Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Title: State (Cbi) vs . Lakhan Singh on 15 July, 2012

              IN THE COURT OF MS. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, 
        SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI­05, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI


CC No: 05/2012

RC No: 45A­2004­CBI­ACB­NEW DELHI

Unique Case ID No: 02403R0646852005

Title: State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh

U/s: 7, 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

                Date of Institution                                  :           28.11.2005
                Date of reserving order                              :           12.6.2014 
                Date of pronouncement                                :          27.6.2014


(Appearances)


Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senior PP for CBI. 
Sh. Jugal Wadhwa, Ld. Counsel for accused Lakhan Singh.

JUDGMENT

1. Brief facts of the case are that accused Lakhan Singh being a public servant employed as Sub­Inspector, Delhi Police, Sangam Vihar Police Station, New Delhi during November 2004 was harassing Mohd. Nawab Sharif S/o Ikramuddin R/o. F­466, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi that he had murdered his real brother Mohd. Ali Jaan who had died a natural death as he was mentally retarded and was demanding Rs.1.25 Lakh from Mohd. Nawab Sharif through Smt. Kalpana Jha, a social worker which was to be paid in five installments to close the complaint pending against C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 1 / 82 Mohd. Nawab Sharif in connection with the above said alleged murder which was tape­recorded on 06.11.2004 and 07.11.2004 by Nabban S/o Mohd. Nawab Sharif and Smt. Kalpana Jha. Accused Lakhan Singh was told to reach the residence of Smt. Kalpana Jha on 08.11.2004 at 06:30 PM and had reached there at about 07:15 PM on the same day where he had accepted bribe amount of Rs. 20,000/­ from Mohd. Nawab Sharif

2. After completion of investigation, charge­sheet was filed. Accused Lakhan Singh had appeared in the Court and copies of documents, as required by Section 207 CrPC, were supplied to him to his satisfaction.

3. The charge against accused Lakhan Singh under Section 7, 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Now, the points for determination are :

(i) Whether the accused, being a public servant, demanded and accepted bribe from the complainant in the discharge of his official duties?

(ii) Whether the bribe amount was recovered from the accused?

(iii) Whether the accused obtained the bribe amount by corrupt or by illegal means or by otherwise abusing his official position?

Section 7 of the P.C. Act provides as under:

"Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 2 / 82 servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government Company referred in clause (c) of Section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.....".

Section 13 of the P.C. Act provided as under:

(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct .......................... ...........................................................................................

                          .....(d) if he­
                                      (i)       by   corrupt   or   illegal   means,   obtains   for  

himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantages; or

(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest....."

(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."

Section 20 of the P.C. Act provides as under:

"Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration :­ (1) Where, in any trial of offence punishable under C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 3 / 82 Section 7 or Section 11 or Clause (a) or clause (b) of sub­ section (1) of Section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7 or, as the case may be without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.

(2) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 12 or under Clause (b) of Section 14, it is proved that nay gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or attempted to be given by an accused person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he gave or offered to give or attempted to give that gratification or that valuable thing, a the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7, or as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub­ sections (1) and (2), the court may decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said sub­sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no interference of corruption my fairly be drawn."

4. Let me examine the testimony of the material witnesses and the other documents filed before me in light of law and the case law to decide whether charges are proved against the accused or not.

5. CBI has examined 23 witnesses in support of its case.

6. PW­1 Sh. Anil Shukla, Deputy Commissioner of Police has stated that on 03.10.2005 he had accorded the sanction for prosecution of Sub­Inspector accused Lakhan Singh after going C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 4 / 82 through the FIR, Statement of witnesses and all other relevant documents. He has also stated that he had received a letter from CBI for grant of sanction alongwith certain documents such as copy of an FIR, statement of witnesses etc. He proved the original sanction letter which was Ex. PW1/1.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he has stated that CBI had sent him the copy of FIR, copy of statement of witnesses, copy of forensic report alongwith draft sanction order. He also stated the sanction order was dictated by him in his office and is not as per the draft sanction order received from CBI. He denied that he had given sanction for prosecution of accused without applying his mind and merely on the basis of draft sanction order. He also stated that it had taken him about two weeks to prepare the sanction order.

7. PW­2 Sh. C.L. Bansal, Retired Senior Scientific Officer, Chemistry Division, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi has stated that on 18.11.2004 three sealed bottles alongwith the forwarding letter and a specimen seal were received in the office of CFSL, CBI, New Delhi and this case was taken up for analysis. The seals on the bottles were compared with the specimen seal which tallied with each other and were intact. The bottle no. 1 contained 175 ml. Approximately pink liquid with sediments Ex. LHW, the second bottle contained 180 ml. approximately light pink liquid with sediments Ex. RHW and the third contained 160 ml. approximately C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 5 / 82 pink liquid with sediments Ex. SCW which had given positive test for the presence of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate on chemical analysis. He proved the CFSL Report prepared by him Ex.PW2/A and also identified bottles containing pink colour solution marked A­1 to A­3, cloth wrappers marked A­4 to A­6 which were taken out from the abovesaid three bottles. He stated that the phenolphthalein powder is very sensitive and a very minute quantity of phenolphthalein is enough for the reaction in solution of Sodium Carbonate. If phenolphthalein powder is available in hands of particular person it can be transmitted in the other person if he comes in contact with the said person while shaking hands and will also give the same reaction with solution of Sodium Carbonate though the intensity of the colour may vary. He denied that the examination was conducted by his assistance and he had simply signed on the report in a mechanical manner without application of his mind. He sated that there is no Road Certificate issued in the cases of CBI. He also stated that they do not take cases of State Police so he cannot say whether they give Road Certificate or not.

8. PW­3 Smt. Kalpana Jha, stated that she is a social worker and She stated that she knows Mohd. Nawab Saheed Mullah for the last ten years. One of the brothers of Mullah Ji, named Ali Jaan, who was living with Mullah Ji was suffering from mental illness and had died on 08.5.2004. ASI Umed Singh from C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 6 / 82 P.S. Sangam Vihar had come to the residence of Mullah Ji and had inquired about the death of his brother. Since the cause of death was natural, he had prepared a panchnama and on 09.5.2004 Ali Jaan was buried as per Muslim rites. About four­five months later, Mullah Ji had informed her that accused Lakhan Singh from P.S. Sangam Vihar was extorting money from him by extending threat that he will be implicated in false case of murder of his brother. He had also informed him that a complaint had been lodged in this regard by one Sirajuddin that he had murdered his Ali Jaan. Mullahji informed her that Lakhan Singh was demanding Rs.1.25 Lakhs from him. To help him, she along with Mullah Ji had gone to P.S. Sangam Vihar and had met the SHO Sh. Parmar. The SHO had told them to speak to Lakhan Singh. When they spoke to Lakhan Singh, he had asked for money and also threatened to implicate Mullah Ji in a false case, in case money is not given to him. Mullah Ji told her that since he was a poor man and cannot pay money accused will implicate him in false case. Thereafter, on her advice, Mullah Ji's son Mohd. Nabban had purchased a small tape­recorder from the Market and thereafter, she along with Nabban and Mullaji had recorded the conversation of the accused on 6.11.2004 and 07.11.2004. During the course of conversation she had requested accused not to take money from Mullahji as he was a poor man but accused Lakhan Singh had again threaten that in case money will not be given to him, he will falsely implicate C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 7 / 82 Mullah Ji in false case. Lakhan Singh had demanded Rs.1.25 lakhs in five installments before Diwali. He told her that he will come to collect the money on 08.11.2004 at 6:30 pm. She had conveyed the message to Mullah Ji and since Mullah Ji did not want to pay the bribe amount, they decided to lodge a complaint to CBI. She had called Bhagwat Yadav at her place and as Mullah Ji is illiterate, Bhagwat Yadav had written the complaint on his behalf on 08.11.2004. Thereafter, Mullah Ji and Bhagwat Yadav had gone to the office of CBI on 08.11.2004 to lodge a complaint against accused. At about 6:15 pm in the evening Mullah Ji along with Om Prakash, O.P. Singh and some other CBI Officials came to her residence. Mullah Ji had introduced her with all the members and she had made them sit in her residence. Bhagwat Yadav had also come to her place. Mullah Ji, Bhagwat Yadav and O.P. Singh were sitting on the sofa in the bedroom. Inspector Om Prakash and Inspector Prem Nath were sitting in the adjoining room. After about one hour someone had knocked at the door. Bhagwat Yadav had come out of the room to inquire as to who was knocking at the door. The person informed that he was Lakhan Singh. Thereafter, Lakhan Singh came inside the house wearing police uniform and sat on the sofa near Mullah Ji. He had inquired about Sh. O.P. Singh. She had told him that Sh. O.P. Singh had come in connection with some transfer posting matter. Then accused Lakhan Singh had told her to settle his matter. Thereafter, O.P. C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 8 / 82 Singh had come out and sat on the sofa in the outer room and had started writing something. He was, however, sitting in such a position that he could listen and observe all the proceedings between them. Thereafter, Mullah Ji started talking to Lakhan Singh and Lakhan Singh demanded the money with gestures of hand. Mullah Ji had requested him to reduce the amount and Lakhan Singh had told him 'Kitaney Kam Kar Lun, Paanch ya Dus'. Thereafter, Mullah Ji further requested him that he was a poor man and had asked him to reduce the bribe money further. Thereafter, Mullah Ji had taken out money from the left side pocket of his jacket and had given it to Lakhan Singh. Lakhan Singh had told her to count the money but she had asked him to count the money himself. Lakhan Singh himself had taken the money and started counted . In the meanwhile, O.P. Singh had given the signal to the CBI team by scratching his head with both his hands and Inspector Om Prakash and Inspector Prem Nath had arrived from other room to the room where accused had taken the money and asked Lakhan Singh as to whether he had demanded bribe of Rs. 20,000/­ from Mullah Ji and Lakhan Singh had refused. Thereafter, Om Prakash had inquired from Mullah Ji and O.P. Singh had told him that accused had taken the money from Mullah Ji. After taking the money the accused had put the money on the sofa under his leg. Thereafter, a solution was prepared and both the hand washes of accused were taken which had turned to pink C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 9 / 82 colour. Thereafter, washes of sofa were also taken which had also turned to pink colour. These solutions were poured into clean glass bottles and were sealed with cloth wrapper and signatures were obtained on the same. Thereafter, Mullah JI had handed over the tape recorder to CBI which was played. It had the entire conversation which had taken place in the room and which supported the version of Mullah Ji and O.P. Singh. Thereafter the whole conversation was transferred in two separate cassettes and one cassette was sealed and signed by the witnesses. She proved Recovery Memo Ex.PW3/1. On 08.11.2004 at 11:55 pm accused Lakhan Singh along with the articles were taken to P.S. Sangam Vihar. The recorded conversation was played contained in cassette Mark Ex.Q1. She had identified her voice and the voice of accused. She had also identified the voices in cassette Mark Ex.Q1 of Bhagwat Yadav, accused Lakhan Singh, Mullah Ji, Nabban and her own.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused she stated that she is involved in five criminal cases which were foisted on her after arrest of accused Lakhan Singh. However, she had been falsely implicated in other case in 1997. She had come to know accused Lakhan Singh from the registration of this case. She denied that Sh. Bhagwat Yadav was living with her as tenant when the present case had been registered. During the year 2004­05 she used to visit P.S. Sangam Vihar 2­3 times in a month C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 10 / 82 in relation with her social work. She stated that she does not remember whether she had met accused Lakhan Singh on 05.11.2004 at P.S. Sangam Vihar along with Smt. Indu Devi mother of Ms. Archana. She denied that she had told Smt. Indu Devi that the accused in the case of kidnapping of her daughter might harm them and she should pass on this information to accused Lakhan Singh who was the IO. She stated that she cannot say whether such request was recorded in Daily diary by accused Lakhan Singh. She denied that she had met accused Lakhan Singh on 07.11.2004 regarding the kidnapping case of Ms. Archana. She stated that she had never met accused Lakhan Singh in case of Ms. Archana and had met him only in connection with the case of Nawab Sharif. CBI had recorded her statement on 05.3.2005. She stated that she had given her statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. running into five pages ex.PW3/DA which had been read over to her. She stated that no postmortem was conducted on the body of Ali Jaan. After inquiry was made by ASI Umed Singh, the dead body of Ali Jaan was buried as per muslim rites. She stated that she cannot tell as to whether ASI Umed Singh had been transferred from P.S. Sangam Vihar on 29.10.2004. She stated that she does not know the reason as to why the death case of Ali Jaan was re­opened. Again said that the a complaint u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. had been lodged by Sirajuddin. This fact was told to her by accused Lakhan Singh at P.S. Sangam Vihar on 06.11.2004 when she had gone to C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 11 / 82 the Police Station. She stated that she does not know when this complaint was filed by Sirajuddin in the court. She also stated that she cannot say whether the complaint was filed on 15.10.2004 in the Court of Ld. MM and had been sent for investigation to P.S. Sangam Vihar on 16.10.2004 and the same was marked to ASI Umed Singh for investigation by SHO. She stated that Mullah Ji had told her that accused Lakhan Singh had been regularly visiting him and was demanding money from him during this period. She stated that she cannot admit or deny as to whether Lakhan Singh had gone to Shahjahanpur Court, U.P. In connection with investigation of a case between 01.11.2004 to 04.11.2004. She stated that it is not in her knowledge that investigation of this case was marked to SI Lakhan Singh on 05.11.2004. She stated that she cannot say whether accused was not concerned with this case on 05.11.2004, however, she had been informed by Mullah Ji that accused Lakhan Singh had been regularly harassing him and demanding money even prior to the said date. She denied that on 07.11.2004 Mohd. Nawaj Sharif and his son Mohd. Nabban had met the SHO in the presence of accused Lakhan Singh and the SHO had told them that he was going to file a final report before the Court and during investigation nothing incriminating was found against them. She denied that final report was prepared by accused SI Lakhan Singh and the same was endorsed and forwarded by SHO after going through its contents. She stated C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 12 / 82 that Nabban had bought tape recorder on 06.11.2004 at around 3:00 ­4:00 pm at her instance. The cassette in which the recording was made, the same was handed over to CBI. The tape recorder was never handed over to CBI. Upon a court question she stated that they had not approached CBI before 06.11.2004 because they had no proof with them and they had done the recording themselves. She stated that the transcript of the cassette Q1 was prepared in CBI Office in March, 2005 on her identification of the voices recorded thereafter hearing the cassette Q1. The cassette was sealed when it was brought for playing. She proved the transcript Ex.PW3/2. The accused had demanded Rs. 1.25 Lakhs in five installments before Diwali. He had raised the demand in her presence as well as in the presence of Mullah Ji, his son Nabban and Sh. Yadav. The court had observed that the document Ex.PW3/2 on page no. 2 contains conversation regarding the first and second installment of money at point KJ­19 to KJ­19, KJ­20 to KJ­20 and response of accused is at A­20 to A­20 and A­21 to A­21. Similarly on Ex.PW3/3 on page no. 3 the conversation regarding money is from M­72 to A­156. She denied that she had not witnessed any proceedings and had falsely implicated the accused since he was investigating her externment proceedings case and Archana kidnapping case.

