Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs Anand Kumar on 11 January, 2024

     IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)­02, ROUSE AVENUE
                       DISTICT COURTS, NEW DELHI

Presided by : Mr Jay Thareja, DHJS


CNR No. DLCT11­000322­2022
CC No. : 37/2022
FIR No.: 06/2015
U/S. 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Police Station: ACB, GNCTD.


IN THE MATTER OF :­



State                           v   Sh. Anand Kumar
                                    S/o Late Sh. Bishan Lal
                                    R/o E­II, 49, Madangiri, SBI Bank, Dr. Ambedkar
                                    Nagar, South Delhi­110062.

                                                    Date of Institution : 30.05.2022
                                              Date of Final Arguments : 17.11.2023
                                                    Date of Judgment : 11.01.2024


                                     JUDGMENT

1. The present criminal case has originated from a charge­sheet filed by the State, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth 'PC Act, 1988') by the accused, Sh. Anand Kumar.

State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 1 of 51 Brief Synopsis of the Charge­Sheet

2. In the charge­sheet, it has been submitted by the State that the genesis/start­point of this case is a complaint dated 28.01.2014, given by the complainant, Sh. Rajju at the Office of the Anti­Corruption Branch of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi (henceforth 'ACB'), in the presence of the panch witness, Sh. Parshotam Das, Inspector, Industry Department, Udyog Sadan, Patparganj, Delhi, wherein the complainant, Sh. Rajju, had inter­alia alleged (a) that he is a permanent resident of village Barghani, Tehsil Banda, District Banda, UP; (b) that he temporarily resides at H. No. 189, Kuan Mohalla, Tuglakabad, Delhi; (c) that he is employed with Tiger Force Security Service and posted at Sheraton Hotel, Saket, Delhi; (d) that on 14.09.2013, he had applied for issuance of a ration card in the name of his wife, Smt. Pushpa at the Ration Office, Okhla, Phase­I; (e) that in the application form, he had disclosed this mobile number to be 8800759222; (f) that about 1.5­2 months back, he had got a call from mobile no. 9211745929 on his mobile no. 8800759222; (g) that during the said call, the caller had asked the name, address etc. of his wife and informed him that the application for issuance of ration card in the name of his wife, Smt. Pushpa has come before him (the caller) and therefore, he (the complainant, Sh. Rajju) should come to the Ration Card Office, Okhla on the next day before 9:00 AM along with papers etc. and kharcha pani; (h) that during the said call, the caller had twice demanded kharcha pani with the assurance that the ration card will be made; (i) that the complainant, Sh. Rajju had recorded this conversation on his mobile phone; (j) that on the next day, the complainant, Sh. Rajju had gone to the Ration Card Office, Okhla and called the mobile no. 9211745929; (k) that during the said call, the caller had asked him (the State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 2 of 51 complainant, Sh. Rajju) to wait for him, in the office; (l) that sometime later, a person, whose name, he had later found to be Sh. Anand and whose job was to feed the ration card application forms in the computer, had taken him in a corner, showed him the application form of his wife, Smt. Pushpa and pointed out errors in the form; (m) that despite his requests/pleadings, the said person had demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/­ for him, for preparation of the ration card of his wife, Smt. Pushpa; (n) that when he had refused to pay the bribe, the said person had put a line on the application form of his wife, Smt. Pushpa and told him that now, the ration card will not be made; (n) that thereafter, the complainant, Sh. Rajju had met the FSO, Sh. Vijay Kumar; (o) that the FSO, Sh Vijay Kumar had checked his computer and informed him (the complainant, Sh. Rajju) that the application form of his wife, Smt. Pushpa has already been fed in the system and there is no need for him to make a complaint; (p) that despite the assurance given by the FSO, Sh. Vijay Kumar, the ration of his wife, Smt. Pushpa was not prepared; (q) that his complaint is accompanied by two CDs, containing the recorded conversation between him and Sh. Anand and (r) that appropriate action should be taken against Sh. Anand, for demanding bribe of Rs.1000/­ from him.

3. Further, in the charge­sheet, it has been submitted by the State that on the basis of the above described complaint dated 22.01.2014 of the complainant, Sh. Rajju, a preliminary inquiry was done by Inspector Pankaj Sharma of ACB, wherein the electronic evidence (one CD and Mobile Memory Card) seized from the complainant, Sh. Rajju vide seizure memo dated 28.01.2014, were sent to FSL, Rohini; that only upon receipt of report from FSL, to the effect that the audio file, "AUD_0691.AMR", found in the electronic evidence given by the complainant, Sh. Rajju, was/is unaltered, the FIR of this case was registered under Section 7/13 of the State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 3 of 51 PC Act, 1988, on 06.04.2015 and that the investigation of this case has been done over a span of 7 years, by Inspector Pankaj Sharma, Inspector K. C. Kaushik, Inspector Yashpal Singh and Inspector Sanjay Goswami of ACB.

4. Further, in the charge­sheet, it has been submitted by the State that during the initial investigation of this case, the IO, Inspector Pankaj Sharma had (a) taken the ADATA Micro SD Card and two CDs from the complainant, Sh. Rajju, sealed the ADATA Micro SD Card in one pullanda, bearing the seal of 'PKS', sealed one CD marked as CD­I in another pullanda, bearing the seal of 'PKS', kept the other CD marked as CD­II, for the purpose of investigation and seized both the pullandas as well as the CD­II vide seizure memo dated 28.01.2014; (b) taken photocopy of receipt no. 6839 of ration card application form, from the complainant, Sh. Rajju; (c) taken a transcript of the audio recording; (d) taken the consent of the accused, Sh. Anand for recording of his voice sample, on 11.05.2015, in the presence of the panch witness, Sh. Indal Singh; (e) taken the voice sample of the accused, Sh. Anand, on 14.05.2015, in the presence of the panch witness, Sh. Vikas Kumar; (f) sealed and then seized the audio cassettes of the voice sample of the accused, Sh. Anand, marked as SVAK­I and SVAK­II, vide seizure memo dated 14.05.2015; (g) taken the voice sample of the complainant, Sh. Rajju, on 10.07.2015 in the presence of the panch witness. Sh. Sandeep Malik; (h) sealed and then seized the audio cassettes of the voice sample of the complainant, Sh. Rajju, marked as SVR­I and SVR­II, vide seizure memo dated 10.07.2015 and (i) received letter dated 13.04.2015 from the Nodal Officer of TATA Tele Services Ltd. alongwith CAF Form, CDR etc. of mobile no. 9211745929 of the accused, Sh. Anand.

5. Further, in the charge­sheet, it has been submitted by the State that State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 4 of 51 during further investigation of this case, the next IO, Inspector K.C. Kaushik had (a) received documents regarding employment of the accused, Sh. Anand with the Food Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Government of NCT of Delhi from Sh. M.M. Chandra, Senior System Analyst, Food Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, inter­alia reflecting that the accused, Sh. Anand was working at FSO, Circle­52 and his services were surrendered w.e.f. 01.02.2014; (b) sent the exhibits of this case for examination by FSL, Rohini and (c) found from the complainant, Sh. Rajju that Sh. Vijay Kumar, Food Supply Officer (FSO) had never demanded any money from him.

6. Further, in the charge­sheet, it has been submitted by the State that during further investigation of this case, the next IO, Inspector Yashpal Singh had (a) received the FSL report dated 13.11.2017, reflecting that the voice of the accused, Sh. Anand can probably be heard in the audio file, "AUD_0691.AMR", found in the electronic evidence given by the complainant, Sh. Rajju and the voice of the complainant, Sh. Rajju can definitely be heard in the audio file, "AUD_0691.AMR", found in the electronic evidence given by the complainant, Sh. Rajju; (b) sent letter no. 6696/RC­06/15/ACB dated 13.06.2018 to the Nodal Officer of Bharti Airtel Ltd., seeking the CAF Form, CDR etc. of mobile no. 8800759222 of the complainant, Sh. Rajju and (c) received a response vide letter dated 15.06.2018 from Bharti Airtel Ltd., informing that the CDR of mobile no. 8800759222 of the complainant, Sh. Rajju cannot be provided, on account of lapse of time and annexing the CAF Form of mobile no. 8800759222 of the complainant, Sh. Rajju. 1 1 This letter dated 15.06.2018 of Bharti Airtel Ltd. has not been filed by the final IO, Inspector Sanjay Goswami alongwith the charge­sheet.

State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 5 of 51

7. Further, in the charge­sheet, it has been submitted by the State that during further investigation of this case, the final IO, Inspector Sanjay Goswami had

(a) through various letters, obtained information from the Food Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Government of NCT of Delhi to the effect that the accused, Sh. Anand is not a public servant and (b) obtained record from the Food Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Government of NCT of Delhi to the effect that the application for issuance of ration card in the name of Smt. Pushpa, wife of the complainant, Sh. Rajju was made in 2013.

8. Lastly, in the charge­sheet, it has been submitted by the State that from the total investigation done in this case done by the IOs, Inspector Pankaj Sharma, Inspector K.C. Kaushik, Inspector Yashpal Singh and Inspector Sanjay Goswami of ACB, the logical conclusion that follows is that the accused, Sh. Anand is liable to be prosecuted, convicted and sentenced qua the offence punishable under Section 8 of the PC Act, 1988.

Compliance of Section 207 of CrPC, 1973 and Framing of Charge

9. A perusal of the Court file reveals that the aforesaid charge sheet was filed in this Court, on 30.05.2022; that on the basis of the aforesaid charge­sheet, a Ld. Predecessor Judge had taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 8 of PC Act, 1988; that upon service of process of this Court, the accused, Sh. Anand had appeared in this Court; that after supply of documents to the accused, Sh. Anand in compliance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth "CrPC, 1973"), a Ld. Predecessor Judge had framed the charge against the accused, Sh. Anand whereby the accused, Sh. Anand was State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 6 of 51 charged with the commission of the offence punishable under Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and that when the said charge was read over and explained to the accused, Sh. Anand, he had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Evidence led by the State

10. During trial of this case, the State had examined 16 witnesses viz. PW1 Retired SI Daya Ram, PW2 SI Karamveer, PW3 Sh. M. M. Chandra, PW4 Retd. Sh. Suresh Chandra, PW5 Sh. Rajju, PW6 Sh. Sandeep Malik, PW7 SI Sanjay Yadav, PW8 HC Sumit Kumar, PW9 Dr. C. P. Singh, PW10 Sh. Rajeev Ranjan, PW11 ASI Satish Kumar, PW12 Retired Inspector K. C. Kaushik, PW13 Retired Inspector Pankaj Sharma, PW14 Inspector Yashpal Singh, PW15 Retd. Inspector Sanjay Goswami and PW16 Sh. Rajiv Vashisht.

