Vigilance State vs. Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati Page 29 of 33 into a DVD. Had it been so, Sh. Akshay Singh was the right person to furnish the certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as he was the Incharge of the computer on which the raw footage of sting operation was downloaded from the office system into a DVD. The analysis of the testimonies of these witnesses shows that they are not confirmed as to who transferred the data from original device to the office computer of Aaj Tak and copied the same in the CDs/DVDs from the office computer of Aaj Tak channel.
44. Cross examination of a witness is an art and the Ld. Counsel for the accused has certainly marshalled that art. PW-12 Sh. Punit Jain, who in his examination in chief deposed that the footage was transferred from the I-phone to the company computer as per the requisite process and CDs/DVDs were made by the library under his direct supervision, in his cross- examination, to a specific question as put by Ld. Defence counsel, admitted that he does not supervise the library section which controls these recordings in the main computer system of the channel. He further clarified in his cross examination that whenever the process of transfer of footage is initiated, it is paramount on the part of the company to follow an adhere to the set process wherein SIT Head (Sh. Deepak Sharma), Sh. Akshay Singh (the one who had headed the operation and the team members Sh. Umesh Dang and Sh. Sapan Gupta) and their presence is mandatory to ensure a water tight system, but PW-7 Sh. Sapan Gupta and PW-20 Sh. Deepak Sharma has nowhere deposed that they were also present when the process of transfer of footage was initiated.
FIR No. 02/2014, PS Vigilance State vs. Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati Page 30 of 3345. PW-21 ACP Rajesh Kumar, who conducted the investigation of present case has admitted in his cross examination that the person Incharge of the computer on to which the sting footage was downloaded was Mr. Deepak Sharma and further he very boldly admitted that inspite of his knowledge that Deepak Sharma prepared the four DVDs, he neither obtained certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act from Deepak Sharma nor he issued any notice to him for furnishing certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. Thus, even as per the investigating officer, PW-12 Sh. Punit Jain was not the person incharge of the computer on which the sting footage was downloaded. This fact is also corroborated by the letter Ex. PW- 12/DA wherein Sh. Punit Jain informed the IO that person incharge of the computer on which the sting footage was downloaded is Mr. Deepak Sharma, the then SIT Editor. PW-20 Sh. Deepak Sharma is silent on this issue, he only deposed that the recordings of the sting operation was handed by Late Sh. Akshay Singh to Sh. Punit Jain, Head of Legal Department at that relevant time and Sh. Punit Jain used to issue certificates u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act regarding the copies of sting operations prepared at their office. Not only this, PW-20 in his cross-examination also admitted that since Sh. Punit Jain was heading the legal department, therefore, he issued the certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act.
46. In view of these admissions, it can be safely concluded that Sh. Punit Jain was not the Head of the Library of the Aaj Tak channel where the sting footage was transferred/downloaded from the original device to the office FIR No. 02/2014, PS Vigilance State vs. Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati Page 31 of 33 computer and Sh. Deepak Sharma was the person incharge of the computer on to which the sting footage was transferred/downloaded. Therefore, certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 furnished by Sh. Punit Jain i.e. Ex. PW-12/B dated 20.12.2017 and undated certificate Ex. PW-21/DB cannot be considered in support of three CDs/DVDs on which the data of raw footage was copied from office computer of Aaj Tak channel and thereupon, from those CDs/DVDs, DVD Ex.P-3 was prepared.
47. PW-3 Sh. A. D. Tiwari, Principal Scientific Officer, CFSL, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, who examined the DVD Ex.P-3 containing the video file named .7mov, admitted in his cross examination that duration of original recording may be different with the duration of the recording in DVD examined by him and that, due to this reason, he mentioned that for complete examination i.e. verification and authentication of the exhibit can be carried out, if the original recording device and media on which the original recording was done made available to their division. In absence of certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act by the person incharge of the computer through which the data was transferred from original device and copied in the three CDs/DVDs i.e. raw footage of sting operation, the contents of DVD Ex.P-3, which was copied from those DVDs are inadmissible in evidence as secondary evidence of the original recording.
48. The question of raising adverse inference against the accused for not giving his voice sample would arise only when the contents of the video recording is proved in accordance with FIR No. 02/2014, PS Vigilance State vs. Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati Page 32 of 33 law, which has not been done in the present case. The source as well as authenticity of the DVD Ex.P-3 is not established on record by way of secondary evidence. Thus, prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is given to the accused and he is acquitted from the charge framed against him. His bail bonds stands cancelled and surety is discharged. In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C., accused is directed to furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount within one week from today which shall remain in force for a period of six months.
49. File be consigned to record room after due Digitally signed compliance. by SANJEEV KUMAR SANJEEV MALHOTRA KUMAR Date:
MALHOTRA 2022.12.01
15:41:16
Announced in the open court +0530
on 01 st December, 2022 (Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra)
Special Judge (PC Act) (ACB-01)
Rouse Avenue District Courts
New Delhi
FIR No. 02/2014, PS Vigilance State vs. Insp. Madan Pal Singh Bhati Page 33 of 33