Delhi District Court
State vs Pritam Singh on 26 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF DEEPALI SHARMA :
SPECIAL JUDGE: (PC ACT): (ACB-01):
RADC: NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLCT11-000070-2021
CC No. 15/2021
FIR No.54/2014
PS : ACB
State Vs Pritam Singh
State
VERSUS
Pritam Singh,
S/o Jaswant Singh,
R/o 517/9, Monga Nagar,
Main Karawal Nagar,
PS Khajuri,
Delhi.
Date of Institution : 24.02.2021
Date of Arguments : 04.09.2024
Date of Judgment : 26.09.2024
Appearance :
For the State : Sh. Masood Ahmad,
Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor.
For accused : Sh. Abhir Datt, Ld. Counsel.
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the present case are that on 08.07.2014 at 11.30 pm, complainant Vinay Tyagi came to the Anti Corruption Branch (hereinafter referred as ACB) Office and ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 1 of 71 made a complaint dated 08.07.2014 addressed to ACP, ACB, against BDO Sh. Madan Lal and Panchayat Secretary Pritam Singh, Civil Lines Area, Delhi, regarding demand of bribe by them. The complaint was written on the dictation of complainant Vinay Tyagi by his friend Sanjiv Midha. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant was running a school at Village Jharoda Majra, Burari, Delhi and that the school was operational since 1997 at Khasra No. 65. During summer vacations the complainant intended to repair four rooms of the school and applied for permission to repair before the office of SDM Civil Lines. BDO Madan Lal instructed him to deal with Panchayat Secretary Pritam Singh, who in turn demanded Rs. 10 Lakhs for granting permission for repair. The complainant requested that it was beyond his capacity at which the BDO and the Panchayat Secretary threatened him that they would initiate action against him. Upon receiving the threats, the complainant moved before the court on 21.06.2014 and the SDM/BDO were served notices on 23.06.2014. In retaliation, the BDO and Panchayat Secretary came with JCB machines on 24.06.2014 and demolished the rooms that were under repair. They also demolished the boundary wall of the school that was 37 years old alongwith guard room. They disconnected electricity and water connection and took away the meters. A stay order was granted on 26.06.2014. It is further alleged in the complaint that since then, the BDO Sh. Madan Lal through Panchayat Secretary Pritam Singh had been threatening and demanding money failing which they would demolish the remaining school building and take over the possession of the land, whereas the matter was pending before the court. It is further mentioned that under these ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 2 of 71 circumstances and pressure, the complainant was compelled to settle the matter. Pritam Singh had further told him that "You have seen the consequences of moving the court. Pay us or face further action." Hence, the complainant agreed to settle the matter. During negotiations Pritam Singh demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs initially, out of which Rs. 2 Lakhs were for himself and Rs. 3 Lakhs for Madan Lal - BDO, whereas the deal was settled at Rs. 3 Lakhs to be paid in two installments. As per the complaint, it had been agreed that Rs. 1.5 Lakh was to be paid on that day i.e. 08.07.2014 out of which Rs. 50,000/- would be retained by Pritam Singh and Rs. 1 Lakh would be passed on to Madan Lal - BDO. The next installment of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs was to be paid the next week. Pritam Singh had asked the complainant to send the money through his son, hence, his son namely Rajat Tyagi, aged 28 years, had come with the complainant. The complainant had brought Rs. 1,50,000/- i.e. 150 notes in the denomination of Rs. 1000/- each (in two bundles, one containing 100 notes and another containing 50 notes). The complainant handed over the said amount to ACB to be paid as bribe.
2. The afore-said complaint Ex. PW5/A was assigned to ACP Rohitash Kumar - PW11, who was the Raid Officer. He summoned the panch witness on duty and verified the allegations in the complaint. After verification of the complaint, it was signed by ACP Rohitash Kumar and panch witness. The complainant handed over the above-said bribe amount of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs to PW11. The serial number of the GC notes were noted down, which were checked by the panch witness. Pre-raid proceedings were conducted and thereafter the raiding team alongwith panch witness and son of the complainant departed for ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 3 of 71 raid proceedings and reached Pushta Burari where one person, who was identified by Rajat Tyagi to be accused Pritam Singh, came and left immediately while telling them get the money after one hour at the Tis Hazari Office, where he would take the money after meeting BDO Sahab. Thereafter the Raiding Team went to SDM Office, Civil Lines in Tis Hazari Court premises where accused Pritam Singh was caught red handed while demanding and accepting the bribe amount of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs i.e. 150 GC notes of denomination of Rs. 1000/- each, which were smeared with Phenolphthalein powder, from Rajat Tyagi, son of the complainant, in presence of panch witness.
3. After completion of investigation, on 19.02.2021 charge-sheet was filed against the accused under Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred as PC Act). Thereafter, cognizance of offence was taken on 12.03.2021 and charge for the offence under 7/13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act punishable under Section 13(2) of PC Act was framed against accused Pritam Singh on 29.10.2021.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined fourteen (14) witnesses in all. The brief summary of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses is as under:
i) PW1 - ASI Satish was MHC(M) at PS Civil Lines, who proved the relevant entries in register no. 19 regarding deposit of GC notes of an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, two bottles sealed with the seal of RHK and one sample seal as well as deposit of the personal search articles vide Ex.PW1/A. He also proved the RC No.127/21/14 Ex. PW1/B vide which he handed over to Ct. Dinesh Kumar one bottle sealed with the seal of RHK ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 4 of 71 alongwith sample seal and forwarding letter with documents, at the instance of IO to deposit the same at FSL, Rohini. After depositing the exhibits, Ct. Dinesh Kumar handed over copy of RC and receipt of FSL to him. So long as the case property remained with him, he did not tamper the same.
ii) PW2 HC Dinesh deposed regarding taking the exhibits from malkhana PS Civil Lines at the instance of IO on 10.07.2014 and depositing the same at FSL Rohini vide RC No.127/21/14 dated 10.07.2014. After depositing the exhibits, sample seal and documents, he deposited receipt and copy of RC with MHC(M), PS Civil Lines.
iii) PW3 Dr. Lingaraj Sahoo, was posted as Sr. Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL Rohini, Delhi, who chemically examined the exhibits and proved his report as Ex.
PW3/A.
iv) PW4 ASI Mohanan was member of raiding team.
He deposed that on 08.07.2014, he was posted at PS ACB as Constable and he joined the raiding party alongwith IO Insp. Manoj Kumar, Insp. Rohtash Kumar, SI Upender, HC Dinamani, panch witness and the complainant. At about 01:00 pm, they left the ACB alongwith the raiding party for Burari Pusta and reached there at 01:15 pm. The raiding party was deployed there. After some time, Insp. Rohtash informed them that the raiding party was to leave for SDM Office, Civil Lines. The raiding party reached at SDM Office, Civil Lines and they were deployed there. At 02:30 pm, members of the raiding party were called near the SDM Office, Civil Lines. They were called inside the SDM Office. After some time, the search of the accused was ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 5 of 71 taken by Insp. Rohtash. SI Upender took the hand-wash of accused Pritam Singh. All the proceedings were done by Raiding Officer Insp. Rohtash at the spot. Thereafter, Insp. Rohtash prepared a rukka and handed over the rukka to him at about 05:30 pm with direction to get the case registered at ACB. He took the rukka and reached the ACB and handed over the rukka to Duty Officer at about 06:00 pm. The FIR was registered and after registration of the case, the copy of the FIR and the original Rukka were handed over to Insp. Manoj, Investigating Officer. He correctly identified accused Pritam Singh before the court.
On being cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW4 admitted that the name of the panch witness, who accompanied them was Bhim Sen. PW4 also admitted that the raiding party left the office of ACB in two vehicles i.e. one government Maruti Van bearing no. DL-6CJ-8291 and one private taxi Innova bearing no. DL-1YD-4441. PW4 affirmed that when they reached at Burari Pusta, one person came and informed witness Rajat Tyagi and panch witness that they should come alongwith the money at the office at Tis Hazari where the money would be taken after meeting BDO Sahab. PW4 affirmed that after the panch witness gave signal to the raiding party, Insp. Rohtash alongwith the raiding party reached the room of accused Pritam Singh and Insp. Rohtash gave the introduction of the raiding party to accused Pritam Singh and further stated that he had accepted the bribe amount of Rs.1.5 Lakh from witness Rajat Tyagi. PW4 also affirmed that Insp. Rohtash asked for the search of accused Pritam Singh and offered the search of the raiding party prior to his search and accused Pritam Singh refused to take the search of the raid officer and raiding party. PW4 further ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 6 of 71 affirmed that on the direction of the RO, panch witness recovered the bribe amount which the accused was holding in his right hand and the recovered bribe amount was counted and it was 150 GC notes of Rs.1,000/- denomination each. PW4 affirmed that the serial numbers of the GC notes were tallied with serial numbers mentioned in the raid report and it was found to be correct and the recovered GC notes were seized vide seizure memo and taken into police possession. The seizure memo was prepared before him and he had signed the same.
However, when the seizure memo of the GC notes Mark-Y was shown to PW4, he stated that the same was prepared by the RO but it did not bear his signature. PW4 affirmed that the right hand wash of the accused Pritam Singh was taken into colourless sodium carbonate solution and it turned pink and the pink solution was kept in two glass bottles and the mouth of the same were closed with the help of cork and cap. PW4 affirmed that the mouth of the bottles were wrapped with white cloth and both the bottles were sealed with the seal of RHK and paper slips were affixed on both the sealed bottles and both exhibits were marked as RHW-I and RHW-II. He affirmed that the RO affixed his seal of RHK on two plain papers as sample seal and the exhibits alongwith sample seal were taken into police possession vide seizure memo. PW4 affirmed that after the raid proceedings were over, Insp. Manoj Kumar was called at the spot by the RO and when Insp. Manoj Kumar reached at the spot, the RO handed over the sealed exhibits alongwith the exhibits and the accused to Insp. Manoj Kumar and apprised him about the raid proceedings. PW4 further affirmed that Insp. Manoj Kumar alongwith the accused reached at the office of ACB at 06:00 pm and he handed ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 7 of 71 over the copy of FIR and original rukka to IO. PW4 stated that he could not recollect the aforesaid facts due to lapse of time.