9. PW­4 Sh. Sanjeev Lakra, Nodal Officer, Reliance Communications Limited stated that Colonel A.K. Sachdeva was C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 13 / 82 the Nodal Officer in their Company. He proved the letter dated 07.01.2005 issued by Colonel A.K. Sachdeva addressed to Sub Inspector, CBI through which a certified copy of customer application form of mobile no. 011­33115516 and call data records of the aforesaid mobile number were provided from 02.10.2004 to 26.11.2004 Ex. PW4/A, the certified copy of customer application form Ex.PW4/B and call data record Ex.PW4/C. The said PW was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity being given.

10. PW­5 Sh. R.B. Singh, Commercial Officer, MTNL, Nehru Place, New Delhi stated that he was posted as Commercial Officer, MTNL, Tughlaqabad. He stated that the telephone numbers 26042429 and 26079886 were in his jurisdiction. The telephone no. 26079886 was installed in the name of Kalpana Jha at K­II, 1221, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi­62. He stated that he had given the attested copies of the documents related to this telephone number maintained in his office file Ex.PW5/1 to Ex.PW5/11. He stated that these attested copies were given by him with his forwarding letter Ex.PW5/12. He also stated that this telephone number 26079886 was installed in the year 1999 and was functional till the date he had supplied the above said attested copies on 30.05.2005. He also proved the attested copies in respect of telephone no. 26042429 Ex.PW5/13 and Ex.PW5/22 which were supplied by him vide forwarding letter Ex. PW5/23. C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 14 / 82

11. PW­6 Sh. Bhagwat Yadav stated that Sh. Nawab Sharif is the neighbour and runs a cloth shop. It is stated that Sh. Nawab Sharif is also known as Mulla Ji. He stated that one of his brother Sh. Ali Jaan who was mentally challenged had died. He stated that ASI Umed Singh had prepared the panchnama and had left the spot as people had told him that the deceased was mentally challenged and was also undergoing treatment. After some days of this, Mulla Ji had told that accused Lakhan Singh had been harassing him and was demanding Rs. 1.25 lakhs. Thereafter, Mulla Ji had met Kalpana Jha as he did not want to pay bribe amount. Ms. Kalpana Jha had suggested to him to take a complaint to CBI. Since Mulla Jim is illiterate and was not able to write in Hindi and he only signs in Urdu. He stated that he had requested to write his complaint. Accordingly, he had written complaint dated 08.12.2004 and thereafter, on the asking of Mulla Ji and Kalpana Jha, he had accompanied him to the office of CBI. They had reached there at 11:15 am and had addressed the complaint to the ACP, CBI who had read over the complaint to Mulla Ji and Mulla Ji had admitted that it was recorded correctly. Thereafter Mulla Ji had gone upstairs but he had kept sitting at the reception. He stated that Mulla ji had taken something upstairs and so he returned to his house for the reception itself and thereafter, he had reached the house of Kalpana Jha at 6:00 pm and narrated the events to Kalpana Jha and told her that he had C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 15 / 82 returned from the reception itself. He also stated that it was written in the complaint that the arrival of accused was fixed at 6:30 pm at the house of Ms. Kalpana Jha for taking the bribe amount. He stated that at about 6:30 pm, Nabban, S/o Md. Nawab Sharif had also come over there. Mulla Ji had introduced Sh. O.P. Singh and other officials of CBI to them. One of the persons was also named as Om Prakash.

He stated that he came out and asked as to who was there and upon being told that he as accused Lakhan Singh, he had opened the door. He stated that accused was in uniform and he had come on a red colour motorcycle, which was not bearing number plate. He stated that accused came inside and when he reached the gate of the room everybody wished him. He stated that Mulla Ji was sitting inside on a sofa. Accused also sat on his right side. Sh. O.P. Singh was siting on a single sofa in front of them. Md. Nabban was sitting on the left side of Mulla Ji. Ms. Kalpana Jha was sitting on a bed and thereafter, conversation regarding bribery had started between accused Lakhan Singh, Kalpana Jha and Mulla Ji but accused had stopped it and asked as to who was the person sitting there by pointing towards Sh. O.P. Singh. Ms. Kalpana Jha had told him him that he had come over regarding his transfer. Accused had asked her to first dispose of his matter. Accused had come just near outside the room and pretended as if he was writing something, but he was listening and C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 16 / 82 watching everything happening inside. Thereafter accused had demanded money. Mulla Ji and his son Nabban had asked to reduce the amount of bribe and on this accused had asked him how much is to be reduced, whether 5,000/­ or 10,000/­. Thereafter, he extended his hand as a signal of demanding the money and Mulla Ji took out the money from his left pocket with his right hand and handed over the same to him. Thereafter, accused asked Kalpana Jha to count the money, but she refused. Thereafter accused held the money in his right hand and started counting the same with both hands. He stated that after a short while, many persons rushed inside the room. Two persons were hiding in the adjoining room and they also came over there. One of the persons, that is Sh. Om Prakash, who had rushed inside asked accused Lakhan Singh as to who he was. He told him that he was Lakhan Singh from PS: Sangam Vihar. Accused Lakhan Singh was identified by the witness in the Court. He further stated that thereafter, those people introduced themselves to the accused as CBI Inspectors. They had asked the accused as to whether he had demanded and accepted Rs. 20,000/­ as bribe from Mulla Ji as this was the first installment of the bribe as decided earlier. Accused refused having accepted the bribe. Inspector Bedi had caught the left hand and Sh. Mukesh caught the right hand of the accused. In the meanwhile, lot of crowd had collected there. Since it was already getting, late, he left for his house. He stated that on C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 17 / 82 18.11.2004, he was called to CBI office and he was interrogated and he confirmed the truthfulness of the incident. After counting the currency notes, accused had concealed the same below his right thigh. He has proved the complaint of Sh. Mulla Ji dated 08.11.2004 as Ex. PW6/A and identified the same to be written by him. He also identified signatures of Mulla Ji as Mulla Ji had signed in his presence. He stated that he had recorded the complaint on the dictation of the complainant and had read over the same to the complainant.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Lakhan Singh he stated that he was residing at F­2/769, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi while in the neighbourhood of the complainant and his house was situated after two lanes and around 50 houses away from the house of the complainant. He stated that he had never lived in K­2 Block, Sangam Vihar in the capacity of either owner or tenant. He had purchased house no. F­2/769, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi from one Pumpum Mishra. He admitted that a case FIR No. 582/08, u/s 451, 323, 34 IPC was registered against him. He stated that he had also filed counter case against Ms. Pumpum Mishra. He stated that he knows Kalpana Jha and know her 10­15 years prior to registration of case against accused Lakhan Singh. He admitted that he and Kalpana Jha are co­ accused in some cases. He further stated that those cases were registered against them after registration of the present case. He C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 18 / 82 stated that he and Kalpana Jha were acquitted in case FIR No. 306/06. He stated that ASI Umed Singh had come to make inquires upon the death of Ali Jaan on 08.5.2004 or 09.5.2004 in his presence and after that ASI Umed Singh never came again to the House of Ali Jaan in his presence. He stated that he helps Kalpana Jha with her social work and also helps her in writing complaints etc. He stated that Mulla Ji had told him that accused was demanding Rs. 1.25 lakhs from Nawab Sharif as bribe and had threatened him that he will falsely implicate him as an accused. He stated that he cannot say whether the investigation of the said case was with ASI Umed Singh till 29.10.2004 till such time he was transferred from the said police station and the case was assigned to accused only on 05.11.2004. He stated that he had written the compliant Ex. PW6/A at his residence where the complaint had come to him. He stated that Mulla Ji had come to his residence at about 9:00 am for getting the said complaint written. He stated that his statement was recorded by CBI pertaining to the instant case on 18.11.2004 by Sh. Om Prakash. He stated that he had arrived at the house of Kalpana Jha in the evening on 08.11.2004. He sat in the front room as the house of Kalpana Jha has two rooms, kitchen and a varanda. He stated that when one is sitting in the front room of House of Ms. Kalpana Jha, one cannot see the persons present outside the house from the road because of height of outer front wall of Ms. Kalpana Jha. He C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 19 / 82 denied that he has deposed falsely.

12. PW­7 Colonel A.K. Sachdeva, Retired Nodal Officer, Reliance Communication identified his signatures and official seal on Ex.PW4/C which is call details of mobile no. 33115516 in the name of Nawab Sharif for the period from 02.10.2004 to 26.11.2004. He also identified his signatures on Ex.PW4/B which is attested copy of customer application form pertaining to mobile no. 011­33115516. He also identified his signatures on letter Ex.PW4/A through which he had forwarded the call details to the CBI. He further stated that the call details are computer generated and the data in the computer is fed in the regular course of duty.