11. During examination in chief, PW1 Retired SI Daya Ram had inter­alia deposed that on 06.04.2015, he was posted as ASI at PS ACB; that on that day, his duty hours were from 02:00 pm to 08:00 pm; that on that day at about 04:00 PM, he had registered the FIR of this case viz. FIR No. 06/2015, PS ACB, Ex.P1/PW1(OSR), in his own handwriting, on the basis of the rukka brought by the IO, Inspector Pankaj Sharma; that after registration of the FIR, he had made endorsement, Ex.P2/PW1 on the rukka in his own handwriting and therefore, the rukka bears his signatures at point A; that after registration of FIR, he had handed over the rukka and copy of FIR of this case to Inspector Pankaj Sharma and that the DD No. 35 dated 06.04.2015, Ex.P3/PW1(OSR) as well as the DD No. 36 dated State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 7 of 51 06.04.2015, Ex.P4/PW1(OSR), were recorded by him, while registering the FIR of this case.

12. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, PW1 Retired SI Daya Ram had inter­alia deposed that the DD entry no. 4 dated 06.04.2015 (recorded at 08:45 am), Ex.P5/PW1(OSR) is regarding departure of Inspector Pankaj Sharma from ACB; that the DD entry no. 33 dated 06.04.2015 (recorded at 03:10 pm), Ex.P6/PW1(OSR) is regarding arrival of Inspector Pankaj Sharma at ACB; that it is wrong to say that the FIR, Ex.P1, the endorsement on rukka, Ex.P2 and the two DD entries, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 are ante dated, ante timed, forged or fabricated; that it is wrong to say that the said entries were made by him at the instance of the IO; that he has brought the original DD register and original FIR register, after taking permission from the duty officer and that he had not taken the signature of the complainant on the FIR register because the complainant was not present at the time of registration of FIR.

13. During examination in chief, PW2 SI Karamveer had inter­alia deposed that on 14.05.2015, he was posted as Malkhana Muharrar in PS Civil Lines; that at that time, the case property of PS ACB used to be deposited in malkhana of PS Civil Lines because there was no separate malkhana at PS ACB and that on that day, Inspector Pankaj Sharma had come to PS Civil Lines and deposited the case property, as per entry at serial no.973 of the register no.19, Ex.P7/PW2(OSR).

14. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, PW2 SI Karamveer had inter­alia deposed that he had counter signed the seizure memo 14.05.2015, Ex.P8/PW2 at point A at the time of taking the case property from State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 8 of 51 Inspector Pankaj Sharma; that he was not present at the time of recording of voice sample of the accused, Sh. Anand and the sealing of the parcels by Inspector Pankaj Sharma and therefore, he has no knowledge about the contents of the pullandas, prepared by Inspector Pankaj Sharma and that it is wrong to say that the entry at serial no.973 of the register no.19, Ex.P7/PW2(OSR) is fabricated, manipulated, ante dated or ante timed, at the instance of the IO, Inspector Pankaj Sharma.

15. During examination in chief, PW3 Sh. M. M. Chandra had inter­alia deposed that on 12.10.2017, he was working as Senior System Analyst in Department of Food Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Government of NCT of Delhi; that vide his letter dated 12.10.2017, Ex.P9/PW3 addressed to the IO, Inspector K.C. Kaushik, he had supplied documents regarding appointment of the accused, Sh. Anand Kumar S/o Late Sh. Bishan Lal as well as action taken report against the accused, Sh. Anand; that the documents supplied by him, included order dated 06.03.2012 alongwith the list of 100 Data Entry Operators, Ex.P10/PW3(Colly)(4 pages), which contains the name of accused, Sh. Anand at serial no.2 and that the documents supplied by him also included documents, Ex.P11/PW3(Colly)(2 pages) reflecting surrendering of services of the accused, Sh. Anand. Despite grant of opportunity, the Ld. Advocate for the accused had not cross­examined PW3 Sh. M. M. Chandra.

16. During examination in chief, PW4 Retd. Sh. Suresh Chandra had inter­ alia deposed that from March 2019 to July 2020, he was posted as FSO in Circle No. 52, Tuglakabad under the Office of Food, Supply and Consumer Affairs, Department of Govt. of NCT of Delhi; that on 11.06.2019, he had sent the letter, State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 9 of 51 Ex.P12/PW4 to the IO of this case; that on 16.07.2019, he had sent the letter, Ex.P13/PW4 to the IO of this case; that on 06.08.2019, he had sent the letter, Ex.P14/PW4 to the IO of this case; that vide the letter dated 06.08.2019, Ex.P14/PW4, he had informed the IO of this case that the application for issuance of ration card, given by the complainant, was not available/traceable in his office, but he had found that an entry in regard to the said application was made on the NFS portal, on 23.12.2013; that the said entry reflects that Ms. Pushpa W/o Sh. Rajju had given the application for ration card; that alongwith the letter, Ex.P14/PW4, he had sent the print out of the entry, Ex.P15/PW4 made in the name of Ms. Pushpa on the NFS portal (which bears his signatures at point A) and that vide the letter, Ex.P14/PW4, he had also informed the IO of this case that the accused, Sh. Anand, who was working as Data Entry Operator was not competent to issue the ration card and his duty was only to receive the application form and then enter it, in the computer.

17. Further, during examination in chief, PW4 Retd. Sh. Suresh Chandra had inter­alia deposed about the procedure for processing of application of a new ration card, at the relevant time. His testimony in this regard, is reproduced below:

"The procedure for applying a new ration card, at that was that after an application is received its entry used to be made in the NFS portal by the data entry operator; that once it is entered in the portal, the portal generates an ID which used to be sequential for entire Delhi; that thereafter, the applications pertaining to our circle, used to be marked to the Inspector who would do necessary verification and in case he allows an application, the FSO State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 10 of 51 used to sign the approval on the NFS portal itself and thereafter an applicant could generate its print out through OTP received on his mobile phone; that there was no requirement of physical signatures on the ration card by the FSO; that the ration cards used to be issued at that time on 'first in first out' basis."

18. Further, during examination in chief, PW4 Retd. Sh. Suresh Chandra had inter­alia deposed that as per records of his office, the accused, Sh. Anand was working as data entry operator on contract basis, through M/s. Intelligent Communications System India Ltd. in FSO Circle 52, Tuglakabad; that he had not seen the accused, Sh. Anand, while working as DEO in the department and therefore, he cannot identify him and that he had also given reply dated 08.01.2020, Ex.P16/PW4 to the IO of this case.

19. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, PW4 Retd. Sh. Suresh Chandra had inter­alia deposed that since, he had not been posted in FSO, Circle 52, in 2013, he had not seen the accused, Sh. Anand working as DEO on any day of that year; that he had not seen the complainant, Sh. Rajju giving the application for ration card; that he had not seen the physical copy of the application for ration card given by the complainant, Sh. Rajju; that during his tenure, he had not noticed any inquiry regaridng the missing application form for ration card given by the complainant, Sh. Rajju; that he does not know, who had filled the details of the application form for ration card given by the complainant, Sh. Rajju (in the name of his wife Smt. Pushpa); that he has no personal knowledge about any incident involved in the present case and he had testified in this Court, as per record State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 11 of 51 only and that at the relevant time, the data entry operator was not competent to reject any application for ration card or to note any shortcoming or defects in the application.

20. During examination in chief, PW5 Sh. Rajju had inter­alia deposed that in the year 2013, he was residing in Delhi at House No.189, Kuan Mohalla, Tughlakabad, Delhi; that during the said year, on a day, whose date he does not remember, he had preferred an application for issuance of ration card in the name of his wife, Smt. Pushpa; that in the said application, he had mentioned his mobile number as 8800759222; that subsequently, on one day, he had received a call on his mobile no. 8800759222 from mobile no. 9211745929, in which the caller on the other side, had made inquires from him and asked him to come to the Ration Card Office, Phase­1, Okhla; that when he had asked the caller, whether any documents are to be brought by him to the Ration Card Office, the caller had said that not only documents are to be brought but also "kharcha pani" is to be brought; that the caller had used the words, "kharcha pani lete ana"; that when he had asked how much he should bring, the caller had said that he should bring Rs.1000­1500/­; that at that time, the recording feature of his phone was already 'On' and therefore, the call made by the caller had got recorded on his mobile phone; that he does not remember the exact date of the said call, but it was received by him in December 2013; that the caller had also asked him to come to the Ration Card Office on the next day in the morning, before start of office time; that during the call, the caller had not revealed his name; that on the next day, he had accordingly reached Ration Card Office at Okhla at 07:00 am and from there, he had called the mobile no. 9211745929 from his mobile no. 8800759222; that during the said call, the receiver of his call had asked him to wait and told that he would come; that during the said State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 12 of 51 call, the receiver of the call had revealed his name as Anand and also told that he (PW5 Sh. Rajju) can go inside the office, after office hours and ask about Anand; that thereafter, he had waited; that then, at about 09:00 am, after the staff had come to the office, he had entered the Ration Card Office and inquired about Anand; that after inquiring, he had reached the seat of Anand and found him sitting on a computer; that the said Anand is the accused present in the Court today; that when he had met the accused, the accused had taken him to a side corner of the office and shown him the ration card application form; that after showing the ration card application form, the accused had inquired from him whether the photo on the application form was of his wife and whether the name of his wife was Pushpa; that when he had replied in the affirmative, the accused had said that his aadhar card was of his native place address and therefore, the ration card cannot be made in Delhi; that when he had asked the accused, as to what he would have to do in order to get the ration card prepared, the accused had said that he will have to pay Rs.1000­1500/­ for preparation of ration card; that when he had folded his hands and pleaded with the accused that he was a poor person and he cannot pay that much and only in case the ration card is made, he can pay Rs. 400­500/­, the accused had said that the ration card cannot be made and the accused had drawn a stroke of line with the help of a pen on the ration card application form, suggesting that it had been canceled; that when he had asked the accused to at least return the ration card application form, so that he can again prefer the application for ration card with more documents, the accused had drawn some more strokes of lines on the ration card application form and said that his ration card will not be prepared and he should go away; that then, he had gone outside the Ration Card Office and started crying; that at that moment, a person standing outside the Ration Card Office had advised him to meet MP, Sh. Ramesh Bidhuri; that he had met the MP, Sh.

