Delhi District Court
State vs . Ashok on 1 October, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI B.R. KEDIA, SPECIAL JUDGE07
(CENTRAL), (PC ACT CASES OF ACB, GNCTD), DELHI
C.C.NO. : 26/12
Unique Case ID : 02401R0437532008
STATE VS. ASHOK
S/o Sh. Sahab Singh
R/o Village Daya Nagar,
P.S. Jarcha,
Distt.Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.)
FIR NO. : 36/2009
U/S : 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988
P.S. : Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi
Date of Institution 07.03.2011
Judgment reserved on 29.09.2012
Judgment delivered on 01.10.2012
JUDGMENT
1. The precise case of the prosecution is that on dated 17.11.2009 complainant Satish Kumar Chauhan S/o Nathu Singh went to Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi and got lodged his complaint C.C. No. 26/12 Page No. 1 of 22 Ex.PW8/A regarding demand of bribe of Rs.1000/ by the accused Ashok who was working as Sub Inspector at P.S.Karawal Nagar, Delhi in consideration for filing Untrace Report as required by the complainant for Insurance claim of his motor cycle bearing No.UP 20G 2791 as stolen in September, 2009 for which FIR has been registered at P.S.Karawal Nagar.
2. The gist of the said complaint is that a FIR was registered at P.S.Karawal Nagar in connection with the theft of motor cycle bearing No. UP 20G 2791 of the complainant in the month of September and said case was being investigated by accused SI Ashok who has been demanding Rs.1000/ towards bribe for filing Untrace Report as required by the complainant for his Insurance claim concerning said stolen motor cycle. The complainant had gone to P.S.Karawal Nagar on that day at about 6:45 a.m. but the accused was not found present on which complainant talked to him on phone and the accused asked him to meet him at about 5:00 p.m. on that day at P.S.Karawal Nagar for taking the required Untrace Report on payment of bribe amount of Rs.1000/ and the complainant was constrained to agree for the same. Since the complainant was against giving of bribe, he went to Anti Corruption Branch and got his complaint C.C. No. 26/12 Page No. 2 of 22 lodged before the Inspector Meghraj, Raid Officer PW8 in presence of Ashwani Kumar ,Panch witness/PW15.
3. The further case of the prosecution is that the complainant has produced 1 GC note of Rs. 1000/ before the Raid Officer PW8 who noted down the serial number of said GC note in the preraid proceedings Ex.PW8/B and treated the said GC note with phenolphthalein powder. Thereafter, Raid Officer PW8 gave demonstration to the Panch witness, complainant by getting touched the right hand of the Panch witness with that treated currency note and wash of the right hand of the Panch witness in the colourless solution of sodium carbonate which turned into pink. Thereafter, said GC note was handed over to the complainant and Panch witness was instructed to remain close with the complainant and to overhear the conversation between the complainant and the person demanding the bribe amount and to give signal by moving his hand over his head twice after being satisfied that the bribe has actually been given.
4. That at about 4:45 p.m., PW8 Raid Officer along with complainant, Panch witness, W/Inspector Usha Sharma and other members of the raiding party left Anti Corruption Branch in a C.C. No. 26/12 Page No. 3 of 22 government vehicle and one private vehicle and reached near P.S.Karawal Nagar. Both vehicles were parked at some distance and W/Inspector Usha Sharma alongwith the Driver remained in the vehicle. Complainant and Panch witness were sent inside the Police Station Karawal Nagar and the members of the Raiding team took suitable position.
5. The further case of the prosecution is that at about 6:05 p.m. on receiving the predetermined signal from Panch witness, Raid Officer alongwith the raiding team reached the spot where Panch witness informed that the accused had demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.1000/ from the complainant in his right hand and kept the same in right hand. Thereafter, Raid Officer after disclosing his identity challenged the accused that he had demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.1000/ from the complainant and offered his search but accused declined. On his directions, Panch witness recovered bribe amount of Rs.1000/ from the right hand of the accused and compared the serial number of that GC note with serial number mentioned in pre raid proceedings Ex.PW8/B and the same tallied. That recovered GC note was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/C. The wash of right hand of the accused was taken in colorless solution of sodium C.C. No. 26/12 Page No. 4 of 22 carbonate which turned into pink and solution was transferred into two empty small clean bottles which were sealed with the seal of MRG and were marked as RHWI & RHWII by pasting slips thereon which were signed by Raid Officer, complainant and Panch witness. Those bottles and sample seal were taken into possession vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW8/D. The Raid Officer also drawn up the post raid proceedings which is Ex.PW8/E and prepared rukka Ex.PW8/F and sent the same through Ct.Arun Mathur to PS Anti Corruption Branch for registration of the case.
