Delhi District Court
State vs . Lalit Kumar on 26 February, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI B.R. KEDIA, SPECIAL JUDGE07
(CENTRAL), (PC ACT CASES OF ACB, GNCTD), DELHI
C.C.NO. : 53/12
Unique Case ID : 02401R0372382010
STATE VS. LALIT KUMAR
S/o Sh. Rajinder Singh,
R/o Village Salim Sarai,
P.O. Sarkara, P.S. Dhampur,
Distt. Bijnaur, U.P.
FIR NO. : 18/2009
U/S : 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988
P.S. : Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi
Date of Institution 20.08.2010
Judgment reserved on 22.02.2013
Judgment delivered on 26.02.2013
JUDGMENT
1. The precise case of the prosecution is that on dated 29.07.2009 the complainant Ajeet Singh S/o Ram Singh came to Anti Corruption Branch and got lodged his Complaint Ex.PW1/A before C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 1 of 39 Inspector Y.S.Negi, Raid Officer/PW15 in the presence of Panch witness PW7/Suresh Chand regarding initial demand of bribe of Rs. 5,000/ which was scaled down to Rs.3000/ by the accused Lalit Kumar who was working as Constable at PS New Ashok Nagar in consideration for running a Shop by the complainant.
2. The gist of the said complaint is that the complainant opened a Shop for Gas Stove, Gas Pipe etc. by taking on rent at B1/126, New Kondli on 22.07.2009 and after 12 days Constable accused Lalit Kumar came to his Shop and demanded bribe of Rs. 5000/ to enable the complainant to run the said Shop otherwise he would get the Shop closed and seize the goods lying therein. Thereafter, on much request by the complainant, the accused scaled down the bribe amount to Rs.3000/ and asked him to arrange the same within 12 days. On that day i.e. 29.07.2009 at 11:08 a.m. the accused rang to the complainant on his mobile and asked the complainant to arrange the money as he would come between 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. to his Shop for taking the payment. Since the complainant was against giving of bribe, he went to Anti Corruption Branch and got his complaint lodged before the Inspector Y.S.Negi, Raid Officer PW15 in presence of Panch witness Suresh Chand, PW7. C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 2 of 39
3. The further case of the prosecution is that the complainant has produced 1 GC note of Rs. 1000/ and 4 GC notes of Rs.500/ each before the Raid Officer PW15 who noted down the serial number of said GC notes in the preraid proceedings Ex.PW15/A and treated the said GC notes with phenolphthalein powder. Thereafter, Raid Officer PW15 gave demonstration to the Panch witness, complainant by getting touched the right hand of the Panch witness with that treated currency notes and wash of the right hand of the Panch witness in the colourless solution of sodium carbonate which turned into pink. Thereafter, said GC notes were 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 hurlng his hand over his head after being satisfied that the bribe has actually been given.
4. The further case of the prosecution is that thereafter PW15 Raid Officer along with complainant, Panch witness, Inspector Naresh Kumar and other members of the raiding party left Anti Corruption Branch in a government vehicle and and at about 5:30 p.m. when they C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 3 of 39 reached near Masjid Wali Gali, the complainant received a phone call from the accused asking him to arrange the money and he would come at about 6:00 p.m. to his Shop. He further deposed that after reaching near the Shop of the complainant, the complainant and Panch witness were sent to the Shop. The Raiding Team took suitable position. He further deposed to the effect that at about 6:00 p.m. the accused came on a motorcycle and stopped at the Shop of the complainant and thereafter, entered in the Shop of the complainant. After receiving the predetermined signal, Raiding team reached at the spot and Panch witness informed that the accused has accepted the bribe amount from the complainant. Thereafter, Raid Officer after disclosing his identity, offered the search of Raiding party for which the accused declined. On his directions, Panch witness recovered amount of Rs.2500/ in the form of 1 GC note of Rs.1000/ and 3 GC notes of Rs.500/ each from the right fist of the accused and compared the serial number of that GC notes with serial number mentioned in pre raid proceedings Ex.PW15/A and the same tallied. That recovered GC notes were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. The wash of right hand of the accused Lalit Kumar was taken in colorless solution of sodium carbonate which turned into pink and solution was transferred into two empty small clean bottles C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 4 of 39 which were sealed with the seal of YSN and were marked as RHWI & RHWII by pasting slips thereon which were signed by Raid Officer, complainant and Panch witness. Similarly, the left hand wash of the accused Lalit Kumar was taken in colorless solution of sodium carbonate which turned into pink and solution was transferred into two empty small clean bottles which were sealed with the seal of YSN and were marked as LHWI & LHWII by pasting slips thereon which were signed by Raid Officer, complainant and Panch witness. Those bottles were taken into possession vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW1/B. Raid Officer also drawn up the post raid proceedings which is Ex.PW15/B and prepared rukka Ex.PW15/C and sent the same through HC Satya Dev to PS Anti Corruption Branch for registration of FIR of this case.