State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 13 of 51 Ramesh Bidhuri and made the MP, Sh. Ramesh Bidhuri hear the audio recording on his phone; that then, the MP, Sh. Ramesh Bidhuri had called Inspector Vijay of the Ration Card Office and apprised him about the matter; that upon being apprised, Inspector Vijay had requested the MP, Sh. Ramesh Bidhuri to send him to the office; that 2­3 days later, he had again gone to the Ration Card Office and met Inspector Vijay; that during the said meeting, Inspector Vijay had shown him an entry in the computer about the application for ration card and asked him to go away; that then he had gone away and made a telephonic complaint in the Office of the Chief Minister of Delhi about the demand made by the accused, Sh. Anand; that thereafter, one Inspector Pankaj Sharma had called him on his mobile phone and asked him to come to Anti Corruption Branch; that then, he had gone to the Office of ACB, on 28.01.2014 and submitted the complaint, Ex.P17/PW5; that the complaint, Ex.P17/PW5 was written by a panch witness in the Office of ACB, as per his dictation; that he does not remember the name of the said panch witness; that alongwith his complaint, he had given two audio CDs to the Inspector; that he had also given one SD card to the Inspector, containing the original recording of the first call made by the accused, Sh. Anand; that his mobile phone of the make Micromax was not taken by the police and only the SD card used in it, was taken by the police; that subsequently, he had lost the said mobile phone; that on 28.01.2014, no other proceeding was conducted at PS ACB; that after 2­3 days of 28.01.2014, he was again called to PS ACB; that on that day Inspector Pankaj Sharma had made him and the accused, Sh. Anand hear the audio conversation; that thereafter, he was made free and was told that if required, he would be called again; that subsequently, he was called and asked to come to Rohini for recording of his voice sample; that when he had gone to Rohini, his voice sample was recorded; that he does not remember the date or month of the day, when his voice sample was recorded but it State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 14 of 51 was done in the year 2015; that the seizure memo dated 10.07.2015, Ex.P18/PW5 bears his signatures at point A; that the said seizure memo was prepared in the presence of Inspector Pankaj Sharma; that subsequently, Inspector Goswami had called him for some signatures and that after he had signed the documents, he was made free. Upon being made to hear the audio file, "AUD_0691.AMR", in the DVD, Ex.MO­1/PW5 prepared by FSL, Rohini from the SD card, seized vide seizure memo dated 28.01.2014, Ex.P23/PW5, PW5 Sh. Rajju had identified it to be the audio recording made by him through his mobile phone and the transcript, Ex.P22/PW5 to be a correct version of the recorded conversation between him and the accused, Sh. Anand. Upon being shown the SD card, Ex.MO­2/PW5, PW5 Sh Rajju had correctly identified it to be his SD card, which was seized vide seizure memo dated 28.01.2014, Ex.P23/PW5. Upon being shown the cloth parcel, Ex.MO­3/PW5 found alongwith the SD card, Ex.MO2/PW5, PW5 Sh. Rajju had correctly identified his signatures on it. Upon being shown the Sony CD, Ex.MO­4/PW5 (previously marked as "CD­I" and "Ex­R­I"), PW5 Sh. Rajju had correctly identified the CD as one of the CDs, seized vide seizure memo dated 28.01.2014, Ex.P23/PW5. Upon being shown the cloth parcel, Ex.MO­4A/PW5 found alongwith the CD card, Ex.MO­4/PW5, PW5 Sh. Rajju had correctly identified his signatures on it. Upon being shown the audio cassette, Ex.MO­5/PW5, PW5 Sh. Rajju had correctly identified it to be the audio cassette in which his voice sample was recorded. Upon being shown the paper envelope, Ex.MO­5A/PW5 found alongwith audio cassette, Ex.MO­5/PW5, PW5 Sh. Rajju had correctly identified his signatures on it. Finally, upon being shown another Sony CD, Ex.MO­6/PW5 (previously marked as "CD­2"), PW5 Sh. Rajju had correctly identified the CD as one of the CDs, seized vide seizure memo dated 28.01.2014, Ex.P23/PW5.

State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 15 of 51

21. Since, PW5 Sh. Rajju had not supported the case of the State in entirety, he was permitted to be cross­examined by the Ld. PP for the State. During cross examination by the Ld. PP for the State, PW5 Sh. Rajju had inter­alia deposed that the seizure memo dated 28.01.2014, Ex.P23/PW5 bears his signatures at point A; that it is correct that on 28.01.2014, when he had handed over the memory card and CDs to Inspector Pankaj Sharma, in the presence of the panch witness, Sh. Purshottam Das, Inspector Pankaj Sharma had sealed the memory card in a Kangroo stapler pin box with the help of cloth etc. and then affixed the seal of 'PKS'; that it is correct that on that day, Inspector Pankaj Sharma had also sealed one of the two CDs, supplied by him in a parcel and affixed the seal of 'PKS'; that it is correct that on that day, the memory card was played to check whether it contains the audio recording but the CD was not played; that it is wrong to say that both the CDs were played, on 28.01.2014 and their contents were compared with the contents of the SD card;2 that it is correct that he had given the application for ration card in the name of his wife, on 14.09.2013; that it is correct that the accused had made the call on his mobile phone, about 1.5­2 months after submission of the application for ration card; that it is correct that he was taken to FSL, Rohini, on 10.07.2015 for recording of his voice sample and thereafter, he had signed the seizure memo dated 10.07.2015, Ex.P18/PW5; that he does not remember if HC Vinay Pal had also accompanied, on 10.07.2015; that one panch witness, Sh. Sandeep had accompanied, on 10.07.2015 but when his voice sample was recorded, Sh. Sandeep was not present in the room; that it is correct that Sh. Sandeep had also signed the seizure memo dated 10.07.2015, Ex.P18/PW5; that the certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Ex.P24A, 24B 2 At this stage, the Ld. PP for the State had confronted PW5 Sh. Rajju with the contents of the seizure memo dated 28.01.2014, Ex.P23/PW5.

State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 16 of 51 and 24C/PW5 bear his signatures at point A; that the photocopy of counter foil of the application form for ration card dated 14 th September and bearing no. 6839, Ex.P25/PW5, bears his signatures at point A and that he had lost the original of the said counter foil.

22. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, PW5 Sh. Rajju had inter­alia deposed that immediately after receiving the first call from the accused, Sh. Anand, he had not made any complaint to any authority, including the seniors of the accused, Sh. Anand; that he had not made any complaint on the day, when he had gone to the office of the accused, Sh. Anand and met him; that the MP, Sh. Ramesh Bidhuri had not advised him to give a complaint to ACB; that it is wrong to say that since no incident, as alleged by him had occurred, on phone or in person, he had not made any immediate complaint to any authority, including the seniors of the accused, Sh. Anand; that it is wrong to say that he had not mentioned the make of his mobile phone on the complaint, Ex.P17/PW5 because his mobile phone was incapable of recording a call and because in fact, he had not recorded any call; that after showing the entry of the application form for ration card in the name of his wife, Smt. Pushpa in the computer and asking him not to make a complaint, Inspector Vijay had asked other officials of the Ration Card Office to relieve him from the Ration Card Office because he had made a complaint against the accused to the MP, Sh. Ramesh Bidhuri; that it is wrong to say that there were deficiencies in the application for ration card made by him; that it is wrong to say that therefore, the ration card could not have been issued; that it is wrong to say that he had made a false complaint, in order to compel the Ration Card Office to issue the ration card, despite deficiencies; that it is wrong to say that the discrepancies in the application for ration card, were brought to his notice by the accused and therefore, State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 17 of 51 he had falsely implicated the accused, Sh. Anand; that it is wrong to say that he had not gone to the Ration Card Office on the next day at 7:00 am and therefore, the said time is not mentioned in the complaint, Ex.P17/PW5; that it is wrong to say that the accused had never called him to the Ration Card Office prior to office timings; that it is wrong to say that the accused had never called him on his mobile phone 3 or that the accused had never demanded any money from him, during a call; that his phone was stolen, while he was traveling in a bus, 3­4 months, before he had submitted the SD card; that he had not lodged any complaint about the theft of his phone; that it is wrong to say that since in his complaint, Ex.PW17/PW5, he had not specified the amount of Rs.1000­1500/­, the said sum was never demanded by the accused, particularly during the first call; that the complaint, Ex.PW17/PW5 was read over to him and explained, before he had signed it; that he was read over and explained the contents of all the documents, before he had signed them; that it is wrong to say that the words written at point (Mark X) of the complaint, Ex.PW17/PW5, were inserted after he had signed the said complaint; that it is wrong to say that the initial application for ration card was given in his name and not the name of his wife, Smt. Pushpa; that the certificate dated 12.04.2012, Mark X­1 was submitted by his friend, Sh. Prakash at the time of taking the mobile phone connection; that the police had not recorded his statement in this case; that police official had never obtained his signatures on any blank paper but once, a Ration Card Inspector had come and taken his signatures on a blank paper; that it is wrong to say that the police officials or the IOs of this case had taken his signatures on blank papers and converted them into the documents of this case; that it is wrong to say that he did not know the contents of any of the documents, on which, he has 3 This suggestion is contrary to the admission subsequently made by the accused, Sh. Anand in his statement under Section 313 of CrPC, 1973.

State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 18 of 51 identified his signatures in this Court; that it is wrong to say his signatures were obtained on the documents, only after registration of FIR of this case; that it is wrong to say that the accused had never demanded any bribe in any form from him or that he has given a false complaint; that so far as he recollects, Inspector Pankaj Sharma had asked him to prepare the copies of the recording in the CDs and then, he had prepared them; that Inspector Pankaj Sharma had asked him to prepare the copies on the day, when he had gone to give his complaint; that he had prepared the CDs after the day, he had given the complaint; that he does not remember exactly but it must have taken him 2­5 days (after the date of giving the complaint) to get the CDs prepared; that he had handed over the CDs to the police on the very day, on which they were prepared; that it is wrong to say that in the 2­5 days taken by him, the recording as well as the CDs were tampered with and then they were submitted to the IO; that it is wrong to say that the SD card or the CDs handed over by him to the police or even the copy of DVD prepared at FSL from the SD Card, does not contain the voice of the accused, Sh. Anand; that it is wrong to say that since, he did not know the accused from before, he could not have identified the voice of the accused in the copy of recording from the SD card; that it is wrong to say that the complaint dated 28.01.2014, Ex.P17/PW5 was not made on 28.01.2014 and it was subsequently ante dated by the police officials, on some other day; that it is correct that in the complaint, Ex.P17/PW5, the name of police official to whom he had handed over the CDs, is not mentioned and that it is wrong to say that he had deposed falsely against the accused.

23. During examination in chief, PW6 Sh. Sandeep Malik had inter­alia deposed that on 10.07.2015, he was working as a UDC in the Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies; that on that day, he was on panch witness duty at PS ACB;

State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 19 of 51 that on that day, one Inspector had introduced him to the complainant, Sh. Rajju and taken him as well as the complainant, Sh. Rajju to FSL, Rohini, Delhi, for recording of voice samples; that at FSL, Rohini, Delhi, voice sample of the complainant, Sh. Rajju as well as his voice sample was recorded; that thereafter, two audio cassettes were handed over by the FSL authority to the IO and the IO had sealed the two audio cassettes with his seal; that he does not remember the impression of the seal of the IO; that one audio cassette had the original voice sample of the complainant and the second audio cassette had the copy of voice sample of the complainant and that both the cassettes were taken into possession vide seizure memo dated 10.07.2015, Ex.P18/PW5, which bears his signatures at point B. Upon being shown the audio cassette, Ex.MO­5/PW5 (previously marked as "SVR­I" and "Exhibit­2"), PW6 Sh. Sandeep Malik had correctly identified his signatures on the said audio cassette. Also, upon being shown the paper envelope, Ex.MO­5A/PW5 found alongwith audio cassette, Ex.MO­5/PW5, PW6 Sh. Sandeep Malik had correctly identified his signatures on it.