PW4 correctly identified before court two bottles containing hand wash of accused i.e. the bottle RHW-I Ex.P1 and the bottle RHW-II Ex.P2. PW4 also correctly identified before court 150 GC notes of Rs.1,000/- denomination each Ex.P3 (colly).
v) PW5 Sanjiv Midha - friend of complainant Vinay Tyagi, who accompanied complainant to ACB and at the request of complainant he wrote down the complaint Ex. PW5/A as dictated by Vinay Tyagi which was signed by complainant Vinay Tyagi. PW5 deposed that Rajat, son of his friend, alongwith 5-6 officials of ACB left the office and in the late evening they came back and stated that they had caught Pritam Singh. PW5 correctly identified accused Pritam Singh before the court.
vi) PW6 Vinay Tyagi - the complainant. vii) PW7 Bhimsen - the Panch Witness. viii) PW8 SI Krishan Kumar _ the Duty Officer, who
deposed that on 08.07.2014, at about 06:00 pm, HC Mohanan A.M. came to his office alongwith a rukka which was sent by Insp. Rohtash. On the basis of the rukka the case FIR No. 54/2014 was registered U/s 7/13 POC Act Ex.PW8/A. PW8 had also made endorsement Ex.PW8/B on the rukka. After registration of the present case, a copy of FIR and the original rukka were handed over to HC Mohanan A.M. to hand over the same to Insp. Manoj Kumar as the investigation of the case was marked to him. Relevant DD entries regarding the arrival of HC Mohanan A.M. alongwith the rukka and the registration of FIR ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 8 of 71 was made in the DD register i.e. DD no. 24A Ex.PW8/C and D.D. No. 27A dated 08.07.2014 Ex.PW8/D.
ix) PW9 Ashwani Kumar, Secretary-cum-Divisional Commissioner, granted sanction u/s 19 of PC Act against accused Pritam Singh. He deposed that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, ACB, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide letter no. 4815/MK/ACB/RC-54/14 dated 28.04.2015 sought the prosecution sanction U/s 19 of PC Act 1988 against Sh. Pritam Singh, VLW, E.A. (Agriculture). He being the competent authority to remove accused Pritam Singh from his services, accorded sanction U/s 19 of PC Act for his prosecution for the aforesaid offences, vide sanction order dated 24.08.2015 Ex.PW9/A, which was forwarded through letter no. F.1/Dir(p)/Vig./VLW/DOV/ 2014/ 7437 dated 26.08.2015 to the forwarding authority.
x) PW10 Rajat Tyagi - son of complainant Vinay Tyagi, who deposed about raid proceedings. xi) PW11 ACP Rohitash Kumar deposed that on
08.07.2014 he was performing the duty of raid officer. Complainant Vinay Tyagi alongwith his son Anuj Tyagi and one friend Sanjeev Midha approached the ACB with a complaint of demand of bribe. Complainant Vinay Tyagi got a complaint written on his dictation by his friend Sanjeev Midha. His complaint was addressed to Addl. CP, ACB. He being Raid Officer was assigned to take legal action on said complaint by DCP, ACB. He summoned panch witness on duty Bhimsen and verified the allegation and that bribe was being demanded by one Pritam Singh, VLW, who was also referred as Panchayat ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 9 of 71 Secretary. After verification of the complaint Ex. PW5/A, it was signed by him and panch witness Bhimsen. The bribe amount Rs.1.5 Lakh in the form of Rs.1000/- currency notes was handed over to him by Vinay Tyagi. The demonstration of use of Phenolphthalein powder and its chemical effect on Sodium Carbonate solution was given to panch witness, complainant and his son Anuj Tyagi. The phenolphthalein powder was applied to the bribe money and after application of phenolphthalein powder the bribe money in the forms of two bundles of Rs.1 Lakh and Rs.50,000/- were handed over to Anuj Tyagi. After that, the demonstration vessels were cleaned and the demonstration staff including him washed their hands. The phenolphthalein powder container was handed over to the Duty Officer after application. He alongwith Insp. Manoj Kumar, SI Upender, HC Deenamani, HC Mohnan, panch witness and Anuj Tyagi departed to the place of demand of bribe at Burari Pusta. Vinay Tyagi and his friend Sh. Sanjeev Midha were left behind at ACB office. The raiding team departed in two vehicles, one official Maruti van no.8291 and one private Innova taxi. The driver of both the vehicles were civilians namely Vinod Kumar and one Punni Chand, but he did not remember his exact name. Anuj Tyagi had kept the powder smeared notes in the left hand side pocket of his wearing jeans. The proceedings regarding demonstration and verification of complaint happened from 11:30 am to approximately 01.00 pm. The team reached at Burari Pusta, where they were properly briefed. Anuj Tyagi was specifically directed to give bribe money only after being demanded. Panch witness was briefed to remain in close proximity with Anuj Tyagi and accused and asked to listen to the conversation between them and to give ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 10 of 71 signal by rotating his hand on his head after taking of the bribe money by accused. At Burari Pusta, one person, who was later identified as Pritam Singh s/o Jaswant Singh, came on a motorcycle and had some brief conversation with Anuj Tyagi, where panch witness was also present and he left without taking bribe as panch witness gave no signal. PW11 correctly identified accused Pritam Singh before the court. PW11 alongwith team reached near Anuj Tyagi and panch witness and inquired as to what happened, at which, Anuj Tyagi and panch witness informed that Pritam Singh had asked them to come to Revenue Office, Tis Hazari within one hour, where he would take the money. In the changed scenario, PW11 re-briefed the team and reached at Tis Hazari Court complex where Revenue Office was situated and he re-deployed the team. Panch witness was again briefed that he should listen to the conversation between Anuj Tyagi and accused and should give signal only when bribe money has been demanded and taken by accused. At the second floor of that office accused Pritam Singh, who had come to Burari Pusta, again met Anuj Tyagi and panch witness Bhimsen. PW11 and his team were closely following them. After some conversation, panch witness, Anuj Tyagi and accused Pritam Singh entered in the office of BDO. After some time, they came out and descended through the stairs and came to the parking. He and his team kept following from a distance. PW11 noticed that panch witness gave a predetermined signal by rotating his hand on his head. Immediately they reached near them and apprehended accused Pritam Singh S/o Jaswant Singh. PW11 disclosed his identity and offered him to take his personal search and search of his team telling accused that he had received the bribe and same ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 11 of 71 had to be recovered. Accused got perplexed. The bribe amount which accused had kept in his right hand was recovered and tallied with the currency note numbers through panch witness and it was found to be the same currency notes which they had recorded in their raid memo Ex. PW7/A, which was prepared prior to the demonstration given by him in front of complainant, son of complainant and panch witness. After recovery of the bribe money, PW11 alongwith accused Pritam Singh S/o Jaswant Singh, who identified himself as VLW (Village Level Worker) and Panchayat Secretary as well and Rajat Tyagi and team members went upstairs to the second floor of the office. PW11 deposed that the name of son of the complainant was Rajat Tyagi, who had accompanied them to the spot and not Anuj Tyagi and due some confusion he had stated his name as Anuj Tyagi earlier. At the second floor, PW11 made inquiry from Rajat Tyagi and panch witness as to what happened when they first reached the second floor and went inside the office of BDO. Panch witness and Rajat Tyagi told him that Pritam Singh demanded money but Rajat Tyagi wanted to give the bribe amount on the assurance of BDO that his work would be done and for the said reason, Pritam Singh took Rajat Tyagi and panch witness inside the room of BDO. They further apprised that BDO told them that he has been transferred and declined to take any interest, but still Pritam Singh said that he would get the work done and took them to the parking, where he took the bribe. After inquiry, the hand-wash of right hand of accused Pritam Singh was taken and the sodium carbonate uncoloured solution turned pink. Handwash was taken into two clean glass bottles, which were marked RHW-I and RHW-II and bottles were sealed with seal of RHK and was ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 12 of 71 seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/C. Bribe amount was seized through seizure memo Ex. PW7/D. Impression of sample seals were also prepared by him and seal after use was handed over to panch witness through handing over memo Ex. PW7/E. PW11 prepared rukka Ex.PW-11/A and sent it for registration of FIR through HC Mohanan. Apprehended accused alongwith seized exhibits and memos were handed over to IO Insp. Manoj Kumar, who was waiting at Tis Hazari Complex for further investigation of the case. After apprehension during inquiry accused Pritam Singh s/o Jaswant Singh clarified that he was VLW but he portrays himself as Panchayat Secretary as well, in the field work. After that he left the spot and he received his seal on next day from panch witness. PW11 correctly identified accused Pritam Singh as well as case property i.e. Ex. P-1, Ex. P-2 and Ex. P-3, before court. Ld. Addl. PP put a leading question to PW11 on which he affirmed that after the demonstration the panch witness and Rajat Tyagi had also cleaned their hands with soap and water.
xii) PW12 ACP Sukhdev Meena deposed that on 26.03.2018, investigation of the present case was assigned to him. The previous IO had already applied for grant of sanction. He prepared draft chargesheet and thereafter, he was transferred from ACB.
xiii) PW 13 ACP Manoj Kumar was IO of the case, who deposed that on 08.07.2014, he was assigned the duty of Investigation Officer at ACB. At about 01:00 pm, Insp. Rohtash Kumar informed him to join the raiding team. At about 01:00 pm
- 01:15 pm he alongwith Insp. Rohtash Kumar, complainant's son ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 13 of 71 Rajat Tyagi, panch witness Bhimsen and other members of raiding team left the ACB in two vehicles out of which one was official vehicle. First of all, they reached at Burari Pusta, he was sitting in another vehicle while IO, complainant and panch witness were sitting in another vehicle. Thereupon, they reached at Tis Hazari Court complex and parked their vehicles near Lockup of Tis Hazari Court. After leaving him and drivers, the other members of the raiding team alongwith panch witness, complainant's son went towards the BDO office in Tis Hazari Complex.
At about 05:00-05:15 pm, Insp. Rohtash Kumar called him through HC Deena Mani near the office of BDO complex. Insp. Rohtash Kumar informed him about the success of the raid and apprised him about the facts regarding the raid. Thereafter Insp. Rohtash Kumar handed over to him the accused, seizure memo of GC notes, GC notes of Rs.1,50,000/-, seizure memo of handwash of the accused alongwith the two glass bottles. PW13 inquired and verified the facts from the complainant, panch witness and RO and thereafter he prepared rough site plan at the instance of panch witness Ex. PW-7/B. Thereafter, as public persons started gathering there, he alongwith HC Deena Mani, accused, complainant's son, panch witness and other members of raiding team returned to the ACB.
HC Mohanan handed over him the copy of the FIR.
He put the FIR number on the memos which were handed over to him by the RO. Thereafter, he formally arrested the accused vide memo Ex.PW7/F and took his formal search vide memo Ex. A1. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and deposited the ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 14 of 71 case property with Malkhana of PS Civil Lines. Accused was got medically examined and was put in the lockup. On next day, accused was produced before the Court and the arrest report of accused Ex.A2 was sent to Government of Delhi. On 10.07.2014, he sent Ct. Dinesh to deposit the exhibits at FSL. After depositing the exhibits at FSL, he handed over the acknowledgment of case acceptance to him.
PW13 deposed that on 08.07.2014, he also seized the copy of civil suit Ex.PW6/A (colly) filed by Vinay Tyagi for mandatory and permanent injunction vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/A. He formally interrogated Madan Lal, BDO. He gave two notices to SDM, Civil Lines, directing Madan Lal to join the investigation and for providing documents relating to Khasra no. 65 of Village Jharoda. Madan Lal, BDO joined the investigation. On 16.07.2014, Clerk of Tehsildar handed over documents relating to demolition of Khasra no. 65, Village Jharoda Ex.A7 (colly). PW13 also gave notice to SDM, Civil Lines for providing the documents related to the case of Gao Sabha, Jharoda Majra Vs Vinay Tyagi and Clerk from the SDM office provided the file number of the said case and it was later informed by SDM office that the file of the said case was missing.
On 28.08.2014, PW13 received the FSL result and placed the same on record. On 01.09.2014, he issued a notice to complainant to provide CD and original device and pursuant to that complainant joined the investigation and brought one CD but the same was not in order and he sought some time to produce fresh CD and original device but the same was not provided. On ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 15 of 71 02.12.2014, PW13 also issued notice to MCD to provide the list of officials, who carried out demolition in Khasra no. 65, Village Jharoda and received reply Ex.A4. On 28.04.2015, PW13 sent a letter to DC, Revenue for grant of prosecution sanction. On 07.01.2016, PW13 was transferred from ACB and handed over the file to SO Branch, ACB.
xiv) PW14 Ins. Brijesh Mishra deposed that on 10.06.2019, investigation of present case was assigned to him and he got collected the sanction U/s 19 of PC Act from the office of competent authority and placed the same on file. He prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same in the court.
5. During recording of prosecution evidence, on 29.10.2021 ld. Counsel for the accused admitted documents i.e. personal search memo of accused Ex. A1; Arrest Report dated 09.07.2014 Ex. A2; Initial Special Report (ISR) dated 09.07.2014 Ex. A-3; letter no. 1816/EE(B)-1/CLZ/2014 dated 05.12.2014 issued by NDMC about details of staff which carried out demolition on 24.06.2014 Ex. A-4; documents in respect of Khasra N. 65 submitted by Patwari Yogesh Kumar Ex. A-5 & Ex. A-6 and a letter no. F.SDM/CL/Misc./2014/4727 dated 11.07.2014 of Sh. Amerendra Kumar Singh alongwith photocopy of demolition file Khasra No. 65 of Village Jharoda Majra, Burari Ex. A-7(colly). Accordingly, PW Yogesh Kumar (Patwari) and PW Amrendra Kumar Singh (Tehsildar) were dropped from the list of witnesses.
