Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Baldhar Singh on 15 April, 2011
CBI V/s Baldhar Singh
IN THE COURT OF SH. TALWANT SINGH
SPECIAL JUDGE-01 CBI NEW DELHI
CC NO: 29/2010
CBI V/s SI Baldhar Singh
S/O Sh. Pheru Singh
R/O H. no. B-4, Police Colony
Saraswati Vihar, New Delhi
RC No. DAI/2004/A-0021/CBI/ACB/ND
U/S 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1 )(d) of POC
Act
Date of institution 30.03.2005
Judgment reserved on 25.02.2011
Judgment delivered on 31.03.2011
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution is that a written complaint dated 20.04.2004 was registered with SP, ACB, CBI, New Delhi by one Sh. Sheikh Feroz alleging that SI Baldhar Singh of PS Nizamuddin had falsely implicated him and his brother in case FIR no. 175/2004 under Section 506 and 308 IPC and anticipating his arrest he applied for anticipatory bail which was granted to him by the court on 01.04.2004. The complainant along with surety Sh. Kafiluddin met SI Baldhar Singh for furnishing his bail bonds but SI Baldhar Singh told the complainant that he would accept the bail bonds only on getting Rs.10,000/- as bribe and asked him to come on the next day. The complainant met him several times thereafter requesting him to accept the bail bonds but SI Baldhar Singh told him that without getting the money he would not accept the bail bonds and he would try to get his bail also CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 1 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh cancelled. On 19.04.2004, he again met SI Baldhar Singh along with surety but he was asked to come again on the next day along with money and he was threatened with dire consequences. The complainant did not want to pay the bribe , so he lodged a complaint and requested for necessary legal action. Hence, RC NO. DAI-2004-A-0021 was registered and marked to Insp. Umesh Vashist, ACB, CBI, New Delhi for verification and laying a trap. A trap team was constituted comprising of two independent witnesses besides CBI officials. The complainant produced 20 GC notes of Rs.500/- each and pre- trap proceedings were conducted in CBI office. Arrangement for recording the conversation between the complainant and accused was made and for this purpose, complainant was provided a Samsung Digital Recorder. The trap team left for the spot of the transaction at around 3.30 PM and reached near the spot at 3.50 PM. The complainant along with surety went to the spot i.e. Police Booth situated at Basti Hazrat Nizamuddin in their own vehicle and complainant was reminded to switch on the digital recorder prior to meeting accused Baldhar Singh. After visiting the booth, the complainant told the trap team that the constable present in the said booth informed that SI Balldhar Singh would come to the booth at around 5.30-6.00PM. The trap team waited for the accused, who came at around 6.30 PM on his scooter. The complainant and his surety went towards him and thereafter they entered the police booth where, after initial conversation, on the specific demand by SI Baldhar Singh from the complainant as to whether he had brought the money, the complainant handed over the tainted notes amounting to Rs.10,000/- to CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 2 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh the accused, who accepted the same with his right hand and kept them in his right side pant pocket . Accused came out of the said police booth and complainant followed him and gave the pre-decided signal upon which the trap party rushed towards the said police booth and caught SI Baldhar Singh with both his wrists. The complainant told that the accused Baldhar Singh had demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.10,000/- as bribe. On being challenged, SI Baldhar Singh first declined but later on admitted that the tainted money had been put in his right side pant pocket by the complainant himself. During this process, SI Baldhar Singh tried to free his wrists and he took out the tainted money from his right side pant pocket and threw the same on the bed lying in the said police booth. The bribe money was recovered by recovery witness Sh. Paramjeet Singh from the bed sheet. Numbers of the GC notes were tallied with the description in the handing over memo. Washes of right hand, inner lining of right side pant pocket, the handkerchief lying in the right side pant pocket of accused Baldhar Singh and bed sheet, where the tainted GC notes were thrown, turned pink in colour. Post trap proceedings were recorded in the recovery memo. Conversation recorded on the spot was replayed which confirmed the demand and acceptance of bribe. Specimen voice of accused Baldhar Singh was taken during investigation and sent to CFSL along with the spot conversation. The CFSL report confirmed that both audio cassettes contained the voice of accused Baldhar Singh. The washes of the right hand, right side pant pocket, handkerchief and bed sheet were sent to CFSL for opinion and vide report dated 24.05.2004, it confirmed CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 3 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh the presence of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate in the solution. Sanction was obtained from the competent authority and after completion of the proceedings, the charge-sheet was filed under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.
2. The cognizance in this case was taken on 16.09.2005 and charge was framed against accused SI Baldhar Singh on 06.03.2006 under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act (P C Act) punishable under Section 13(2) of the said Act.
CBI examined eleven witnesses between 24.05.2006 and 26.05.2010 namely PW 1 Sh. Anil Shukla Sanctioning Authority, PW2 Sh. Sheikh Feroz Complainant, PW 3 Dr. Rajender Singh CFSL Voice Expert, PW 4 Sh. C L Bansal CFSL Chemical Expert, PW 5 Sh. Paramjeet Singh Independent Witness, PW 6 Sh. Kaffilluddin Surity of Complainant, PW 7 SI Ram Sahay, PW 8 Insp. Umesh Vashisth (TLO), PW 9 Insp. C B Ojha, PW 10 Sh. S. K. Pahwa Independent Witness and PW 11 ACP. Sehdev Singh, who was SHO of Police Station Hazrat Nizamuddin.
3. The entire evidence recorded by the Court was put to the accused and his statement under Section 313 CrPC was recorded on 10.11.2010 in which he took the stand that he neither demanded nor accepted the bribe amount. The complainant and his brother were habitual offenders and they had grudge against the accused so they wanted to get rid of him and finding no other alternative, they got him falsely trapped in this case. Accused examined DW1 ASI Naresh Kumar as his defence witness on 16.11.2010. CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 4 of 56
CBI V/s Baldhar Singh
4. Detailed arguments have been addressed by Sr. PP for the CBI as well as by Sh. M P Singh, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
5. PW 1 is Sh. Anil Shukla, Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District. In examination-in-chief he states that he was the competent authority to appoint and remove accused SI Baldhar Singh of Delhi Police. On receipt of request for sanction and after perusing the papers of the case, he was of the opinion that it was a fit case for grant of prosecution sanction and accordingly he signed the sanction order Ex. PW 1/A. In cross-examination he states that brother of the complainant namely Sharafat was detained under MOCOCA and he was a big drug paddler of Delhi. He also admits that some criminal cases were pending against the complainant Feroz. He denied the suggestion that he had not applied his mind while according sanction or he had not seen any documents at the time of grant of sanction.