5. The further case of the prosecution is that the Raid Officer called Inspector Naresh Kumar, 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.PW16/A. A motorcycle on which the accused has reached at the spot was seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW1/F and accused was arrested vide Arrest Memo Ex.PW1/E and conducted C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 5 of 39 personal search vide Memo Ex.PW1/D. IO recorded the statement of complainant and Panch witness and other relevant witnesses. IO got medically examined the accused and put him in the lock up. During the course of Investigation, relevant exhibits were sent to FSL and later on FSL Report Ex.PW16/B was obtained by the IO. During Investigation, IO collected the call details of mobile phone of accused Ex.PW16/C and that of complainant Ex.PW16/D, Bio data of the accused Ex.PW9/B, Sanction Order Ex.PW2/A. IO on recording the statement of the witnesses and after completion of the Investigation, prepared the chargesheet and filed in the court.
6. 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 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed against accused on 01.11.2010 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. Thereafter, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined 16 prosecution witnesses namely Ajeet Singh, complainant, most material witness as PW1, Sh.K.C. Dwivedi,the then Deputy Commissioner of Police, East District, C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 6 of 39 Delhi, Sanctioning Authority as against the accused as PW2, SI Anand Swaroop, Duty Officer, a formal witness as PW3, Ct. Manoj Kumar, Chitha Munshi at PS New Ashok Nagar, a formal witness as PW4, HC Deena Mani who has deposited the relevant exhibits in FSL, Rohini, a formal witness as PW5, HC Suraj Pal who has collected the FSL Report alongwith remnants of case property from FSL, a formal witness as PW6, Sh.Suresh Chand, Panch witness, a material witness as PW7, Sh.R.K.Singh, Nodal Officer from Bharti Airtel Ltd., a formal witness as PW8, ACP (HQ) Sumer Singh, a formal witness as PW9, HC Satya Dev who had taken the Rukka and got FIR registered, a formal witness as PW10, Om Prakash Sharma who is the Landlord of the Shop of the complainant, a formal witness as PW11, HC Arvind Kumar, a formal witness as PW12, Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer from Idea Cellular Ltd., a formal witness as PW13, HC Jai Prakash, the then MHC(M), PS Civil Line, a formal witness as PW14, Inspector Y.S.Negi, Raid Officer as PW15 and Inspector Naresh Kumar, IO as PW16.
8. 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 C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 7 of 39 claimed to be falsely implicated in this case by the complainant, at the instance of Shiv Rattan Singh brother in law of the complainant, who was arrested in the case bearing FIR No.209/09, U/S 283 IPC, PS New Ashok Nagar, being lodged at the instance of this accused.
9. Thereafter, the accused in his defence got examined 5 DWs i.e., Sh. Kamal Kumar Mauja Clerk, RecordRoom (Crl.), Karkardooma Court, Delhi as DW 1, Arun Meena Ahlmad in the Court of Ms. Sangita Dhingra Sehgal Spl. Judge (PC Act), Delhi as DW 2, Pawan Singh Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd. as DW 3, Khem Singh Chauhan Ahlmad of the court of Sh. Naveen Kumar Kashyap, MM08 (East) Karkardooma Court, Delhi as DW 4 and Manoj Kumar Ahlmad from the court of Sh. Vidya Prakash, CMM, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi as DW 5 and thereafter, DE was closed.