6. The further case of the prosecution is that the Raid Officer called the W/Inspector Usha Sharma PW17, IO at the spot and handed over him the custody of the accused, case property and relevant documents etc. for purpose of Investigation. I.O. took up the Investigation, prepared the Site Plan Ex.PW15/A. IO recorded the statement of complainant and Panch witness, interrogated the accused and arrested the accused vide Memo Ex.PW16/A and Personal Search Memo Ex.PW16/B. Accused was got medically examined and was put in the lock up. During the course of Investigation, IO also obtained the FSL Result Ex.PW13/A, Sanction Order Ex.PW12/A, copy of FIR NO.234/09, PS Karawal Nagar Ex.PW3/A1, Untrace Report C.C. No. 26/12 Page No. 5 of 22 Ex.PW3/A2, Index Police Missal Ex.PW3/A3, Case Diary is Ex.PW3/A4 to A13, copy of Duty Roaster Ex.PW13/B. IO on recording the statement of the witnesses and after completion of the Investigation, prepared the chargesheet and filed in the court.
7. After compliance with the provision U/S 207 of Cr.P.C and after hearing both sides on the point of charge, charge for offence punishable U/S 7 and 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against accused was framed on 21.07.2011 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. Thereafter, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined 17 prosecution witnesses namely Ct. Arun Mathur, a formal witness as PW1, SI Anand Swaroop, Duty Officer, a formal witness as PW2, Inspector Virender Kumar Sharma, the then SHO, PS Karawal Nagar as PW3, Ct.Rakesh, a formal witness as PW4, HC Jitender, the then MHC(M), a formal witness as PW5, Ajit Singh, Assistant Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd., a formal witness as PW6, Sanjeev Lakhra, Alternate Nodal Officer from Reliance Communication Ltd., a formal witness as PW7, Inspector Meghraj, Raid Officer as PW8, N.K.Sharma, Ahlmad from the court C.C. No. 26/12 Page No. 6 of 22 of Sh.Sonu Agnihotri, MM, Karkardooma Court, a formal witness as PW9, Karanjeet Singh, Authorised Representative of IFFCO Tokyo General Insurance Company Ltd., a formal witness as PW10, HC Rajpal Singh, a formal witness as PW11, Surender Singh Yadav, the then DCP, North East District, Delhi, Sanctioning Authority as against the accused as PW12, the then Inspector Ranbir Singh, Last IO as PW13, Sanket, a formal witness as PW14, Ashwani Kumar, Panch witness as PW15, Satish Kumar Chauhan, complainant as PW16 and Ms. Usha Sharma, the then Inspector/IO as PW17.
9. After closure of the PE, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which the accused denied about any demand and acceptance of the bribe from the complainant. Accused claimed to be falsely implicated in this case having no concern with the alleged offence. The accused further added that there was no occasion on his part to demand or accept any bribe on 17.11.2009 from the complainant as the Untrace File was not with him and he has handed over the same to the SHO PS Karawal Nagar on 05.11.2009 from whom said file was seized by the Anti Corruption Branch.
10. I have heard Final Arguments as addressed by Sh. R.S. C.C. No. 26/12 Page No. 7 of 22 Singhal, Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused and Sh.Vinod Kumar Sharma, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and perused the relevant record.