6. PW 2 is complainant Sh. Sheikh Feroz . He narrates the entire story giving the background that he was living at Hazrat Nizamuddin, Delhi along with two brothers. A neighbour Mohd. Mohan had a dispute over a property with brother of the complainant namely Sharafat. He lodged a false complaint under Section 308 IPC which was investigation by the accused. In the said case, the complainant, his brother Sharafat Sheikh, brother in law Mohd. Sayeed and neighbour Sheikh Hannan were challaned and fine was imposed on them. The said neighbour Mohd. Mohan again lodged a case under Section 506 IPC which was investigated by some other police officer. The complainant was not arrested and he got anticipatory bail in the said CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 5 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh case and he went to his native village in Bihar. When he came back from Bihar on 30.03.2004 , he came to know that Mohd. Mohan had again lodged a complaint of theft regarding a four year old incident against the complainant, his brother Sharafat Sheikh and Sheikh Hanan. The complainant got anticipatory bail on 01.04.2004 and thereafter he went to meet the accused along with his surety Kafeeluddin . He further states that accused demanded Rs.10,000/- for accepting the surety on which he requested that he was a poor man and could not arrange the said amount but accused was adamant and he further threatened that he would get the complainant's anticipatory bail cancelled. PW 2 states that he met the accused time and again, who told him to arrange the money otherwise he would get warrants issued against him. On many occasions accused was busy in court matters when PW 2 went to meet him. Lastly, he met the accused along with surety at PS Hazrat Nizamuddin at about 12 noon on 19.04.2004, when the accused again told PW 2 to arrange Rs.10,000/- for accepting his surety. PW 2 requested his bhabhi to arrange Rs.10,000/- after narrating his problem. PW 2 further states that on 20.04.2004 he came to Patiala House Court along with surety and got typed the complaint. Then he went back to his house and took Rs.10,000/- from his bhabhi and left for CBI office where he reached at about 2.00 PM along with his surety Kafeeluddin. He met the SP who perused his complaint and called Insp. Vashist who took him to his room. On his complaint, the case was registered. He identified the complaint Ex. PW 2/A with his signatures at Point 'A'. The FIR is Ex. PW 2/B having his signatures at Point 'A'. PW 2 also CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 6 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh states that two independent witnesses namely Sh. S K Pawha and Sh. Paramjit Singh were also there. He produced twenty GC notes of Rs.500/- denomination each (Total has been wrongly typed as Rs.20,000/- but it should have been Rs.10,000/-). The powder was applied on the GC notes and the numbers of GC notes were also noted down. The voices of the independent witnesses and of PW 2 were also tape recorded. The witness Sh. S K. Pawha was asked to touch the GC notes and was directed to put his finger in the solution which turned pink. The solution was thrown away. Thereafter a pen type tape recorder was given to PW 2 and its functioning was explained and he was directed to switch on the tape recorder at the time of meeting the accused . The money was to be given to accused only on his demand and a signal was to be given after the transaction was over. This witness signed the written proceedings of pre-trap. He identified his signatures at Point A of handing over memo Ex. PW 2/C. As per him, the pre-trap proceedings were completed by 3.30 PM and they reached at police post Basti Nizamuddin at about 4.00-4.15 PM. The vehicle was parked at a safe distance. The CBI officers took suitable positions here and there and PW 2 went to police post Basti Nizamuddin along with surety Kafeeluddin. Naresh Hawaldar was present there who told PW2 to wait for accused for about one and half hour. PW 2 told this fact to trap party members and then he went inside a tea shop along with his surety to take tea. He again inquired Naresh Hawaldar after about one hour and he was told that accused would be coming after sometime. At about 6 PM he saw accused coming on his scooter. PW CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 7 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh 2 contacted accused and told him that he was waiting for him for a long time. PW 2 switched on the tape recorder secretly. Accused took PW 2 inside the police Chowki along with surety Kafeeluddin and one constable was told to bring tea. Accused inquired whether PW 2 had brought the money or not to which he replied in affirmative and then accused demanded money from him. So he took out the tainted GC notes and passed on to the accused who accepted the same with his right hand and kept in his right side pant pocket. The accused told him that he had kept his file at somebody's house and he moved out of the police post to bring that file. PW 2 also accompanied him outside and gave the pre-decided signal. CBI officers ran towards the accused and apprehended him from his both wrists and brought him inside the police post. The accused started scuffling with the trap team members and during scuffling accused took out the money from his right side pant pocket and threw the same on the bed lying there. The CBI officers disclosed their identity and challenged the accused but the accused denied that he had accepted the bribe and he tried to flee away. The tape recorder was played and it confirmed that the transaction took place between complainant and accused Baldhar Singh. Thereafter, the accused was asked to dip his right hand fingers in freshly prepared water solution with a chemical which turned pink. It was transferred in a bottle. The wash of one handkerchief which was in the right side pant pocket was also taken and that solution also turned pink. The right side pant pocket was then dipped in solution which also turned pink and these solutions were also transferred into two separate bottles and CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 8 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh sealed. Similarly, the wash of the bed sheet was also taken where the money was thrown. The GC notes were picked up and the numbers were tallied. PW 2 identified the said notes as Ex. P-1 to P-20. The SHO PS Hazrat Nizamuddin was also called during the post trap proceedings. Public had gathered there and they were shouting slogans against Delhi Police . So SHO PS Hazrat Nizamuddin took the accused and trap party members to PS Hazrat Nizamuddin. Post trap proceedings were reduced into writing and PW 2 signed the same. He identified his signatures on recovery memo at Point A which has been exhibited as Ex. PW 2/D. After two-three months he was called in CBI office to identify the voices recorded during trap proceedings. He identified the voices and transcription was prepared. The transcription memo bears his signatures was exhibited as Ex. PW 2/E and Ex. PW 2/F. In further examination in chief he states that transcription Ex. PW 2/F was prepared on 14.09.2004.