The said witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity given.

13. PW­8 Head Constable Omkar Singh stated that on 08.11.2004 he was posted as Head Constable in Police Station Sangam Vihar. He further stated that the motorcycle of accused of Red Colour having no registration number was handed over to him by CBI after the trap which was handed over by him to the family of accused.

This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity given.

14. PW­9 Sh. Shashi Kumar Duggal, Inspector, Central C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 20 / 82 Excise Office, stated that on 08.11.2004 he was directed by his Controlling Officer to report at CBI office and accordingly he had reached CBI office after Lunch. An Inspector at CBI office had taken him to the room of Dy. SP, CBI. Sh. O.P. Singh, Superintendent of his office had also accompanied him to CBI office and both were taken to the room of Dy. SP, CBI. The complainant was also present in the room of DSP and his complaint was shown to him. He and Sh. O.P. Singh had read the complaint and thereafter, recorded cassette was played before them which was not audible. Thereafter, all of them were taken to a big room, where other CBI members were also present. He stated that in the hall, they were told that the complaint was against the accused for demanding of bribe as such, it was decided to lay a trap. The demonstration of chemicals were shown to them. Some powder was applied on the GC notes, which were with CBI officers. He was asked to touch the GC notes and a solution of some other chemical was prepared in a neat and clean glass tumbler and he was asked to dip his fingers upon which, the solution had turned pink/red. The number of GC Notes were recorded. The GC Notes were put in a packet. Thereafter, he had put this packet of GC Notes in the pocket of coat or jacket of the complainant. Thereafter, CBI officers had taken some chemical and other things in the bag. Search of each other was offered in the CBI office. It was instructed to Sh. O.P. Singh to give signal by scratching his C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 21 / 82 head with both his hands after the accused takes the GC Notes. No other instructions were given. The witness had proved handing over memo Ex. PW9/A. He stated that after completing the pre­ trap proceedings in the CBI office they had started for Sangam Vihar Colony and had reached at the house of some lady other than the complainant. Some CBI officers, Sh. O.P. Singh and the complainant went inside the house of that lady. They waited for the accused to come. The witness identified the accused correctly in the Court. Thereafter, accused had reached the house of that lady on his motorcycle. The accused was wearing uniform and helmet. The accused had entered the house of that lady. After sometime, CBI officers standing outside the house, rushed towards the house and he had also accompanied them. He stated that he does not remember whether some signal was received or not. When they entered the house, CBI officers were holding both the hands of the accused. GC Notes were lying on the sofa in the house. It was informed by CBI officers that accused had been trapped. A fresh solution of the chemical was prepared during demonstration in CBI office, in a neat and clean glass tumbler and the accused was asked to dip the fingers of his one hand. As soon as the accused had dipped the fingers, the solution had turned into pink. This solution was transferred into a neat glass bottle and this was sealed and signed by him and others. The GC Notes were picked up from the sofa by Inspector, CBI and were given to him for C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 22 / 82 tallying their numbers with the numbers mentioned in Ex. PW9/A. He had tallied the numbers and found them to be same. The notes were kept in a packet. He stated that he did not remember whether these notes were sealed or not. It was about 8:00 or 8:30 pm on 08.11.2004 when the washes were taken. He stated that the GC Notes amounted to Rs. 20,000. The complaint was in respect of the death of the brother of the complainant and the accused wanted to show this death as murder. The recovery memo Ex. PW3/A was prepared at the spot. The currency notes after being compared with the numbers mentioned in Ex. PW9/A were identified to be the same which was recovered from the accused. The same were proved as Ex. P­1 to Ex. P­95. The bottles containing the hand washes were identified by the witness. Witness stated that he remembered that the sofa cover was also dipped in the solution and the solution had turned pink. He identified the sofa cover and the signatures there on. He stated that accused Lakhan Singh was arrested at the spot and his search had been conducted. Nothing was found in the search of dikki of motorcycle of accused.

The witness was declared hostile on certain points by Ld. PP for CBI and on being cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI he stated that the name of the complainant was Md. Nawab Sharif. After going through Ex. PW9/A, he stated that demand of bribe was audible in the cassette when it was played before them and C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 23 / 82 this fact was correctly recorded in Ex. PW9/A. He admitted that they had gone to the house of Ms. Kalpana Jha. He stated that they had put questions to the complainant to verify the genuineness of the complaint. He also stated that personal search of complainant and others was conducted before leaving for the spot. He admitted that the complainant had been instructed to give money to the accused only upon his demand. He stated that before proceeding for the spot, all of them had washed their hands with soap. He stated that the audio cassette which was played in CBI office was sealed in his presence and signatures were obtained upon them. He stated that he was given the seal, but after the trap, it was again handed over back by him to CBI official, but after the trap it was again handed over by him to CBI officials. He stated that when the cassette was played, it contained the voice of accused and complainant but he cannot tell about the contents. He stated that CBI had told him that it contains voice of complainant and the accused, but he had no personal knowledge about it.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that they were at a distance of 20 paces from the door of house of Ms. Kalpana Jha when accused had come. The door of the room used to open in the varandah. He stated that he had identified the accused after he was apprehended and he was wearing name plate. He stated that he did not know accused prior C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 24 / 82 to this case. He stated that he cannot tell about the position of the persons who were inside the house as he was outside the house. He stated that the other persons who were standing outside could not have seen the proceedings inside the house. They waited outside the house for about 30 minutes before the arrival of accused Lakhan Singh. When he entered into the room of Kalpana Jha, accused, Kalpana Jha and two inspectors who were holding the accused and Sh. O.P. Singh was there. When he entered into the room he was told the name of accused. He also checked his name plate and also his purse was taken out which contained his identity card and debit card. Digital recorder was given to the complainant in CBI office and process of use of digital recorder was explained to the complainant. The digital recorder was given by the complainant after taking it out from his jacket. He stated that the digital recorder was taken back from the complainant after the proceedings of recovery of GC notes, comparison, hand washes and other paper work. He stated that after entering the house in question it had taken about 5­10 minutes to establish the identify of accused by CBI official. The identity of accused was established by his badge and by seeing his identity card and debit card which were lying in his purse. The envelope in which the currency notes were sealed by CBI was also signed by Sh. O.P. Singh besides other CBI officials. The envelope was sealed by CBI officials by taking the seal from him, which was C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 25 / 82 handed over to him in the CBI office during pre­trap proceedings. The bottles of both the hand washes were also sealed by CBI officials after taking the seal from him, which was handed over to him in CBI office during pre­trap proceedings on 08.11.2004. He identified the currency notes recovered at the spot. The sofa cover wash was also taken and sealed by CBI. He denied that he has deposed falsely and no proceedings had taken place in his presence.

15. PW­10 Head Constable Om Prakash stated that he was posted as Head Constable in P.S. Sangam Vihar from 11.02.2000 to April, 2005. Sh. A.S. Parmar was SHO at that time. He stated that Mr. Ram Khilari was MHCR in P.S. Sangam Vihar at that time. He proved DD No. 14 A dated 09.5.2004. He identified signatures of Sh. A.S. Parmar, the then SHO and HC Ram Khilari on Ex.PW10/A. On being cross examined by L.d Counsel for accused he stated that Sh. A.S. Parmar and Sh. Ram Khilari are still working in Delhi Police.

16. PW­11 R.K.Singh, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel, stated that he had forwarded the call details of mobile phone no. 9818339042 to Sh. Lalit Kaushik, Sub Inspector, CBI, ACB vide letter dated 13.01.2005 Ex.PW11/A under his signatures. He proved the call details running into 20 sheets Ex.PW11/B and subscriber Enrollment Form Ex.PW11/C. C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 26 / 82 The said witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity being given.

17. PW­12 Sh. T.N. Bhattacharya, LDC, DHO Schools, MCD, Civil Lines Zone, Delhi stated that on 29.7.2005 accused had refused to give voice sample. He correctly identified the accused in the Court and stated that it is a matter of five years and accused appears to be the same person. He proved the memo of proceedings which was prepared Ex.PW12/A. On being cross examined by Sh. Jugal Wadhwa, Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that he had reached CBI Office at around 10:00 am. It had taken one hour in the entire proceedings conducted at CBI Office. No discussion took place with the Investigating Officer regarding the facts of this case. Investigating Officer did not tell him as to why the voice sample of the accused was required. Accused had refused to give the voice sample in his presence by saying that his voice sample has already been taken earlier. He stated that he had signed the proceedings after going through the same. He denied that accused was never called by the Investigating Officer to give the voice sample.

18. PW­13 Mohd. Nabban, son of the Complainant Md.

Nawab Sharif stated that one of his Uncle Md. Ali Jaan had died natural death on 09.5.2004. ASI had visited their house and had checked the body of his uncle. He was shown documents regarding mental illness of Sh. Ali Jaan. ASI Umed Singh had C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 27 / 82 prepared the punchnama, however, he has refused to give copy of the said punchnama. After few months accused SI Lakhan Singh from PS: Sangam Vihar had come to their home and had started extending threats to them that he was complaint against all of them to the effect that they had killed Ali Jaan. He had identified the accused to be the same person who was demanding Rs. 1.25 lakhs as bribe to hush up the matter. He stated that after 2­4 days he alongwith his father had met SHO, PS: Sangam Vihar and had spoken to him. The SHO had asked him to speak to accused Lakhan Singh in this regard. Thereafter they had had got fed up with all of this and had informed social worker Ms. Kalpana Jha. Kalpana Jha had discussed the matter with accused Lakhan Singh. Accused Lakhan Singh had continued his demand of bribe and said that without bribe money, he would not hear anything. Thereafter, on the asking of Kalpana Jha they had decided to lodge a complaint to CBI and he had purchased a tape recorder on 06.11.2004 in order to record the conversation which would take place between the accused and them. Thereafter they had recorded the conversation between his father Md. Nawab Sharif, Kalpana Jha and accused Lakhan Singh on 06.11.2004 and 07.11.2004. On 08.11.2004, in the morning his father had contacted Sh. Bhagwat Yadav who resides in the same colony to write the complaint in CBI on their behalf. The complaint Ex. PW6/A was prepared and his father had signed it and they had gone to CBI C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 28 / 82 office with the complaint, recorded conversation and Rs. 20,000/­. Thereafter, on 08.11.2004 at about 6:00 pm, he had gone to the house of Ms. Kalpana Jha where Kalpana Jha and Bhagwat Yadav were already present. At about 6:15 pm his father and three CBI officers as well as the Independent witness were there. After sometime someone had knocked at the door of the house. Bhagwat Yadav had opened the door as the person outside the house was accused Lakhan Singh. Thereafter, accused had entered the house. After formal introduction, accused Lakhan Singh had asked about Sh. O.P. Singh to which Ms. Kalpana Jha had replied that he had come in connection with his transfer. Thereafter, accused Lakhan Singh asked them to deal with O.P. Singh first. Sh. O.P. Singh had thereafter gone to the other sofa which was lying in front of bethak and pretended to be writing something. His father and he had asked accused to reduce the bribe amount to which accused had asked them as to what amount is to be reduced either Rs. 5,000/­ or 10,000/­. His father has taken Rs. 20,000/­ from the pocket of his jacket with his right hand and had extended the same to accused. The accused had accepted the said bribe amount and asked Kalpana Jha to count the same. Kalpana Jha had asked him to count them himself. Accused had counted the bribe amount with both his hands and had kept the same under his thigh as he was sitting on the sofa. Thereafter, Sh. O.P. Singh had given the pre­fixed signal by C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 29 / 82 scratching his head with both his hands. Sh. Prem Nath and Sh. Om Prakash had come from the other room and introduced themselves to accused Lakhan Singh. They had asked whether accused had demanded and accepted any bribe amount from his father Md. Nawab Sharif. Thereafter, two CBI team members namely Sh. Shashi Duggal and another had caught accused with both his wrists. Some powder was mixed in a clean glass of water and left hand of accused was dipped in the same on which the colour of the water had turned pink. Same process was adopted with right hand of accused Lakhan Singh. Thereafter, both the hand washes were kept in two separate bottles and were sealed with a cloth wrapper on which signatures of two witnesses were obtained on them. Sh. Shashi Duggal was directed to prick up the bribe amount which was lying on the sofa and accordingly, the currency notes were picked up by Shashi Duggal and the numbers of the currency notes were tallied with the numbers which were already noted in a memo and were found to be the same. The sofa wash was also taken and the wash of the said sofa cover was taken which had turned pink. The solution was also poured in a separate bottle and the bottle was thereafter sealed with a cloth wrapper and signatures of two witnesses were obtained on the same. The recording machine was kept in in the pocket of the jacket of his father which was taken out by Sh. Om Prakash and the same was played and was heard to everyone. Thereafter, the C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 30 / 82 conversation contained in the recording machine was transferred into two separate cassettes out of which one cassette was sealed and was signed by two witnesses. Trap proceedings had concluded at about 11:55 pm. On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that his statement was recorded by Sub­Inspector Lalit Kaushik in Hindi and he had signed it. He denied that Kalpana Jha had used him and his father to settle her score with the accused as she was angry with the accused due to a case regarding kidnapping of one Archana which was under investigation with accused. He denied that Bhagwat Yadav was not present at the spot. He stated that the door was opened by Bhagwat Yadav at the arrival of accused. He denied that no conversation regarding bribe had taken place between himself and accused.