11. It is submitted by Sh.R.S. Singhal, Adv Ld. Counsel for the accused that this accused Ashok is innocent and has neither demanded nor accepted any bribe from the complainant Satish Kumar Chauhan/PW16 and the prosecution has failed to prove the said fact and hence, the accused deserve to be acquitted. It also added by Ld. Counsel that said complainant/PW16 has not deposed anything as regards the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused from him. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that even otherwise as this accused has already delivered the Untrace Report relating to the vehicle of the complainant to the SHO PS Karawal Nagar on 05.11.2009 which is found corroborated from the deposition of PW3/Inspector Virender Kumar Sharma and there was no occasion on the part of the accused to demand and accept bribe of Rs.1,000/ from the complainant on 17.11.2009 for filing the said Untrace Report. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that even PW15/Panch witness has also not deposed anything regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe as against this accused and has clearly denied the suggestion of Ld. Addl. PP in this respect. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that as per the copy of DD No. 25A C.C. No. 26/12 Page No. 8 of 22 dated 17.11.2009 of PS Karawal Nagar, the accused had been brought to Anti Corruption Branch by Inspector Megh Raj who is the Raid Officer in connection with this case before 07:32 pm but PW8/Inspector Megh Raj Raid Officer has given the contrary statement that he had reached Anti Corruption Branch after Raid at about 09:00 pm. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that PW8/Raid Officer deposed that there were 1/2 persons present in the Room of the accused when he reached alongwith Raiding team but said fact is found contradicted from the deposition of PW17/IO and there is no reason as to why those persons were not joined the Raid Proceedings by the Raid Officer which falsify the case of the prosecution. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that even the complaint forming the basis of the FIR also could not be properly proved by the prosecution due to contrary deposition by PW8/Raid Officer in this respect. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that PW1/Ct. Arun Mathur was not present at the spot and that is why none of the Memo prepared at the spot bear his signature and his deposition cannot be treated as trustworthy. Thus, Ld. Counsel urged for acquittal of this accused Ashok
12. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution by examining 17 PWs have clearly established its C.C. No. 26/12 Page No. 9 of 22 case as against this accused and therefore, the accused deserves to be convicted for the charged offence. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that no doubt PW15/Panch witness and PW16/complainant by turning hostile have not supported the stand of the prosecution but PW1/Ct. Arun Mathur and PW8/Raid Officer have duly supported regarding the recovery of the tainted money from the accused and there is no reason as to disbelieve the same. It is also added by Ld. Addl. PP that contradiction in the deposition of certain PWs are merely formal in nature and can be of no help for the accused. It is also added by Ld. Addl. PP that the FSL Result also support the stand of the prosecution. Ld. Addl. PP for the State also added that the prosecution has been successful in establishing its case as against the accused for the charged offence and hence, he deserves to be convicted.
13. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that this accused Ashok is innocent and has neither demanded nor accepted any bribe from the complainant Satish Kumar Chauhan/PW16 and the prosecution has failed to prove the said facts and hence, the accused deserve to be acquitted. It also added by Ld. Counsel that said complainant/PW16 has not deposed C.C. No. 26/12 Page No. 10 of 22 anything as regards the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused from him. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that even otherwise as this accused has already delivered the Untrace Report relating to the vehicle of the complainant to the SHO PS Karawal Nagar on 05.11.2009 which is found corroborated from the deposition of PW3/Inspector Virender Kumar Sharma and there was no occasion on the part of the accused to demand and accept bribe of Rs.1,000/ from the complainant on 17.11.2009 for filing the said Untrace Report. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that even PW15/Panch witness has also not deposed anything regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe as against this accused and has clearly denied the suggestion of Ld. Addl. PP in this respect.
14. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that PW16/Satish Kumar Chauhan who is the complainant and prime witness of the prosecution and PW15/Ashwani Kumar Panch witness who is also material prosecution witness are found to have not supported the stand of the prosecution and have not deposed anything as regards the demand and acceptance of bribe as against the accused. As PW16/Satish Kumar Chauhan complainant has deposed that he has lodged complaint regarding missing of his Bike No. UP 20G 2791 and C.C. No. 26/12 Page No. 11 of 22 despite his several visits to Police Station Karawal Nagar, Untrace Report was not delivered to him. Thereafter, he told about the said facts to his friend who after talking to the Police Officials of PS Karawal Nagar informed him that they were demanding Rs.1,000/ for delivering the Untrace Report. The complainant further deposed that he informed regarding the said facts to the Police Official of Anti Corruption Branch and categorically stated that he had not disclosed the name of the Police Official who had demanded the bribe. He further deposed that he alongwith the Police Officials of Anti Corruption Branch reached PS Karawal Nagar and met SHO and asked about the Untrace Report and talked to accused Ashok who informed him that he had already handed over the Untrace Report to SHO. As SHO was not found present, complainant came back to Police Official of Anti Corruption Branch and informed them about the same but they insisted to go back to Police Station and to deliver the bribe amount of Rs.1,000/ to accused Ashok. Said PW16 complainant has categorically deposed that the accused was not ready to accept the bribe amount and even thrown away the same as said PW16 has deposed in this respect as under : "I again went to PS Karawal Nagar and handed over the said envelope to him which was containing Rs.1000/. C.C. No. 26/12 Page No. 12 of 22 The Ashok present in the court asked me "what is in the envelope?" I told that I had put Rs.1000/ in envelope which was demanded by the Police Official from my friend Satya Lal. After cheking the note, Ashok informed me that he had not demanded Rs.1000/ from my friend Satya Lal. He had thrown away the said note alongwith envelope. In the meantime, the Police Official of Anti Corruption Branch reached there and overpowered the accused present in the court. The envelope containing the note was lifted from the ground. Thereafter, they lifted the accused present in the court and took him to the Anti Corruption Branch. Handwash of accused was not taken in my presence. I do not recollect the denomination of note whether it was in the denomination of Rs.500/ or only one note of Rs.1000/. Thereafter, I was told to leave the Anti Corruption Branch and I was asked to come again on next day. Next day I reached the Police Station Anti Corruption Branch and met with the Police Official of Anti Corruption Branch. They had some papers with them and they asked me to sign the papers. I put my C.C. No. 26/12 Page No. 13 of 22 signatures on the papers. I do not know what was written on those papers. Thereafter, I left the Anti Corruption Branch and came back to my house."