7. In cross-examination complainant PW 2 states that he cannot read or write English. Ex. PW 2/C and Ex. PW2/D were in English and he did not know what was written therein and he had only identified his signatures. He did not know as to who was the writer of these documents. He admits that his brother was charged under MOCOCA but unjustifiably and he was in jail for the last 4-5 years. He did not know as to how many cases his sister-in- law was facing or whether the properties of his brother had been seized by the Government or his brother Sheikh Shohrab as well as Sheikh Sharafat were facing NDPS cases also or whether his brother Sheikh Sharafat was the CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 9 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh Bad Character (BC) of PS Nizamuddin. As per the version of PW 2, he was not convicted in any case and there was only one case against him, in which he was acquitted. He further states that in case FIR No. 157/2002 PS Nizamuddin he was left on undergone basis and charge sheet in that case was filed by accused Baldhar Singh and PW 2 was fined Rs.30,000/- also in that case. He did not remember that he was an accused in FIR No.180/2002 PS Hazrat Nizamuddin or the accused was IO of that case. He further did not remember whether FIR No. 175/2004 was registered against him and accused was IO of that case also. He did not know if his brother Sheikh Sharafat was involved in number of cases of PS Nizamauddin and other police stations. For document Ex. PW 2/E, he states that he did not know anything about its contents and he only identified his signatures . He did not tell his Advocate Sh. Rajesh Arora about the fact that accused demanded bribe for completing the bail formalities and he did not meet the SHO of PS Nizamuddin to inform him that he had been granted anticipatory bail and accused was demanding bribe. PW 2 further states that the complaint PW 2/A was dictated by him to the typist in Patiala House Courts. As per his version, PW 2 was residing at Uttam Nagar and his correspondence address was 554/2, Basti Nizamuddin. He denied the suggestion that he had filed this false case against accused Baldhar Singh at the instance of his brother Sheikh Sharafat. He was shown the anticipatory bail order but he could not read the same, as the same was in English. He admits that accused never came to his house in his presence to arrest anyone and he was never called CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 10 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh to the police station by the accused. Accused Baldhar Singh never came to his village but threatened him outside the court, so he got scared and went to Bihar. The beat box and the house of PW 2 were quite near to each other. As per his version, PW 2 had told the CBI that he had brought Rs.10,000/- from his bhabhi but it is not recorded in his statement Ex. PW 2/DA. In further cross-examination he states that he got recorded in his complaint that accused Baldhar Singh had called him at what time but it was not so recorded in Ex. PW 2/A. He again said that accused Baldhar Singh had only said that he would be available in the police station and this fact was not recorded in the complaint and it was also not told to the IO but he told the IO that accused Baldhar Singh had told him to come to police booth on next date but police booth was not mentioned in Ex. PW 2/DA. He did not tell the IO the timing when the trap team had reached the police booth. He further did not tell the IO that the accused had reached the police booth at 6.00 PM. At that time only one policeman was present in the police booth who was HC Naresh. He also did not tell the IO that accused had asked constable to bring tea. He admits that a warrant was issued against him in a case registered by accused and he was a proclaimed offender in that case. He further told that the wash of the hands of the accused was taken in the police booth itself and he had signed on paper slip pasted on the bottle in which hand wash was sealed and his surety Kafeeluddin had also signed. The numbers of currency notes were noted on a paper and he might have signed the same along with surety Kafeeluddin. As per his version, Sh. Paramjit Singh had also accompanied CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 11 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh the team to the police booth but when he had gone to speak to accused, Sh. Paramjit Singh was not with him. Only his surety Kafeeludin had accompanied him. He did not know that SHO was Incharge of Police Station. He denied the suggestion that accused Baldhar Singh had neither demanded nor accepted any bribe from him and he forcibly tried to put money in his pocket to which he resisted and in that process the money fell down on the nearby cot. He admits that when accused was caught he said that Complainant was forcibly putting the money in his pocket. He admits that accused did not misbehave with him when accused had arrested him. The papers were prepared in PS Nizamuddin as the accused was taken there on account of gathering of crowd at Police Post. PW 2 denied the suggestion that the hand wash of the accused was taken at the police station. He did not remember the specific date of visit to CBI office but denied the suggestion that after 21.04.2004 he had never visited the CBI office again. He admitted that a large crowd remained in the street in which police booth was situated. He did not remember whether uniform of the accused Baldhar Singh was taken off. He denied the suggestion that he had gone with CBI team and Kafeeluddin on 19.04.2004 for apprehending the accused and he had given a complaint to CBI on 19.04.2004 which was replaced with fresh complaint on 20.04.2004.
8. PW 3 is Dr. Rajender Singh, Principal Scientific Officer and HOD, Physics, CFSL who stated that he had 18 years experience in the field CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 12 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh of Forensic Voice Identification. He received two sealed parcels from SP CBI on 29.04.2004 which were intact. The parcel Q1 contained a normal audio recorded cassette containing conversation of 8 minutes 34 seconds. The second parcel was marked by him as S1 containing specimen voice recording of SI Baldhar Singh. He examined the recorded voice and specimen voice by scientific methods i.e. Auditory and Voice Spectographic Techniques and found that voice marked as Ex.Q-1(A) was the voice of the same person whose specimen voice was marked as Ex.S-1(A), i.e., SI Baldhar Singh beyond reasonable doubt. He mentioned all the details in report dated 15.10.2004 Ex. PW 3/1. The cassette marked as Ex. Q-1 was exhibited as Ex. PW 3/2 and the specimen audio cassette was marked S-1 was exhibited as Ex. PW3/3.