6. After completion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence was put to him which he denied as ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 16 of 71 false and incorrect and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has taken a plea that he did not know about the tout Pritam Singh and he had no concern with Vinay Tyagi. It was submitted by the accused that he was posted as Village Level Worker (Gram Sewak) at Village Jharoda, Burari on 08.07.2014 but he was not referred as Panchayat Secretary. Any reference to Pritam Singh in complaint Ex. PW5/A did not pertain to him. Accused further submitted that he was not apprehended at the parking and at no point of time he met with PW7 Bhimsen or Rajat Tyagi. He further stated that he had not met with Rajat Tyagi or BDO Madan Lal on 08.07.2014. He further stated that no hand-wash was taken and no proceedings were conducted. The raiding team went inside the office of BDO Madan Lal and thereafter forcibly took him with them to ACB Office. He further stated that the sanction u/s 19 of PC Act was granted without application of mind. It is also submitted by the accused that he is not tout Pritam Singh. He did not have any interaction with Vinay Tyagi or Rajat Tyagi at any point of time and neither did he ever demand any bribe amount from them no accepted any bribe amount from them. He was a Village Level Worker and hence, a very low rank officer and did not have any authority in relation to demolition, construction or any other land or repair work. Accused opted to lead evidence in his defence. However, accused did not lead any evidence in his defence and at his request, defence evidence was closed vide order dated 18.07.2023.
7. Arguments have been advanced by Sh. Masood Ahmed, Ld. Chief PP for the State and by Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused. I have also perused the written submissions as ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 17 of 71 filed on behalf of accused.
8. Ld. Chief PP for State argued that accused was caught red handed while accepting bribe of Rs.1.5 Lakhs pursuant to his final demand of Rs. 3 Lakhs as a reward for permitting the complainant to repair his school and for not taking any action against him. It is argued that the complainant PW6, his son PW10 as well as panch witness PW7 have supported the case of prosecution. It is further stated that though the complainant Vinay Tyagi and his son Rajat Tyagi have not identified the accused before the court, however, cumulative reading of the testimonies of witnesses and other documentary evidence clearly establishes the identity of the accused. It is argued that as prosecution has proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused who was working as public servant, the Court has to raise the presumption that the said illegal gratification was as a motive or reward as provided u/s 20 of PC Act.
9. Per contra, Ld. Defence counsel argued that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. It is stated that both the complainant Vinay Tyagi and his son Rajat Tyagi have not identified the accused as the person who had made any demand from the complainant in any manner. It is stated that there are material contradictions in the testimony of witnesses and hence their testimony cannot be relied upon to hold the accused guilty of the alleged offence. It is stated that there is no proved demand on record. It is further urged that the complainant was carrying out construction on the land belonging to Gram Sabha and land was thus disputed and ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 18 of 71 there were many complaints filed by the villagers in this regard. It is further urged that the complainant had also obtained a stay on demolition in the civil suit filed on 21.01.2014. The stay order is dated 27.06.2014 and the trap proceedings were conducted on 08.07.2014. It is urged that once there was a stay order on demolition granted by the court, there was no occasion for the complainant to give bribe to the accused or the BDO on 08.07.2014. It is also argued that the accused did not have any authority to carry out any demolition and the BDO on whose behalf the accused was purported to be acting has not been made an accused in the present case. It is accordingly prayed that the accused be acquitted in the present case.
10. Before appreciating evidence in this case, it is important to note that even in a case under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the onus is on the prosecution to prove the fundamental requirement of criminal law viz., the guilt of an accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. In this regard, reliance is placed upon State of Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede (supra) and State of Punjab Vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma 2013 (7) LRC 34 (SC). In both these cases, it was held that the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. It was also held that even while invoking the provision of section 20 of PC Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touch stone of preponderance of probability and not on the touch stone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt.
11. It is well settled that it is one of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 19 of 71 to be innocent till he is proved to be guilty. It is also well settled that suspicion however strong can never take the place of proof. There is a long distance between the fact that accused 'may have committed the offence' and 'must have committed the offence', which is to be proved by the prosecution by adducing reliable and cogent evidence. Presumption of innocence is recognized as human right which cannot be wished away. (Refer; Narender Singh & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (2004) 10 SCC 699; Ranjtsingh Brahamjeet Singh Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2005) 5 SCC 294; Ganesan Vs. Rama S. Raghuraman & Ors. (2011) 2 SCC 83 and; State of U.P. Vs. Naresh & Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 384).
12. The Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta vs. State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Crl. Appeal no. 1669 of 2009 with regard to the nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for offences under Section 7 or 13 (1) (d) (i) & (ii) of the PC Act, summarized as under :-
" 68. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and(ii) of the Act.
(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.
____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 20 of 71
(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence.
Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 21 of 71 presumption stands.
(f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature."
13. There is no dispute in the proposition of law as laid- down in the judgments relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the accused in B.Jayaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2014 (13) SCC 55; Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1979) 4 SCC 725; Panalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 4 SCC 526 and C.M.Girish Babu v. CBI, (2009) 3 SCC 779, wherein it was held that proof of demand is sine-qua-non for the offence u/s 7 and section 13(1)(d) of PC Act.
14. With these principles in mind, it is to be examined as to what extent prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge against the accused.
____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 22 of 71 Testimonies of material witnesses :
15. Complainant Vinay Tyagi was examined as PW6. He deposed that he was a farmer and his father was running a school in the name of D.D. Tyagi Public School, Khasra No. 65, Village Jharoda, Majra Burari, Delhi-84. The school was operational since 1977 at the aforesaid address. In the year 2014 during summer vacations, he had given an application dated 24.05.2014 Mark-X to SDM, Civil Lines seeking permission to repair the roof of the school. No response was received from the office of SDM on his application. He started the repair work in his school. He did not remember the exact date, however, during summer vacations, the then BDO Madan Lal alongwith his team came at his school and they asked for the permission letter regarding construction work. PW6 told them that he had already applied for the same. The then BDO further stated that the construction work going on was illegal without permission. PW6 stated to BDO "chalo milkar baithkar baat karenge". PW6 was also asked by the BDO to stop the work. PW6 stopped the work for two days and after that he resumed construction work. PW6 deposed that he talked to one person, who was the tout of BDO Madan Lal, regarding "seva paani". BDO Madan Lal had asked PW6 to contact his tout Pritam Singh. The tout of BDO Madan Lal, whose name was Pritam demanded Rs.10 Lakhs to allow construction and repair work. PW6 bargained and the amount was finalized as Rs.5 Lakhs which was to be paid by him to BDO Madan Lal. PW6 did not pay the aforesaid amount. One day BDO Madan Lal alongwith his team came at his school alongwith police force and demolished four rooms which were ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 23 of 71 under repair. They also demolished the guard room and boundary wall. PW6 again talked to tout Pritam, who told PW6 that the entire building would be demolished if he did not do "Seva Paani". PW6 did not have the aforesaid amount so he arranged the amount of Rs. Two Lakh from his nephew ( Bhanja) and paid the same to tout Pritam Singh in the presence of BDO Madan Lal. After that they left saying that " aaj to thak gaye kisi aur din karenge". Earlier PW6 had received notice from the SDM office and in response to the notice, PW6 had filed a civil suit at Tis Hazari and the demolition work was stayed by the court. PW6 deposed that the stay proceedings were ordered on 26.06.2014 but BDO alongwith his team had demolished four rooms and the guard room on 24.06.2014. PW6 again visited the office of SDM and met BDO Madan Lal, who again asked PW6 to talk to his tout Pritam. Thereupon Pritam told PW6 that BDO was asking for Rs.5 lakhs and will not allow the repair work for an amount less than Rs.5 Lakhs. The said talks with Pritam Singh were held in the presence of BDO Madan Lal. PW6 told them that he could not pay them Rs.5 Lakh at one go and requested for fixing of installments. Thereafter, it was agreed by them that PW6 would have to pay Rs. 5 Lakhs in installments i.e. two installments of Rs.1.50 Lakh and last installment of Rs. 2 Lakh. PW6 was not willing to pay the bribe as his conscience was paining (meri aatma ro rahi thi) and as part of his school was already demolished.
16. It is further deposed by PW6 that he went to the office of Anti Corruption Branch alongwith his friend Sanjiv Midha. They met with DCP, who introduced PW6 with the staff ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 24 of 71 of ACB, who asked PW6 to give a complaint. His friend Sanjiv Midha wrote the complaint Ex.PW5/A under his dictation and PW6 signed the complaint. The complaint was handed over to staff of ACB and they told PW6 to have a talk with the BDO Madan Lal and to fix date and time for giving the bribe. Thereafter, PW6 met with BDO Madan Lal at his office at Tis Hazari Court. PW6 told BDO Madan Lal that he could pay Rs.1.50 Lakh, on which he called his tout Pritam Singh. BDO Madan Lal asked Pritam to talk to PW6. PW6 asked the tout to inform about the date and time of payment of bribe, at which, he told PW6 that he will first talk to BDO and then he will inform.
"Sahab se baat karke batayenge". The tout said that Sahab will not take money from him (Sahab to tujse paise nahi pakdenge). But PW6 insisted to the tout that he would pay the bribe amount to BDO Madan Lal. The tout asked him to send someone else with the money (kisi aur ko bhej do paise lekar), at which PW6 told him that he would send his son with the bribe amount. The tout agreed to that and told PW6 that he will take son of PW6 alongwith him to BDO Madan Lal for handing over the bribe amount. He told PW6 to send his son on the next day. Thereafter, in the afternoon, PW6 reached at the ACB office and told them that BDO Madan Lal was ready to accept the bribe amount, if he would send the same through some other person i.e. his son. ACB officials enquired from PW6 whether he had arranged bribe amount of Rs.1.50 Lakh and PW6 affirmed the same. After about 1½ hours, PW6 alongwith his son and bribe amount of Rs.1.50 Lakh reached at ACB where he handed over the bribe amount of Rs.1.50 Lakh i.e. 150 currency notes of Rs.1,000/- denomination each. PW6 also introduced his son to ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 25 of 71 the ACB officials and told them that the BDO Madan Lal would not accept bribe amount from him and as such it was agreed between him and tout Pritam that BDO Madan Lal would accept the bribe amount through third person i.e. his son. Thereafter, his son alongwith the team left the ACB office for raid and he returned to his home.
17. PW6 did not identify accused Pritam Singh before the court and stated that tout Pritam Singh was not present in the Court, however the person who was apprehended by the ACB, was present in the court as his son told him that " Madan Lal ne paise nahi pakde aur kaha ki isi ko de do " who had been apprehended by the ACB. PW6 correctly identified before court 150 GC notes of Rs.1,000/- denomination each Ex.P3 (colly). He also identified his signatures on the copy of suit dated 21.06.2014 alongwith the affidavit Ex. PW6/A (colly) filed at Tis Hazari Court. PW6 also produced photocopy of complaint Mark-X1 given to Office of DC bearing original receiving and stamp.
18. On being cross-examined by Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State, PW6 affirmed that the complaint Ex.PW5/A was given to ACB on 08.07.2014 and the raid was later on conducted on the same day. PW6 further affirmed that Pritam Singh had demanded initially Rs. 5 Lakhs out of which Rs. 2 Lakhs was for himself and Rs. 3 Lakhs was for Sh. Madan Lal, BDO. PW6 further affirmed that the deal was finalized for Rs. 3 Lakhs to be paid in two installments and Rs.1,50,000/- was to be paid on 08.07.2014.
____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 26 of 71
19. During cross-examination by ld. Addl.P.P. for the State, attention of the witness was drawn towards the accused Pritam Singh present in the court with suggestion that he was the same Pritam Singh who was acting as tout of BDO Madan Lal and had demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs initially and later on the deal was settled at Rs. 3 Lakhs but PW6 submitted that the accused was not the same Pritam Singh. PW6 volunteered that the tout was another Pritam @ Pappu.