24. Since, PW6 Sh. Sandeep Malik had not supported the case of the State in entirety, he was permitted to be cross­examined by the Ld. PP for the State. During cross examination by the Ld. PP for the State, PW6 Sh. Sandeep Malik had inter­alia deposed that it is correct that the seal impression affixed by the IO on the audio cassette was 'PKS' and the name of the IO was Inspector Pankaj Sharma and that it is correct that on that day, his voice sample was not recorded and only the voice sample of the complainant was recorded.

25. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, PW6 Sh. Sandeep Malik had inter­alia deposed that on that day, Inspector Pankaj State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 20 of 51 Sharma had introduced him to the complainant at about 11:00 am; that due to passage of time, he does not remember exactly but on that day, he and the others had reached FSL, Rohini at about 11:45 am; that he does not remember the number of the floor of the building of FSL, where he and the others had gone; that he does not remember the name of the department in FSL, where the voice sample was recorded; that he had stayed at FSL, Rohini for about one and a half hours; that he does not remember the name or the post of the FSL official, whom he and the others had met on that day; that he does not remember the exact time, when he and the others had finally left FSL, Rohini; that it is wrong to say that he had signed the seizure memo etc., without actually being a witness to the seizure etc., at the instance of the IO; that it is wrong to say that he had not actually witnessed any incident of obtaining of voice sample of the complainant; that it is wrong to say that he had not visited the FSL, Rohini; that it is wrong to say that he was not a panch witness on that day and that it is wrong to say that he had deposed falsely.

26. During examination in chief, PW7 SI Sanjay Yadav had inter­alia deposed that on 30.01.2018, he was posted as ASI at PS ACB; that on that day, on the directions of the IO of this case, he had gone to FSL, Rohini, Delhi and collected the FSL result along with the exhibits; that then, he had handed over the FSL result to the IO Inspector, Yashpal and deposited the exhibits in the Malkhana at PS Civil Lines and that till the time the case property had remained in his possession, it had remained safe.

27. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, PW7 SI Sanjay Yadav had inter­alia deposed that the case property brought by him from FSL, Rohini was duly sealed; that he does not remember the impression of the seal;

State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 21 of 51 that after depositing the case property in the malkhana, he had signed the register no.19; that it is wrong to say that he had not signed the register no.19; that it is correct that the entry at serial no.973 of the register no.19, Ex.P7/PW2(OSR) does not bears his signatures anywhere;4 that the FSL result brought by him was also duly sealed; that he does not remember the impression of the seal; that his statement was not recorded by Inspector Yashpal, on 30.01.2018; that his statement was recorded by Inspector Sanjay Goswami, on 16.09.2019; that it is wrong to say that since, he had not brought any case property, on 30.01.2018, his statement under Section 161 of CrPC, 1973 was not recorded, on 30.01.2018 and that it is wrong to say that he had deposed falsely.

28. During examination in chief, PW8 HC Sumit Kumar had inter­alia deposed that on 28.09.2017, he was posted as Constable at PS ACB; that on that day, on the directions of the IO, Inspector K. C. Kaushik, he had collected the exhibits of this case from the Malkhana at PS Civil Lines and taken them to FSL, Rohini, Delhi vide Road Certificate No.129/21/17, Ex.P26/PW8(OSR); that after depositing the exhibits of this case/case property in the FSL, Rohini, he had obtained an acknowledgment receipt, Ex.P26A/PW8(OSR) from FSL, Rohini and handed it over in the Malkhana at PS Civil Lines; that the RC No.129/21/17, Ex.P26/PW8(OSR) bears his signatures at point A and that till the time, the case property had remained in his possession, it had remained safe. During cross­ examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, PW8 HC Sumit Kumar had inter­ alia deposed that Inspector K. C. Kaushik had personally asked him to go and deposit the case property in the FSL, Rohini; that Inspector K. C. Kaushik had given 4 The endorsement dated 30.01.2018 in the register no.19, proved by PW11 ASI Satish Kumar as Ex.P39/PW11(OSR), bears the signatures of PW7 SI Sanjay Yadav.

State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 22 of 51 him an authority letter; that he does not remember at what time Inspector K. C. Kaushik had handed him over the said authority letter; that he had lodged DD entry in PS ACB, when he had left for PS Civil Lines; that he does not remember the number of the DD entry; that he had reached PS Civil Lines at about 10:30 am; that no separate DD entry was lodged by him in PS Civil Lines; that the Malkhana Moharrar had obtained his signatures on register no.19, when he had handed over the case property; that it is correct that entry at serial no.973 of the register no.19, Ex.P7/PW2(OSR) does not bears his signatures anywhere;5 that he had reached FSL, Rohini at about 12:00 pm; that he had returned to PS Civil Lines Malkhana along with the acknowledgment receipt at about 04:00 pm and that it is wrong to say that he had not taken the case property or that he had deposed falsely at the instance of IO.

29. During examination in chief, PW9 Dr. C. P. Singh had inter­alia deposed that in June, 2014, he was working as Assistant Director (Physics), FSL, Rohini, Delhi; that in the said month, he had examined the contents of two sealed parcels and prepared his report dated 20.06.2014, Ex.P27/PW9; that the first parcel opened by him in June, 2014 was sealed with the seal of 'PKS'; that upon opening the said first parcel, he had found it to contain one CD, having the file "AUD_0691.AMR"; that the second parcel opened by him in June, 2014 was also sealed with the seal of 'PKS'; that that upon opening the said second parcel, he had found it to contain one memory card, having the file "AUD_0691.AMR" in a folder, "Received"; that after conducting the auditory analysis, subsequent wave form analysis and spectographic analysis of the audio files contained in the CD and the 5 The endorsement dated 28.09.2017 in the register no.19, proved by PW11 ASI Satish Kumar as Ex.P38/PW11(OSR), is relevant qua PW8 HC Sumit Kumar.

State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 23 of 51 memory card, he had concluded that there was no indication of any form of alteration in either of the audio files and then he had prepared his report, Ex.P27/PW9 and that after examination, he had sealed the case property with his seal of "Dr.C.P.SINGH­FSL­DELHI" and forwarded it to the investigating agency, along with his report, Ex.P27/PW9.

30. Further, during examination in chief, PW9 Dr. C.P. Singh had inter­alia deposed that in November, 2017 also, he was working in FSL, Rohini; that few days prior to 13.11.2017, he had examined the contents of four sealed parcels; that the first parcel opened by him in November 2017 was sealed with the seal of 'PKS'; that upon opening the said first parcel, he had found it to contain one audio cassette, which had the voice sample of Sh. Anand Kumar; that he had marked the speaker in said audio cassette as "Exhibit­S1"; that the second parcel opened by him was also sealed with the seal of 'PKS'; that upon opening the said second parcel, he had found it to contain one audio cassette, which had the voice sample of Sh. Rajju; that he had marked the speaker in the said audio cassette as "Exhibit­S2"; that the third parcel opened by him in November, 2017 was sealed with his own seal; that upon opening the said third parcel, he had found it to contain one micro SD card, already marked as "Exhibit­R2"; that the said micro SD card had an audio file, "AUD_0691.AMR"; that the fourth parcel opened by him in November, 2017 was also sealed with his own seal; that upon opening the said fourth parcel, he had found it to contain a CD, already marked as "Exhibit­R1"; that the said CD had an audio file, "AUD_0691.AMR"; that in the said audio file, the speaker who started the conversation with "........ wife ka naam kya......" was marked as Exhibit Q1 and the speaker who spoke "haan boliye sir....." was marked as Exhibit Q2; that after conducting the auditory analysis and subsequent acoustic analysis by use of State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 24 of 51 Computerized Speech Lab, he had found that the questioned voice, Exhibit Q1 matched with the specimen voice, Exhibit S1 of Sh. Anand Kumar and the questioned voice, Exhibit Q2 matched with the specimen voice, Exhibit S2 of Sh. Rajju; that then he had prepared his report dated 13.11.2017, Ex.P28/PW9 and that after examination, he had sealed the case property with his seal of "Dr.C.P.SINGH­ FSL­DELHI" and forwarded it to the investigating agency, along with his report, Ex.P28/PW9.

31. Further, during examination in chief, PW9 Dr. C.P. Singh had inter­alia deposed that in April, 2022 also, he was working in FSL, Rohini as Assistant Director (Physics), FSL; that in April, 2022 he had received four sealed parcels, sealed with his seal of "Dr.C.P.SINGH­FSL­DELHI"; that upon opening, the first and second parcel were found to be containing one audio cassette each of the make, 'T Series'; that upon opening, the third parcel was found to be containing a micro SD card; that upon opening, the fourth parcel was found to be containing a CD; that he had prepared three copies of each of the four case properties, as mentioned in his report dated 04.04.2022, Ex.P29/PW9 and that after making the copies, he had sealed the case properties with his seal of "Dr.C.P.SINGH­FSL­DELHI" and sent them to the investigating officer alongwith his report, Ex.P29/PW9.

32. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, PW9 Dr. C. P. Singh had inter­alia deposed that he had not received any certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 along with Exhibit R1 (CD of the make, Sony) mentioned in his report dated 20.06.2014, Ex.P27/PW9; that he had generated hash value of the CD as well as the memory card, examined by him before preparing the report, Ex.P27/PW9; that he had not mentioned the said hash State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 25 of 51 values in his report, Ex.P27/PW9; that he does not know the full form of ".AMR" type of audio file; that before examining the two audio files, he had copied them from the CD and the memory card to a computer system; that he had examined the files copied/stored on the computer system; that the file format of both the audio files was changed to ".WAV" form of audio file from ".AMR" form of audio file; that the factum of copying of the audio files on the computer system and the change of the format of the audio files is not mentioned in his report, Ex.P27/PW9; that it is wrong to say that since no examination was done by him, the said facts were not mentioned in his report, Ex.P27/PW9; that for the purposes of examining the sample voices with the questioned voices, as mentioned in his report, Ex.P28/PW9, the audio files were copied from the media received by him on the computer and the file type was converted from ".AMR" to ".WAV"; that thereafter, on the computer, the file type was converted from ".WAV" to ".NSP"; that after the said conversion, the files were examined; that the said facts are not mentioned in his report, Ex.P28/PW9; that it is wrong to say that the said facts are not mentioned in his report, Ex.P28//PW9 because no such exercise was done by him; that before he had examined the sample voices with the questioned voices, he must have received the transcripts of the questioned audio recording from the investigating agency in this case, because in cases like this case, the FSL, Rohini, usually receives the transcripts; that it is correct that in the transcripts received in the lab, the name of the speaker is mentioned by the investigating agency; that he does not remember and therefore cannot comment, whether the sample voices contained the same sentences and words as contained in the questioned audio recording or whether the specimen voice sample giver was asked to speak some passage other than the sentences contained in the questioned audio recording; that it is wrong to say that he had not conducted any voice comparison; that it is wrong to say that he had given the State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 26 of 51 reports as per the desire of the investigating agency and that it is wrong to say that he had deposed falsely.