9. In his cross-examination PW 3 states that it was correct that sample voice was not taken in his presence and he had no personal knowledge as to whether voice contained in cassette Ex. S-1(A) was of accused Baldhar Singh or not and he believed it to be accused Baldhar Singh on the basis of what was stated in the forwarding letter. He had not sent the rough notes to the Court but he had brought the same in the court on the day of his examination and he had not submitted voice-gram along with his report. He denied the suggestion that parcels were not received by him. He admitted that voice can be copied by mimicry and further stated that he could not say if the sample voice was the result of mimicry. The same was his reply CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 13 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh with respect to questioned voice Q-1(A). As per him, the science of voice identification is till developing as every science develops. He admits that the CFSL is under the administrative control of CBI but denied the suggestion that he had given his report Ex. PW 3/1 as per the wishes of CBI under their influence.
10 PW 4 is Sh. C L Bansal, Senior Scientific Officer, Chemistry Division, CFSL, New Delhi . He received four sealed bottles along with sample seal and after comparing the same he found the seals intact. On chemical examination the exhibits RHW, RSPPW, HW and bed sheet wash gave positive result for the presence of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate and he submitted his report Ex. PW 4/1. The four bottles bear the seal of CFSL over which the CFSL report number was mentioned, which were given nos. Ex. P-1 to P-4 and the cloth wrappers were marked as Ex. P-5 to P-8.
11 In his cross-examination PW 4 admitted that in some tablets phenolphthalein was one of the ingredients but he denied the suggest that if a person touches that tablet containing phenolphthalein , the hand wash of such a person would give positive result of phenolphthalein. Even if the tablet was crushed, there was no possibility of phenolphthalein appearing on the hand but if it was wet then there might be a possibility. He denied the suggestion that he did not examine the exhibits himself. He admits that he CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 14 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh did not file the worksheet prepared along with his report and he had not given the percentage of phenolphthalein in the Exhibits marked P-1 to P-4. 12 PW 5 and PW 10 are independent witnesses who had joined the trap proceedings with the CBI team in this case. PW 5 Paramjit Singh has supported the prosecution case in his examination in chief regarding the pre
-trap proceedings. Thereafter he states that the accused arrived at around 5.30 PM at the police post Nizamuddin and the complainant along with Kafiluddin and other independent witness S K Pahwa went inside the police post after the accused and they came out about 15 minutes later. The complainant gave the pre -appointed signal. The accused was trying to start his scooter when he was challenged by the CBI team but the accused denied that he had accepted the bribe and he was taken inside the police post where the complainant told about the transaction that the accused had accepted the money in his right hand and kept in the right side pant pocket but accused again denied the acceptance of money and got free his one hand and in the scuffling he took out the money from his right side pant pocket and threw it on the bed sheet lying there. He further states regarding the hand wash, right side pant pocket wash, handkerchief wash along with bed sheet wash and that these washes turned pink. He had picked up the GC notes from the bed sheet and thereafter he and Sh. S.K. Pahwa had tallied the number of the GC notes. In the mean time crowd gathered there and shouted slogans and the proceedings were transferred to PS Nizamuddin as advised by the SHO, CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 15 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh who also came there.
13 In cross-examination PW 5 denied that another person Ram Kala Singh from his office also reached the CBI office who was asked to report there but he had not met him in the CBI office. He denied that he had gone to CBI office on on 19.04.2004 also. As per PW 5, he remained in the CBI office on the next day after the trap also and again visited CBI office after 15 days. As per his version, CBI team left the office at around 3.00-3.30 PM. The complainant did not tell the time when he was required to give bribe to the accused. He had not over heard the conversation between the accused and the complainant. PW 5 had not seen the accused taking money from the complainant. No recovery of money was made outside the police booth where the accused was arrested but accused Baldhar Singh was taken inside the police booth. He reiterated that the accused Baldhar Singh had taken out the money from his pant pocket and threw it on the bed and it was PW 5 who had picked up the money from there. He denied the suggestion that the money fell down on the bed in the process when it was being forcibly put in the pocket of the accused and the accused was resisting the same. He denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely being under the influence of CBI.
14. PW 6 is Kafiluddin. His examination in chief was firstly recorded on 21.08.2007 and the same was deferred as he was not feeling well. Remaining examination in chief was recorded on 07.01.2008. In his CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 16 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh examination in chief he supports the case of the prosecution. He was asked by the complainant to stand his surety in the bail granted to him by the court on 09.04.2004 . He along with the complainant went to the accused for furnishing surety and the accused told that he wanted a bag full of money and the small money would not work and he started abusing complainant. As per version of PW 6, the complainant handed over Rs.10,000/- to the accused which he accepted in his hand and thereafter CBI officials came and caught hold the wrists of the accused, he then threw the money on the bed sheet. The CBI team prepared a solution of sodium carbonate and dip the hand of accused and bed sheet, which turned pink. A huge crowd had gathered so the accused was taken to police station Nizamuddin. In his further examination in chief he stated about the solution of the right hand wash of accused turning pink and then being sealed the bottles. The digital tape recorder was played in which voice of accused Baldhar Singh and complainant was recognized and the said conversation was transferred to blank cassettes. The remaining proceedings were undertaken at PS Nizamuddin till 11.30 PM. Thereafter, the transcription was prepared.
15. In initial cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, this witness states that the accused had threatened the complainant in his presence that he would arrest him if he deposed in the court again. The witness was not aware that some cases for selling charas and drugs were registered against complainant or he was sent to jail. He was aware only of CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 17 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh the present case in which accused had arrested him. He admits that Sheikh Sharafat was brother of the complainant but he was not aware whether accused was working with his brother Sheikh Sharafat or their property was confiscated by the Government. He admits that Sheikh Sharafat was detained under MOCOCA. He states that his statement was not recorded by CBI but he was called in the CBI office for recording his statement. He could not say who had prepared Ex. PW 2/D but it was prepared by some CBI official. This part cross-examination was recorded on 07.01.2008 and it was deferred at the request of Ld. Defence Counsel who had stated that he had come from Dehradun on that day and that he was not fully acquainted with the case.