20. PW6 further affirmed that on 08.07.2014 the accused present in the court was apprehended by the ACB officials. PW6 further affirmed that the accused namely Pritam Singh, who was present in the court, was apprehended by ACB officials and later on brought to the ACB office alongwith his son. PW6 denied that he had been won over by the accused and that is why he was deliberately not identifying the accused as Pritam Singh who demanded bribe of Rs. Five Lakhs for himself as well as for BDO Madan Lal.
21. During cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accused, PW6 stated that he was not aware that pursuant to the orders dated 07.03.2014 and 14.03.2014 of Chief Secretary, police assistance had been sought for 21.06.2014 to carry out the demolition but the assistance was not provided by the local police on that day. PW6 affirmed that after grant of stay by the Civil Court no demolition was carried out in his property and said Civil Suit was still pending but he was not aware whether the stay granted by the Civil Court was still continuing or not. PW6 affirmed that he had reconstructed the portions of the property which were demolished pursuant to order passed by court. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 27 of 71
22. PW6 further stated that they had reached the ACB office at around 09:00 am or 09:30 am on 08.07.2014 and on the directions of the ACB officials, he had gone to meet BDO Madan Lal, who was at demolition site in Burari, however they could not meet him and then from Burari they went to office of BDO Madan Lal at Tis Hazari Court and the raiding team was with him but he did not remember the time at which he had gone to meet BDO Madan Lal. PW6 denied that extensive construction was being carried out at his school and not repairs. PW6 further denied that demolition took place as per law and as per orders of the higher authorities and on the basis of complaint made by certain villagers.
23. Rajat Tyagi, son of complainant, was examined as PW10. He deposed that his father Vinay Tyagi had given a complaint against BDO Madan Lal, who was demanding bribe from him. He did not remember the exact date and year, but he had visited ACB alongwith his father and uncle namely Sanjay Midha. His father had given a complaint to the IO at ACB. IO had written the complaint of his father. His father was having Rs.1.5 Lakhs with him which were to be given as bribe. The currency notes were of Rs.1000/- denomination each. His father had apprised the IO that BDO Madan Lal had demanded bribe through Pritam. The accused, who was present in the Court came to him near the parking, Tis Hazari Courts and PW10 handed over to him the bribe amount of Rs.1.5 lac for giving the same to BDO. PW10 deposed that the person with whom talks regarding bribe took place was some other person and not the accused ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 28 of 71 present before the court. The currency notes which his father had brought with him were handed over to the ACB official, who applied powder on the currency notes and gave demonstration. PW10 alongwith his father and the panch witness were present there when the demonstration was given. ACB official had asked the panch witness to touch the currency notes and his hand-wash was taken which turned pink. The specialty of the powder was explained to them. The powder smeared notes were handed over to him by the ACB official and he put the same in the right side pocket of his wearing jeans pant. The pink solution was thrown away and he alongwith the panch witness had cleaned their hands. PW10 was directed by the ACB official to give the bribe when the same was demanded by accused. The panch witness was directed to remain with PW10 and to see and hear the conversation and when the bribe was accepted by accused, he was asked to give signal by waiving his hand over his head to the raiding party.
24. PW10 further deposed that thereafter he alongwith the panch witness and raiding team left ACB for Burari Pusta. After reaching there, one Pritam (who was not present in the Court) met them and he asked them to go to SDM office at Tis Hazari as their work could not be done there. Thereafter, PW10 apprised the raiding team that they had to go to the SDM office at Tis Hazari and they left for SDM office, Tis Hazari. They parked their vehicles in the parking situated in front of SDM office, Tis Hazari. They alighted the vehicle and PW10 alongwith the panch witness and some ACB officials, proceeded towards second floor of the SDM office. The ACB officials maintained some distance ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 29 of 71 from them. At the second floor the said Pritam again met them and asked him to give bribe money to him, but PW10 told him that firstly, he should take him to BDO Mr. Madan Lal and thereafter he would hand over the bribe amount. Thereafter, he introduced PW10 with Madan Lal BDO while saying that he was son of Tyagi Ji. The BDO told PW10 that he had been transferred from there and he could not do anything. Thereafter, when they came outside the room of BDO the said Pritam told PW10 that Sahab would not talk to him (saab apse baat nahi karenge) and asked PW10 to wait in the parking, where they had parked their vehicles. After some time accused present in the Court came to the parking and told them that he was sent by BDO Madan Lal and asked PW10 to hand over to him, at which PW10 thought that he was asking for the bribe amount and he handed over the bribe amount Rs.1.5 lakh to the accused present in the Court. After PW10 had given the bribe amount to the accused, the panch witness gave the predetermined signal to the raiding team. Thereupon the raiding team reached there and apprehended the accused and gave introduction of the raiding team to accused. The Raid Officer also offered his search and the search of raiding team prior to search of accused, but accused declined to take search of the raiding team. Thereupon they went at the second floor of the building, where hand-wash of the accused was taken and the solution turned pink. The pink solution was transferred in glass bottles which were sealed in their presence. Thereafter they all went to the office of ACB alongwith the accused. Some memos were prepared at the office of ACB and he also put his signatures on those memos. PW10 also identified his signatures on the preraid report Ex. PW-7/A, seizure memo of exhibits and ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 30 of 71 GC notes Ex.PW-7/C and Ex. PW7/D and personal search memo of accused Ex. A1. PW10 also correctly identified the case property i.e. Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 (colly), before court.
25. On being cross examined by ld. Addl.P.P. for the State, PW10 affirmed that on 08.07.14, he had accompanied his father alongwith his uncle Sanjeev Midha to ACB where panch witness namely Bhim Sen was introduced to them by ACB. He affirmed that the complaint Ex. PW-5/A was written by his uncle Sanjeev Midha on the dictation of his father and after going through the complaint, his father had signed the same. PW10 deposed that he did not remember due to lapse of time, whether the panch witness had also gone through the complaint Ex.PW- 5/A and thereafter signed it, however, he affirmed that on the complaint Ex. PW-5/A name Bhim Sen alongwith his signature appeared. PW10 affirmed that the serial numbers of GC notes, which were handed over to RO Insp. Rohtash, were mentioned in a report prepared by the RO at the ACB. He affirmed that the panch witness was asked to touch the powder smeared notes with his right hand and after that the right hand-wash of the panch witness was taken which turned pink. He affirmed that the bottle of remaining phenolphthalein powder was handed over to DO. He affirmed that he had put the powder smeared notes in the left side pocket of his wearing jeans pant and due to lapse of time, he stated in his examination in chief that he put the same in right side pocket of his wearing jeans pant. He affirmed that he accompanied his father to ACB as the mediator Pritam Singh had asked his father that the money should be sent through his son. He affirmed that his father had told that the then Panchayat ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 31 of 71 Secretary Pritam Singh demanded money from him and asked to send the money through PW10. PW10 affirmed that Pritam Singh, who met him at the second floor, asked him to give the bribe amount and that he would get their work done from the BDO. He affirmed that Pritam Singh, who was apprehended, told his father name as Jaswant Singh. PW10 affirmed that on the asking of RO, panch witness recovered the bribe amount from the hands of accused but he did not remember whether it was left hand or right hand from which bribe amount was recovered. PW10 correctly identified accused Pritam Singh before the court. PW10 affirmed that a label on the glass bottle in which hand- wash of the accused was taken, was given mark RHW-I and RHW-II and seal of RHK was used by the RO and after use seal was handed over to panch witness. PW10 affirmed that all the exhibits alongwith recovered bribe amount were taken into police possession vide seizure memo and that after the raid accused was brought to ACB where documents regarding his arrest and personal search were prepared. PW10 affirmed that after registration of FIR, the FIR number was mentioned on the memos prepared during the raid. PW10 denied that accused met them at the 2nd Pusta and he also accompanied them to the office of BDO at Tis Hazari Court and he introduced him and panch witness to BDO Madan Lal. PW10 denied that he had deliberately deposed that the accused Pritam Singh did not accompany them to the office of BDO or that the said Pritam was some other person in order to help the accused from legal punishment.
26. On being cross-examined by ld. Counsel for the ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 32 of 71 accused, PW10 affirmed that many public persons were present in the parking area. PW10 further stated that perhaps there were other public persons were present in the BDO office complex when they reached there. They returned to the office of ACB at about 03:00 pm after the raid.
27. One site plan Mark-PW10/DA prepared through M/s M.S. Sangwan and Associates was shown to PW10 and he was asked to point out the place where they parked their vehicle and PW10 submitted that the site plan was as per the site and the vehicle which he boarded for raid was parked at point X of Mark- PW10/DA. PW10 further stated that the accused was apprehended at point X-1 i.e. near the point X where his vehicle was parked.
28. PW10 denied that no money was handed over to accused in his presence and that no panch witness had accompanied them. PW10 further denied that no hand-wash of accused was taken in his presence.
29. PW5 Sanjiv Midha, friend of complainant Vnay Tyagi, deposed that probably on 08.07.2014, his friend Vinay Tyagi had asked him to accompany him to ACB. PW5 went to ACB alongwith Vinay Tyagi and his son Rajat Tyagi. Vinay Tyagi contacted one inspector and narrated the problems faced by him to the said inspector. The inspector took out one paper and asked Vinay Tyagi to write a complaint. Vinay Tyagi asked him (PW5) to write the complaint as complainant stated that his handwriting was not good. PW5 wrote down the complaint as ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 33 of 71 dictated by Vinay Tyagi and then he read over the contents to his friend Vinay Tyagi in the presence of the inspector and after being satisfied, his friend Vinay Tyagi put his signature on the said complaint. On seeing the complaint dated 08.07.2014 Ex.PW5/A, PW5 stated that the said complaint was written by him on the dictation of his friend Vinay Tyagi.
30. PW5 further deposed that Rajat, son of his friend Vinay Tyagi, alongwith 5-6 officials of ACB left the office and all of them came back in the late evening and told him that they had caught Pritam Singh. PW5 correctly identified accused Pritam Singh before the court.
31. PW7 Bhimsen, panch witness, deposed that on 08.07.2014, he was posted at ITI, Vivek Vihar as Group Instructor. On that day, he was assigned the duty of panch witness at ACB office. At about 11:00 am, Insp. Rohtash called him in his cabin and introduced him to Rajat Tyagi and complainant Vinay Tyagi, who were already present there. Insp. Rohtash showed him the handwritten complaint of Vinay Tyagi and asked him to read the same. PW7 read the complaint in which there was allegation of demand of Rs. Three Lakhs and it was agreed to pay the first installment of the bribe amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. PW7 asked the complainant regarding the written complaint and verified the same from him. Complainant acknowledged that the complaint Ex.PW5/A written and signed by him. After satisfying himself, PW7 signed the complaint and Insp. Rohtash also signed the same.
____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 34 of 71
32. PW7 deposed that thereafter Rajat Tyagi took out Rs.1,50,000/-, which were in the denomination of Rs.1,000/- each, from his pocket. PW7 saw the serial numbers of the currency notes and the same were also mentioned in the report. Thereafter Insp. Rohtash applied powder on the notes and gave the GC notes to PW7. Thereafter he took the GC notes from PW7 and his hand-wash was taken and the colourless solution turned pink. Insp. Rohtash told him about the specialty of the powder and also explained to him that whoever touches the powder smeared GC notes and if his hands are washed, the colour of solution would turn pink. Thereafter the pink solution in which his handwash was taken was thrown away by Insp. Rohtash and he washed his hands. It was also told by Insp. Rohtash that he should accompany Rajat Tyagi and Vinay Tyagi wherever they go and after ensuring that the amount was given as a bribe, PW7 was directed to give a signal by waving his hand two times over his head. He was also told that the raiding team members would remain close to them but he was asked not to make a call to them and only to give a signal. Thereafter, Insp. Rohtash again applied powder on the currency notes of Rs.1,50,000/- and handed over the same to Vinay Tyagi. Thereafter, he briefed the members of raiding team and kept the powder etc. in raid box. PW7 was explained to remain with Vinay Tyagi and to ask for what purpose the bribe amount was being demanded.