19. PW­14 Mohd. Nawab Sharif, who is the complainant stated that on 09.5.2004 his brother Ali Jaan who was mentally challenged had died due to natural circumstances. At about 6:00 pm, police officer ASI Umed Singh from PS: Sangam Vihar had seen the dead body of his brother and had prepared a punchnama, but he had refused to give copy of the same to them. After about 5 months accused Lakhan Singh alongwith other police men and ASI Umed Singh had visited their home and had informed them that they had received report from the Court that they had committee murder of their brother. They called to PS: Sangam Vihar, but he C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 31 / 82 had first gone to house of Kalpana Jha and he alongwith Kalpana Jha, Nabban had gone to PS: Sangam Vihar. They had met the SHO who had asked them to speak to the accused. Next day accused alongwith ASI Umed Singh and two police officers had visited their home and demanded Rs. 1.25 lakhs for closing the report regarding death of his brother. On 05.11.2004 he had gone to house of Kalpana Jha and informed her that accused was demanding money from him. Kalpana Jha had suggested that they will go to the SHO and accordingly, they had talked to the SHO, but the SHO had again asked them to speak to the accused. Thereafter, accused kept bothering him. Kalpana Jha had suggested that they should taken some legal steps against the accused. Kalpana Jha asked his son to get small tape recorder and had recorded the conversation of accused. Thereafter, his son had bought the tape recorder and on 06.11.2014 and 07.11.2014 he had recorded the conversation which had taken place between his son Nabban, Kalpana Jha and accused in the cassettes. During the conversation accused had stated to Kalpana Jha that if an amount of Rs. 1.25 lakhs is paid before Diwali in five installments, then he will close the complaint. Accused had also stated that he will come at about 6:30 pm on 08.11.2004 for taking first installment at the house of Ms. Kalpana Jha. He stated that since he did not want to give the bribe as such he decided to lodge a complaint with CBI against accused Lakhan Singh and since he was illiterate, he C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 32 / 82 had requested Bhagwat Yadav to write the complaint. The complaint Ex. PW6/A was correctly written by Bhagwat Yadav. Thereafter, he alongwith Bhagwat Yadav and Kalpana Jha had gone to CBI office on 08.11.2004 and had narrated the facts to CBI Inspector Om Prakash. Bhagwat Yadav had remained at the reception of CBI office. Thereafter, they had gone to the room of Inspector CBI where two independent witnesses, namely Sh. O.P. Singh and Sh. Shashi Duggal were called. Both the witnesses from Custom Office. There the cassettes were played in the presence of CBI officials as well as two independent witnesses. The numbers of the currency notes were noted down in a memo Ex. PW9/A. Thereafter, the currency notes were smeared with some powder and the powder was put in a glass of water and Sh. Shashi Duggal was directed to touch the currency notes and to dip his fingers of right hand in the glass of water. He had done the same and the colour of the water had turned pink. Thereafter, currency notes were wrapped in a plastic cover and were kept in the left pocket of his jacket and he was directed by CBI Inspector that he had to give the currency notes on the asking of the accused. Sh. O.P. Singh was directed to act as a shadow witness and was directed to remain with him so as to see and hear the conversation which will take place between him and the accused. Sh. O.P. Singh was also directed to give a signal by scratching his head with both his hands after the bribe transaction will be over. C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 33 / 82 One DVR was also kept in his pocket so as to record the conversation which will take place between him and the accused. In the evening we had reached at the house of Ms. Kalpana Jha where Bhagwat Yadav was already present. He alongwith O.P. Singh had entered the house of Kalpana Jha. Inspector Om Prakash and two other persons were hiding in the other room in the house of Kalpana Jha. At about 7:00­7:15 pm, one person had knocked the door and on asking of Bhagwat Yadav, the person had replied that he was Lakhan Singh. Thereafter, the door of the house was opened by Bhagwat Yadav and accused had entered the house. The witness had correctly identified the accused in the Court. After formal introduction accused had inquired about Sh. O.P. Singh who was sitting there. Then accused was informed that he had come in connection with his transfer. During the conversation, accused was requested to reduce the bribe amount by his son and him. Thereafter, on the specific demand of bribe amount by accused, he had handed over the same to accused. Accused had asked Kalpana Jha to count the bribe amount but she had asked him to do it himself. Accused had counted the money and had kept the same deliberately under his thigh as he was sitting on the sofa. Pre­fixed signal was given by Sh. O.P. Singh and instantly Inspector Om Prakash and Prem Nath had entered the room. They had challenged accused that he had received the bribe amount. He denied to have receive the bribe amount. C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 34 / 82 Thereafter, accused had given his introduction that he was working in Delhi Police and was posted at the police Station: Sangam Vihar. One R.S. Bedi and Prem Nath had caught hold of accused and had called for a glass of water. Thereafter accused was asked to wash his hand in the glass of water and the colour of the water had turned pink. He had identified his signatures on the recovery memo and had identified the voices of the witnesses, accused, and Kalpana Jha in the Court.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that his statement had been recorded by CBI. He stated that he had himself seen accused having come on the motorcycle. Kalpana Jha and Nabban had remained present through out the proceedings at the spot on 08.11.2004. He denied that accused had been falsely implicated in this case and had been used by Kalpana Jha to settle her personal score with accused Lakhan Singh.

20. PW­15 Head Constable Ram Khilari, stated that he had remained posted as MHC(R) in P.S. Sangam Vihar from 2003 to 2005. He stated that he had prepared report dated 09.11.2004, DD No. 14 A dated 09.5.2004 and DD No. 2 B dated 10.5.2004 for sending the same to CBI on the directions of his SHO Inspector A.S. Parmar. He proved the report dated 09.11.2004 Ex.PW15/A and had identified signatures of SHO Inspector A.S. Parmar on the same. He also proved his report dated 09.11.2004 Ex.PW15/B and C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 35 / 82 identified his signatures at point B and signatures of SHO Inspector A.S. Parmar at point A. He also identified his signatures on Ex.PW10/A at point B and signatures of SHO Inspector A.S. Parmar at point A. He proved the report dated 10.5.2004 no. 2 B Ex.PW15/C. He stated that reports and copies were prepared on the basis of records maintained in P.S. Sangam Vihar.

PW­15 was not cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity given.

21. PW­16 Head Constable Rohtash Kumar, stated that he had worked as Constable at P.S. Sangam Vihar from 2002 to 2005. He proved the letter dated 25.4.2005 addressed to Sh. Lalit Kaushik, Sub Inspector, CBI Ex.PW16/A. He stated that the said letter had been written by him as per the record maintained in the Police Station Sangam Vihar. He further stated that at the relevant time Sh. Jai Singh Saini was the SHO, P.S. Sangam Vihar and identified his signatures at point A on Ex. PW16/A. He also proved copy of DD no. 24 B dated 18.8.2003 Ex.PW16/B and identified signatures of SHO Sh. Jai Singh Saini at point A. He further proved letter bearing dispatch no. 589 dated 30.4.2005 Ex.PW16/C and stated that this letter was written by him vide which the information was furnished as required by the CBI.

On being cross examined by Sh. Jugal Wadhwa, Ld. Counsel for accused he admitted that he was posted as Reader at P.S. Sangam Vihar. He stated that the date of relieving of ASI C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 36 / 82 Umed Singh is mentioned as 29.10.2004 in Ex.PW16/A and Ex.PW16/C. He also stated that as per Ex.PW16/A, the enquiry relating to complaint case of Sirjuddin Vs. Mohd. Nawaj Sharif was entrusted to SI Lakhan Singh on 05.11.2004. He also proved copy of complaint dated 06.9.2004 made by residents of F Block, Sangam Vihar against Mrs. Kalpana Jha, Sh. Bhagwat Yadav and others to initiate proceedings u/s. 47/50 of Delhi Police Act Ex.PW16/DA. He admitted that on the directions of the SHO, he had marked the complaint to SI Lakhan Singh on 15.9.2004 for investigation.

22. PW­17 Sh. Umed Singh, Retired ASI stated that on 09.5.2004 while he was posted as ASI in P.S. Sangam Vihar, one call was entrusted to him for inquiry regarding death of one Ali Jaan vide DD no. 14 A. He stated that the copy of DD no. 14 A is alredy Ex.PW10/A and bears the signatures of the then SHO, Sh. Parmar at point A. After making inquiry he had found that the death of Sh. Ali Jaan was natural and he had filed DD Entry dated 10.5.2004 vide DD no. 2B copy of which is already Ex.PW15/C. He further stated that he knows Ct. Jagram who had accompanied him on 09.5.2004 in connection with the present inquiry. He stated that during the inquiry he had examined 6­7 persons of the locality and all had stated that the death of Ali Jaan was natural and he had died due to ill health. No inquest proceedings or post­mortem was conducted. He stated that the SHO had marked one court C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 37 / 82 complaint in connection with death of Ali Jaan and the said complaint was filed against Nawaab Sharif, to which he had requested the SHO to mark the same to some other officer since he did not know English Language. He had never conducted an investigation regarding the complaint against Nawaab Sharif and others. In October, 2004 he had got transferred to North District, Delhi Police.

On being cross examined by Sh. Jugal Wadhwa, Ld. Counsel for accused he admitted that after 10.5.2004, he did not meet Mohd. Nawaj Sharif in relation to enquiry/investigation of the case of death of Ali Jaan. He also admitted that he was relieved from P.S. Sangam Vihar on 29.10.2004 after his transfer. He also admitted that on 16.10.2004, the complaint case of Sirajuddin was marked to him by the SHO but he did not conduct any investigation in the said complain, as he had told the SHO that he was not well versed with English Language and requested him that the said complaint be marked to some other officer. He also admitted that the said complaint file kept lying with him from 16.10.2004 to 29.10.2004 and on being relieved, he had deposited the said file with MHC(R) on 29.10.2004. He admitted that on 16.10.2004 he either alone or along with accused Lakhan Singh did not meet either Mohd. Nawaj Sharif or Kalpana Jha in relation to the case of death of Ali Jaan or in any other relation including the investigation of the present complaint case. He admitted that he has no C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 38 / 82 personal knowledge about the present case against accused Lakhan Singh.