16. On the next date on 20.02.2008, PW Kafiluddin was not present and so bailable warrant was issued against him. Fresh warrant was issued against him on 10.04.2008 and in response thereto PW Kafiluddin was present on 01.05.2008. The matter was adjourned for PE on 04.08.2008. On this date, the accused failed to call his counsel till 2.30 PM, so the witness was relieved, the matter was adjourned for remaining prosecution evidence and opportunity to cross-examine this witness was closed. On 30.04.2009, accused filed an application U/S 311 CrPC for recalling PW 6 Kafiluddin for cross-examination. On 06.11.2009 , it was ordered that PW 6 Kafiluddin be summoned for cross-examination along with the complainant on the next date. On 24.05.2010, PW Kafiluddin was present for his cross-examination CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 18 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh but Ld. Counsel for accused was again not available since morning despite several calls, so PW 6 Kafiluddin was again discharged with nil cross examination. It was observed in the order that accused was making every effort to delay the trial of the case as whenever any material witness was present he was taking the plea that his counsel was not available. On 19.07.2010, it was again submitted on behalf of accused that he had filed an application U/S 311 CrPC for recalling PW 6 Kafiluddin for cross- examination. This application was allowed subject to the cost of Rs.200/-. PW 6 Kafiluddin was further cross-examined on 22.09.2010 but as per record, cost has not been deposited, which was a pre-condition for recording further cross examination of PW 6.
17 In his further cross-examination this witness tried to deviate from his earlier recorded statement in court and stated that he went to CBI office on 19.04.2004 along with complainant. The CBI officials did not lay trap on 19.04.2004. One Advocate Sh. R. D. Rana also accompanied the complaint to the office of CBI. He did not remember whether the said advocate was present on 20.04.2004 when accused was apprehended. He admitted that complainant and his brother were history sheeters of PS Nizamuddin. He did not know that accused was not permitting complainant and his brother to sell drugs in the area and for this reason he wanted to get rid of the accused. As per his version, the trap team reached the spot at about 3.30 PM on 20.04.2004 and accused came to the police post after about half an hour. He CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 19 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh admitted that he and complainant entered the booth immediately after the arrival of accused. He admitted that accused did not demand the money and talked to the complainant about his surety and when the complainant took out the money and extended the same towards accused, he pushed away the hand of complainant and as a result money fell on the cot. He also admitted when the officials of CBI challenged the accused he told them that he had not accepted any bribe. Thereafter, the accused was taken to police station Nizamuddin. He did not remember if the hand wash was taken at the spot or at PS Nizamuddin. He admitted that the entire writing work took place at PS Nizamuddin. He could not say if hand wash was taken after doing the entire writing work.
18 At that stage Ld. PP was allowed to re-examine PW 6 regarding ambiguity in respect of demand and acceptance of bribe amount. It was asked by Ld. PP that in his statement before the court recorded on 21.08.2007 PW 6 had stated that accused asked complainant how much money he had brought but in his cross-examination on that day he stated that accused had not demanded any bribe amount, so which of his statement was correct. In answer thereto, PW 6 Kafiluddin stated that he met accused along with complainant 2-3 times and during earlier meetings, accused demanded bribe from the complainant. However, on 20.04.2004 accused did not demand any money. Ld. PP again asked him about his earlier statement recorded on 21.08.2007 where he had deposed that accused accepted the CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 20 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh bribe amount from the complainant but on that day in cross-examination he deposed that accused pushed away the hand of complainant when money was extended towards him and in response thereto he stated that his statement recorded on that day in cross-examination was correct. He denied the suggestion of Ld. PP that he had been won over by the accused or the accused accepted the bribe amount from the complainant and thereafter kept the same in right pocket of his pant and when he was challenged by the officials of CBI he took out the bribe amount from the right pocket of his pant and threw it on the bed sheet.
19 PW 7 is SI Ram Sahay. He stated that he was posted at PS Hazrat Nizamuddin since December, 2002 to November 2004. Accused Baldhar Singh was a sub inspector there, who was assigned the work to look after VIP duties, law and order arrangement and investigation. He was a Divisional Officer also. PW 7 had investigated the case no. 175/2004 which was earlier being investigated by the accused. He had forwarded certified copies of some documents like bail application and bail order etc to CBI after getting it certified from SHO. These documents were Ex. PW 7/A to Ex. PW 7/C and forwarding letter bearing his signatures was Ex. PW 7/D. 20 In cross-examination PW 7 states that he had never seen complainant visiting or sitting with the accused in police station. He admits that as per directions of Hon'ble High Court, the accused had to get a board CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 21 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh installed at the shrine Hazrat Nizamuddin but the priest of the said shrine as well as the complainant and his brother were against the accused for that reason.
21 PW 8 is Insp. Umesh Vashisth who was the trap laying officer (TLO) in this case. In his examination in chief he stated about the complaint being marked to him by SP, CBI. He further inquired about the complaint from the complainant and asked the duty officer to arrange two independent witnesses. He constituted the trap team and verified about the accused from his source. He arranged the trap kit. Complainant produced twenty GC notes of Rs. 500/- each and told that accused had called him at the police booth, Basti Nizamuddin with money, although no time was fixed. The said money was being demanded for accepting the surety of the complainant in a case where he had been admitted to anticipatory bail. It appears that he had inadvertantly given the date of registeration of the FIR as 21.04.2004 whereas the copy of the FIR shows that it was registered on 20.04.2004. PW 8 further deposed about the demonstration of GC notes with phenolphthalein powder and of returning the remaining powder to Malkhana. No shadow witness was sent with the complainant as he was directed by the accused not to bring anybody with him except surety Kafiluddin. The handing over memo was completed by 3.30 PM and the trap team left the CBI office at 3.40 PM. At about 3.50 PM, they reached near the spot where the complainant and his surety were directed to approach accused CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 22 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh Baldhar Singh. Complainant was reminded to switch on the digital recorder before contacting the accused. The complainant and the surety found that accused was not present inside the police post and he would come around 5.30-6.00 PM as informed by HC Naresh. The accused came around 6.30 PM. The complainant and his surety also went inside the police post. After about 5-10 minutes, the accused came out of the police booth followed by complainant and his surety. The complainant gave pre-appointed signal and accused was apprehended and taken inside the police booth. The accused was challenged but he refused accepting the bribe. The complainant was asked to narrate the sequence of transaction. In the mean time accused tried to free himself and in the melee he managed to take out the bribe amount from his right side pant pocket and GC notes were thrown by him on the bed sheet in the presence of the both the independent witnesses and the team members. Sh. Paramjit Singh, the independent witness recovered the GC notes from the bed sheet and tallied the said recovered GC notes with the numbers mentioned in the handing over memo with the help of other witness Sh. S K Pahwa. The digital recorder was played which confirmed the demand of bribe amount from the complainant. Colourless solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in which right hand fingers of the accused were washed and the solution turned pink. Washes of the khakhi pant, inner lining of the right side pant pocket, handkerchief and bed sheet were also taken and the solutions turned pink and the same were transferred in four glass bottles which were sealed with CBI seals. The accused was arrested at around 8.00 CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 23 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh PM. SI Prem Nath prepared a rough site plan Ex. PW 5/A, recorded conversation was transferred into two audio cassettes out of which one audio cassette was sealed and another was kept open for investigation. Crowd had collected at the spot and they were shouting slogans. In view of this, the venue of proceedings was changed from police booth to police station Nizamuddin. After these proceedings, the case was transferred to IO C B Ohja for further investigation.