33. During examination in chief, PW10 Sh. Rajeev Ranjan had inter­alia deposed that in the year 2015, he was working as Nodal Officer in Tata Tele Services and that in response to a letter received from the investigating agency, he had supplied to the investigating agency, vide his letter dated 13.04.2015, Ex.P30/PW10, (a) certified copy of Customer Application Form, Ex.P31/PW10 of mobile no. 9211745929, belonging to Sh. Anand Kumar, s/o Bishan Lal, r/o House no. 49, Block E­2, Madan Gir, Phase­2, New Delhi, (b) copy of election card of Sh. Anand Kumar, Ex.P32/PW10, given to Tata Tel Services at the time of taking of the connection, (c) call data records of the mobile no. 9211745929 for the period, 01.1.2013 to 30.01.2014, Ex.P33/PW10 and (d) certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Ex.P34/PW10. Also, PW10 Sh. Rajeev Ranjan had inter­ alia deposed that Tata Tele Services was unable to provide to the investigating agency, the call data records of mobile no. 9211745929 for the period, 01.09.2013 to 30.09.2013 because they were sought by the investigating agency, after expiry of the retention period i.e. 18 months.

34. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, PW10 Sh. Rajeev Ranjan had inter­alia deposed that it is wrong to say that the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Ex.P34/PW10, does not meet the requirements of sub­section 2 & 4 of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; that it is wrong to say that he was not competent to issue the said certificate or supply the call data records and that it is wrong to say that he had deposed falsely.

State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 27 of 51

35. During examination in chief, PW11 ASI Satish Kumar had inter­alia deposed that on 28.01.2014, he was posted as Malkhana Moharrar at PS Civil Lines; that the entry at serial no. 27/890 of the register no. 19, Ex.P35/PW11(OSR) and his signatures at point X on the seizure memo dated 28.01.2014, Ex.P23/PW5, reflect that on 28.01.2014, Inspector Pankaj Sharma had deposited the case property mentioned in the seizure memo dated 28.01.2014 in the Malkhana of PS Civil Lines; that the endorsement in register no. 21, Ex.P35A/PW11(OSR), the road certificate no. 29/21/14, Ex.P35B/PW11(OSR) and FSL acknowledgement receipt, Ex.P35C/PW11(OSR), reflect that the case property of this case was sent to FSL, Rohini through Ct. Sanjay Yadav, on 30.01.2014; that the case property of this case had also moved vide endorsement dated 28.11.2014 in register no. 19, Ex.P36/PW11(OSR) made by HC Karamvir; that the case property of this case had also moved vide endorsement dated 25.03.2022 in register no. 19, Ex.P37/PW11(OSR) and vide endorsement dated 12.04.2022 in register no. 19, Ex.P37A/PW11(OSR) made by HC Jag Parvesh; that the case property of this case had also moved vide endorsement dated 28.09.2017 in register no. 19, Ex.P38/PW11(OSR) made by HC Vinay Singh and that the case property of this case had also moved vide endorsement dated 30.01.2018 in register no. 19, Ex.P39/PW11(OSR) made by HC Jitender. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, PW11 ASI Satish Kumar had inter­alia deposed that the entry at serial no. 27/890 of the register no. 19, Ex.P35/PW11(OSR) is a reproduction of the seizure memo dated 28.01.2014, Ex.P23/PW5; that it is wrong to say that the said entry was ante dated and anti time at the instance of the IO; that it is wrong to say that no case property was received in the Malkhana of PS Civil Lines on the date and time mentioned in entry at serial no. 27/890 of the register no. 19, State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 28 of 51 Ex.P35/PW11(OSR); that it is wrong to say that the case property was tampered with, while it was in the Malkhana of PS Civil Lines; that it is wrong to say that all the other endorsements/entries are also ante dated and ante timed and it is wrong to say that he had deposed falsely at the instance of IO.

36. During examination in chief, PW12 Retired Inspector K. C. Kaushik had inter­alia deposed that in 2016­17, he was working as an Inspector at ACB; that he had received further investigation of this case from the earlier IO, Inspector Pankaj Sharma, through SO Branch; that during the investigation of this case, he had issued notices to the complainant, the accused, the Food & Supply Inspector, Sh. Vijay Kumar and to the concerned official in the FSO Office; that during the investigation of this case, he had received communication dated 12.10.2017, Ex.P9/PW3 alongwith its annexures from Sh. M. M. Chandra; that during the investigation of this case, he had sent the voice samples of the accused and the complainant to FSL, Rohini for examination/voice comparison, through Ct. Sumit Kumar; that during the investigation of this case, he had sent communications/reminders to the concerned telecom service providers but not received any response and that during the investigation of this case, he had interrogated the accused and recorded statements under Section 161 of CrPC, 1973 of the concerned witnesses.

37. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, PW12 Retired Inspector K. C. Kaushik had inter­alia deposed that he does not remember the exact date or month, when he had received the further investigation of this case; that the delay in sending the case property of this case to FSL, Rohini had occured because he was handling various other investigations as well as inquiries and it had State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 29 of 51 taken him time to go through the records of this case; that he had not separately recorded this reason, for the delay in the investigation of this case; that in September/October, 2017, the complainant had joined the investigation of this case; that it is wrong to suggest that he had not conducted a fair investigation and that it is wrong to say that he had deposed falsely.

38. During examination in chief, PW13 Retired Inspector Pankaj Sharma had inter­alia deposed that on 28.01.2014, he was working as an Inspector at PS ACB; that on that day, the complainant, Sh. Rajju had come to PS ACB and submitted the complaint, Ex.P17/PW5; that alongwith the complaint, the complainant had given one original memory card and two CDs, containing audio recording of the complainant and the bribe seeker;6 that in the complaint, Ex.PW17/PW5, there were allegations made by the complainant regarding demand of bribe; that the complaint, Ex.PW17/PW5 contained the signatures of the complainant at points A1 to A3 and was countersigned by the panch witness, Sh. Purshottam Dass at point C1 to C3; that the inquiry qua the complaint, Ex.PW17/PW5 was marked to him; that the complainant had also brought with him already prepared transcripts but they were not signed; that one of the two CDs brought by the complainant was played on the computer system of PS ACB; that he, the complainant and the panch witness, Sh. Purshottam Dass had matched the contents of the transcripts with the audio file and found them to be same; that thereafter, he, the complainant and the panch witness, Sh. Purshottam Dass had signed the transcripts; that the complainant had also brought with him, the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; that both the CDs brought by the complainant were signed by the complainant, the 6 This statement of PW13 Retired Inspector Pankaj Sharma is contrary to the version of the complainant, PW5 Sh. Rajju that he had got the two CDs prepared 2­5 days after giving the complaint, Ex.PW17/PW5.

State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 30 of 51 panch witness, Sh. Purshottam Dass and him; that one of the two CDs as well as the memory card, were converted into separate parcels; that he does not remember as to what marks were given to the separate parcels containing the memory card and the CD; that the two parcels were sealed with his seal of PKS; that a sample seal was also prepared on a plain paper and was signed by him, the complainant and the panch witness, Sh. Purshottam Dass; that the sealed parcels were taken into possession vide the seizure memo, Ex.P23/PW5; that he, the complainant and the panch witness, Sh. Purshottam Dass had signed the two parcels; that the second CD was kept in open condition, for investigation purposes; that the transcript which was brought by the complainant and subsequently signed by him, the complainant and the panch witness, Sh. Purshottam Dass, is Ex.P22/PW5; that the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which the complainant had brought on 28.01.2014, is Ex.P24A/PW5; that on 28.01.2014, he had deposited the case property in the Malkhana of PS Civil Lines because at that time PS ACB did not have a separate Malkhana; that on 29.01.2014, the sealed memory card and the CD were sent to the FSL, Rohini through Ct. Sanjay Yadav; 7 that the FSL report dated 20.06.2014, Ex.P27/PW9 had confirmed that there was no tampering or manipulation with the contents of the memory card and CD and that thereafter, he had prepared the rukka, Ex.P40/PW13 on 06.04.2015 and got the FIR, Ex.P1/PW1 registered at PS ACB.

39. Further, during examination in chief, PW13 Retired Inspector Pankaj Sharma had inter­alia deposed that on 11.05.2015, the accused, Sh. Anand had 7 As per the endorsement in register no. 21, Ex.P35A/PW11(OSR), the road certificate no. 29/21/14, Ex.P35B/PW11(OSR) and FSL acknowledgement receipt, Ex.P35C/PW11(OSR), the memory card and the CD were sent to FSL, Rohini through Ct. Sanjay Yadav, on 30.01.2014 and not on 29.01.2014.

State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 31 of 51 joined the investigation of this case and given his consent for recording of his voice sample vide consent memo, Ex.P41/PW13; that thereafter, on 14.05.2015, the accused, Sh. Anand and one panch witness, whose name he does not remember, were taken to FSL, Rohini; that on that day, the voice sample of the accused, Sh. Anand was recorded by the concerned FSL official, in a cassette which was marked SVAK­I; that a copy of the said audio cassette was also prepared by the FSL official, which was marked SVAK­II; that he had converted both the audio cassettes into two separate parcels and sealed them with the seal of PKS; that thereafter, he had seized them vide the seizure memo, Ex.P8/PW2; that his sample seal was prepared in regard to the sealing of the said audio cassettes; that before sealing, the said audio cassettes were signed by him, the accused, Sh. Anand and the panch witness and that on that day itself, he had deposited the audio cassettes in the Malkhana.

40. Further, during examination in chief, PW13 Retired Inspector Pankaj Sharma had inter­alia deposed that on 10.07.2015, the complainant and one panch witness, whose name he does not remember were taken to FSL, Rohini; that on that day, the voice sample of the complainant was recorded by the concerned FSL official, in a cassette which was marked as SVR­I; that a copy of the said audio cassette was also prepared by the FSL official, which was marked SVR­II; that he, the complainant and the panch witness had signed the audio cassettes; that thereafter, he had converted both the audio cassettes into two separate parcels, sealed them with the seal of PKS and subsequently seized them vide seizure memo, Ex.P18/PW5; that his sample seal was prepared in regard to the sealing of the said audio cassettes and that on that day itself, he had deposited the audio cassettes in the Malkhana.