33. Thereafter at about 01:00 pm, they left the office of ACB in two vehicles, one of which was Innova (government vehicle) and the other was a Van (private vehicle) and they ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 35 of 71 reached at Burari Pusta. After reaching there PW7 was alighted from the vehicle 20-25 feet from Burari Pusta and RO again explained to him to remain with Vinay Tyagi and when the bribe was demanded to enquire for what purpose same was being demanded. Thereafter, Vinay Tyagi made a call to Pritam Singh and Pritam Singh met them there and he enquired "paise laaye ho". Vinay Tyagi told him that he was having Rs.1,50,000/- in his pocket by saying Rs.1,00,000/- was for Madan Lal and Rs.50,000/- for him. Thereafter Pritam Singh made a call to someone and said that "sahab chale gaye hai and 2 baje Tis Hazari Court BDO office mein bulaya hai". Thereafter, Pritam Singh left from there on his bike. At that stage, PW7 correctly identified the accused Pritam Singh before the court.
34. Thereafter, Vinay Tyagi informed the team that they had to go to BDO office, Tis Hazari. At about 02:15 pm, he alongwith the members of raiding team and Vinay Tyagi reached at parking of BDO Office, Tis Hazari. After parking the vehicles, Insp. Rohtash once again briefed PW7 that he had to remain with Vinay Tyagi and when the bribe was demanded, only then the same was to be given. Thereafter, PW7 alongwith Vinay Tyagi went to 2nd floor and the members of raiding team also followed them. The office of Madan Lal, BDO, was on the 2 nd floor. PW7, accused Pritam Singh and Vinay Tyagi went inside the office of BDO Madan Lal where Pritam Singh introduced Vinay Tyagi to BDO Madan Lal by saying that he was son of Rajat Tyagi and had come there for his work. Madan Lal said "mera transfer ho gaya hai, mera inse koi matlab nahi hai, aap bahar jaaiye". Thereafter, they came outside. Thereafter, Pritam Singh ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 36 of 71 said "koi baat nahi aap niche chalo, main aapka kaam kara deta hun." Thereafter, PW7 and Vinay Tyagi came at the parking of BDO office. After some time accused also came there and he asked "paise kaha hai" on which Vinay Tyagi said that the same were in his pocket and Vinay Tyagi handed over Rs.1,50,000/- in the hands of the accused, after taking them out from his pocket. Thereafter, PW7 gave a pre-determined signal by waving his hand two times over his head on which members of raiding team came and apprehended the accused. Thereafter, they alongwith accused and members of raiding team went to the 2 nd floor and accused said that he had not taken the amount but PW7 said that the accused had taken the bribe in his presence. Thereafter, PW7 recovered Rs.1,50,000/- which were in the hands of accused Pritam Singh, who had crossed his hands behind his back. PW7 handed over the recovered bribe amount to Insp. Rohtash. Thereafter, they were taken to a room and at that time accused was perplexed. Insp. Rohtash verified the serial numbers of the currency notes with the pre-raid report and the recovered currency notes had the same serial numbers. Thereafter, Insp. Rohtash and members of raiding team got the hands of the accused washed in a tray and the colour of the solution turned pink. Thereafter, they put pink colour solution in two glass bottles and sealed the same with wax and took his as well as signature of Vinay Tyagi on those bottles. Thereafter, other writing work was done there. From there they went to the ACB office and reached there at about 06:00 pm. Thereafter, raiding team handed over the accused to the inspector, who was present at ACB. Signatures of PW7 were obtained on several memos and thereafter he was relieved from there at about 10:30 pm or ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 37 of 71 10:45 pm. They also called PW7 on the next day. Again on 09.07.2014, PW7 visited at the office of ACB at 11:00 am and remained there till 02:00 pm. PW7 was called in case his signature on any memo was required but his signatures were not obtained on any memo but he was made to sit till 02:30 pm. The inspector to whom the accused was handed over by the raiding team, enquired from PW7 about the entire raid proceedings. PW7 identified his signature on the raid report Ex.PW7/A, site plan Ex.PW7/B, seizure memos of GC notes Ex.PW7/C, Ex.PW7/D, Ex.PW7/E, arrest memo Ex.PW7/F and the personal search memo of the accused Ex.A1. He also identified sealed empty glass bottle marked as Ex.P1 and another glass bottled Ex. P2 and 150 GC notes of Rs.1,000/- denomination each Ex.P3 (colly).
35. On being cross-examined by Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State PW7 affirmed that son of the complainant namely Rajat Tyagi had accompanied the raiding party alongwith him and that Rajat Tyagi was the son of Vinay Tyagi but due to confusion in their names he had deposed in his examination in chief that Vinay Tyagi accompanied the raiding team alongwith him for the purpose of raid. PW7 stated that he had signed number of documents and did not have time to read them. PW7 further affirmed that after giving the demonstration the remaining phenolphthalein powder was handed over to the duty officer of ACB. PW7 further affirmed that the RO had asked to take his search prior to the search of the accused and accused Pritam Singh was having the currency notes in his right hand. He affirmed that the right hand wash of the accused in which he was ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 38 of 71 holding the GC notes, was taken by the RO. He affirmed that the recovered GC notes were taken into police possession vide seizure memo at the spot and also the right hand wash of the accused was taken there on the 2 nd floor in the room of SDM office. PW7 affirmed that the exhibits were sealed in his presence by the RO. PW7 affirmed that seal impressions were taken on a plain paper by the RO and seal after use was handed over to him and the seal handing over memo was also prepared. PW7 affirmed that he had signed the seizure memo of GC notes, exhibits and seal handing over memo at the spot. He affirmed that the sealed exhibits, documents/seizure memos and the accused were handed over to the IO at the spot by the RO. He affirmed site plan Ex.PW7/B was prepared at the spot and he had signed the same and after the aforesaid proceedings they all returned to ACB where the accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted and he had signed the memos prepared in this regard Ex.PW7/F and Ex.A-1. PW7 affirmed that the FIR number was also put on the memos at the ACB office. He affirmed that he alongwith Rajat Tyagi and the raiding team had gone to SDM office/Civil Lines situated in the premises of Tis Hazari Court where BDO has a sitting place. He could not recollect the entire facts due to lapse of time.
Demand and acceptance of bribe:
36. In order to prove demand of bribe, the prosecution has examined the complainant PW6, his son PW10 and the panch witness PW7. The complainant PW6, who was running a school at village Jharoda, Burari, Delhi, had given an application to ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 39 of 71 SDM Civil Lines seeking permission to repair the roof of school. There was no response on the said application and thereafter the complainant started the repair work at his school. During summer vacation BDO Madan Lal alongwith his team came to his school and asked for the permission letter, which the complainant did not have. The complainant PW6 told the BDO "Chalo Milkar Baith Kar Baat Karenge". The BDO asked the complainant to stop the work and the work was stopped for two days and thereafter the complainant resumed the construction work.
37. The complainant PW6 talked to a person, who was stated to be tout of BDO Madan Lal regarding "Sewa Pani" as the BDO had asked him to contact his tout Pritam Singh. Tout Pritam Singh demanded Rs. 10 Lakhs to allow construction and repair work and after bargaining the amount was finalized at Rs. 5 Lakhs, which the complainant did not pay. On 24.06.2014 BDO Madan Lal again came to his school alongwith his team and demolished four rooms under repair. The complainant again spoke to tout Pritam Singh, who told him that the entire building would be demolished if he did not do " Sewa Pani". The complainant arranged Rs. 2 Lakhs from his nephew and paid it to tout Pritam Singh in the presence of BDO Madan Lal. A stay on demolition was ordered on 26.06.2014 in a Civil Suit filed by the complainant at Tis Hazari Court. The complainant PW6 again visited the office of SDM and met BDO Madan Lal, who again asked him to talk to his tout Pritam. Pritam Singh told PW6 in the presence of BDO Madan Lal that BDO was asking for Rs. 5 Lakhs and he would not allow for the repair work for a lessor amount than Rs. 5 Lakhs. Eventually it was agreed that the ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 40 of 71 complainant will pay Rs. 3 Lakhs in two installments of Rs. 1.5 Lakh each.
38. Hence, there are specific allegation of demand by BDO Madan Lal and Pritam Singh, who was addressed as a tout of BDO Madan Lal by the complainant in his testimony recorded before the court. The testimony of the complainant is consistent with his complaint Ex. PW5/A, on material points, wherein he had made allegations against BDO Madan Lal who instructed him to deal with Panchayat Secretary Pritam Singh, who in turn demanded Rs. 10 Lakhs for granting permission for repair. It is also alleged in the complaint that BDO and Panchayat Secretary came with JCB machines on 24.06.2014 and demolished the rooms under repair and that a stay order was granted on 26.06.2014. It is further alleged that since then, BDO Madan Lal through Panchayat Secretary Pritam Singh had been threatening and demanding money and that the complainant was compelled to settle the matter and during negotiations Pritam Singh demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs initially, out of which Rs. 2 Lakhs were for himself and Rs. 3 Lakhs for Madan Lal - BDO, and the deal was settled at Rs. 3 Lakhs to be paid in two installments.
39. PW6 has deposed that he had given the complaint Ex. PW5/A to ACB and that the said complaint was written by PW5 Sanjiv Midha, who was his friend. It is deposed by PW5 that he had written down the complaint as dictated by the complainant and the contents thereof were also read over to the complainant and only after being satisfied, the complainant put his signature on the complaint. The complainant PW6 also stated that his friend Sanjiv Midha had written the complaint under his ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 41 of 71 dictation and he had signed the same. The said complaint was assigned to PW11 ACP Rohitash Kumar, Raid Officer. Hence the contents of the complaint Ex. PW5/A stand proved by the complainant PW6 and his friend PW5. It is relevant to note that in his complaint Ex. PW5/A, the said Pritam Singh has been addressed as the Panchayat Secretary by the complainant whereas in the testimony recorded before the court, he is addressed as a tout of Madan Lal - BDO by the complainant PW6.
40. It is deposed by the complainant PW6 that after he gave his complaint at ACB, they told him to speak with BDO Madan Lal and fix date and time for giving the bribe amount. Thereafter the complainant went to the office of BDO Madan Lal and met him at his office at Tis Hazari Court. The complainant told BDO Madan Lal that he could pay Rs. 1.5 Lakh, at which he called tout Pritam Singh and asked him to talk to the complainant. The complainant asked tout Pritam Singh to inform him about the date and time of payment of bribe, who told the complainant that he will first talk to the BDO and then will inform "Sahab Se Baat Karkey Batainge" and the tout said "Sahab To Tujse Paise Nahi Pakdenge" but the complainant insisted that he would pay the bribe amount to BDO Madan Lal at which the tout asked him to send money with someone else and stated "Kisi Aur Ko Bhej Do Paise Le Kar ". At this the complainant told him that he would send his son with the bribe amount. The tout told him that he would take the son of complainant alongwith him to BDO Madan Lal for handing over the bribe amount and told him to send his son on the next day. Thereafter in the afternoon the complainant reached ACB Office and told them that BDO Madan Lal was ready to accept the bribe ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 42 of 71 amount through his son. ACB Officials enquired from him if he had arranged Rs. 1.5 Lakhs and the complainant alongwith his son and bribe amount of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs reached at ACB Office and introduced his son to the ACB Officials.