22 In cross-examination PW 8 states that he was called by the SP before registration of the FIR. He denied the suggestion that officers up to the rank of inspector were required to record their movements in the general diary but he admits that entry was made in the general dairy regarding registration of the case. He admitted that for a successful trap, team is given cash rewards in CBI within the permissible limits. He had not recorded the fact about the reputation of accused except in the handing over memo. Verification was carried out by him before the registration of FIR. As per the complainant the initial demand was made on 01.04.2004. He did not know during investigation that Sheikh Feroz was the brother of Sheikh Sharafat. CBI team did not go to the residence of complainant when the accused was not available at police post Basti Nizamuddin but the trap members stayed in their positions awaiting the arrival of accused. In rough site plan Ex. PW 5/A, approximate distance between different positions was not shown. He was standing at a distance of about 10-12 meters from the police booth. He did CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 24 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh not remember who got the hands of the accused washed but it was done by a member of the team. No departure entry was made in the general diary. No copy of general diary was placed on record. The recovered GC notes were not sealed. He denied the suggestion that no bribe amount was recovered from the accused or accused had not accepted any bribe amount. He also denied the suggestion that accused was made to count the bribe amount before taking his hand wash. He could not say if after entering the police booth, the complainant had shaken hands with the accused. He denied the suggestion that he had obtained signatures of accused on blank papers. He did not remember the value of the cash reward he got in this case. He denied the suggestion that he implicated the accused in this case being interested in a successful trap or he was deliberately not telling the correct facts.
23 PW 9 is Insp. C. B. Ojha who stated that in the year 2004 he was posted as Inspector in CBI, ACB, New Delhi. The present case was entrusted to him for further investigation. He collected the reports of CFSL Ex. PW 3/1 and Ex. PW 4/1 and examined witnesses. The transcript preparation cum voice identification memo was identified by him bearing his signatures on Ex. PW 2/E. The transcript Ex. PW 2/F was also prepared on the identification of voice by the complainant who identified his own voice as well as the voice of accused Baldhar Singh. Pw 9 also obtained documents Ex. PW 7/A to Ex. PW 7/D from PS Hazrat Nizamuddin . He also collected CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 25 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh the certified copies of two bail applications of the complainant being Ex. PW 9/A and Ex. PW 9/B and certified copy of the order sheet dated 01.04.2004 being Ex. PW 9/C from the court. He identified the signatures of Sh. D.C. Jain who was the SP on the letters addressed to Director, CFSL and the letters were exhibited as Ex. PW9/D and Ex. PW9/E. As per him, he correctly recorded the statements of witnesses Ex. PW2/DA and Ex. PW 10/DA and after completion of the investigation filed the charge-sheet. 24 In cross-examination PW 9 denied the suggestion that Ex. PW 2/DA and Ex. PW 10/DA were not recorded correctly. He could not say whether Sh. D.C. Jain was still in CBI. He did not recollect the date and month when investigation was transferred to him. He also could not tell the number of witnesses examined by Insp. Umesh Vashist before the case was transferred to him. He could not recollect that date on which he recorded the statement of complainant. As per him, Insp. Vashist had handed over statements of all the witnesses recorded by him and he had annexed the statements of all the relevant witnesses recorded by Insp. Umesh Vashist along with charge sheet . He could not recollect whether he considered the statement of any witness as irrelevant and the same being not annexed with the charge sheet. So far as he remembered, he had not recorded the statement of HC Naresh of PS Nizamuddin who was posted at the beat box. He again said that he had recorded the statement of HC Naresh and the same is on record. He again could not admit or deny that he had recorded CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 26 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh the statement of HC Naresh. He denied that he had verified the antecedents of the complainant or his brother Sheikh Sharafat as he had confined his investigation to the allegations against the accused. At the time of preparation of transcription, the accused was not present. The complainant and independent witnesses were available for interrogation after the trap. 25 PW 10 Sh. S K Pahwa is another independent witness. He also supported the prosecution case regarding pre-trap proceedings. As per his version the CBI team reached the site at about 3.30-3.45 PM and only complainant and his companion Kafiluddin were asked to go to the police booth and they found out that the person demanding the bribe was not there and they were told that he would be back at about 6.30 PM. As soon as the said person came on the scooter, the complainant and his companion were sent to him. He identified the accused as the person who had come on scooter. After completion of the transaction, the pre-decided signal was given. The accused was caught little out of the police booth and he was then taken inside the booth. The accused was refusing having accepted the bribe and as soon as his hands loosened, he took out the money from his pant pocket and threw it on the bed lying there.