10. I have heard Final Arguments as addressed by Sh. Yogesh Kumar Verma, 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 Ld. Counsel for the accused that this accused Lalit Kumar is innocent and has been falsely implicated by C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 8 of 39 the complainant at the instance of his brotherinlaw Shiv Rattan Singh who was having grudge against the accused as case bearing FIR No. 209/09 U/S 283 IPC, PS: New Ashok Nagar was registered on dated 26.6.2009 at the instance of the accused. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that Ct. Sanjay stood surety for said Shiv Rattan Singh brotherin law of the complainant in that case and said Ct. Sanjay was earlier posted at PS: Anand Vihar when Inspector Y.S. Negi/Raid Officer in this case was SHO at that time. Therefore, on the request of said Ct. Sanjay, Inspector Y.S. Negi/Raid Officer had falsely lodged the present case against the accused at the instance of the complainant Ajit Singh who along with his brotherinlaw Shiv Rattan Singh had grudge against the accused. Ld. Counsel further added that therefore the complaint is ill motivated and the deposition of the complainant can not be treated as reliable as he has lodged the false complaint at the instance of his brotherinlaw Shiv Rattan Singh against this accused. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the certified copies of said case bearing FIR No. 209/09 U/S 283 IPC, PS: New Ashok Nagar as registered against Shiv Rattan Singh brotherinlaw of the complainant at the instance of this accused are available on record which substantiate the stand of the accused in this respect. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the stand of the complainant that C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 9 of 39 the accused had demanded bribe from him to enable him to run the Shop of Gas stove etc. is falsified from the very fact that complainant was not running any such Shop nor he had produced any bills / documents in support of running said Shop nor the IO had collected any document in support of said stand of the complainant. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that though the complainant had taken the Shop on tenancy for one month from PW 11 Om Prakash Sharma but it was opened only on the day of raid and remained closed throughout period of tenancy and therefore the same also corroborate the fact that the complainant had falsely implicated the accused in this case. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the falsity of the complaint is also found corroborated from the fact that there is no reason as to why the complainant would agree to pay bribe of Rs. 3000/ specifically when the total valuation of the goods lying in the Shop even as per the complainant was about of Rs.3500/ only. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the lodging of the false complaint by the complainant Ajit Singh in this case at the instance of his brotherinlaw Shiv Rattan Singh is found supported from the fact that the complainant Ajit Singh (having Mobile Number 9911336313) was having constant talk with his brother in law Shiv Rattan Singh (having Mobile Number 9312686234) on one day prior to raid, on the date of C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 10 of 39 raid and on the next day of raid and said facts are found corroborated from the Mobile call detail record of the complainant Ex.PW13/B. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the complainant on 28.7.2009 from his Mobile phone has rang to Number 100 at 9.58 am and obtained phone number of PS: New Ashok Nagar and thereafter made phone call at 10.25 am on 22716080 which is the phone number of PS: New Ashok Nagar and then obtained the Mobile number of the accused from the Duty Officer PS: New Ashok Nagar and made a call to the accused at 10.28 am to the accused on his Mobile number 9818786545 and thereafter on the next day filed the false complaint against the accused and said facts are found corroborated from the call detail of Mobile number of the complainant Ex.PW13/B. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that PW 4 Ct. Manoj Kumar in his cross examination has clearly stated that the landline phone number of the PS New Ashok Nagar is 22716080. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the accused that PW 7 Suresh Chand / panch witness is a stock witness of Anti Corruption Branch as he has joined duty as panch witness 15 times and participated in 4 Raids and said facts have been admitted by him in his crossexamination. It is further added by the Ld. Counsel that said PW 7 panch witness is also a tutored witness as he admitted that he had given deposition in the court after going C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 11 of 39 through his Police statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C on last date. Thus, Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that as said PW 7 Panch witness / Suresh Chand is a stock witness of police and is a tutored witness, his deposition can not be treated as trustworthy and reliable. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that even PW 11 Om Prakash landlord of the Shop has stated that he was sitting near the Shop at the time of Raid and complainant Ajit Singh had called the accused by telephone and after about 10 minutes accused came there and was apprehended outside the Shop and was taken by 4 persons in a vehicle and they remained there for about 10/15 minutes. Furthermore PW 7 panch witness has also stated that he was in Anti Corruption Branch at 7.45 pm and DW 3 Pawan Singh stated that on 29.07.2009 from 7 pm to 11.40 pm the location of Mobile number 9911336313 that is of complainant was at 2082 i.e., at Old Secretariat and therefore the same show that the writing works were not done at the spot but were made at the office of Anti Corruption Branch and the same falsify the case of the prosecution. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the accused had never demanded any bribe from the complainant nor the prosecution could prove the regarding this aspect as against the accused and therefore the accused deserves to be acquitted. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that PW 15 Inspector Y.S. Negi who is C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 12 of 39 Raid Officer in this case is a man of shabby character and is found involved in two cases i.e., one case bearing CC No. 237/1/11 titled as "Pushpa Rani Vs. Y.S. Negi & Ors." and said complaint is Ex.DW4/A which is pending in the court of Sh. Naveen Kumar Kashyap, MM, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and another case bearing FIR No. 55/2010 U/S 193/196/199/200/ 204/466/469/471 & 120 B IPC r/w Section 65 of Information and Technology Act, PS Special Cell, copy of which is Ex.DW5/A which is pending in the court of Sh. Vidya Prakash, CMM, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that the Revision against the order of Ld. MM in the said case bearing CC No. 237/1/11 titled as "Pushpa Rani Vs. Y.S. Negi & Ors." was filed and same was turned down by the court of Sessions. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that in view of the involvement of the Raid Officer PW 15 in such criminal cases, his deposition can not be treated as reliable. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that PW 16 Inspector Naresh Kumar IO has not collected any document to show that the complainant was running a Shop and therefore the same falsify the basic allegation of demand of bribe as against the accused from the complainant. Ld. Counsel for the accused further added that the Sanctioning Authority has granted the sanction for prosecution against the accused mechanically without proper application of mind C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 13 of 39 and hence, the accused deserves to be acquitted. Thus, Ld. Counsel urged for acquittal of this accused Lalit Kumar and referred and relied upon following Judgments in support of his said contentions : (1) 2013 (1) Crimes 92 (Supreme Court) (2) 2010 (1) JCC 762, (Delhi High Court) (3) 2008 (4) Crimes 137, (Delhi High Court) (4) 2007 Crl. LJ 2919, (MP High Court) (5) 2006 Crl. LJ 804 (Supreme Court) (6) 2006 (1) CC Cases SC 124 (Supreme Court) (7) 2005 (3) JCC 1677 (Delhi High Court) (8) AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1538 (9) 1994 (1) CC Cases 509 (Delhi High Court) (10) 1993 (1) CC Cases 316 (Delhi High Court) (11) 2010 (3) RCR (Crl.) 436 (Supreme Court)
12. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution by examining 16 PWs have established its 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 complainant PW1 complainant and PW 7 Panch witness PW 15 Raid Officer and PW 16 IO have duly supported the C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 14 of 39 case of the prosecution and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP that Sanctioning Authority has rightly passed the Sanction Order after perusal of all the relevant record and said Sanction Order is legally valid and there is no infirmity in the same. It is thus added by Ld. Addl. PP 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 accordingly.
13. The first and foremost question having significant bearing on the fate of this case is whether prosecution has proved that valid Sanction has been accorded by the Competent Authority as against this accused as per Section 19 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. During course of argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that Sanction Order as against this accused has been passed by Sanctioning Authority mechanically without proper application of mind on the material on record and therefore, said Sanction Order is legally invalid and accused deserves to be acquitted. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP on behalf of the State that the Sanctioning Authority, has passed the valid Sanction as against this accused after due appreciation of the relevant materials C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 15 of 39 and therefore, there is no infirmity in the said Sanction Order.
14. That in order to prove the Sanction concerning this accused, the prosecution has examined PW2 K.C. Dwivedi, the then Deputy Commissioner of Police, East District, Delhi, who has categorically deposed that on 31.3.2010 while he was posted as Deputy Commissioner of Police, East District, Delhi, one file relating to sanction for prosecution of Ct. Lalit Kumar was put along with the documents i.e., Search memo, Raid Report, copy of the FIR, statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C, FSL Report and he went through the material placed before him and as he was empowered to appoint as well as dismiss the police official of the rank of a Constable and as he found it a fit case of according sanction for prosecution as against the Ct. Lalit Kumar, he accorded the sanction and sanction order dt. 31.3.2010 is Ex.PW2/A which bears his signatures at point A. In the cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, said PW2 added that he had carefully examined the material placed before him. He had denied the suggestion that a draft performa of the sanction order was put up before him and on the basis of the same, he has granted the sanction order Ex.PW2/A. He further denied the suggestion that he accorded the sanction mechanically without application of mind. C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 16 of 39
15. In the case reported as State of Maharashtra and Ors. V/s Ishvar Piraji Kelpatri & ors 1996 Cri.L.J.1127, where Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down that if the Authority according Sanction makes statement that while signing the order of Sanction, it had personally scrutinized the file and had arrived at required satisfaction, it is not necessary to look for, that there was application of mind or not or that material on record was examined by the concerned officer or not before according sanction, especially when order prima facie shows that, he had done so.
16. Further more, in the case reported as 2004 (13) SCC 487, Shankar Bhai Lalji Bhai Vs. State of Gujrat, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "So far as the question of Sanction is concerned, in the absence of anything to show that any defect or irregularity therein caused failure of justice, that plea is without substance."
17. In the case reported in 2011 I AD (CRI.) (S.C.) 1, Kootha Perumal Vs. State (through) Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption, it was held in Para 14 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 17 of 39 India as under: "Keeping in view the aforesaid statement of law, it would not be possible to conclude that the sanction order in the present case was not valid. Ex.P2 with the present appeal is the copy of the sanction order. A perusal of the same would show that the sanctioning authority has adverted to all the necessary facts which have been actually proved by the prosecution in the trial. Upon examination of the material facts, the sanctioning authority has certified that it is the authority competent to remove the appellant from the office. It is specifically stated that the statements of the witnesses have been duly examined. Sanction order also states that the other materials such as copy of the FIR as well as other official documents such as the different mahazars were carefully examined. Upon examination of the statements of the witnesses as also the material on record, the sanctioning authority has duly recorded its satisfaction that the appellant should be prosecuted for the offences, as noticed above. We, therefore, find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel that the sanctioning order to prosecute the appellant was not legal".