41. It is contended by ld. Counsel for the accused that as per the prosecution case the complainant went to ACB office only once with his son and friend on 08.07.2014 and lodged the complaint while stating that BDO Madan lal and Pritam Singh were going to take the bribe on that day itself, whereas the complainant has deposed that after giving his complaint Ex. PW5/A on 08.07.2014 he was asked by the ACB Officials to fix date and time for bribe and that thereafter he went to meet BDO Madan Lal at Tis Hazari Office, where he was told to send his son the next day and that he went to the ACB Office in the afternoon alongwith his son and apprised them about the same and also carried Rs. 1.5 Lakhs with him and thereafter the raid was conducted on the same day. It is contended that there is thus a major contradiction between the version of the prosecution and the version as stated by the complainant and neither the Raiding Officer nor the IO have deposed regarding fixing of date and time of payment of bribe amount by the complainant, thereby pointing to fabrication of a story by the prosecution.
42. It may be noted that though the said facts regarding fixing of date and time of payment of bribe are not mentioned in the testimony of Raiding Officer PW11, however, non-mention of these facts in the testimony of Raiding Officer would not amount to a contradiction in as much as the complainant PW6 has merely detailed as to how the date and time for payment of ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 43 of 71 bribe was fixed and why his son had joined the raid proceedings and the complainant himself did not join the raid proceedings. The fact that these details are missing from the testimony of Raid Officer PW11, does not entail that they are inconsistent or in contradiction with the testimony of PW11 or that there is a contradiction of the nature that is sufficient to discard the testimony of the complainant PW6. The said facts are merely the details of how the date and time of payment of bribe was fixed and are in no manner inconsistent with the case of the prosecution.
43. PW6 also stated that the tout Pritam Singh was not present in the court, however, the person who was apprehended by ACB was present in court as his son told him that " Madan Lal Ne Paise Nahi Pakre Aur Kaha Ki Isse De Do" i.e. Madan Lal did not take money from his son and told him to give money to that person, who was apprehended by ACB.
44. PW6 also identified the GC notes i.e. 150 notes of denomination of Rs. 1000/- each Ex. P-3 (colly).
45. PW10, son of the complainant corroborated the version of his father PW6 regarding the fact that his father had given complaint to ACB about demand of bribe by BDO Madan Lal through Pritam. He also deposed that his father had Rs. 1.5 Lakh with him which was to be given as a bribe and was handed over to the ACB Official. He also deposed regarding the pre-raid proceedings and the demonstration and instructions given by the ACB Official to him and the panch witness. PW10 stated that after that he alongwith panch witness and raiding team left ACB for Burari Pushta, where one Pritam, who was not present before ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 44 of 71 the court, met them and he asked them to go to SDM Office at Tis Hazari and they left for SDM Office, Tis Hazari. After parking their vehicles, they went to the second floor of the SDM Office where the said Pritam Singh again met them and asked him to give the bribe money to him but PW10 told him to first take him to BDO Madan Lal before handing over the bribe amount. Thereafter the said Pritam Singh introduced him to BDO Madan Lal saying that he was son of Tyagi Ji. BDO Madan Lal told PW10 that he had been transferred from there and he could not do anything. Thereafter they came outside the room of BDO and the said Pritam Singh told him "Sahab Aap Se Baat Nahi Karenge" and asked him to to wait in the parking. In his cross-examination by Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State, PW10 affirmed that Pritam Singh who met him at the second floor told him to give the bribe amount to him and that he would get the work done from BDO. PW10 deposed that after sometime the accused, who was present before the court, came to the parking and told him that he was sent by BDO Madan Lal and asked him to hand over, at which PW10 thought that he was asking for the bribe amount and he handed over the bribe amount of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs to the accused present before the court. At this the panch witness gave pre-determined signal to the raiding team and the raiding team reached there and apprehended the accused.
46. PW6 has made categorical and clear allegations of demand by Pritam Singh alongwith BDO Madan Lal and that it had been agreed that the complainant PW6 will give Rs. 3 Lakhs in the form of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs in two installments to allow repair of the school of the complainant. Since Pritam Singh told the complainant that BDO Madan Lal would not accept money from ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 45 of 71 him and would accept it through a third person, therefore, the complainant sent his son alongwith the raiding team of ACB. On the day of raid Pritam Singh first met PW10 at Burari Pusta and then at SDM office at Tis Hazari where Pritam Singh demanded bribe money from him and also introduced him to BDO Madan Lal. Pritam Singh also asked PW10 to give him the bribe amount and told him that he will get the work done from BDO. Pertinently, both PW6 and PW10 have deposed that the Pritam Singh who was apprehended by ACB and who was present in the court was not the same Pritam Singh who was acting as a tout of BDO Madan Lal. Hence, PW6 and PW10 did not identify accused Pritam Singh as the tout of BDO Madan Lal and they stated that accused Pritam Singh was the person who had only accepted the bribe amount on behalf of BDO Madan Lal in the parking area of Tis Hazari, on the day of raid. Therefore, as per the testimony of PW6 and PW10, Pritam Singh tout and accused Pritam Singh, who accepted the bribe money in the parking area at Tis Hazari at the time of raid were different persons.
47. It would be relevant to note that PW7 Bhimsen panch witness during recording of his examination-in-chief referred to the complainant as Rajat Tyagi and his son as Vinay Tyagi. However, in his cross-examination by ld. APP for the State, he stated that he had done so due to confusion and clarified that Rajat Tyagi was the son of Vinay Tyagi, complainant.
48. PW7, panch witness, deposed that the raiding team left the ACB Office at about 01.00 pm in two vehicles and reached Burari Pushta and he was alighted from the vehicle 20- 25 feet from Burari Pushta. Thereafter Rajat Tyagi, son of the ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 46 of 71 complainant, made a call to Pritam Singh and Pritam Singh met them there and enquired "Paise Laye Ho". Rajat Tyagi told him that he had Rs. 1.5 lakhs in his pocket and Rs. 1 Lakh was for Madan Lal and Rs. 50,000/- were for him. Thereafter Pritam Singh made a call to someone and said that " Sahab Chale Gaye Hai And Do Baje Tis Hazari Court BDO Office Mein Bulaya Hai". Thereafter Pritam Singh left from there on his bike. At that stage, PW7 correctly identified accused Pritam Singh. PW7 also deposed regarding reaching the BDO Office at Tis Hazari at about 02.15 pm where they went to the second floor to the office of Madan Lal-BDO, where PW7 alongwith accused Pritam Singh and Rajat Tyagi went inside the office of BDO Madan Lal and that accused Pritam Singh introduced Rajat Tyagi to BDO Madan Lal as son of Vinay Tyagi. Madan Lal told them that he had been transferred and that he had nothing to do with them and asked them to go. At this they came outside and Pritam Singh told them that it doesn't matter and asked them to go downstairs and that he will get their work done. Thereafter they came downstairs at the parking, where after sometime accused Pritam Singh also came and asked about the money, at which Rajat Tyagi handed over Rs.1.5 Lakhs to the accused, and thereafter PW7 gave a pre-determined signal to the raiding team and apprehended the accused. PW7 also deposed that he recovered Rs. 1.5 Lakhs from the hands of accused Pritam Singh.
49. Accordingly, from the testimony of PW7 panch witness Sh. Bhimsen it is manifest that during raid proceedings the person whom they had met at Burari Pushta was accused Pritam Singh and accused Pritam Singh only met them at the office of BDO Madan Lal at Tis Hazari when they met with BDO ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 47 of 71 Madan Lal and subsequently accused Pritam Singh himself had asked PW10 for the bribe money and accepted the bribe amount of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs from Rajat Tyagi. Hence, PW7 identified accused Pritam Singh as the person, who had initially met Rajat Tyagi and PW7 at Burari Pushta and demanded money from them at Burari Pushta and who also met them alongwith BDO Madan Lal at Tis Hazari and demanded the bribe money and later accepted the bribe amount from Rajat Tyagi.
50. Hence, as per the testimony of the complainant PW6 and his son Rajat Tyagi PW10, accused Pritam Singh had merely accepted money from Rajat Tyagi at Tis Hazari and the tout Pritam Singh, who had demanded bribe alongwith BDO Madan Lal, was a different person. Whereas as per the testimony of PW7 panch witness it was the same person, who had made a demand at Burari Pushta and met him and PW10 at SDM Office, Tis Hazari and introduced PW10 with BDO Madan Lal and demanded bribe amount and who eventually also accepted bribe amount at Tis Hazari, Delhi.
51. As discussed herein-above, the complaint Ex. PW5/A, the contents of which have been proved by the complainant PW6 himself, specifically mentions the designation of Pritam Singh as Panchayat Secretary, who was demanding bribe from the complainant alongwith and on instructions of BDO - Madan Lal.
52. Accused before the court Pritam Singh, s/o Jaswant Singh, was a Village Level Worker (VLW), E.A.(Agriculture), at Village Jharoda, Burari, Delhi, as mentioned in the Sanction Order Ex. PW9/A. In his statement recoded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 48 of 71 accused also stated that on 08.07.2014 he was posted as Village Level Worker (Gram Sewak) at Village Jharoda, Burari. However, he stated that he was not referred to as Panchayat Secretary and also stated that any reference to Pritam Singh in complaint Ex. PW5/A did not pertain to him.
53. It may be noted that in this regard PW11 Rohitash Kumar, Raid Officer, stated that after the raid, accused Pritam Singh identified himself as Village Level Worker (VLW) and Panchayat Secretary. No suggestion was given to P11 Rohitash Kumar that the accused Pritam Singh did not describe himself as Panchayat Secretary. It is also noteworthy that the accused had himself given a suggestion to PW7 Panch witness that once the BDO had refused to do anything and asked them to leave, there was no occasion for any money being handed over to accused Pritam Singh who was only a Panchayat Secretary and without any authority. Hence, it was suggested by the accused himself that he was only a Panchayat Secretary, thereby indicating that the accused used to be referred as a Panchayat Secretary, when he was a Village Level Worker.
54. Hence, as per the testimony of the complainant PW6, Pritam Singh Panchayat Secretary mentioned in the complaint Ex. PW5/A which has been proved by the complainant PW6 to be correct and the accused Pritam Singh, before the court, who was a Village Level Worker, are different persons. As discussed herein-above, the accused Pritam Singh also used to consider himself as the Panchayat Secretary. Interestingly the name of the accused before the court is Pritam Singh and the name of the person who demanded bribe from PW6 and PW10 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 49 of 71 on behalf of BDO Madan Lal is also stated to be Pritam Singh by them. Additionally, the complainant referred to the said Pritam Singh as Panchayat Secretary in his complaint Ex. PW5/A and thereby meaning that the said Pritam Singh was a public servant. The accused before the court is also Pritam Singh a Village Level Worker and also a public servant. The panch witness PW7 has identified accused Pritam Singh as the person who had demanded bribe money from Rajat Tyagi at Burari Pushta and again at SDM Office, Tis Hazari and introduced Rajat Tyagi to BDO Madan Lal as well as accepted the bribe amount of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs from Rajat Tyagi at th parking area, Tis Hazari. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of panch witness PW7, who was cross- examined in detail, however, the accused was unable to create any dent in his testimony to show that his testimony was unworthy of reliance. Moreover no cross-examination of the panch witness was conducted to show as to why he would falsely implicate the accused and PW7 denied the suggestion that accused Pritam Singh had been falsely implicated in the present case.
55. In his cross-examination PW7 also deposed that accused Pritam Singh met them at the Chowk at Burari Pushta. He also deposed that at the SDM Office, accused Pritam Singh led them to the office of BDO. The place where accused demanded bribe from them was opposite to the SDM Building. Accused Pritam was wearing dark orange colour big check shirt and dark colour pant. Rajat Tyagi took out the bribe amount from his pocket and gave the same to accused Pritam Singh, who kept the bribe amount in his right hand. Accused Pritam Singh was apprehended by the raiding team and he was taken to the second ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 50 of 71 floor and PW7 recovered the bribe amount from the hand of the accused. PW7 also deposed that he had not noticed any CCTV camera installed outside or inside the premises of SDM Office. He deposed that the official work of the complainant was relating to the school run by the complainant for which the accused Pritam Singh said "Koi Baat Nahi, Aap Niche Chalo, Mai Aapka Kaam Kara Deta Hu". Accordingly, despite detailed cross- examination, PW7 maintained that the accused Pritam Singh had demanded bribe amount and it was accused Pritam Singh only, who introduced Rajat Tyagi to BDO Madan lal at SDM Office at Tis Hazari and who accepted the bribe amount from Rajat Tyagi. No suggestion was given to PW7 that Pritam Singh who had met them at Burari Pushta and SDM Office was not accused Pritam Singh who had merely accepted the bribe amount from Rajat Tyagi.