State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 32 of 51

41. Upon being shown, (a) the micro SD card, Ex.MO­2/PW5, (b) cloth parcel, Ex.MO­3/PW5, (c) CD, Ex.MO­4/PW5, (d) cloth parcel, Ex.MO­4A/PW5, (e) CD of the make 'Sony', Ex.MO­6/PW5, (f) audio cassette, Ex.MO­5/PW5, (g) paper envelope, Ex.MO­5A/PW5, (h) audio cassette in sealed paper envelope (marked as Exhibit SVR­II), Ex.MO­7/PW13, (i) audio cassette, Ex.MO­8/PW13, (j) paper envelope, Ex.MO­8A/PW13 and (k) audio cassette in sealed paper envelope (marked as Exhibit SVAK­II), Ex.MO­9/PW13, PW13 Retired Inspector Pankaj Sharma had correctly identified them and his signatures on some of them.

42. Since, PW13 Retired Inspector Pankaj Sharma had not supported the case of the State on some aspects, the Ld. PP for the State was permitted to put some leading questions to him. During the said exercise, PW13 Retired Inspector Pankaj Sharma had inter­alia deposed that it is correct that the CD and the memory card which were sealed by him, on 28.01.2014 vide the seizure memo, Ex.P23/PW5 were given the mark, "Exhibit­R1" and "Exhibit­R2", respectively; that it is correct that the panch witness who had accompanied him and the accused, Sh. Anand to FSL, Rohini, on 14.05.2015 was Sh. Vikas Kumar; that it is correct that on 14.05.2015, when the voice sample of the accused, Sh. Anand was recorded, he had carried along with him, the transcript, Ex.P42/PW13; that it is correct that the name of panch witness who had accompanied him and the complainant to FSL, Rohini, on 10.07.2015 was Sh. Sandip Malik and that the accused, Sh. Anand present in the Court, on 18.05.2023 was the accused, Sh. Anand, who had joined investigation on being called and whose voice sample was recorded during the investigation of this case.

43. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, PW13 State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 33 of 51 Retired Inspector Pankaj Sharma had inter­alia deposed that the complainant was an illiterate person; that in his presence and the presence of the panch witness, the complaint, Ex.P17/PW5 was written by Ct. Sanjay Yadav as per the dictation of the complainant; that he is not sure about the name of Constable; that he had not obtained the signatures of the Constable on the complaint, Ex.P17/PW5 as acknowledgement of the fact that the said complaint was written by the Constable; that it is wrong to say that the complaint, Ex.P17/PW5 was not noted down at the instance of the complainant; that it is wrong to say that the complaint, Ex.P17/PW5 was noted down by the Constable at his behest; that the signatures at point A3 of page 3 of the complaint, Ex.P17/PW5 are of the complainant; that the name written in Hindi, below it, was written by the Constable, who had scribed the complaint, Ex.P17/PW5; that he had not asked the complainant about the place from where he had got the transcript, Ex.P22/PW5 prepared; that he is not sure whether the transcript, Ex.P22/PW5 was brought by the complainant or it was typed at PS ACB, when the audio conversation was heard; that the complainant had brought only one set of transcript with him; that he is not sure whether the transcript, Ex.P22/PW5 is the transcript which was brought by the complainant; that the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which was brought by the complainant, on 28.01.2014 was not taken on the investigation file by him; that the said certificate was got typed on the computer of PS ACB, then its print out was taken and then it was got signed from the complainant; that the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872, Ex.P24A/PW5 is the certificate, which he had got signed from the complainant, after preparation at PS ACB; that the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872, Ex.P24A/PW5 has the FIR number, Sections and PS ACB etc. written between points, Mark X to X and that it is correct that the said certificate does not bear any date.

State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 34 of 51

44. At this stage of his cross examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, PW13 Retired Inspector Pankaj Sharma had sought permission to see the judicial file and identify the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 taken by him from the complainant, on 28.01.2014. Upon seeing the judicial file, PW13 Retired Inspector Pankaj Sharma had deposed as follows:

"It seems that I did not take any certificate U/s 65B of the Evidence Act from the complainant on 28.01.2014. I do not remember as to on which date I took Ex.P24A. Vol. It was taken after registration of FIR. I do not remember whether I recorded any supplementary statement of the complainant about taking Ex.P24A. I was not IO on 16.09.2019 and therefore I cannot comment anything about Ex.P24B & Ex.P24C. it is wrong to say that till the time I was IO of this case, no certificate U/s 65B of the Evidence Act was on record or that therefore Ex.P24B & 24C dated 16.09.2019 were taken on record by the subsequent IO. Vol. I had taken Ex.P24A from the complainant myself after registration of the FIR. I had read over translated version of Ex.P24A to the complainant before he signed the same and the contents of it was explained to the complainant in Hindi. it is wrong to say that Ex.P24A does not meet the necessary requirements of Sec. 65B of the Evidence Act. Ex.P24A was typed on my dictation and then it was signed by the complainant. The complainant did not dictate Ex.P24A. I did not get countersigned Ex.P24A from the computer operator who State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 35 of 51 typed it and I did not note down his name. His statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C was also not recorded."

45. Further, during cross examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, PW13 Retired Inspector Pankaj Sharma had inter­alia deposed that he had asked the complainant to produce copy of FIR or non­cognizable report regarding loss of his mobile phone as claimed by him but the complainant had told him that he had not got any such report lodged; that he had not asked regarding the bill of the mobile phone of the complainant; that the complainant had told him that the complainant had spoken to the accused, through his mobile phone on three occasions, inclusive of the conversation reflected in the transcript, Ex.P22/PW5; that when he had asked the complainant about the audio recordings of the other two occasions/conversations, the complainant had told him that in the other two calls, the accused had not demanded any money and therefore, he had not supplied the other two audio recordings; that the complainant had otherwise recorded on his mobile phone, all the three conversations; that he had not asked the complainant to provide him the other two recordings, even if they did not have any demand of bribe; that it is wrong to say that the other two recordings were deliberately not collected because they would have proved the innocence of the accused; that he does not remember the time when the complainant had come to PS ACB, on 28.01.2014; that on that day, the complainant had remained at PS ACB for about 2­3 hours; that the FIR of this case was not got recorded immediately, after receipt of FSL report dated 20.06.2014, Ex.P27/PW9 because he had other investigations pending with him and time was consumed in taking approval from senior officers; that during the collection of the voice samples of the complainant and the accused at FSL, Rohini, the complainant and accused were asked to repeat and speak the portions attributed State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 36 of 51 respectively to them, from the questioned audio recording, as contained in the transcript and the transcript was supplied to the FSL official, in order to enable him to record voice samples; that during the said process, the voice sample of no other person was mixed or recorded; that during the said process, no separate paragraph was drafted/prepared by picking few crucial words from the questioned audio recording, so that the accused and the complainant, do not have to speak the exact words attributed to them in the questioned audio recording; that on 28.01.2014, the complainant was directed/sent to him by ACP of PS ACB; that the complainant had told him that he got the two CDs prepared from some cyber cafe; that he had not tried to find out the name and address of the cyber cafe from the complainant; that he had not taken any certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 from the person of the cyber cafe, in support of the two CDs brought by the complainant; that till the investigation of this case had remained with him, he had not collected the application for ration card, submitted by the complainant; that he had not made any inquiries from the wife of the complainant; that the panch witness, Sh. Purshottam Dass was already in the Office of ACB, on 28.01.2014, when the complainant had come to ACB; that it is wrong to say that in connivance with the complainant a false complaint was drafted; that it is wrong to say that the audio recording was manipulated; that it is wrong to say that then a false FIR was registered; that it is wrong to say that accused has been deliberately implicated in this case; that it is wrong to say that the complainant's wife was not eligible to get any ration card from Delhi FSO office for the reason that she had residence proof of some other State and not of Delhi; that it is wrong to say that no voice sample of the accused or the complainant was obtained; that it is wrong to say that the voice samples of the complainant and the accused were fabricated; that it is wrong to say that the audio file contained in the memory card and the CD, does not contain voice State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 37 of 51 of the accused, Sh. Anand; that it is wrong to say that he had not done a fair investigation and that it is wrong to say that he had deposed falsely.

46. During examination in chief, PW14 Inspector Yashpal Singh had inter­ alia deposed that in 2016, he was posted as an Inspector at PS ACB; that after taking over the investigation of this case, he had sent communications/notices, Ex.P43/PW14 and Ex.P44/PW14 to the service providers of the mobile phones of the accused and the complainant and that as far as he remembers, some communication was received back from the service providers, but he does not remember the date of said communication or the name of the sender of the communication. Nothing material was elicited by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, during the cross­examination of PW14, Inspector Yashpal Singh.

47. During examination in chief, PW15 Retd. Inspector Sanjay Goswami had inter­alia deposed that on 20.11.2018, he was posted as an Inspector at PS ACB; that after taking over of the investigation of this case, he had received the communications/letters dated 16.07.2019, 06.08.2019 and 08.01.2020, Ex.P13/PW4, Ex.P14/PW4 and Ex.P16/PW4 respectively, from the Office of Food and Supply; that thereafter, he had called the complainant and taken from the complainant, two certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Ex.P24B/PW5 and Ex.P24C/PW5; that while taking the said certificates, he had not prepared a separate memo and that after conclusion of investigation, he had filed the charge­sheet in this Court. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, PW15 Retd. Inspector Sanjay Goswami had inter­alia deposed that he had recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant under Section 161 of CrPC, 1973, on 16.09.2019, when he obtained the certificates, Ex.P24B/PW5 and State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 38 of 51 Ex.P24C/PW5; that the complainant had himself brought the two certificates, Ex.P24B/PW5 and Ex.P24C/PW5 and it was not the case, that he had got the certificates typed and printed at ACB; that in his presence, the complainant had signed the certificates, Ex.P24B/PW5 and Ex.P24C/PW5 at point A; that the dates mentioned in the said certificates were written by the complainant in his own handwriting and not by him; that both the said certificates are identical; that he had taken both the said certificates because the complainant had brought them and if he would have returned one of them, it would have caused doubt in the mind of the complainant; that he has no idea, if the said two certificates, meet or do not meet any of the conditions laid down in sub­section 2 & 4 of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; that it is correct that the complainant was an illiterate person; that it is wrong to say that the certificates, Ex.P24B/PW5 and Ex.P24C/PW5 were not prepared by the complainant as he was an illiterate person; that it is wrong to say that the signatures of the complainant were obtained on the said certificates after they were prepared by him (PW15 Inspector Sanjay Goswami); that it is wrong to say that the contents of the said certificates were not understood by the complainant; that he had explained the requirement of certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 to the complainant and only thereafter, the complainant had got the certificates, Ex.P24B/PW5 and Ex.P24C/PW5 prepared; that the person from whom, the complainant had got the certificates, Ex.P24B/PW5 and Ex.P24C/PW5 prepared has not been cited as a witness of the State; that it is wrong to say that he had not done a fair investigation; that it is wrong to say that false statements were recorded and false documents were prepared to implicate the accused in this case and that it is wrong to say that he had deposed falsely.