18. By taking cue from the aforesaid judgment and applying the same to the facts of the present case, I do not find any C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 18 of 39 force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused to the effect that Sanction Order Ex.PW2/A has been passed mechanically and without application of mind. I am of considered view that the Sanction concerning the accused Lalit Kumar has been validly granted by PW2 K.C. Dwivedi, the then Deputy Commissioner of Police, East District, Delhi who was competent to do so.
19. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that accused Lalit Kumar is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the complainant due to ulterior motive. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the stand of the complainant that the accused had demanded bribe from him to enable him to run the Shop of gas stove etc. is falsified from the very fact that complainant was not running any such Shop nor he had produced any bills / documents in support of running said Shop nor the IO had collected any document in support of said stand of the complainant. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that though the complainant had taken the Shop on tenancy for one month from PW 11 Om Prakash Sharma but it was opened only on the day of Raid and remained closed throughout period of tenancy and therefore the same also corroborate the fact that the complainant had falsely implicated the C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 19 of 39 accused in this case. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the falsity of the complaint is also found corroborated from the fact that there is no reason as to why the complainant would agree to pay bribe of Rs. 3000/ specifically when the total valuation of the goods lying in the Shop even as per the complainant was about of Rs.3500/ only. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution by examining 16 PWs have established its 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 complainant PW1 complainant and PW 7 Panch witness PW 15 Raid Officer and PW 16 IO have duly supported the case of the prosecution and there is no reason to disbelieve the same.
20. From the perusal of the Case Record, it is reflected that the basic allegation as against the accused is that the accused had demanded bribe of Rs.3000/ from the complainant in order to enable him to run his Shop of Gas Stove, Gas pipe etc. otherwise, he would seize the goods lying therein. But from the perusal of the deposition PW 1 complainant Ajit Singh, it is clearly reflected that he has not delivered any bill / document in support of his stand regarding running of said Shop nor IO had collected any C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 20 of 39 such documents from him and said fact is found supported from the deposition of PW1 complainant in his crossexamination which is as under: "Thereafter, I started the business of sale of Gas Stove Pipe etc. on 22.7.2009. I did not show any proof to the IO nor he asked for the same. I was running the business without getting the same registered under name. I did not put up any sign board outside my Shop". ............................................................
"I had started a business of Gas Stove Pipe and opened a Shop. I did not hand over any bill of purchase of sale items to the Investigation Officer nor he asked for the same. The value of goods lying in my Shop was Rs.3,500/ (Approx.). I have not brought any such bill as I do not possess the same".
21. Further more PW 7 Suresh Chand, Panch Witness in his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel had deposed in this respect as under: "Complainant opened his Shop as it was lying closed. As far as I remember, there was no sign board outside the Shop of the complainant. There was no counter nor any instruments were lying in the Shop of the complainant. In my presence, no customer visited the Shop of the complainant".
C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 21 of 39
22. Further more, PW 11 Om Prakash Sharma who is the landlord of the said Shop in his crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for the accused has deposed in this respect as under: "I had not got prepared any Rent Agreement with the complainant Ajit Singh for letting out the Shop . However, I had obtained his signature on a receipt in this respect. The Shop remained closed throughout the period of tenancy except it was opened on the day of raid. I am residing at the upper floor and the tenanted Shop is at the ground floor. I was sitting on the day of raid near the Shop. The said Shop was opened by the complainant Ajit Singh in my presence. The complainant Ajit Singh had called the accused by telephone. After about 10 minutes of calling the accused, he came at the Shop of Ajit Singh on a motorcycle. The accused was apprehended outside the Shop and thereafter, taken by four persons in the vehicle. They remained there for about 1015 minutes".
23. PW 15 Inspector Y.S. Negi Raid Officer in his deposition has clearly conceded that he had not collected any document from the complainant to establish that the complainant was running Gas Stove Shop there as said PW 15 had deposed in C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 22 of 39 this respect as under: "I had not called for any document from the complainant to show that he is doing business of Gas Cylinder in the said Shop. I had not conducted any verification to ascertain about the genuineness of the complaint as such there is no such procedure in AC Branch in handling such complaint".
24. Further more, PW 16 Inspector Naresh Kumar IO has also clearly admitted that he has not collected any document to establish that the complainant was running the Shop there. As said PW 16 / IO in his crossexamination had deposed in this respect as under: "No rent Agreement between the complainant and owner of the Shop was seized during Investigation. No bill book of the Shop of the complainant was seized during Investigation".