15. Said PW16/complainant in his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP has also denied about the demand of bribe of Rs.1,000/ by the accused from him as he has deposed in this respect as under : " I did not state to the Police Official I talked to SI Ashok on his telephone no. 9350007616 and he demanded Rs. 1000/ from me and asked me to reached in the Police Station at 5:00 p.m.............
I did not state to the Official of Anti Corruption that the Panch witness passed the prefixed signal and RO reached there and I had told to him that accused had accepted GC Note of Rs.1000/after demand.............................................................................
It is wrong to suggest that accused had demanded Rs. 1000/ from me and he was apprehended by the Police Official of Anti Corruption when he accepted the money and his handwash was turned pink when it was taken in C.C. No. 26/12 Page No. 14 of 22 the solution of sodium carbonate and the GC Note of Rs. 1000/ recovered from his right hand and it was recovered by the Panch witness."
16. Similarly, PW15/Ashwani Kumar Panch witness is also found not supported the stand of the prosecution and has not deposed anything as regards the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused from the complainant. PW15/Ashwani Kumar Panch witness has deposed in this respect as under : " I alongwith complainant entered inside the room of accused present in the court. Complainant asked for the copy of FIR from the accused Ashok Kumar. Ashok Kumar told that the copy of FIR is not with him. Again said that Ashok Kumar said that the copy of FIR was available with SHO. Thereafter, complainant produced a paper towards the accused but I cannot tell, what was in the paper. Immediately I came out and passed prefixed signal to the members of the Raiding Party. Thereafter, members of the Raiding party entered in the Room and accused present in the court was overpowered.
C.C. No. 26/12 Page No. 15 of 22 Thereafter, entire proceedings was conducted by the members of the raiding party and I do not know anything else. I went to the Anti Corruption Office in a separate Car and the other members of the raiding party also went to the Anti Corruption Office in the separate vehicle. Police Official took search of accused. On the next day, I had signed the documents on the asking of the IO of this case. I cannot identify any GC Note. I also cannot identify any Bottles which was containing the Pink Colour solution."
17. Said PW15/Ashwani Kumar Panch witness in his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP has also not deposed anything regarding demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused as he has deposed in this respect as under : "I did not state to the Police Official that complainant Satish Kumar told to the IO of this case that SI Ashok Kumar of PS Karawal Nagar demanded Rs.1000/ for Untrace Report...................................................................... I did not state to the police official that complainant told C.C. No. 26/12 Page No. 16 of 22 the accused that he had brought Rs.1000/ as he had talked in the morning thereafter, SI Ashok Kumar demanded money and accepted the same and bribe was accepted by the accused from his right hand and thereafter, IO told to me to recover the notes from the possession of the accused and the money was recovered by me from the right hand of the accused and Note was checked, which was same whose details was given in the Raid Report ............................................................................ It is wrong to suggest that thereafter, the said GC Note was handed over to the accused by the complainant on his demand and same was recovered from the possession of the accused and thereafter, handwash of accused was taken which turned into pink."
In view of the aforesaid deposition of PW15/Ashwani Kumar, Panch witness, it is clearly reflected that he has also not deposed anything as regards the demand of bribe by the accused from the complainant at the spot.
C.C. No. 26/12 Page No. 17 of 22
18. Furthermore, from the perusal of the record including the statement of the accused U/S 313 Cr.P.C., it is clearly reflected that the accused has taken the consistent stand that there was no occasion on his part to demand any bribe from the complainant on 17.11.2009 for issuing the Untrace Report relating to the vehicle of the complainant concerning the case bearing FIR No.234/09 of PS Karawal Nagar in view of the fact that the accused has already handed over the Untrace Report to the SHO, PS Karawal Nagar on 05.11.2009 and said fact is also found corroborated from the deposition of PW3/Inspector Virender Kumar Sharma, the then SHO, Karawal Nagar coupled with Untrace Report dated 05.11.2009 Ex.PW3/A2 and Case Diary No.8 dated 05.11.2009 Ex.PW3/A13.