23. PW­18 Sh. Avtar Singh, Retired ACP, New Delhi stated that in the year 2004, he was posted at P.S. Sangam Vihar as SHO. During that time Lakhan Singh was posted as Sub Inspector at P.S. Sangam Vihar. A complaint lodged by Sh. Sirajuddin against one Sh. Mohd. Nawaj Sharif was entrusted to him for inquiry. Reply regarding the said complaint was to be filed in the court of Sh. Sanjeev Jain, Ld. MM, New Delhi. Accused Sub Inspector Lakhan Singh had filed the reply which was duly approved by him on 08.11.2004. He proved the reply Ex.PW18/A and stated that the last para of reply was drafted by him after satisfying himself with the statements recorded in that case. He stated that he had called Nawaj Sharif and his son in his office a day prior to filing of reply in the Court and had told them that nothing incriminating was against them and their family and in case of any problem or threat, they could approach him. During the meeting neither Nawaj Sharif nor his son had disclosed any threat or complaint against the accused Lakhan Singh. He also stated that as per the concerned DD entry dated 08.11.2004, accused Lakhan Singh had proceeded for some arrangement duty of some judges at about 1:00 pm to 1:30 pm, however, there is no arrival report. He had seen accused Lakhan Singh again in Police Station at around 5:00pm on 08.11.2004. Thereafter, he had no knowledge C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 39 / 82 about where accused Lakhan Singh had gone and for what purpose. He also stated that he has no personal knowledge about the bribe amount being demanded by him from Mohd. Nawaj Sharif for clearing his name from the complaint. Mohd. Nawaj Sharif had not disclosed anything to him about any such threat or demand of bribe by Lakhan Singh when he had called him at Police Station on 07.11.2004.

On being cross examined by Sh. Jugal Wadhwa, Ld. Counsel for the accused he stated that there was no other complaint of any kind against the accused during his tenure as SHO at P.S. Sangam Vihar. He has no personal knowledge regarding the present case since no complaint was lodged with him neither he was informed by the complainant when he had met him against the accused Lakhan Singh. He admitted that ASI Umed Singh was posted in his Police Station who had been transferred and was posted. He admitted that the complaint case in the case of Sijrajudding vs. Mohd. Nawaj Sharif was received in the Police Station on 15.10.2004 for investigation from the Court of Sh. Sanjeev Jain, the then Ld. MM, New Delhi and was marked to accused Lakhan Singh for investigation. He admitted that Mrs. Kalpana Jha had never met him in case of death of Ali Jaan, complaint filed by Sirajuddin or alleged bribe complaint against accused Lakhan Singh. He also admitted that she had not accompanied Mohd. Nawaj Sharif and Sh. Nabban on 07.11.2004 C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 40 / 82 when they were called by him. He also admitted that Mohd. Nawaj Sharif and Nabban had never met him either before or after 07.11.2004 with respect to the present case or in relation to Lakhan Singh He also admitted that he had asked accused Lakhan Singh to call Mohd. Nawaj Sharif to Police Station on 07.11.2004 in order to explain him the result of the inquiry conducted by accused SI Lakhan Singh. He admitted that when he had explained the result of the inquiry to Mohd. Nawaj Sharif and Nabban on 07.11.2004, accused Lakhan Singh was present in the meeting and during the entire discussion when he had explained that there was nothing incriminating against them, accused Lakhan Singh had remained present with them.

24. PW­19 Sh. O.P. Singh, Superintendent, Central Excise Department is the independent witness who stated similar fact as stated by PW­Sh. Shashi Duggal who is his colleague regarding pre­trap or post­trap proceedings. He further stated that accused was scheduled to come at the house of one lady namely Kalpana Jha. They had reached the house of lady and he alongwith PW­13 Md. Nawab Sharif had entered that house with other team members and the lady had taken their position around the said house. The lady had given a telephonic call to one person of Delhi Police whose name was told as accused Lakhan Singh by that lady. Thereafter, after sometime one persons had knocked at the door of that house and she had opened the door. Accused C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 41 / 82 Lakhan Singh was correctly identified by the witness and he stated that accused Lakhan Singh had entered the house at that time. He stated that the place where they were sitting, accused had also taken a seat near them on the sofa. The name of the lady was Kalpana Jha. Accused had inquired about him from Kalpana Jha who told accused that he is O.P. Singh and had come regarding his transfer. Accused Lakhan Singh had told her that let the transfer matter be disposed of first. Thereafter, on the asking of Kalpana Jha, he sat down on a sofa in front of the room. He was not able to listen to any conversation as the door was closed. After 15 minutes, the door was opened and he had seen that the bribe amount was lying on the sofa. He had given prefixed signal to the two CBI Inspectors who were in another room of the house.

The witness was declared hostile by Ld. Senior PP for CBI as he was not supporting the prosecution case on some points.

On being cross examined by Ld. Senior PP for CBI he admitted that his statement had been recorded. He denied that he had heard any conversation which was taking place between Kalpana Jha and accused Lakhan Singh or the accused counting the money with his hands. He stated that accused Lakhan Singh had disclosed his identity after he was confronted with CBI officers. Md. Nawab Sharif had informed the Trap Laying Officer that he had requested accused to reduce the bribe amount and accused had C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 42 / 82 said how much he should reduce Rs. 5,000/­ or Rs. 10,000/­. He admitted that accused had demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs. 20,000/­ from the complainant by extending his right hand and counted the same using both his hands and thereafter he had given prefixed signal to CBI team members. He admitted that on receipt of his signal, Sh. Om Prakash and other team members had rushed inside the room and thereafter, Sh. Shashi Duggal had also rushed towards the room. He admitted that the hand washes of accused Lakhan Singh were taken which had turned pink and they were kept in a separate bottles which were sealed. He admitted that Sh. Shashi Duggal was directed to pick up the bribe amount kept on the sofa so as to count the same. Shashi Duggal had counted the bribe amount and thereafter, he and Shashi Duggal had tallied the numbers of the recovered GC notes with the numbers of the notes noted down on the Handing Over memo. After tallying the same, the same were found to be same. He admitted that wash of sofa cover was also taken and it had turned pink which was transferred in a clean bottle and was sealed with cloth wrapper. He and Shashi Duggal had signed the said bottle on the paper slip. Digital Voice Recorder was taken back from the complainant and the same was played in the presence of all. He stated that the demand and acceptance was audible despite disturbance in the recording. He admitted that the fact regarding demand and acceptance of bribe as disclosed by Mulla Ji was C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 43 / 82 corroborated by the audio recording played before them. He admitted that the data from the Digital Voice Recorder was transferred into a blank audio cassette and he and Sh. Shashi Duggal had signed the paper pasted on the audio cassette. He stated that personal search and search of motorcycle of accused was also conducted in their presence. He admitted that Md. Nawab Sharif had informed that he was illiterate and had brought his complaint which was written by Bhagwat Yadav. The complainant had given the complaint to CBI office on 08.11.2004 alongwith and some audio cassettes, it was played in their presence. After hearing those cassettes it was found that there was demand of bribe amount but the amount and the place was not clear at that time. He admitted that Shashi Duggal and all the team members of the trap team had asked some questions from the complainant to verify the genuineness of the complaint. He admitted that specimen voice of Sh. Shashi Duggal and himself were also recorded in the Digital Voice Recorder.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Lakhan Singh he stated that he does not remember the name of the officer who had given him instructions to attend the CBI officer. He stated that Md. Nawab Sharif had informed that he is illiterate and he had got written the complaint from some other person. He stated that Md. Nawab Sharif told that he had got written the complaint from one Bhagwat Yadav. He denied that as soon as C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 44 / 82 accused Lakhan Singh entered the house of that lady, he was instantly apprehended by CBI. He denied that the Trap Laying Officer neither asked about the identity of the accused not disclosed his own identity or of the other team members or witnesses. He denied that the pre­trap and post­trap proceedings had not taken place in his presence. He stated that powder was applied upon the currency notes in his presence. He denied that accused had reached the spot at 8:00 pm. he stated that he had reached at 7:40 pm. He denied that the door was opened by Kalpana Jha. He stated that the seal was given to Shashi Duggal.

25. PW­20 Dr. Rajinder Singh, Principal Senior Scientific Officer, CFSL, New Delhi stated that on 25.11.2005 he was posted as Principal Scientific Officer and Head of Physics and Forensic Identification Division, CFSL, New Delhi. He stated that on that date he had received five sealed parcels from SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi which were sealed with the seal of CBI and had found them intact after comparing with the specimen seal forwarded to him. He stated that the Parcels were marked Parcel Q­1 to Q­5. He further stated that parcels Q­1 to Q­3 said to be containing questioned voice recording of accused Lakhan Singh as there was no common sentence/ words found between questioned voice recording and the specimen voice recording, parcel Q­4 contained an audio cassette which had questioned voice recording of accused Lakhan Singh which was marked by him Ex.Q­4 (A), C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 45 / 82 parcel Q­5 contained an audio cassette which had specimen voice recording of accused Lakhan Singh which was marked by him Ex.S­1(A). He stated that he had examined the questioned voice recording of accused Lakhan Singh with his specimen voice recording Ex.S­1(A) by using auditory and voice spectrographic technique and had found questioned voice of accused Lakhan Singh tallied with his specimen voice by their linguistic, phonetics and other general spectrographic parameters. He proved his report Ex.PW20/A running into seven pages and stated that his report contains the description of other details regarding his expertise, details of forwarding memo, parcels and seals, description of the articles contained in the parcels, laboratory procedures, experiment and analysis and his detailed result of examination.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Lakhan Singh he stated that the reliability and accuracy of voice spectographic technique is about 99%. He stated that he has mentioned in his report that it is beyond reasonable doubts which means that it is positive identification. He denied that he had given vague opinion about the voice identification test.

26. PW­21 Sh. Brijesh Verma, Reader, in the Court of Ms. Chetana Singh, Ld. MM, Saket Courts, New Delhi stated that he has worked in the Court of Sh. Sanjeev Jain, the then Ld. MM, New Delhi as Ahlmad in the year 2005. He proved the certified C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 46 / 82 copies of Criminal Complaint No. 1876/1 dated 15.10.2004, Sirajuddin vs. Nawab Sharif & others running into five pages, certified copies of order sheets dated 15.10.2004, 01.12.2004 and 23.12.2004 passed by Sh. Sanjeev Jain, MM, New Delhi, reply dated 08.11.2004 filed by SI Lakhan Singh, P.S. Sangam Vihar, replay dated 01.12.2004 filed by SI Manoj, P.S. Sangam Vihar, application of Lalit Kaushik, SI, CBI dated 03.01.2005 collectively Ex.PW21/A to Ex.PW21/E. He stated that all these documents were supplied to Copying Agency Branch of Patiala House Courts, New Delhi from the original records of Court of Sh. Sanjeev Jain, the then Ld. MM on the application filed by CBI.

This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity given.

27. PW­22 Sh. Om Prakash, Retired Assistant Director, Ministry of Communication stated that he was called by his SP Sh. Alok Ranjan on 08.11.2004 and was introduced with complainant Md. Nawab Sharif who had handed over the complaint for further action. After verifying the complaint that it was genuine he was submitted the report to SP Sh. Alok Ranjan. At about 2:00 pm he had received the copy of the FIR. He stated that he had directed the duty officer to arrange two independent witnesses. At about 3:00 pm two independent witnesses Sh. O.P. Singh and Sh. Shashi Duggal both from Central Excise Department had reported to him. Thereafter, a trap team consisting of Inspector R.S. Bedi, Inspector C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 47 / 82 Mukesh Kumar, Inspector Sushil Kumar, Inspector Prem Nath and himself was constituted. The complaint of the complainant was handed over to the independent witnesses who were introduced to the complainant and the other team members with a request to go through the complaint and ensure about the genuineness of the complaint. The complaint was written by Bhagwat Yadav. The contents of the complaint were read over to everyone in Hindi and the complainant had confirmed that the contents of the complaint were correct. The complainant had also produced 3 CDs with his complaint which were played in the presence of all witnesses. The contents of the recorded conversation revealed that there was demand of bribe but the amount and place were not clear. The complainant had told independent witnesses that his complaint was genuine. The complainant had informed that one SI of PS:

Sangam Vihar was demanding Rs. 1.25 lakhs in five installments and was saying that he will falsely implicate the complainant in a false case. The complainant had brought Rs. 20,000/­ with him.