25. From the deposition of PW 11 Om Prakash Sharma, landlord of the Shop and PW 7 Panch Witness, it is clearly reflected that the complainant had taken on rent the premises for the Shop from PW 11 for one month but has got opened said Shop only for one day i.e., on the day of Raid and that too in the C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 23 of 39 presence of PW 11 and PW 7 just before Raid only. Therefore, the stand of PW 1 complainant that the accused had demanded bribe of Rs.3000/ to enable him for running his Shop of Gas Stove, Gas pipe etc. could not be established. The said facts which form the very basis of the demand of the bribe by the accused from the complainant and hence goes to the root of the matter but could not be established by the prosecution.
26. During the course of the Arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that this accused Lalit Kumar is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the complainant at the instance of his brotherinlaw Shiv Rattan Singh who was having grudge against the accused as case bearing FIR No. 209/09 U/S 283 IPC, PS: New Ashok Nagar was registered on dated 26.6.2009 at the instance of the accused. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that Ct. Sanjay stood surety for said Shiv Rattan Singh brotherin law of the complainant in that case and said Ct. Sanjay was earlier posted at PS: Anand Vihar when Inspector Y.S. Negi/Raid Officer in this case was SHO at that time. Therefore, on the request of said Ct. Sanjay, Inspector Y.S. Negi/Raid Officer had falsely lodged the present case against the accused at the C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 24 of 39 instance of the complainant Ajit Singh who along with his brotherinlaw Shiv Rattan Singh had grudge against the accused. Ld. Counsel further added that therefore the complaint is ill motivated and the deposition of the complainant can not be treated as reliable as he has lodged the false complaint at the instance of his brotherinlaw Shiv Rattan Singh against this accused. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the certified copies of said case bearing FIR No. 209/09 U/S 283 IPC, PS: New Ashok Nagar as registered against Shiv Rattan Singh brotherinlaw of the complainant at the instance of this accused are available on record which substantiate the stand of the accused in this respect.
27. From the perusal of the deposition of PW 1 Ajit Singh Complainant, it is reflected that said complainant has admitted that Shiv Rattan Singh as his brotherinlaw (Jijaji) and he was running business of supply of building material at Mayur Vihar Phase III on Mangal Bazaar road, Delhi and he used to keep building material on the road side as said PW 1 complainant had deposed in this respect as under: "Shri Shiv Rattan Singh is my brotherinlaw (Jijaji). He is running a business of supplying building material near MIG C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 25 of 39 Complex, Mayur Vihar, Phase III, on Mangar Bazaar road, Delhi. The building material is kept on the road side".
28. Further more, from the perusal of the certified copies of the papers relating to case bearing FIR NO. 209/09, U/S 283 I.P.C PS: New Ashok Nagar as available on the record, it is reflected that said case was registered on dated 26.6.2009 at PS:
New Ashok Nagar at the instance of this accused as against Shiv Rattan Singh for keeping building material on the road side at Mangal Bazaar road, near MIG Complex, Mayur Vihar, Phase III, Delhi and said Shiv Rattan Singh was arrested on 26.6.2009 and was granted bail for which Sanjay S/o Hem Singh stood surety for him. In view of said material available on record, I found force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused to the effect that said Shiv Rattan Singh the brotherinlaw of the complainant and the complainant had grudge as against this accused.
29. During the course of the Arguments, it is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the lodging of the false complaint by the complainant Ajit Singh in this case at the instance of his brotherinlaw Shiv Rattan Singh is found C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 26 of 39 supported from the fact that the complainant Ajit Singh (having Mobile Number 9911336313) was having constant talk with his brother in law Shiv Rattan Singh (having Mobile Number 9312686234) on one day prior to raid, on the date of raid and on the next day of raid and said facts are found corroborated from the Mobile call detail record of the complainant Ex.PW13/B. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that the complainant on 28.7.2009 from his Mobile phone has rang to Number 100 at 9.58 am and obtained phone number of PS: New Ashok Nagar and thereafter made phone call at 10.25 am on 22716080 which is the phone number of PS: New Ashok Nagar and then obtained the Mobile number of the accused from the Duty Officer PS: New Ashok Nagar and made a call to the accused at 10.28 am to the accused on his Mobile number 9818786545 and thereafter on the next day filed the false complaint against the accused and said facts are found corroborated from the call detail of Mobile number of the complainant Ex.PW13/B. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that PW4 Ct. Manoj Kumar in his crossexamination has clearly stated that the landline phone number of the PS New Ashok Nagar is 22716080.