56. It has been sought to be argued that the panch witness was a stock witness. PW7 denied the suggestion that he was a stock witness or that he did not accompany the ACB Officials on any date. In his cross-examination the panch witness PW7 stated that he had not been a panch witness in any other case except the present one, though his duty had been also fixed on three dates. Hence, the contention of ld. Counsel for the accused that PW7 was a stock witness, holds no ground.
57. PW11 ACP Rohitash Kumar, the Raid Officer, who had conducted the raid proceedings and had accompanied Rajat Tyagi and the panch witness at the time of raid also deposed that at Burari Pushta one person who was later identified as Pritam Singh s/o Jaswant Singh i.e. the accused, who was correctly ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 51 of 71 identified by him before the court met them at Burari Pushta. He came on a motorcycle and had a brief conversation with Rajat Tyagi, when panch witness was also present and he also left without taking bribe and the panch witness did not give any signal. Upon enquiry, Rajat Tyagi told them that Pritam Singh had asked him to come to the Revenue Office, Tis Hazari. Subsequently, upon reaching the SDM Office at Tis Hazari Court Complex, at the second floor of the SDM Office, accused Pritam Singh, who had come to Burari Pushta, again met Rajat Tyagi and panch witness Bhimsen. PW11 and his team were closely following them. After some conversation, panch witness, Rajat Tyagi and accused Pritam Singh entered the office of BDO. After some time they came out and came to the parking. PW11 thereafter noticed that panch witness gave a pre-determined signal and the raiding team reached there and apprehended accused Pritam Singh s/o Jaswant Singh. Bribe money was recovered from accused Pritam Singh who identified himself as a Village Level Worker and Panchayat Secretary. Accordingly, it emerges from the testimony of PW11 also that the person who met Rajat Tyagi and Panch Witness at Burari Pushta was accused Pritam Singh s/o Jaswant Singh and it was the accused only who met them again at SDM Office at Tis Hazari and led them to BDO Office and who eventually accepted the bribe amount from Rajat Tyagi.
58. It is thus manifest that the complainant Vinay Tyagi and his son Rajat Tyagi PW10 have tried to create a dichotomy between Pritam Singh tout of BDO Madan Lal, who demanded bribe amount from Vinay Tyagi and Rajat Tyagi and the accused Pritam Singh who accepted the bribe amount from Rajat Tyagi at ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 52 of 71 the parking area of Tis Hazari. However, panch witness PW7 and the Raiding Officer PW11 have identified accused Pritam Singh to be the same person who had met Rajat Tyagi and panch witness at Burari Pushta and demanded bribe money and who also met them at SDM Office, Tis Hazari and who eventually accepted the bribe amount from Rajat Tyagi.
59. It is also noteworthy that as per the testimony of PW10, the accused present before the court came to the parking and told him that he was sent by BDO Madan Lal and asked him to hand over, at which PW10 thought that he was asking for the bribe amount and he handed over the bribe amount of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs to the accused present before the court.
60. Hence, as per the aforesaid version of PW10, he had handed over Rs. 1.5 Lakhs to accused Pritam Singh while thinking that he was asking for the bribe amount, even when the accused had merely asked PW10 only to hand over. As per PW10, tout Pritam Singh and accused Pritam Singh, who had accepted the sum of Rs.1.5 Lakhs, were different persons. Accused Pritam Singh was thus only a stranger to PW10 and despite the same PW10 handed over a huge sum of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs to accused Pritam Singh, only because he stated that he was sent by BDO Madan Lal. Strangely, no attempt was made by PW10 to even enquire about the identity of the person to whom he was handing over such a huge amount. The version of PW10 that he handed over an amount of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs to a stranger without enquiry about his identity either from BDO Madan Lal or from Pritam Singh, who had met them at Burari Pushta and the SDM Office, does not appear to be believable. The version of the ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 53 of 71 complainant as well as his son Rajat Tyagi whereby they have tried to create dichotomy in the identity of Pritam Singh stated to be the tout of BDO Madan Lal and accused Pritam Singh does not inspire confidence and it appears that the said distinction has been created as an afterthought to create confusion regarding identity of the accused and to save accused Pritam Singh from punishment. Accordingly, the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person who had demanded bribe from the complainant PW6 / his son PW10 and the person who accepted the bribe amount from son of the complainant, is one and the same person i.e. accused Pritam Singh only.
61. Accordingly, from the aforesaid discussion it emerges that accused Pritam Singh alongwith BDO Madan Lal made a demand of bribe from the complainant for permitting him to carry on construction work at his school. There are specific allegations that accused Pritam Singh made a demand of ' Sewa Pani' on behalf of BDO Madan Lal and that accused Pritam Singh demanded Rs. 10 Lakhs on behalf of BDO Madan Lal to allow construction and repair work and later stated that they will not allow repair work for less than Rs. 5 Lakhs to be paid to BDO Madan Lal and accused Pritam Singh. On 24.06.2014 BDO Madan Lal alongwith his team carried out demolition at the school. Thereafter the complainant met BDO Madan Lal, who asked him to meet accused Pritam Singh. Pritam Singh told the complainant in the presence of BDO Madan Lal that BDO was asking for Rs. 5 Lakhs and would not allow the repair work for a lessor amount. It was finally agreed that the complainant will pay Rs. 3 Lakhs in two installments of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs each. Accused Pritam Singh also told the complainant that he will ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 54 of 71 inform about the date and time of payment of initial bribe amount of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs after talking to BDO Madan Lal and also told him that BDO Madan Lal would not take money from him (Sahab Tujse Paise Nahi Pakdenge) and upon insistence of the complainant to give the bribe amount to BDO Mandan Lal, accused Pritam Singh told him to send someone else with the money at which the complainant told him that he would send his son alongwith him (i.e. Pritam Singh) to BDO Madan Lal for handing over the bribe amount. Thereafter the complainant approached ACB and made the complaint Ex. PW5/A and raid was conducted. During raid proceedings initially accused Pritam Singh met the son of complainant and panch witness at Burari Pushta and asked about bribe money and asked them to go to SDM Office at Tis Hazari as their work would not be done there. Thereafter upon reaching at SDM Office at Tis Hazari, accused Pritam Singh again met them and asked Rajat Tyagi to give bribe money to him but Rajat Tyagi told the accused to take him to BDO Madan Lal before handing over the bribe amount. Accused Pritam Singh introduced Rajat Tyagi to BDO Madan Lal, who said that he had been transferred and could not do anything. It is relevant to note that thereafter Rajat Tyagi, panch witness and accused Pritam Singh came out of the room of BDO Madan Lal and accused Pritam told Rajat Tyagi " Sahab Aapse Baat Nahi Karenge" and asked Rajat Tyagi to give the bribe amount to him and that he will get work done from BDO and asked them to wait in the parking at Tis Hazari. After some time accused Pritam Singh came to the parking and accepted the bribe amount of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs from Rajat Tyagi in the presence of panch witness. Pursuant thereto the accused was apprehended in the presence of ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 55 of 71 panch witness PW7 Bhimsen and the bribe amount of Rs. 1.5 Lakh was recovered from the right hand of the accused by the panch witness PW7. Accordingly, accused Pritam Singh made a demand of bribe money from the complainant, his son Rajat Tyagi and also accepted Phenolphthalein powder smeared GC notes of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs from the son of the complainant, Rajat Tyagi.
62. Thus it is manifest that there was a continuous demand of bribe, which eventually resulted in trap proceedings and Phenolphthalein powder smeared GC notes of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs were recovered from the accused. The right hand-wash of accused Pritam Singh was taken and the Sodium Carbonate solution turned pink. As per the FSL result Ex. PW3/A the right hand-wash was found to contain Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate. The complainant Vinay Tyagi PW6 and his son PW10 Rajat Tyagi were cross-examined in detail, however, they remained steadfast as regards the allegations of demand and acceptance of bribe. Though they tried to create a distinction between tout Pritam Singh and accused Pritam Singh, however, as discussed herein-above they have been held to be one and the same person i.e. accused Pritam Singh. Panch witness PW7 has also corroborated the version of the complainant and his son regarding allegations of demand and acceptance of bribe by accused Pritam Singh and the raid proceedings. The Raid Officer PW11 has corroborated the version of the Panch Witness PW7 as well as the son of the complainant PW10 regarding the raid proceedings and recovery of the bribe amount of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs Phenolphthalein smeared GC notes from the accused.
____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 56 of 71
63. It is also argued by ld. Counsel for the accused that the complainant PW6 had also obtained a stay on demolition in the civil suit filed on 21.01.2014. The stay order is dated 27.06.2014 and the trap proceedings were conducted on 08.07.2014. It is urged that once there was a stay order on demolition granted by the court, there was no occasion for the complainant to give bribe to the accused or the BDO on 08.07.2014. It is also urged that as per the prosecution case, during trap proceedings BDO Madan Lal had told PW10 at SDM Office, Tis Hazari, in the presence of panch witness that he had been transferred and he could not do anything. It is contended that in these circumstances, there was no reason for PW10 to have handed over Rs. 1.5 Lakhs to Pritam Singh on 08.07.2014 in the parking area at Tis Hazari after meeting BDO Madan Lal as he had expressed his inability to do their work.
64. As regards the contention that the stay on demolition had been ordered and therefore there was no occasion to demand bribe, it is noted that the complainant PW6 has stated that the stay on demolition had been ordered in the Civil Suit filed at Tis Hazari and thereafter PW6 again visited the office of SDM and met BDO Madan Lal, who asked him to talk to Pritam, who told PW6 in the presence of BDO Madan Lal that BDO was asking for Rs. 5 Lakhs and he would not allow repair work for an amount less than Rs. 5 Lakhs. Thereafter the deal was finalized at Rs. 3 Lakhs to be paid in two installments. It is thus apparent that though the demolition had been stayed by the Civil Court at Tis Hazari, however, the bribe amount was demanded by the accused at the behest of BDO Madan Lal for the purpose of permitting the repair work at the school. Hence, the contention ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 57 of 71 of the accused that once there was a stay on demolition vide order dated 27.06.2014, there was no reason to demand bribe from the complainant, holds no ground, in as much as the bribe was demanded for the purpose of granting permission to the complainant to carry on with repair work at the school. Moreover, the fact that BDO Madan Lal stated before PW10 that he had been transferred and that he could not do anything has to been seen in the light of the fact that after coming out of the room of BDO Madan Lal accused Pritam Singh told them that he would get the work done from BDO and asked them to wait in the parking area. It is also to be noted that even earlier accused Pritam Singh had told the complainant that BDO Madan Lal would not take money from him and asked him to send someone else, which is the reason why the complainant sent his son at the time of raid proceedings. Hence, earlier also a hesitation to accept the money directly had been expressed on behalf of BDO Madan Lal. In these circumstances, PW10 acted upon the assurance given by accused Pritam Singh that he would get the work done from BDO and handed over the bribe amount to him. Moreover, PW10 was not cross-examined on that account by the accused. The contention of ld. Counsel for the accused in this regard is thus untenable.