He had arranged phenolphthalein powder from the Malkhana. The numbers of the GC Notes were recorded in the handing over memo. Sh. R.S. Bedi had smeared the notes with phenolphthalein powder and the independent witnesses were directed to touch the tainted amount. Thereafter, Sh. Shashi Duggal was asked to put the packet of the tainted amount in the jacket of the complainant.

The complainant was directed to handover the amount to accused C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 48 / 82 Lakhan Singh on his specific demand. The cassettes produced by the complainant were sealed with the seal of CBI and marked as Q­1, Q­2 and Q­3. Sh. O.P. Singh was directed to act as a shadow witness and remain close to the complainant to watch the bribe transaction and to give signal by scratching his head with both his hands when the transaction of the bribe amount is over. Shashi Duggal was requested to remain with CBI team. The CBI seal was handed over to Shashi Duggal for safe custody with the direction to produce the same whenever it was required by the Court or any lawful authority. Thereafter, the team had searched each other except the complainant and all the team members had washed their hands with soap and water. The Digital Voice Recorder, cassette player with one lead was also arranged and two blank cassettes were also arranged. The digital voice recorder was handed over to the complainant with the direction to switch "on"

before making it contact with accused Lakhan Singh. The leather bag containing glass tumblers, sodium carbonate powder, blank cassettes, cassette player etc. were arranged. In another briefcase stationary items were kept. Pre­trap proceedings were reduced into writing and handing over memo was prepared. The team members had proceeded to the house of Kalpana Jha and reached at 6:15 pm. The team members alongwith independent witnesses had reached the spot and had taken respective positions inside and outside the house of Kalpana Jha. After about 1 hour one C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 49 / 82 person had knocked at the door of the house. Bhagwat Yadav who was inside the house had opened the door as he was told that accused was knocking at the door. Accused went inside the drawing room where the complainant was sitting on a sofa.

Accused was at that time in uniform and his identity was later on disclosed. After about 15 minutes the shadow witness had given pre­appointed signal and immediately he alongwith other team members had rushed towards the room indicated by the shadow witness and found that one person wearing police uniform.

Accused Lakhan Singh had disclosed his identity. The complainant had informed that when the accused had entered the room he had requested accused to reduce the bribe amount and the accused had said that "kitna Kam kar loge 5­10". Thereafter, accused had demanded first installment from the complainant.

The complainant had taken bribe amount of Rs. 20,000/­ from his left side inner pocket of the jacket and the accused had counted the bribe amount with his own hand and had kept the bribe amount under his right thigh on the sofa. Shadow witness was also asked about the same who informed that when the accused had entered in the room, the accused had asked Kalpana Jha who is that persons sitting in front of the door. At this, Kalpana Jha had told that the witness O.P. Singh had come for his transfer matter.

Shadow witness Sh. O.P. Singh had then pretended to write something on a paper. He had corroborated the version of the C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 50 / 82 complainant regarding demand and acceptance of the bribe amount. Sh. Shashi Duggal was directed to pick up the amount placed on the sofa beside the right thigh of accused Lakhan Singh and had counted the same. The number of the GC notes were tallied with the handing over memo and were found to be the same.

The hand washes of the accused were taken and were sealed and signed by the witnesses. DVR was taken back from the complainant and was played in the presence of all the team members. The demand and acceptance of bribe amount was clear. Accused was arrested.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that it will take 30­45 minutes to verify the genuineness of the complaint. He denied that no pre­trap or post­trap proceedings had taken place. He stated that denomination of the currency notes were mentioned in the handing over memo. He stated that he does not remember as to how much time it had taken to complete playing the CD process of 3 cassettes.

28. PW­23 Inspector Lalit Kaushik, CBI who is the IO of the present case stated that PW­23 Inspector Lalit Kaushik is the Investigating Officer who stated that he had investigated the present case and during the investigation he had recorded the statement of witnesses correctly. He had also collected the documents and CFSL Report. He had also prepared the transcription Ex. PW3/2 and Ex. PW3/3. He stated that in August, C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 51 / 82 2005 he was transferred and had handed over the investigation to A. Sathiamurthy, Inspector, ACB, CBI.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Lakhan Singh he stated that he had not recorded the statement of Sh. T.N. Bhattacharya in whose presence accused had given voice sample. He denied that he did have investigation copy and transcription were fabricated by him. He denied that the voice sample of accused was not taken on 29.7.2005. He denied that he has not fairly investigated the present case.

29. Ld. Senior PP for CBI had dropped PWs­ Sh. Jagram (serial no. 21) and Sh. R.S. Bedi (serial no. 6) from the list of witnesses vide separate statements since the fact which was to be proved by these witnesses had already been proved by other witnesses.

30. Prosecution Evidence was closed thereafter.

31. Statement of accused Lakhan Singh was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C in which he had stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.

32. The accused has examined one witness in his defence.

33. DW­1 Ct. Deepak Negi had brought daily diary register from dated 31.10.2004 to 21­22­11.2004 Ex. DW1/Z and Ex. DW1/Z­1.

On being cross examined by Ld. Senior PP for CBI he C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 52 / 82 admitted that Ex. DW1/X and Ex. DW1/Y did not bear signatures. He stated that SHO and ACP had not put their signatures on daily diary register.

34. Defence Evidence was closed thereafter.

35. Final arguments were heard at length on behalf of Ld. Senior PP for CBI as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused. Written arguments were also filed by the Ld. Counsel for accused. I have heard arguments and have carefully gone through the case file.

36. Sh. Jugal Wadhwa, Ld. Counsel for the accused has stated that the prosecution could not prove any previous demand. It is stated that there was no occasion for SI Lakhan Singh to have demanded any bribe in the present case since the complaint in question in which accused Lakhan Singh was allegedly demanding money from the complainant was not being investigated by him. It is stated that there was no occasion for accused to demand bribe from the complainant since the accused was out of station from 01.11.2004 to 04.11.2004 and till 05.11.2004 the investigation had not been marked to him by the SHO.

My attention has been drawn to the testimony of PW­16, PW­17 and PW­18. It is stated that the file had been deposited by the previous IO SI Umed Singh on 29.10.2004 after his transfer. However, the investigation had been marked to accused only on 05.11.2004. It is also stated that the complainant had met the SHO on 07.11.2004 but as per statement of the SHO C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 53 / 82 no complaint had been lodged by either any witness or the complainant that SI Lakhan Singh was demanding any money as bribe. It is also stated that on 08.11.2004 clean chit was given to the complainant in the FIR allegedly being under investigation regarding death of his brother and therefore, there was no occasion for any demand for bribe.

37. It is also stated by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the entire incident had been pre­planned to falsely implicate the accused since the complainant on his very first visit to CBI Office had taken the money along with him for laying trap. It is also stated that there is improvement in statements of the witnesses. There are major discrepancies in the statements of different witnesses. It is stated that the complainant was in constant touch with Smt. Kalpana Jha. It is also stated that Bhagwat Yadav was in live in relationship with Smt. Kalpana Jha and since Smt. Kalpana Jha had been involved in many criminal cases she had a grudge against accused Lakhan Singh which is recorded in a case diary entry recorded by the accused and therefore, the complaint was motivated. It is stated that Smt. Kalpana Jha wanted to falsely implicate the accused since he had not obliged her and being a social worker in the area, she had misguided the complainant and the witnesses to lodge a false complaint against the accused.

38. It is also stated that the CFSL report clearly shows that the cassettes were prepared and sealed on 05.3.2004 whereas C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 54 / 82 Smt. Kalpana Jha had stated that she had seen that the cassettes were sealed on 25.3.2004.

39. Ld. Defence Counsel also stated that the alleged intercepted conversation does not contain any demand, acceptance or any conversation regarding payment of bribe amount in installments.

40. My attention has also been drawn to Handing Over Memo Ex.PW9/A and it is stated that the endorsements there on were ante timed and ante dated. It is also stated that the conversation runs into more than two hours and to check the cassette that it was empty it would have taken at least 60 minutes thereafter the pre­trap proceedings, post­trap proceedings etc. would have taken a long time. Therefore, time mentioned in the Handing Over Memo is also manipulated.

41. It is also stated that Ex.Q­1 and Ex.Q­2 which are the cassettes pertaining to the alleged intercepted conversation are inadmissible in defence. It is stated that as per record no investigation had been prepared, therefore, it shows that the CFSL report is also manipulated.

42. It is also stated that the seals of the cassettes and the hand washes are also manipulated. It is pointed out that as per the witnesses seal no. 36 had been handed over to PW­9 Sh. Shashi Duggal after pre trap proceedings. Thereafter, there is no evidence that it was given back by PW­9 Sh. Shashi Duggal for conducting C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 55 / 82 other proceedings thereafter.

43. It is also stated that the independent witnesses have deposed under pressure of CBI and it is not possible for Sh. Om Prakash to have seen the proceedings inside the room. It is also stated that as per record the small children of Smt. Kalpana Jha were also present inside her house when the trap proceedings were taking place but there is no mention about them as to what they have done. It is also stated that Smt. Kalpana Jha was attending to her kitchen work also while proceedings were going on, therefore, she is not a reliable witness and it cannot be said that she had witnessed the proceedings.

44. It is also stated that as per Handing Over Memo Ex.PW9/A, the currency notes of Rs.20,000/­ were treated with some powder and had been kept in the inner pocket of the jacket worn by the complainant. It is, however, stated that there is no mention that the same had been kept in a packet or wrapper and in case they were kept in a packet or wrapper and then it was also treated with some powder.

My attention had been drawn to the examination­in­ chief of PW­9 Sh. Shashi Duggal held on 09.3.2010 where it is stated that the GC notes had been put in a packet and the packet had been put in the pocket of jacket of the complainant. It is stated by the shadow witness Sh. O. P. Singh in his examination­in­chief conducted on 01.3.2013 has however, stated that the currency C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 56 / 82 notes were wrapped in a packet and were kept in pocket of the complainant. It is stated that PW­9 Sh. Shashi Duggal had stated that currency notes were kept in envelop when it was given to him by inspector for comparison. The Ld. Counsel for accused states that this be treated as discrepancy since there is no mention that the envelop had also been treated with such powder. There was no question of any hand washes being positive in this case.

He also states that recovery in this case is highly doubtful. It is stated that the witnesses have stated different facts on recovery. It is stated that the trouser of the accused had not been seized and though the sofa cover washes had been taken, much importance cannot be given to the same as the sofa cover does not bear signatures of any of the witnesses.

It is stated that Sh. Bhagwat Yadav and Nabban were not present in the post trap proceedings and they have deposed falsely.

45. It is stated by Ld. Counsel for accused that PW­9 Sh.

Shashi Duggal and PW­19 Sh. O.P. Singh have not supported the prosecution case.

It is also stated that the timing of arrival at the house of Smt. Kalpana Jha is manipulated. It is stated that the statements of the witnesses cannot be relied upon as they seem to be the same.

46. It is stated that the presumption u/s. 20 of PC Act C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 57 / 82 cannot be drawn as it cannot be proved that there was any previous demand or there was any demand or acceptance at the spot.

47. The Ld. Senior PP for CBI has argued to the contrary and states that the witnesses examined by the prosecution have fully supported the prosecution case in all aspects. The discrepancies pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for accused do not go to the root of the case and are minor in nature.

He has also stated that the intercepted conversation read with recovery at the spot, clearly point out to the guilt of accused. It is also stated that the demand and acceptance by the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the witnesses examined who are independent and there is no necessity for prosecution to examine every witness on the same point of facts.

48. The Ld. Senior PP for CBI has also stated that there is no necessity to prove that there was demand at the spot if acceptance at the spot has been proved. However, he states that in the present case the witnesses have proved demand and acceptance at the spot also. He also states that the Ld. Counsel for the accused has cross examined all the witnesses at length but no major discrepancy could be brought out which could shake the veracity of the statement of witnesses.