26 PW 10 also deposed about the washes taken and water turning pink and thereafter sealed. Further proceedings were transferred to PS Nizamuddin and the entire paper work was carried out there. The specimen CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 27 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh voice recording memo was also prepared on the same day. He was again called to CBI office on 04.06.2004 and his statement was recorded. The transcription was also prepared on 14.09.2004. The seal was handed over to him on the day of trap which he surrendered in court and it was exhibited as Ex. P-21. This witness identified the cassette Q1, cloth wrappers , cassette S1, its inlay card and cloth wrapper, four cloth wrappers in which the wash bottles were sealed, a bed sheet of khakhi colour with black pattern, a handkerchief and a khakhi colour police uniform. The bed sheet, handkerchief and khakhi colour uniform were produced in open condition. 27 In cross-examination PW 10 denied the suggestion that IO directed him in particular to report in CBI office. As per his version, he had not gone to CBI office on 19.04.2004. He did not participate in any other CBI case. He was with CBI team which had taken position at a distance of about 150-200 feet away from the police booth. The police station Nizamuddin was at a distance of about 200-250 mts. Although CBI team came to know that accused Baldhar Singh was in the police station but the CBI team did not go to the police station as accused Baldhar Singh was expected at the police booth by 6.30 PM. He admitted that from the place of position taken by CBI team, they could neither see as to what was happening inside the police booth nor could they hear the talks going inside the booth or at the door of the booth. He denied the suggestion that complainant dropped the money inside the booth in the absence of accused when he had gone there with his CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 28 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh companion. He did not know that the house of the complainant was adjoining to the police booth. He could not tell who was present inside the booth at that time as the matter was quite old. He denied that money was lying on the bed sheet when he entered the booth. He re-iterates that accused was caught in the booth and his finger prints were taken there and thereafter the entire written work was conducted in the PS Nizamuddin. The sealing of the hand wash was conducted in the police booth. He denied the suggestion that no recovery was made in his presence.
28 PW 11 is ACP Shehdev Singh who was SHO, PS Nizamuddin in the year 2004. He also stated that SI Baldhar Singh was investigating the case FIR No. 175/2004 wherein the present complainant Sheikh Feroz was an accused and he got the anticipatory bail on 01.04.2004 from Sessions Court. On 20.04.2004, he received a call from Insp. Umesh Vashist of CBI telling him that SI Baldhar Singh was trapped by him at police booth Nizamuddin. On hearing this, he went to the said police booth and found that a crowd had gathered there and they were shouting anti-police slogans. He advised Insp. Umesh Vashist that there would be law and order problem so he should take SI Baldhar Singh from there and complete the investigation. On 20.04.2004, the investigation of FIR No. 175/2004 was with SI Baldhar Singh. 29 In cross-examination, PW 11 admits that complainant Sheikh Sharafat was a notorious criminal of the area and was involved in number of CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 29 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh cases under the NDPS Act and was still detained under MOCOCA in Central Jail, Tihar. His wife was also in jail. Complainant Sheikh Feroz was also involved in number of cases at that time. Before the trap laid by CBI, PW 11 had never received any complaint of corruption against accused SI Baldhar Singh from any one and even Sheikh Feroz had never complaint against accused SI Baldhar Singh. He could not say if accused Baldhar Singh was a strict officer. He did not know if hand wash of accused was taken in police station as he was not witness to the proceedings since he was not asked by Insp. Umesh Vashist to join and witness the proceedings. Sheikh Sharafat was a criminal and was generally against the police but this witness could not say if he was conspiring against police for want of knowledge. He did not have personal knowledge of the trap before the incident. 30 After completion of evidence of the prosecution, statement of accused under section 313 CrPC (Without Oath) was recorded. The entire evidence of the prosecution was put to the accused and his explanation was recorded. Defence of the accused is that he was wrongly apprehended by the CBI officials. He had never asked the complainant about the money and there was no question of accepting the same and when challenged by the CBI officials he told that he neither demanded nor accepted the bribe amount. There was no question of scuffling with the raiding party as his both hands were secured by the raiding party. The entire story regarding his taking out GC notes from his pant pocket and throwing on the bed sheet was concocted CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 30 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh just to falsely implicate him in this case as nothing was recovered from him. The complainant was trying put the GC notes in his right pocket and on seeing that he pushed the GC notes with his right hand and in that process his hand came in contact with GC notes which flung on the bed sheet. The said GC notes were picked up by the officials from the bed sheet and nothing else happened in his presence. He admitted that the washes of his right hand, right pant pocket and handkerchief were taken and the washes of his right pant pocket and handkerchief kept in the right pant pocket turned pink. He is silent about the colour of wash of his right hand and the bed sheet. As per the accused, the witnesses had falsely deposed against him at the behest of CBI.
31 Accused further stated in his statement that the complainant and his brother are habitual offenders and drug peddlers. He had filed the charge sheet against the complainant in which he was convicted and as a result he bore animus against him. A writ petition was filed by his brother and the complainant against him, which was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court. The complainant and his brother wanted to get rid of the accused and finding no alternative they, in connivance with the CBI officials, got him falsely trapped in this case. He had never called the complainant to come to him along with surety for furnishing the surety bond. At the time of incident HC Naresh was present and he had informed CBI officials that accused had neither demanded nor accepted the bribe amount.
CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 31 of 56
CBI V/s Baldhar Singh 32 Accused also examined DW1 ASI Naresh Kumar who stated that he was earlier posted as Head Constable in PS Hazrat Nizamuddin. He knew the complainant as his house was just in front of police booth. The complainant and his brother were involved in number of cases and the brother of the complainant was a BC of the area and they were drug peddlers. On 20.04.2004 around 3.00 PM he was alone in the police booth and at that time complainant inquired about the accused and DW 1 told him that he had no information about the accused. At about 6.30PM DW 1 was sitting in police booth and accused was also sitting in front of him and they were talking about some case. Both of them were sitting on the chairs and at about 6.30 PM complainant Sheikh Feroz came in the police booth and sat on the takhat lying in the police booth and asked accused to accept the bribe amount. Accused told that he had not called him and thereafter accused took out notes in the denomination of Rs. 500/- from his pant pocket and extended them towards the accused who asked him as to why he was giving money as he had not demanded any money from him, still complainant (wrongly typed as accused) extended money towards accused with the result accused pushed the hand of complainant and in the process GC notes fell on the takhat. In the mean time 4-5 persons in the civil clothes came inside the police booth and one of them caught accused Baldhar Singh from his both hands and another one picked up the GC notes. When DW 1 asked about their identity, they told that they were from CBI. One of the person counted the CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 32 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh GC notes. Two persons standing outside were also called thereafter. In the mean time public gathered near the police booth. When the CBI officials challenged the accused he told that he had not accepted the bribe amount and DW 1 also told CBI that accused had neither demanded nor accepted the bribe amount and complainant was trying to bribe the accused who pushed the hand of the complainant and in the process GC notes fell on the takhat. Since the crowd gathered outside the police booth, the CBI officials took telephone number of the Duty Officer of PS Nizamuddin from DW 1 and after some time 8-10 police officials from the said police station came there and accused was taken to police station. No washes were taken in his presence in the police booth and his signatures were also not obtained on any memo. DW 1 also accompanied the accused to the police station where uniform of the accused was taken off and he was given civil clothes. 33 In cross-examination by Ld. Sr. PP, DW 1 admits that he had not given anything in writing about the incident to the SHO although he had told him about the same. He also did not tell anything to the ACP/DCP about the incident. Similarly, he also did not tell his version to the senior officers of CBI. His statement was not recorded in this case. He denied the suggestion that he was not present inside the police booth at the time of transaction or that he was deposing falsely at the behest of the accused.