48. During examination in chief, PW16 Sh. Rajiv Vashisht had inter­alia State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 39 of 51 deposed that he is working as Nodal Officer in Bharti Airtel Limited; that the documents, Ex.P45/PW16 (Colly) bear the stamp of his company and the signatures of Sh. Surender Kumar, who he had seen writing and signing during the course of his official duties; that the customer application form of mobile no. 8800759222 brought by him, is Ex.P45A/PW16 (Colly); that the call data records of the mobile no. 8800759222 were not supplied to the investigating agency because they were sought after the prescribed period of preservation and that in this regard he has brought letter dated 24.05.2022, Ex.P46/PW16. During cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused, PW16 Sh. Rajiv Vashisht had inter­alia deposed that he has no personal knowledge about the customer application form of mobile no. 8800759222; that he has no personal knowledge about the facts of this case; that it is wrong to say that he has deliberately not brought the permanent address of Sh. Surender, despite the fact that Bharti Airtel Ltd. notes the permanent address of every employee, at the time of joining and that it is wrong to say that he had deposed falsely.

49. The record of the Court file reflects that after examining the aforesaid witnesses of the State, the evidence of the State was closed and the case was adjourned for recording of statement of the accused under Section 313 of CrPC, 1973.

Statement of Accused under Section 313 of CrPC, 1973

50. In the statement under Section 313 of CrPC, 1973, the accused, Sh. Anand had admitted (a) that on 23.12.2013, he was using mobile no. 9211745929;

State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 40 of 51

(b) that on 23.12.2013, he may have called the complainant, in order to inform him about incomplete documents etc.; 8 (c) that it is possible that the complainant had called him, on 24.12.2013 as a follow up to the calls of the previous day; (d) that the voice sample consent memo, Ex.P41/PW13 bears his signatures at point B; (e) that he had given his voice sample at the request of the IO; (f) that the seizure memo, Ex.P8/PW2 pertaining to the audio cassettes, SVAK­I and SVAK­II, bears his signatures at point B and (g) that in December, 2013, he was working in FSO, Circle­52 (Tuglakabad). Further, the accused, Sh. Anand had denied (a) that he had made any demand of "kharcha pani" from the complainant; (b) that the complainant had recorded the telephonic conversation dated 23.12.2013; (c) that his voice can be heard in the telephonic conversation found in the SD card, Ex.MO2/PW5; (d) that he had met the complainant face to face, on 24.12.2013 and (e) that the report of PW9 Dr. C.P. Singh dated 13.11.2017, Ex.P28/PW9 is correct. Further, the accused, Sh. Anand had specified (a) that the face to face conversation dated 24.12.2013, as alleged by the complainant could not have happened because he did not have the authority to approve grant of ration card to any person and his job was only to enter the data in the computer as he was working as Data Entry Operator; (b) that the letter dated 30.01.2014 of Sh. Vijay Kumar, part of Ex.P11/PW3 is not true and (c) that the audio file, "AUD_0691.AMR" does not have his voice. Lastly, upon being left free to say anything, the accused, Sh. Anand had stated that it is possible that he has been made a victim of a conspiracy hatched by MP, Sh. Ramesh Bidhuri, from whose office, a lot of people used to come for preparation of ration card, with incomplete applications and whose applications were rejected at the office of FSO. Further, the accused, Sh. Anand had stated that the application form for grant of 8 This statement of the accused, Sh. Anand, is contrary to the suggestion given to PW4 Retd. Sh. Suresh Chandra that a data entry operator was not competent to note any shortcomings or defects in the application.

State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 41 of 51 ration card was first processed by the Inspector; that thereafter, it used to come to the Data Entry Operator like him, for feeding of data; 9 that upon feeding of the data, the application form used to go back to the Inspector for approval; that after approval, the application form used to go to the FSO; that after approval by the FSO, the application form used to go to AC Office and after approval from the said office, the applicant used to get the ration card; that in such state of affairs, he had absolutely no business to approve or reject any application for ration card and that apart from him, there were other Data Entry Operators in FSO, Circle­52 (Tuglakbad).

Defence Evidence led by the accused, Sh. Anand

51. The accused, Sh. Anand had chosen not to lead any evidence in his defence.

Final Arguments

52. The final arguments in this case were heard, on 17.11.2023. During the hearing of final arguments, the Ld. Additional PP for the State had submitted that the accused, Sh. Anand should be convicted under Section 8 of the PC Act, 1988 in this case because there is remarkable consistency in the complaint, Ex.PW17/PW5 of the complainant, Sh. Rajju and the testimony of the complainant, PW5 Sh. Rajju in this Court; because the version of the complainant, Sh. Rajju that he had spoken with the accused, Sh. Anand, on 23.12.2013 and 24.12.2013, has been duly 9 This statement of the accused, Sh. Anand, is slightly different from the procedure explained by PW4 Retd. Sh. Suresh Chandra.

State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 42 of 51 corroborated by the call data records, Ex.P33/PW10 of the mobile no. 9211745929 of the accused, Sh. Anand; because in his statement under Section 313 of CrPC, 1973, the accused, Sh. Anand has admitted that he had spoken with the complainant, Sh. Rajju through his mobile no. 9211745929, on 23.12.2013 and 24.12.2013; because the version of the complainant, Sh. Rajju that the accused, Sh. Anand had demanded 'kharcha pani' during the telephonic conversation dated 23.12.2013, has been corroborated by the audio file, "AUD_0691.AMR", found in the SD card, Ex.MO2/PW5, seized from the complainant, Sh. Rajju vide seizure memo dated 28.01.2014, Ex.P23/PW5; because during his testimony before this Court, the complainant, PW5 Sh. Rajju has duly proved the authenticity of the audio file, "AUD_0691.AMR"; because the expert witness, PW9 Dr.C. P. Singh has also duly proved the authenticity of the audio file, "AUD_0691.AMR" (found in the SD card, Ex.MO2/PW5) vide his report dated 20.06.2014, Ex.P27/PW9; because the complainant, PW5 Sh. Rajju has withstood the cross­examination by the Ld. Advocate for the accused qua the face to face conversation dated 24.12.2013, where the accused, Sh. Anand had inter­alia expressly demanded Rs.1000­1500/­ from the complainant, Sh. Rajju, for preparation of the ration card in the name of his wife, Smt. Pushpa and because throughout the trial of this case, the accused, Sh. Anand has not given any reason as to why the complainant, Sh. Rajju would have falsely implicated him in this case.

53. Per contra, the Ld. Advocate for the accused had submitted that the accused, Sh. Anand should be acquitted in this case because there is remarkable delay in the registration of the FIR of this case; because Smt. Pushpa, wife of the complainant, Sh. Rajju has not been examined by the State as a witness in this case; because the certificates under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872, State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 43 of 51 Ex.P24A/PW5, Ex.P24B/PW5 and Ex.P24C/PW5 have not been duly proved by the State;10 because as such, the CD, Ex.MO­4/PW5 as well as the CD, Ex.MO­6/PW5, are inadmissible in evidence and because throughout the trial of this case, the State has not proved one of the essential ingredients of Section 8 of PC Act, 1988 i.e. that the demand allegedly made by the accused, Sh. Anand from the complainant, Sh. Rajju, on 23.12.2013 and 24.12.2013, was intended to be a motive or reward for inducing by corrupt or illegal means any "public servant" to do or forbear to do any official act or to show favour or render any service to the complainant, Sh. Rajju or his wife, Smt. Pushpa. In support of his last submission, the Ld. Advocate for the accused had relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babji v State of Andhra Pradesh, (2018) 17 SCC 732.

Analysis and Findings

54. After perusing the record of the Court file and considering the aforesaid rival submissions made by the Ld. Additional PP for the State and the Ld. Advocate for the accused, I find it expedient to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babji (supra). In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in order to establish the commission of offence punishable under Section 8 of the PC Act, 1988 by an accused, the State has to prove the following ingredients/facts:

(i) That the accused had accepted or obtained, or agreed to accept, or attempted to obtain, from someone;

10 According to the Ld. Advocate for the accused, the certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Ex.P24A/PW5, Ex.P24B/PW5 and Ex.P24C/PW5 should have come from the person of the cyber cafe, who had prepared the two CDs (re: cross­examination dated 18.05.2023 of PW13 Retired Inspector Pankaj Sharma), instead of the complainant, PW5 Sh. Rajju.

State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 44 of 51

(ii) For himself or for some other person;

(iii) Any gratification whatever;

(iv) As a motive or reward for inducing by corrupt or illegal means any 'public servant' to do or forbear to do any official act or to show favour or render any service to any of the persons specified in the section.

55. In the instant case, in order to prove the first three of the above­noted four essential ingredients/facts of Section 8 of the PC Act, 1988, the State has essentially examined the complainant, PW5 Sh. Rajju. In my view, the version of the complainant, PW5 Sh. Rajju to the effect (a) that on 23.12.2013, the accused, Sh. Anand had called him on his mobile no. 8800759222 from the mobile no. 9211745929 (of the accused, Sh. Anand) and asked him to come to Ration Card Office, Phase­I, Okhla inter­alia with some "kharcha pani"; (b) that on 24.12.2013, at the Ration Card Office, Okhla Phase­I, the accused, Sh. Anand had expressly asked him to pay Rs.1000­1500/­, for preparation of the ration card in the name of his wife, Smt. Pushpa and (c) that thereby, the accused, Sh. Anand had attempted to obtain illegal gratification/bribe of Rs.1000­1500/­ from him, is completely believable on account of the following reasons.

56. Firstly, the aforesaid version of the complainant, PW5 Sh. Rajju is completely believable because it is duly corroborated by (a) the customer application form, Ex.P31/PW10,11 (b) the customer application form, part of Ex.P45/PW16(colly) and Ex.P45A/PW16(colly)12 and (c) the call data records, Ex.P33/PW10. 13 A 11 In my view, the said form has been duly proved by PW10 Sh. Rajeev Ranjan. 12 In my view, the said form has been duly proved by PW16 Sh. Rajeev Vashisht. 13 In my view, the said call data records have been duly proved by PW10 Sh. Rajeev Ranjan.