49. I have heard arguments and have gone through the C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 58 / 82 case file. As far as contentions of the Ld. Counsel for accused is concerned that the file in this case had been marked for investigation to the accused on 05.11.2004, I am of the opinion that it is a matter of record that the file in question had been deposited by SI Umed Singh on 29.10.2004 and the intercepted conversation regarding the demand by accused is clear. In cases of demand and acceptance of bribe the court has to see a clear demand of bribe and acceptance thereof. The fact that the file was with accused on 05.11.2004 officially cannot be of any help to the accused since the accused knew that SI Umed Singh was under

transfer and had deposited the file on 29.10.2004, therefore, he was in a position to influence the outcome of the investigation. In any case as I have already observed above, the demand is clear from the conversation dated 06.11.2004 and 08.11.2004 and acceptance of the same on 08.11.2004. Moreover, if a complainant had recorded the conversation to the accused on 06.11.2004 it can be safely presumed that the demand must be prior to 06.11.2004.

It is admitted case of the accused that the file in question had been handed over to accused on 05.11.2004, therefore, when the court has evidence before it that the demand had been made for bribe on 06.11.2004 and 07.11.2004, no further proof to prove that there is demand even much prior to that is required.

50. As far as contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused is concerned that the witnesses are interested and PW­ C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 59 / 82 Smt. Kalpana Jha and PW­ Sh. Bhagwat Yadav themselves have several criminal cases pending against them and that Smt. Kalpana Jha had grudges against accused regarding a kidnapping case, I am of the opinion that CBI has examined Smt. Kalpana Jha who is an independent witness to the acceptance and demand and recovery of bribe amount. PWs­ Sh. Nabban, Mullaji, Sh. Bhagwat Yadav, Sh. Sashi Duggal and Sh. O.P. Singh as well as the TLO and all the witnesses including Smt. Kalpana Jha, complainant and the independent witnesses have deposed consistently that there was demand for bribe by the accused and acceptance of the same at the house of Smt. Kalpana Jha on 08.11.2004.

Accused Lakhan Singh has not been able to explain that if he had apprehension that Smt. Kalpana Jha had grudge against her then why without making a DD entry in the Daily Diary he had gone to the house of Smt. Kalpana Jha on a Motorcycle which did not bear any number plate. He has not been able to explain or rebut the evidence of the independent witnesses and official witnesses that after reaching the house of Smt. Kalpana Jha he had demanded bribe amount with gesture of his hands. He has not been able to explain the consistent evidence of all the witnesses that when he was requested to reduce the bribe amount, he had asked as to how much be reduced, five or ten. The accused has also not been able to explain or bring on record in evidence that the trap was pre planned or false trap. There is no C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 60 / 82 evidence on record that the independent witnesses, complainant, Mullaji, Sh. Nabban, Sh. Shashi Duggal, Sh. O.P. Singh, the TLO and the IO had any enemity towards him as to falsely implicate him in the present case.

All the witnesses had stated that accused had accepted the bribe amount and had asked Smt. Kalpana Jha to count the same. However, she had asked him to count the bribe amount himself. The accused had counted the money with his hands and resultantly the hand washes had turned pink in colour due to reaction of phenolphthalein powder, therefore, Kalpana Jha having grudge against him can be of no help to accused.

51. Ld. Counsel for accused stated that the story regarding sealing of bottles containing hand washes of accused also cannot be trusted as the said seal had been handed over to Sh. Sashi Duggal before starting from the CBI Office. Therefore, how can the same seal be used in the post trap proceedings.

I do not agree with this contention of Ld. Counsel also since in the cross examination of Sh. Shashi Duggal, he had consistently stated that the seal had been taken from him on various occasions for post trap proceedings and the other witnesses have corroborated him on this point.

52. The recovery in this case had been effected at the spot as per statement of witnesses. All the witnesses have consistently stated that the bribe amount after being received by accused was C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 61 / 82 kept by the accused under his thigh when he was sitting on the sofa. The witnesses have also stated that the washes of the sofa cover were also taken and the CFSL report has produced positive report for presence of phenolphthalein powder which corroborates the case of the prosecution and the statement of the witnesses.

53. The Ld. Counsel for accused has stated that the sofa cover does not bear signatures of all the witnesses and therefore, it cannot be said that the sofa cover was recovered from the spot.

I do not agree with this contention since the sofa cover in question has been identified by the witnesses in the Court and it is not disputed that it has been the same sofa cover which had been sent to CFSL for finding out the presence of phenolphthalein powder. Therefore, the statements of all the witnesses on this point cannot be disbelieved merely because the sofa cover does not bear the signatures of the witnesses. Even otherwise, the acceptance of the bribe amount by the accused with his hands is enough to prove the allegations leveled against him. Even if, the accused after accepting the bribe amount and counting the same throws it away or gives it to somebody else, he cannot escape the fact that he had accepted the bribe amount which had been recovered from the spot. The fact of hand washes having produced positive result for presence of phenolphthalein powder corroborates the fact that the accused had not only accepted the bribe amount but also counted the same.

C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 62 / 82

54. As far as the contention of the Ld. Counsel for accused is concerned that it is not clear as to whether the currency notes were wrapped in a packet and the fact that the envelop had not been seized is concerned, I do not agree with this contention also since all the witnesses who have appeared have stated that money had been taken out from the pocket and was counted by the accused with his hands. Therefore, the significance of notes having being kept in packet is lost. It is natural that when accused had counted the currency notes treated with phenolphthalein powder the traces of the same were present on his palms and therefore, when the handwashes were taken in the solution of water containing sodium carbonate the same bear positive results. In case there was no evidence regarding counting of the currency notes by the accused himself, the presence of currency notes in a packet would have had any significance.

55. As far as the contention of the Ld. Counsel for accused is concerned that the proceedings could not have taken place during the time as deposed by the witnesses as checking of the cassettes itself would have taken more than two hours and as far as the travelling time is concerned I am of the opinion that this argument is based on presumption. In any case the laying of the trap and the pre­trap proceedings and post trap proceedings is a team work and some team members will do some part of proceeding and the others must be noting down the numbers of C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 63 / 82 currency notes or treating the currency notes simultaneously.

56. As far as contention of the Ld. Counsel for accused is concerned that the complainant in this case is not trustworthy and the fact that the complainant on the very first day when he had visited CBI Office had taken currency notes with him, I do not agree with this contention also since the fact of the complainant carrying with him the bribe amount to CBI Office does in any manner lessen the criminality of the accused. In any case the numbers of the currency notes brought were noted down in pre­ trap proceeding and the same notes have been recovered from the accused. When the currency notes were produced before the Court, the same were identified by the witnesses to be the same which had been recovered from the accused after dealing with the handing over memo.

57. As far as the contention regarding presence of Sh.

Bhagwat Yadav and Nabban during the post trap proceedings is concerned, it has been disputed by the ld. Counsel for accused, I do not agree with this also since all the independent witnesses and the official witnesses have deposed that they were present at the spot and had participated in the trap proceedings.

58. As far as the contention regarding Smt. Kalpana Jha being in live­in relationship with Bhagwat Yadav is concerned or her children being present in the house during trap is concerned, it is of not much importance since she was in the same house and C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 64 / 82 kitchen where she had to perform her duty of being lady of the house which was adjoining the room where trap proceedings had taken place. It is not the case of prosecution or the witnesses that he had gone outside the house or that she was in the kitchen all the time.

59. The presence of the accused at the spot is not disputed by the accused himself. The independent witnesses have identified him in the Court correctly. The independent witnesses have also stated that the accused had come wearing a helmet, however, he had removed the helmet and he was having name plate and therefore he had identified him correctly in the court also as they had seen him when the recovery was effected. At the time of recovery, he was not wearing helmet rather he was wearing a name plate which was bearing his identity beyond doubt.

60. As far as the contention of the Ld. Defence Counsel is concerned that there was no occasion for accused to demand bribe from the complainant since the accused was out of station from 01.11.2004 to 04.11.2004 and till 05.11.2004 the investigation had not been marked to him by the SHO, I do not agree with this contention since all the witnesses have stated that the complainant has categorically stated that the accused had started demanding money from him after five months of the death of his brother Ali Jaan. They have stated that they had approached Smt. Kalpana Jha on 05.11.2004. PW­ Sh. Umed Singh has clearly stated in his C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 65 / 82 statement that his SHO had marked the complaint to him in connection with the death of Ali Jaan filed against Nawab Sharif but he had requested his SHO that the said complaint be marked to some other officer since he did not know English. He had not conducted the investigation in the case against Mohd. Nawab Sharif. In October, 2004 he was transferred to other district. It is therefore, clear that ASI Umed Singh had never dealt with this matter and had rather requested the SHO that the said case be marked to some other officer. Even the SHO had asked them to speak to SI Lakhan Singh which shows that the matter was being dealt with by accused Lakhan Singh. The case of the complainant is that the accused had started harassing him after five months of the death of his brother Ali Jaan which comes to October or November, 2004 itself. Since in the police investigation earlier in May, nothing incriminating had been found in the death of Ali Jaan, the matter had been closed. However, the matter had been re­ opened only in October, 2004 and therefore, the occasion for the accused to start demanding for the bribe.

61. It was further submitted by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the witnesses joined in the investigation namely PW­9 Sh. Shashi Duggal and PW­19 Sh. O.P. Singh were not independent witnesses. It is submitted that they were interested witnesses and have deposed at the instance of the CBI. However, Ld. PP had submitted that there is nothing in cross examination of PW­9 Sh. C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 66 / 82 Shashi Duggal and PW­19 Sh. O.P. Singh which could discredit their integrity as independent witnesses.

62. After hearing Ld. Special PP for CBI as well as Ld. Defence Counsel and going through the testimony of the independent witnesses, I am of the opinion that there is no material on the file to suggest that they frequently associate with CBI as witnesses or that they are otherwise under the pressure of the CBI. Unless there is any specific material against any witness, they cannot be called as interested witnesses or witnesses not independent of the prosecution. There is no material on the file which could impeach their credit as witness. Every witness is deemed to be independent unless proved otherwise. In this regard, it is relevant to quote an authority reported as State of Gujarat vs. Raghnathan Vamanra Baxi AIR 1985, SC 1092, wherein while dealing with such a contention, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph 5 as under:

"In appreciating oral evidence, the question in each case is whether the witness is a truthful witness and whether there is anything to doubt his veracity in any particular matter about which he deposes. Where the witness is found to be untruthful on material facts that is an end of the matter. Whether the witness is found to be partly truthful or to spring from tainted sources, the Court may take the precaution of seeking some corroboration, adequate and reasonable C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 67 / 82 to meet the demands of the situation, but a court is not entitled to reject the evidence of a witness merely because they are government servants, who, in the course of their duties or even otherwise, might have come into contact with investigating officers and who might have been requested to assist the investigating agencies. If their association with the investigating agencies is unusual, frequent or designed, there may be occasion to view their evidence with suspicion. But merely because they are called in to associate themselves with the investigating as they happened to be available or it is convenient to call them, it is no ground to view their evidence with suspicion. Even in cases where officers who, in the course of their duties, generally assist the investigating agencies, there is no need to view their evidence with suspicion as an invariable rule. For example, in rural areas, investigating officers would ordinarily think of calling in the village officers, such as, the Headman, the Patel or Patwari to act as punch witnesses, as they are expected to be respectable persons of the locality. It does not mean that their evidence should be viewed with suspicion because they are government servants or because they are generally associated with investigating agencies whenever there is a crime in the village. For that matter, it would be wrong to reject the evidence of police officers either on the mere ground that they are interested in the success of the prosecution. The Court may be justified in looking with suspicion upon the C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 68 / 82 evidence of officers who have been demonstrated to have displayed excess of zeal in the conduct and success of the prosecution. But to reject the evidence of all official witnesses as the High Court has done in the present case, is going too far. We think that it is extremely unfair to a witness to reject his evidence by merely giving him a label."