C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 27 of 39
30. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that PW 1 Complainant had deposed that his Mobile No. 9911336313 and Mobile number of his brotherinlaw Shiv Rattan Singh is 9312686234. Further more from the perusal of the deposition of PW 13 Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd., coupled with the Call Details of Mobile No. 9911336313 of complainant Ajit Singh which is Ex.PW13/B, it is clearly established that the complainant Ajit Singh had talked with his brotherinlaw Shiv Rattan Singh, several times on 28.7.2009 i.e., one day prior to Raid, on 29.7.2009 i.e., on the date of Raid and on 30.7.2009 i.e., next date of Raid. Said facts are found corroborated even from the deposition of PW 13 Pawan Singh Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd. as he had deposed in his crossexamination in this respect as under: "I have seen the call details of phone no.
9911336313 Ex.PW13/B. As per call details, a call was made from 9312686234 to mobile phone no. 9911336313 on 28.7.2009 at 8:50:40 a.m. at point A. As per the call details, another call was made from 9312686234 to mobile number 9911336313 on 28.7.2009 at 9:50:45 a.m at point B. As per the call details, another call was made from 9911336313 to mobile no. 9312686234 on 28.07.2009 at 3:35:31 pm at point C. As per C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 28 of 39 the call details, another call was made from 9312686234 to mobile pone no. 9911336313 on 29.07.2009 at 10:17:51 a.m. at point D. As per the call details, another call was made from 9911336313 to mobile phone no.
9312686234 on 29.07.2009 at 10:44:17 a.m at point E. As per the call details, another call was made from 9312686234 to mobile phone no. 9911336313 on 29.07.2009 at 7:49:33 pm at point F. As per the call details, another call was made from 9911336313 to mobile phone no. 9312686234 on 29.07.2009 at 7:49:59 pm at point G. As per call details, five calls were made in between 9911336313 and 9312686234 on 30.7.2009 at points H, I, J, K & L ".
31. In view of the aforesaid deposition of PW 13 Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd., coupled with the Call details of Mobile number 9911336313 of complainant which is Ex.PW13/B, it is clearly established that the complainant Ajit Singh was having constant touch with his brotherinlaw Shiv Rattan Singh on dated 28.7.2009, i.e., one day prior to Raid, on 29.07.2009, i.e., the day of Raid and 30.07.2009 which is next day of Raid but there is no explanation at all by the complainant as to why he was keeping in so constant talk with his brotherinlaw C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 29 of 39 Shiv Rattan Singh who was already having grudge against the accused, during the said period which raise a big question mark on the motive on the part of the complainant for lodging the complaint as against the accused specifically when accused has taken the consistent stand that the complainant had lodged a false complainant against him at the behest of his brotherinlaw Shiv Rattan Singh who had grudge against the accused for getting the case bearing FIR No. 209/09 U/S 283 IPC registered at PS New Ashok Nagar.
32. During the course of Arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the Accused that the accused had never demanded any bribe from the complainant nor the prosecution could prove regarding the said aspect against the accused. However, Ld. Addl. PP has submitted that demand, acceptance and recovery of the bribe as against the accused has been duly established by the prosecution.
33. From the perusal of the deposition of PW 1 Complainant, it is reflected that that he has not deposed about the demand of bribe by the accused and it appears that before any C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 30 of 39 demand by the accused, PW 1 complainant himself had tendered the money to the accused as said PW 1 has deposed in this respect as under: "Lalit Kumar asked me whether I had arranged money and I told him that I had been able to arrange Rs. 3000/. I gave Rs.
3000/ to Lalit Kumar, he counted the same."
In view of the aforesaid deposition of PW1, complainant, it is reflected that without the demand of money by the accused, the complainant himself had tendered Rs. 3000/ to the accused.
34. During the course of the Arguments, it is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that PW 7 Suresh Chand / panch witness is a stock witness of Anti Corruption Branch as he has joined duty as panch witness 15 times and participated in 4 Raids and said facts have been admitted by him in his crossexamination. It is further added by the Ld. Counsel that said PW 7 Panch Witness is also a tutored witness as he admitted that he had given deposition in the court after going through his Police statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C on last date. Thus, Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that as said PW 7 Panch witness / Suresh Chand is a stock witness of police and is a C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 31 of 39 tutored witness, his deposition can not be treated as trustworthy and reliable. Ld. Counsel in support of his said submission referred and relied the Judgment reported as 2008 (4) Crimes 137 (Delhi) "Pyare Lal Vs. State" .
35. From the perusal of the deposition of PW 7 Suresh Chand Panch Witness, it is clearly reflected that he has joined duty as Panch witness 15 times and participated in 4 Raids as he has deposed in his crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for the accused as under " I have been assigned the duty of Panch Witness approx. 15 times and 4 Raids were conducted in my presence".
36. Further more, said PW 7 Panch Witness in his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel has admitted that he had given his statement in the court on the last date i.e. On 23.7.2012 when his examination in chief was recorded, after going through his police statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C as he has deposed in this respect as under: "When I had come on the last date and made my statement in the court, I had glanced through my statement U/S 161 C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 32 of 39 Cr.P.C."