State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 45 of 51 combined analysis of the said documents clearly reveals that the accused, Sh. Anand was using mobile no. 9211745929, on 23.12.2013 and 24.12.2013; 14 that the complainant, Sh. Rajju was using mobile no. 8800759222, on 23.12.2013 and 24.12.2013 and the telephonic conversations, as alleged by the complainant, Sh. Rajju had occurred between him and the accused, Sh. Anand during the afternoon of 23.12.2013 and the morning of 24.12.2013.

57. Secondly, the aforesaid version of the complainant, PW5 Sh. Rajju is completely believable because it is duly corroborated by (a) the audio file, "AUD_0691.AMR" found in the SD card, Ex.MO2/PW5, seized from the complainant, Sh. Rajju by PW13 Retired Inspector Pankaj Sharma vide seizure memo dated 28.01.2014, Ex.P23/PW5 and (b) the transcript, Ex.P22/PW5. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the genuineness/authenticity of the audio file, "AUD_0691.AMR", has been duly proved by the expert witness of the State viz. PW9 Dr.C. P. Singh vide his report dated 20.06.2014, Ex.P27/PW9 15 and also by the complainant, PW5 Sh. Rajju,16 who even otherwise, on account of his admitted humble and rustic background, clearly appears to be a person incapable of producing a doctored audio file. Also, in this regard, it is noteworthy that the correctness of the transcript, Ex.P22/PW5 has been duly proved by the complainant, PW5 Sh. Rajju and the first 14 This fact has even otherwise been expressly admitted by the accused, Sh. Anand in his statement under Section 313 of CrPC, 1973.

15 The said report records that the audio file, "AUD_0691.AMR", found in the SD card, Ex.MO2/PW5 does not have any indication of any form of alteration.

16 The audio file, "AUD_0691.AMR" (extracted from the SD Card, Ex. MO2/PW5 by Dr. C.P. Singh vide FSL report dated 04.04.2022, Ex.P­29/PW9) was played during the examination in chief of the complainant, PW5 Sh. Rajju. Upon hearing it, the complainant, PW5 Sh. Rajju had identified it, identified his voice and the voice of the accused, Sh. Anand in it and confirmed it to have been recorded by him. Nothing was elicited during the cross­examination of the complainant, PW5 Sh. Rajju to discredit these aspects of the examination in chief of the complainant, PW5 Sh. Rajju.

State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 46 of 51 IO, PW13 Retired Inspector Pankaj Sharma.17

58. Thirdly, the aforesaid version of the complainant, PW5 Sh. Rajju is completely believable because throughout the trial of this case, the accused, Sh. Anand has not given any credible reason as to why the complainant, Sh. Rajju, who did not know him prior to 23.12.2013 and who had no prior ill will against him, would falsely implicate him in this case. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the hypothesis feebly proffered by the accused, Sh. Anand in his statement under Section 313 of CrPC, 1973 viz. that he may be a victim of a conspiracy hatched by MP, Sh. Ramesh Bidhuri, cannot be given any credence because it was neither put to the complainant, PW5 Sh. Rajju nor any of the IOs of this case. It was nowhere suggested to these witnesses that they had acted against the accused, Sh. Anand, as part of a conspiracy hatched by MP, Sh. Ramesh Bidhuri.

59. In view of the aforesaid reasoning, I hold that the State has duly proved the first three of the above­noted four essential ingredients/facts of Section 8 of the PC Act, 1988 against the accused, Sh. Anand.

60. In my view, in order to prove the fourth of the above­noted four essential ingredients/facts of Section 8 of the PC Act, 1988, the State has not led any evidence. In this regard, it is noteworthy that during his testimony before this Court, 17 The complainant, PW5 Sh. Rajju has deposed that the transcript, Ex.P22/PW5 truly reflects the conversation recorded in the audio file, "AUD_0691.AMR". The first IO, PW13 Retd. Inspector Pankaj Sharma has deposed that the transcript, Ex.P22/PW5 was duly verified by the complainant, Sh. Rajju in his presence and in presence of the panch witness, Sh. Purshottam Dass and therefore, it has his signatures, the signatures of the complainant, Sh. Rajju and the signatures of the panch witness, Sh. Purshottam Dass. Nothing has been elicited during the cross­examination of the complainant, PW5 Sh. Rajju and the first IO, PW13 Retd. Inspector Pankaj Sharma (by the Ld. Advocate for the accused) to disbelieve the said aspects of their testimonies.

State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 47 of 51 the complainant, PW5 Sh. Rajju has nowhere testified (a) that on 23.12.2013 and 24.12.2013, the accused, Sh. Anand had demanded illegal gratification/bribe of Rs.1000­1500/­ from the complainant, Sh. Rajju, as a motive or reward for inducing by corrupt or illegal means any "public servant" to do or forbear to do any official act or to show favour or render any service to the complainant, Sh. Rajju or his wife, Smt. Pushpa or (b) that the accused, Sh. Anand had even remotely insinuated to the complainant, Sh. Rajju that he is in a position to induce/influence any public servant at the Office of Food, Supply and Consumer Affairs, Department of Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Also, in this regard, it is noteworthy that the investigation done by the IOs, Inspector Pankaj Sharma, Inspector K.C. Kaushik, Inspector Yashpal Singh and Inspector Sanjay Goswami of ACB had/has not revealed that on 23.12.2013 or 24.12.2013, the accused, Sh. Anand had the potential of inducing/influencing any public servant at the Office of Food, Supply and Consumer Affairs, Department of Govt. of NCT of Delhi. To the contrary, their investigations done from PW3 Sh. M.M. Chandra and PW4 Retired Sh. Suresh Chandra had/have revealed that the accused, Sh. Anand was merely a data entry operator, hired on contract basis through M/s. Intelligent Communications System India Ltd., who could have been relieved at will and who was so relieved vide the office order dated 04.02.2014 and letter dated 30.01.2014, forming part of Ex.P11/PW3(colly). At this stage, I must pause and specify that this view of mine, would have been different (a) if on 23.12.2013 and 24.12.2013, the accused, Sh. Anand had expressly told the complainant, Sh. Rajju that he holds influence over any public servant at the Office of Food, Supply and Consumer Affairs, Department of Govt. of NCT of Delhi and upon payment of Rs.1000­1500/­ to him by the complainant, Sh. Rajju he would exercise such influence and the get the desired ration card prepared or (b) if the IOs of the State had found any other positive evidence to the effect that the accused, Sh. Anand had State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 48 of 51 the potential of inducing/influencing any public servant at the Office of Food, Supply and Consumer Affairs, Department of Govt. of NCT of Delhi.

61. In my assessment, on 23.12.2013 and 24.12.2013, while dealing with the complainant, Sh. Rajju, the accused, Sh. Anand was flying solo and was only trying to take advantage of his position as a data entry operator, who could have perhaps delayed entering the data of the application of ration card of Smt. Pushpa (wife of the complainant, Sh. Rajju) in the system. Further, in my assessment, upon getting the sum of Rs.1000­1500/­ from the complainant, Sh. Rajju, the accused, Sh. Anand would have simply pocketed it, for his own use, leaving the fate of the application of ration card of Smt. Pushpa (wife of the complainant, Sh. Rajju) to procedure being followed by the public servants, working at the Office of Food, Supply and Consumer Affairs, Department of Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Lastly, in my assessment, on 23.12.2013 and 24.12.2013, the accused, Sh. Anand was fully conscious that he cannot influence the outcome of the application of ration card of Smt. Pushpa (wife of the complainant, Sh. Rajju), once it is entered into the system and only therefore, he had done the drama of drawing of strokes of lines on the application of ration card of Smt. Pushpa (wife of the complainant, Sh. Rajju). In taking this view of the matter, I have factored the print out of the entry made in the name of Ms. Pushpa on the NFS portal, Ex.P15/PW4 (proved by PW4 Retired Sh. Suresh Chandra). The said entry clearly reflects that by the time, the accused, Sh. Anand was negotiating with complainant, Sh. Rajju, on 24.12.2013, the application of ration card of Smt. Pushpa (wife of the complainant, Sh. Rajju) had already been entered in the system and had reached beyond the realm of the authority of the accused, Sh. Anand.

State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 49 of 51

62. Thus, in view of the failure of the State to prove beyond reasonable doubt the fourth of the above­noted four essential ingredients/facts of Section 8 of the PC Act, 1988, the accused, Sh. Anand is acquitted in this case.

63. Before parting with this judgment, I find it necessary to observe (a) that in my view, the certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Ex.P24A/PW5, Ex.24B/PW5 and Ex.24C/PW5, given by the complainant, PW5 Sh. Rajju, in respect of the CDs, Ex.MO­4/PW5 and Ex.MO­6/PW5 are nullity in law because instead of the complainant, Sh. Rajju, the said certificates should have been given by the person of the cyber cafe, deposed about by PW13 Retired Inspector Pankaj Sharma during his cross­examination dated 18.05.2023 and the cascading effect thereof is that the CDs, Ex.MO­4/PW5 and Ex.MO­6/PW5, are inadmissible in evidence;18 (b) that the said aspect has not had any negative impact on this case because in respect of the SD card, Ex.MO2/PW5 (which had the original audio file, "AUD_0691.AMR"), the complainant, PW5 Sh. Rajju wasn't required to give any certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (re: the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantayal & Ors. (2020) 7 SCC 1) and because the said SD card has been valuable in proving the case of the State in respect of the first three of the above­noted four essential ingredients/facts of Section 8 of the PC Act, 1988 and

(c) that the delay in the registration of the FIR of this case, although abominable, is inconsequential from the vantage point of the merit of the factual allegations made 18 For the purpose of record, it is specified that this is the second case in which, while penning down a judgment, I have found that the IOs of ACB, have not properly dealt with electronic evidence and have not seriously bothered to ensure compliance of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held to be mandatory, inter­alia in its judgments in Anwar P.V. v P.K. Bashir & Ors., (2014) 10 SCC 473 and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors., (2020) 7 SCC 1. The first case was of State v SI Satyavrat & Anr. (arising of FIR No.26/2009, PS ACB), decided on 18.12.2023.

State v Sh. Anand Kumar FIR No.06/2015 PS Anti­Corruption Branch Page 50 of 51 by the complainant, Sh. Rajju against the accused, Sh. Anand.

64. The file of this case shall be consigned to the record room, after compliance of Section 437A of CrPC, 1973 by Sh. Anand Kumar.

Digitally signed

                                           JAY     by JAY THAREJA
                                           THAREJA Date: 2024.01.11
                                                   16:27:57 +0530

Announced in open Court                          (Jay Thareja)
today on 11th January, 2024              Special Judge (PC Act)(ACB)­02,
                                      Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi




State v Sh. Anand Kumar
FIR No.06/2015
PS Anti­Corruption Branch
Page 51 of 51