63. Similarly, in another authority reported as State of UP Vs. Zakaullah AIR 1991 SC 1417, while dealing with such a contention, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph 10 as under:

"The necessity for "independent witness" in cases involving police or police search is incorporated in the statute not for the purpose of helping the indicted person to bypass the evidence of those panch witnesses who have had some acquaintance with the police or officers conducting the search at some time or the other. Acquaintance with the police by itself would not destroy a man's independent outlook.

IN a society where police involvement is a regular phenomenon many people would get acquainted with the police.

But as long as they are not dependent on the police for their living or liberty or for any other matter, it cannot be said that those are not independent persons. If the police in order to carry out official duties, have sought the help of any other person he would not forfeit his independent character by giving help to police action. The requirement to have independent witness to corroborate the C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 69 / 82 evidence of the police is to be viewed from a realistic angle. Every citizen of India must be presumed to be an independent person until it is proved that he was a dependent of the police or other officials for any purpose whatsoever."

64. In view of the above discussion and the law, referred to above, I am satisfied that PW­9 Sh. Shashi Duggal and PW­19 Sh. O.P. Singh are independent witnesses. Their evidence cannot be faulted on any ground particularly the ground of their not being an independent witnesses. The submission is, as such, without merit.

65. Ld. Counsel for the accused also states that the testimony of the witnesses of CBI cannot be relied upon even for the purpose of corroboration since the independent witnesses have deposed under threat of CBI and official witnesses of CBI are interested witnesses. In this regard para 10 of the Sate of U.P. Vs. G.K. Ghosh (supra) is quite relevant which is extracted as under:

"It is now time to deal with the criticism urged as a matter of course in the context of the police officer leading the raiding party namely that he is an interested witness. This is true, but only to an extent­ a very limited extent. He is interested in the success of the trap to ensure that a citizen, who complainants of harassment by a Government Officer making a demand for illegal gratification, is protected and the role of his department in the protection of such citizens is vindicated. Perhaps it can be contented that he is interested in the success of the trap so that his ego is satisfied or that he earns a feather in his cap. At the same time it must be realized C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 70 / 82 that it is not frequently that a police officer, himself being a Government servant, would resort to perjury and concoct evidence in order to rope in an innocent Government servant. In the event of the Government servant concerned refusing to accept the currency notes offered by the complainant it would not be reasonable to expect the police officer to go to the length of concocting a false seizure memo for prosecuting and humiliating him merely in order to save the face of the complainant, thereby compromising his own conscience. The court may therefore, depending on the circumstances of a case, feel safe in accepting the prosecution version on the basis of the oral evidence of the complainant and the police officers even if the trap witnesses turn hostile or are found not to be independent. When therefore besides such evidence there is circumstantial evidence which is consistent with the guilt of the accused and not consistent with his innocence, there should be no difficulty in upholding the prosecution case. The present case appears to be a case of that nature. If the circumstantial evidence is of such a nature that it affords adequate corroboration to the prosecution case, as held by the Ld. Special Judge, the appeal must succeed. If on the other hand the circumstantial evidence is considered to be inadequate to buttress the oral testimony, the appeal necessarily must fail."

66. As far as the fact that accused Lakhan Singh was on leave from 01.11.2004 to 04.11.2004 and was out of station on 04.11.2004 and 05.11.2004 is concerned, I am of the opinion that it does not have much relevant because the intercepted conversation pertains to 06.11.2004 and 08.11.2004 and the trap was laid on C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 71 / 82 08.11.2004. PW­18 has clearly stated that accused had been seen in PS: Sangam Vihar at 5:00 pm on 08.11.2004 and he does not know as to whether accused had gone thereafter and for what purpose. Since as per the prosecution case, accused Lakhan Singh was present at the spot at about 7:00 to 8:00 pm which is not disputed by the accused and has been corroborated by the prosecution witnesses regarding presence of accused at the house of Ms. Kalpana Jha, this arguments too is devoid of merit.

67. As far as contention of the Ld. Counsel for accused regarding admissibility of the intercepted conversation is concerned, I am of the opinion that the concerned, expert has examined the same adopting spectrographic method. Even if he has not relied upon other methods for reaching the conclusion regarding comparison of the sample voice and the intercepted conversation, it does not have any bearing on the correctness of the report of the Expert since method to be adopted for reaching at the scientific conclusion is entirely the domain of the expert as to whether he adopts one method or other methods. In any case the role of the expert has corroborative value and is a corroborative piece of evidence. Since the independent witnesses examined have stated that the accused had demanded bribe and the independent witnesses have stated that the bribe had been demanded and accepted in their presence, it proves the case of the prosecution.

C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 72 / 82

68. The discrepancy pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for accused in statements of witnesses are minor in nature and have taken place as evidence has been recorded after some years of incident. The discrepancies pointed out regarding the timings etc. do not go to the root of the case and do not make the statements of witnesses untrustworthy.

69. I find support in my opinion from the following cases :­ In the case AIR 1984 SC 1453 Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the mode of appreciation of evidence in a trap case that it may not be proper to magnify every minor detail or omission or throw even a shadow of doubt in the prosecution evidence on that score unless the doubt is reasonably justified. Such a harsh standard may not be correct judicial approach in a trap case. In such a contingency the prosecution may find it difficult to establish any case. Where there is conclusive proof with regard to recovery of currency notes from the hand or pocket of the accused, difficulty of adducing evidence or corroboration with regard to the negotiation of the accused with the complainant must be taken as paled down into insignificance.

In a prosecution for an offence of bribery the conduct of the accused will be relevant u/s. 8 of the Evidence Act.

The presumption is that it is as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official function favour or disfavour to the person. It is for him to rebut it. C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 73 / 82 Oral evidence of the complainant and police officers, if acceptable, will be sufficient even if trap witnesses turn hostile or are found not independent.

70. In the case 1998 Crl. L.J. 863 State of U.P. Vs. Zakaullah Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of 1947) S.5(2)­ Bribery­ Proof­ Delinquent official caught red­handed in trap laid by trap officer­ complainant's evidence corroborated by evidence of trap officer­ complainant's evidence cannot be rejected merely because he was aggrieved against the bribe taker­ Fact that trap officer successfully trapped delinquent is no ground to conclude his animosity against the delinquent­ Order of High Court acquitting delinquent on patently wrong and tenuous considerations not proper­ set aside.

71. In the case of 1976 KLT Case no. 89 Balagangadhran Nair J. it is laid down that Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Sec. 5 requirements that it is immaterial whether the accused obtained the amount as a motive or reward for showing any favour to PW­1; what matters is whether abusing his position as a public servant the accused obtained for himself pecuniary advantage on the evidence and circumstances in which he accepted the amount and in the absence of any explanation why he accepted the amount that conclusion is inescapable. I find that the accused has been rightly convicted.

C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 74 / 82

72. Therefore, the testimony of the independent witnesses, TLO, IO, shadow witness, the circumstantial evidence alongwith the recovery effected at the spot, clearly point out towards the guilt of the accused and it is held that the prosecution has been able to successfully prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the accused and therefore, he is convicted for committing offence u/s. 7, 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

73. I, accordingly, hold the accused guilty and convict him under Section 7 and 13 (2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.

74. To come up for arguments on quantum of sentence on 02.7.2014.

Announced in the open court on 27th June, 2014.

(SWARANA KANTA SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI­05), NEW DELHI/ 27.6.2014 C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 75 / 82 IN THE COURT OF MS. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI­05, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI.

CC No: 05/2012 RC No: 45A­2004­CBI­ACB­NEW DELHI Unique Case ID No: 02403R0646852005 Title : State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh, S/o Sh. Kishan Singh, R/o E­1397, Dabua Colony, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana. U/s : Section 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act 1988 (Appearances) Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senior P.P. for CBI.

Sh. Jugal Wadhwa, Ld. Counsel for accused Lakhan Singh. ORDER ON SENTENCE.

1. Vide my separate judgment dated 27.5.2014, convict Lakhan Singh has been convicted.

2. I have heard arguments on point of sentence and have carefully gone through the file.

3. It is submitted by the Ld. Defence Counsel that Convict has suffered great mental agony and he has lost his social life because of this case. It is further submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that the C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 76 / 82 Convict is the only earning member in his family which consist of his dependent old parents aged about 75 years and 70 years respectively and two minor school going children studying in 12th and 8th standard and a wife who is unemployed and home maker. His father has recently undergone lung cancer operation and still undergoing treatment for the same and his mother has also undergone by pass surgery and she is also under treatment for the same and the convict has to look after both his ailing parents in their old age. The convict does not own any property in Delhi or elsewhere and he is the sole bread winner of the family. It is, therefore, prayed that a lenient view may kindly be taken.

4. On the other hand, it is submitted by the Ld. Senior PP for CBI that it was the duty of the convict to enforce law and maintain his integrity in which he failed. It is submitted that he may be punished severely.

5. While dealing with the question of sentence, in an authority reported as State of UP Vs. Sattan @ Satyendra and Others 2009 III AD (SC) 492 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in para 14, as under:

"Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle, and in spite of errant notions, it C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 77 / 82 remains a strong influence in the determination of sentences. The practice of punishing all serious crimes with equal severity is now unknown in civilized societies, but such a radical departure from the principle of proportionality has disappeared from the law only in recent times. Even now for a single grave infraction drastic sentences are imposed. Anything less than a penalty of greatest severity for any serious crime is thought then to be a measure of toleration that is unwarranted and unwise. But, in fact, quite apart from those considerations that make punishment unjustifiable when it is out of proportion to the crime, uniformly disproportionate punishment has some very undesirable practical consequences."

6. Similarly, in a recent authority reported as Surain Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2009­II AD (SC) 589, while dealing with the case of a Patwari who had accepted an illegal gratification of Rs. C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 78 / 82 300/­, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraphs 7 and 8 as under:­ (7) "Day in and day out the gigantic problem of corruption in the public servants is on the increase. Large scale corruption retards the nation­ building activities and everyone has to suffer on that count. Corruption is corroding like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politics, social fabric of efficiency in the public service and demoralizing the honest officers.

The efficiency in public service would improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does the duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post".

(8) "Considering the peculiar facts of the case, we are of the view that the custodial sentences of one year, which is minimum prescribed, would C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 79 / 82 meet the ends of justice".

7. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the submissions made by the Ld. Defence Counsel, convict Lakhan Singh is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for six months under Section 7 of PC Act along with fine of Rs.20,000/­, in default of which to Rigorous imprisonment for three months.

8. I also sentence the convict to Rigorous Imprisonment for one year under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of PC Act along with fine of Rs.20,000/­ in default of which to Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.

9. Both the sentences shall run concurrently as they arise from the same transaction of offence.

10. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. be given to the Convict as per law.

11. Bail Bond of convict is hereby cancelled and his surety stands discharged. The documents, if any, of the surety be returned against proper receipt after getting the endorsement, if any, canceled.

C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 80 / 82

12. The case property, i.e., amount of Rs. 20,000/­ be returned to the complainant immediately as per law. Rest of the case property is forfeited to the Sate to be disposed of as per law after the time of appeal is over.

13. Documents seized in the case be returned to the concerned Department on proper receipt by the IO after the time of filing of appeal is over.

14. At this stage, an application u/s. 389 Cr.P.C. is moved by Sh. Jugal Wadhwa, Ld. Counsel for convict. Copy supplied to Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senior PP. Fine be deposited.

15. Heard on the application moved. It is stated that applicant/convict would be preferring an appeal against the judgment of this court and it is requested that order on sentence may be suspended and the convict may be granted bail till filing of appeal.

16. Considering the fact that he has been regularly appearing during the trial, the application is allowed and sentence is suspended till 15.9.2014 subject to the applicant/convict Lakhan Singh furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/­ with one C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 81 / 82 surety in the like amount. Bail bonds are furnished and accepted.

17. Copy of the judgment and order be given to the convict free of cost immediately.

18. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the open court on 15th July, 2014.

(SWARANA KANTA SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI­05), NEW DELHI/ 15.7.2014 C.C. NO. 05/12 State (CBI) Vs. Lakhan Singh Page no. 82 / 82