19. In view of the aforesaid deposition of PW16/Satish Kumar Chauhan, complainant and PW15/Ashwani Kumar, Panch witness who are the only prosecution witness competent to prove the demand aspect of bribe as against the accused but both of them have not deposed anything as against the accused to prove the demand of bribe from the complainant and keeping in mind the fact that the accused had already delivered the Untrace Report dated 05.11.2009 Ex.PW3/A2 relating to the vehicle of the complainant to the SHO, PS C.C. No. 26/12 Page No. 18 of 22 Karawal Nagar on 05.11.2009 and therefore, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that the prosecution has failed to establish regarding the factum of "demand of bribe" by the accused from the complainant and therefore, the presumption as contemplated U/S 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be attracted in this case and my said view is found supported from the judgment as rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported as AIR 2007 SC 489 "V.Venkata Subbarao vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, A.P." In Para 24 of the said judgment, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "Submission of the learned counsel for the State that presumption has rightly been raised against the appellant, cannot be accepted as, inter alia, the demand itself had not been proved. In the absence of a proof of demand, the question of raising the presumption would not arise. Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 provides for raising of a presumption only if a demand is proved".
20. In the absence of proof of "Demand of bribe" by the C.C. No. 26/12 Page No. 19 of 22 accused, I am of the considered view that the accused cannot be held liable for penal provisions U/S 7 and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)
(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and my said view is found supported from the following judgments: (1)2006 (1) SCC 401 "T.Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu"
(2) 2005 Crl.L.J. 1136 "State of H.P. Vs. Sukhdev Singh Rana"
(3) 2007 Crl.L.J. 2919 "State of M.P.vs. Anil Kumar Verma"
(4) 2006 (3) RCR (Crl.) 796 "Amrit Lal vs. State of Punjab"
(5) 2000 Crl,.L.J. 4591 "State of M.P. Vs. J.B.Singh"
(6) 2006 (1) RCR (Crl.) 314 "L.K.Jain vs. The State"
(7) 2005 (4) RCR (Crl) 716 "R.V.Subba Rao Vs. State"
(8) AIR 1979 SC 1408 "Suraj Mal Vs. State"
(9) 1992 (3) RCR (Crl.) 139 "Pritam Singh vs. State of Haryana"
(10) 2009 (4) LRC 275 (SC) "State of Maharastra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede"
21. Furthermore, from the perusal of the deposition of PW16/Satish Kumar Chauhan, complainant as well as PW8 Inspector Megh Raj, it is also clearly reflected that the prosecution has failed to properly prove the Complaint Ex.PW8/A forming the basis of the C.C. No. 26/12 Page No. 20 of 22 FIR. As PW16/complainant has disowned the contents of the said Complaint Ex.PW8/A and despite searching cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, he denied to have lodged any such complaint to the police and in the cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, said PW16/complainant has reiterated that said Complaint Ex.PW8/A does not bear his signature at point A. Besides that, PW8/Inspector Megh Raj, Raid Officer is also found to have given inconsistent statement regarding said Complaint. As in the examination in chief, said PW8/Raid Officer has deposed that on 17.11.2009 at about 3:05 p.m. the complainant Satish Kumar Chauhan came in PS Anti Corruption Branch and gave his statement Ex.PW8/A in the presence of Panch witness Ashwani Kumar. But in the cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, said PW8/Raid Officer has deposed as under: "Complainant had visited the Office of DCP before meeting with me. After the direction of the DCP, complainant was entertained by me. Complainant had given a written complaint to the DCP and the same complaint was marked to me with the endorsement of the DCP. I did not verify about the genuineness of the complaint from the other sources."
Furthermore, even PW15/Ashwani Kumar, Panch witness C.C. No. 26/12 Page No. 21 of 22 has also not deposed that said Complaint Ex.PW8/A was lodged by the complainant Satish Kumar Chauhan in his presence.
22. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid inconsistent statement as given by PW16/Satish Kumar Chauhan, complainant, PW15/Ashwani Kumar, Panch witness and PW8/Inspector Megh Raj, Raid Officer whereby raising a big question mark on the aspect of the lodging of the Complaint Ex.PW8/A by the complainant before the Raid Officer, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that the said Complaint forming the basis of the FIR could not be properly proved by the prosecution thereby striking at the root of the case of the prosecution.
23. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that as the prosecution has failed to establish its case as against the accused Ashok, so this accused Ashok deserves to be acquitted of the charged offence and stands acquitted accordingly. Resultantly, his bail bond stands cancelled and his surety stands discharged. Announced in the open court on this 1st day of October, 2012 (B.R. Kedia) Special Judge07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC,Delhi C.C. No. 26/12 Page No. 22 of 22