65. It is also contended by ld. Counsel for the accused that there are major contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses. It is urged that the panch witness PW7 has deposed that PW10 made a call to the accused when they reached Burari Pushta, however, no such fact has been stated by PW10. It is further urged that as per the version of the complainant PW6, he went home after the raiding party left the police station whereas ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 58 of 71 PW5 stated that after the raid, the raiding party came back to the police station with the accused in custody indicating that they remained in the police station after the raiding party left. It is also urged that there are contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses with regard to the place where the vehicles were parked at Tis Hazari. It is urged that PW7 has stated that their cars were parked behind Lawyers chambers at Tis Hazari Court, PW10 has stated that the cars were parked in the parking situated in front of the SDM Office and PW11 Rohitash Kumar and IO/PW13 have stated that they were parked near the lock-up at the entrance of Tis Hazari Court. It is further argued that there are inconsistencies regarding the position of the members of the raiding team at the SDM office in the testimonies of PW4, PW7 and PW11. It is also contended that there are contradictions regarding the fact that PW7 stated that he was asked by the accused to go down stairs after meeting the BDO, whereas PW10 stated that the accused asked them to wait in the parking after meeting the BDO and the Raid Officer PW11 stated that all three persons came downstairs together. It is accordingly urged that there are major contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses raising a question mark on the veracity of the prosecution witness.
66. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shahaja alias Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 739 of 2017, Decided on July 14, 2022 dealt with appreciation of ocular evidence of witnesses and observed as follows:
"27.The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task. There is no fixed or straight-jacket formula ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 59 of 71 for appreciation of the ocular evidence. The judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case can be enumerated as under:
I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
II. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details.
III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence.
IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 60 of 71 scrutiny.
VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on. XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him.
____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 61 of 71 XIII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness.
[See Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, 1983 Cri LJ 1096 : (1983) 3 SCC 217 : AIR 1983 SC 753, Leela Ram v. State of Haryana, (1999) 9 SCC 525 : AIR 1999 SC 3717, and Tahsildar Singh v. State of UP, AIR 1959 SC 1012]
28. To put it simply, in assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, the circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence. Although in cases where the plea of the accused is a mere denial, yet the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea or puts forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence.
29.There is nothing palpable or glaring in the evidence of the two eye-witnesses on the basis of which we can take the view that they are not true or reliable eye-witnesses. Few contradictions in the form of omissions here or there is not sufficient to discard the entire evidence of the eye-witnesses.
30. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of State of U.P. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 62 of 71 v. Anil Singh, 1988 Supp SCC 686 : AIR 1988 SC 1998, wherein in para 15, it is observed thus: "15. It is also our experience that invariably the witnesses add embroidery to prosecution story, perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved. But that is no ground to throw the case overboard, if true, in the main. If there is a ring of truth in the main, the case should not be rejected. It is the duty of the court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy confidence in the witnesses It is necessary to remember that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the other Both are public duties which the Judge has to perform."
67. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324 differentiated between normal discrepancies and contradictions and observed as under:
30. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon.
However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence.
"9. Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility." Therefore, mere ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 63 of 71 marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution's case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited. [Vide State v. Saravanan [(2008) 17 SCC 587 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 580 : AIR 2009 SC 152], Arumugam v. State [(2008) 15 SCC 590 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1130 :
AIR 2009 SC 331], Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. [(2009) 11 SCC 334 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1352] and Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 13 SCC 657 : JT (2010) 12 SC 287] .]
68. It is accordingly argued on behalf of the counsel for the accused that the testimony of the witnesses is full of contradictions and therefore they lose their sanctity and credibility and on the basis of such testimony, the accused cannot be convicted. In this regard, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mritunjoy Bishwas Vs. Pranab, 2013 (12) SCC 796 is referred to, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"It is well settled in law that the discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of trustworthiness. The test is whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the court. If the evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by the test of prudence, then it may create a dent in the prosecution version. If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter and ushers in incongruities, the defence can take advantage of such inconsistencies. It needs no special emphasis to state that every omission cannot take place of a material omission and therefore, minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution case and should not be taken to be ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 64 of 71 a ground to reject the prosecution evidence. The omission should create a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness."
69. From the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it emerges that if an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter, they need to definitely be taken into account, however every omission cannot take place of a material omission and therefore minor contradictions and inconsistencies should not be a ground to reject the prosecution case. Those discrepancies that do not affect the core of the prosecution case are immaterial and are not sufficient to discard the evidence of the witnesses.
70. Viewed on the touchstone of the law discussed above, in the present case the contradictions referred to by the ld. Counsel for the accused are not such which affect the core of the prosecution case and are not of such a nature to render the prosecution case improbable. As held in Shahaja case (Supra) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in short span of time. The witnesses are liable to get confused or mixed up when examined later. Seemingly inconsistent statements need not necessarily amount to a contradiction unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement. Even if the later statement is at some variance with the former statement to some extent, it will not be helpful to contradict that witness. The contradictions regarding call made to the accused after reaching Burari Pushta, whether PW6 went home after the raiding party left the police station or not, the place where the vehicles were parked at Tis ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 65 of 71 Hazari premises, position of the members of the raiding team at the SDM office, Tis Hazari, who all came down after meeting the BDO, are not major contradictions which go to the root of the matter and the evidence of the witnesses cannot be rejected as a whole on the strength of such minor contradictions. The contradictions pointed out by ld. Counsel for the accused in the testimonies of the witnesses i.e. the complainant PW6, PW7 panch witness, PW10 son of the complainant, the raid officer PW11 and other members of the raiding team i.e. PW4 are not major contradictions which would be sufficient to discard the entire evidence of the eye witnesses.
71. The judgment in the matter of Khilli Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1981, 1 SCC 28 relied upon by the accused was passed in the facts of that case wherein the panch witness did not support the prosecution evidence. The evidence was led by the prosecution in respect of a different incident and not in respect of the incident in question involving the accused and on facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the prosecution story was opposed to human conduct.
72. Ld. Counsel for the accused has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Madan Gopal Singhal & Others vs. State, 2016 (231) DLT 43 , however, in facts of that case the prosecution was not able to prove demand of bribe and the appellants were acquitted.
73. Accused has also placed reliance upon judgment of Satpal Singh vs. State of Delhi, Crl. Appeal No. 1006 of 2002 , decided on 09.02.2016, wherein it was held that there was no witness corroborating demand and recovery of tainted money ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 66 of 71 which was not even recovered from the person of the appellant and hence the appellant was acquitted and hence was passed in facts of that case.
Defence of the accused :
74. In his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the accused has pleaded that he is innocent and had been falsely implicated in the present case. He pleaded that he was not the tout Pritam Singh. He did not have any interaction with the complainant Vinay Tyagi or his son Rajat Tyagi at any point of time and he never demanded any bribe amount from them nor accepted any bribe from them. He further stated that he was a village level worker and a very low level officer and did not have any authority in relation to demolition, construction on any other land or repair work.
75. As regards the defence of the accused that he was not tout Pritam Singh or that he never interacted with the complainant or his son at any point of time or never demanded any bribe amount from them has been discussed in detail herein- above and it is held that the tout Pritam Singh and accused Pritam Singh were one and the same person and a split in their identity was sought to be created by the complainant PW6 and his son PW10 to confuse the court, as an afterthought.
76. The fact that the accused was a Village Level Worker and he did not have any authority over any work relating to construction, demolition or repair work has to be seen in the light of the fact that the accused was acting at the behest of BDO Madan Lal, who has not been charge-sheeted by the IO despite the fact that there are specific allegations of demand against him ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 67 of 71 as the raid proceedings had failed against him. Hence, the said defence taken by accused Pritam Singh has no merit as he was himself acting at the behest of BDO Madan Lal, who had the requisite authority.
FSL result and sanction u/s 19 of P.C.Act :
77. PW3 Dr. Lingaraj Sahoo, Sr. Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL Rohini, Delhi examined the right hand wash of the accused and proved his report Ex. PW3/A. As per the said report the right hand wash i.e. exhibit RHW-I was found to contain Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate, thereby corroborating the fact of acceptance of bribe by the accused.
78. PW9 Ashwani Kumar, Secretary-cum-Divisional Commissioner, accorded the prosecution sanction u/s 19 of PC Act against the accused. He deposed that he had carefully examined the facts and material placed before him i.e. copy of complaint, raid report, copy of FIR, copy of seizure memos, copy of FSL result, statements of witnesses and report of Patwari Sh. Yogesh Kumar dated 15.07.2014 regarding Khasra no. 65 and other documents collected by ACB during investigation in respect of the said allegations against the accused and after applying his mind, he was of the view that accused Pritam Singh had committed offences while holding public office. He being the competent authority to remove the accused Pritam Singh from his services, accorded sanction U/s 19 of PC Act for his prosecution for the aforesaid offences, vide his detailed sanction order dated 24.08.2015 Ex.PW9/A. He was cross-examined at length by ld. Counsel for the accused, however, nothing could be elicited in ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 68 of 71 his testimony to diminish the worth of the sanction order granted by him.
Presumption Under Section 20 of PC Act
79. Once the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved, Section 20 of the PC Act mandates the Court to raise a presumption against a public servant that the illegal gratification was received as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act improperly or dishonestly. The Prosecution has established the foundational facts through the direct evidence of complainant PW6, his son PW10 that in pursuance of demand from complainant PW6 and his son PW10 that the accused had demanded Rs. 10 Lakhs as illegal gratification for the purpose of permitting the complainant to repair the school and after negotiations, he demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs, out of which Rs. 2 Lakhs was for accused Pritam Singh and Rs. 3 Lakhs was for BDO- Madan Lal and eventually the deal was finalized at Rs. 3 Lakhs to be paid in two installments. In pursuance of the said demand, accused Pritam Singh obtained Rs. 1.5 Lakhs from the son of the complainant Rajat Tyagi PW10 on 08.07.2014 and the events that followed in quick succession led to the recovery and seizure of the bribed amount i.e. Phenolphthalein powder smeared notes of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs i.e. 150 GC notes of denomination of Rs. 1000 each Ex. P-3(colly) from the accused Pritam Singh. The testimony of the complainant PW6 stands corroborated by the testimony of his son PW10 and Panch Witness PW7 and other witnesses of raid proceedings as well as the FSL result Ex. PW3/A. The identity of the accused ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 69 of 71 Pritam Singh stands established through the testimony of the complainant PW6, his son PW10 and the testimony of the panch witness PW7 and the raid officer PW11. The fact of demand of illegal gratification by the accused and acceptance of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs pursuant to said demand has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, presumption under Section 20 of Act is drawn against the accused that he accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 1.5Lakhs from the son of the complainant i.e. PW10 as a reward for the purpose of permission to carry repair work at their school. However, the plea of accused that he did not have any interaction with the complainant or his son at any point of time, is not proved on record.
80. In view of the discussion herein-above, in the instant case, the accused failed to rebut the said presumption, thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case and hence accused Pritam Singh is held guilty for the offence under section 7 of PC Act.
81. Accused Pritam Singh has also been charged for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act which provides that a person is said to commit criminal misconduct, inter alia, if he (i) by corrupt or illegal means or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself any pecuniary advantage. In view of above discussion, the prosecution has proved the charge of criminal misconduct under Section 13(1) (d) of PC Act punishable u/s 13(2) of PC Act against the accused Pritam Singh beyond reasonable doubt i.e. obtainment of gratification other than legal remuneration of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs by the accused being a public servant pursuant to demand from complainant and his son ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 70 of 71 as a reward for the purpose of permission to carry repair work at their school. Accordingly, accused Pritam Singh is held guilty for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act punishable u/s 13(2) of PC Act.
82. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved on record that accused Pritam Singh committed the offence under section 7 and section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, punishable under section 13(2) of PC Act and is therefore held guilty and convicted for the said offences.
Digitally signed by
DEEPALI DEEPALI SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.09.26
Announced in the open court 14:47:17 +0530
on 26th September, 2024 ( Deepali Sharma )
Special Judge (PC Act) (ACB-01)
Rouse Avenue District Courts
New Delhi
____________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. 15/2021, FIR No. 54/2014, PS ACB State vs. Pritam Singh Page 71 of 71