37. In the case reported as 2008 (4) Crimes 137 (Delhi), "Pyare Lal Vs. State", as referred by Ld. Counsel for the accused, while dealing with the veracity of Panch Witness who has joined duty as Panch Witness several times earlier, it was observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in middle part of para 15 as under: "There is no doubt that the Panch witness had also deposed that the complainant had kept the tainted notes in the appellant's diary on the asking of the appellantaccused but his testimony can not be said to be that of an independent witness since in crossexamination he had admitted that he had been deputed in the anticorruption branch on 17 or 18 dates and also that he had joined three such raids during that period. For this view I am fortified by a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G.V. Nanjundiah Vs. State which was also a case of bribery and one of the Panch Witnesses in that case had been associated in traps organized by the CBI on three or four occasions and because of that fact he was not considered to be an independent witness by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. "
C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 33 of 39
38. By taking the cue from the aforesaid Judgments as rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and applying the same to the facts of the present case and specifically keeping in mind that PW 7 Panch witness in this case is found to have joined duty as panchwitness 15 times and participated in 4 Raids earlier and also admitted to have given the deposition in the form of his examinationinchief after going through the police statement, I am of the considered view that the deposition of said PW 7 can not be treated as deposition of a Independent witness and hence credence can not be laid on the same.
39. Thus from the perusal of the deposition of PW 1 complainant and PW 7 Panch Witness it is clearly reflected that the prosecution has failed to establish about the basic element relating to bribe i.e., "Demand of Bribe" by the accused from the complainant. Since the prosecution has failed to establish regarding the factum of the demand of bribe by the accused from the complainant, the presumption as contemplated U/S 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be attracted in this C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 34 of 39 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".
40. In the absence of proof of "Demand of bribe" by the 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 for which he has been charged with 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" C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 35 of 39
(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"
(11) V (2009) SLT 272 A. Subair Vs. State of Kerala
41. During the course of the Arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that PW 15 Inspector Y.S. Negi who is Raid Officer in this case is a man of shabby character and is found involved in two cases i.e., one case bearing CC No. 237/1/11 titled as "Pushpa Rani Vs. Y.S. Negi & Ors." and said complaint is Ex.DW4/A which is pending in the court of Sh. Naveen Kumar Kashyap, MM, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and another case bearing FIR No. 55/2010 U/S 193/196/199/200/ 204/466/469/471 & 120 B IPC r/w Section 65 of Information and Technology Act, PS Special Cell, copy of which is Ex.DW5/A C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 36 of 39 which is pending in the court of Sh. Vidya Prakash, CMM, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that the Revision against the order of Ld. MM in the said case bearing CC No. 237/1/11 titled as "Pushpa Rani Vs. Y.S. Negi & Ors." was filed and same was turned down by the court of Sessions. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that in view of the involvement of the Raid Officer PW 15 in such criminal cases, his deposition can not be treated as reliable.
42. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that DW4 Khem Singh Chauhan, Ahlmad from the court of Sh. Naveen Kumar Kashyap, MM08 (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi has produced the record bearing CC No. 237/1/11 titled as "Pushpa Rani Vs. Y.S. Negi & Ors." U/S 452/323/341/506/ 379/384/511 IPC as pending in the said court and proved the copy of the complaint as Ex.DW4/A and added that the accused Y.S. Negi and other accused are appearing in the said case in the said court.
43. Further more, DW 5 Manoj Kumar, Ahlmad from the court of Sh.Vidya Prakash, CMM, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi has C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 37 of 39 brought the record relating to case bearing FIR No. 55/2010 U/S 193/196/199/200/204/466/469/471& 120 B IPC r/w Section 65 of Information and Technology as registered at PS: Special Cell and proved the copy of the said FIR as Ex.DW5/A. From the perusal of the copy of the said FIR, it is reflected that Inspector Y.S. Negi who is Raid Officer in the present case is also named as accused in the said FIR.
In view of the aforesaid material available in the record, it is clearly reflected that Inspector Y.S. Negi who is Raid Officer in the present case and has been examined as PW15 is found involved in aforesaid two criminal cases and hence, I found force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused in this respect.
44. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the charged offence punishable U/S 7 & 13 (2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and therefore this accused Lalit Kumar stands acquitted of the said charged offence. C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 38 of 39
45. Since this accused Lalit Kumar has been acquitted of the charged offence, his bail bond is cancelled and his surety stands discharged.
Announced in the open court on this 26th day of February, 2013 (B.R. Kedia) Special Judge07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC, Delhi C.C. No. 53/12 Page No. 39 of 39