34 At the time of arguments Ld. Sr. PP has reiterated his case as CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 33 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh referred to in the evidence of the complainant , independent witnesses, TLO as well as part of the testimony of the surety Kafiluddin who was examined as PW 6. It was also submitted on behalf of the prosecution that the accused kept on threatening the complainant and he was warned by the court not to do so. Although PW 6 Kafiluddin was firstly examined on 21.08.2007 and thereafter his examination in chief was over on 07.01.2008 but he was intentionally not cross-examined by the accused on 04.08.2008 and even thereafter an application was moved for his cross-examination which was allowed and the witness was present for his cross-examination on 24.05.2010 but again the accused chose not to cross-examine this witness and lastly he was cross-examined on 22.09.2010 when he started supporting the version of the accused which was contrary to his version recorded in the examination in chief and with the permission of the court, PW 6 was re-examined by Ld. PP for CBI.
35 On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that even as per the case of the prosecution the alleged demand was made on 01.04.2004 and 02.04.2004 but the FIR was registered only on 20.04.2004. The complainant and his brother are known criminals of the area and they had grudge against the accused because complainant was convicted in a case investigated by the accused. There was no occasion for the accused to issue any notice for calling the complainant for furnishing the bail bond for grant of anticipatory bail. So, there was no occasion to demand any bribe for CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 34 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh accepting the said bail bond.
36 Next argument of the defence is that the recovery of the said tainted GC notes was made from the cot (takhat) lying in the police post Basti Nizamuddin. The complainant was interested in getting rid of the accused. The trap party could not have seen or heard any conversation as per their location shown in Ex. PW 5/A. The house of the complainant is very near to the police beat box but it has not been shown. The file of the complainant regarding his anticipatory bail was not recovered from the accused. Even as per the version of the prosecution, the accused was apprehended outside the police booth but some proceedings were conducted inside the police booth and later on he was taken to PS Nizamuddin. The complaint Ex. PW 2/A was typed in Patiala House Court as admitted by the complainant. Moreover, at his apprehension, the accused told the trap party that he did not demand any bribe amount and as both of his hands were caught then there was no occasion for him to throw the money on the cot. There is no explanation as to why the raiding party waited at the police post when they were aware that accused was available in the police station which was nearby. The complainant was not knowing English and he had only identified his signatures on the documents as well the transcription Ex. PW 2/E. HC Naresh was not examined by the CBI officials and he was not considered as a witness.
CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 35 of 56
CBI V/s Baldhar Singh 37 It has been further argued on behalf of accused that PW 5 Paramjeet Singh had stated that he was called at around 12.30 PM while the FIR itself was registered at 12.30 PM. He had only proved his signatures on the handing over memo. PW 2 and PW 5 have given different timings of arrival of the accused on the scene. As per PW 5, the other independent witness S K Pawha went inside the police post along with the complainant but Mr. S K Pahwa did not say so. The complainant and his brother are habitual offenders and drug peddlers. Accused had filed the charge sheet against the complainant in which he was convicted and as a result he bore animus against him. A writ petition was filed by his brother and the complainant which was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court. The complainant and his brother wanted to get rid of the accused and finding no alternative they in connivance with the CBI officials got him falsely trapped in this case. He had never called the complainant to come to him along with surety for furnishing the surety bond. At the time of incident HC Naresh was present and he had informed CBI officials that neither accused had demanded nor accepted the bribe amount.
38 Ld. Defence Counsel has relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Sat Paul Vs. Delhi Administration, 1976 Cr. L. J. 295 wherein it was held that:
" There is no absolute rule that the evidence of an interested witness cannot be accepted without corroboration. But where the witnesses have poor moral fibre and have to their discredit a load of bad antecedent which indicates their having a possible motive to harm the CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 36 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh accused who was an obstacle in their immoral activities, it would be hazardous to accept the testimonies of such witnesses without corroboration on crucial points from independent sources.
(ii) In kitab Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1999 Crl. L.J. it was held that:
" In a trap case the allegations that police officer demanded bribe for doing some work regarding case of complainant. However, no work was pending and final report was submitted at the time of alleged demand of bribe."
(iii) In M. S. Ramanathan Vs. CBI it was held that:
" It is not sufficient to say that accused took bribe from complainant, recovery of currency coupled with evidence of police officer with limited corroboration from witnesses- would not be sufficient to sustain conviction and accused acquitted.
(iv) In Ajit Kumar Somnath Pandhya Vs. State of Gujrat, 1992 (1) Crimes 488 it was held that :
" In corruption cases whenever the evidence of a complainant creates some reasonable doubt, the doubt has to be resolved in favour of the accused as the order of conviction and sentence on such tainted evidence would not only be unjust, illegal and improper to the honest public servant, but it would also certainly demoralize such public servants and thereby ultimately affect the efficiency of the public administration."
(v) In Vishal Chand Jain Vs. CBI, 2010 ILRD LD- 20-3267, it was held that:
" On perusal of the evidence, it is evident that the star witness of the prosecution, namely, the complainant who alone is the witness to the actual transaction has not supported the case of the prosecution either on the initial demand or on the demand and acceptance of bribe at the time of the trap. Instead , he has stated in his cross-examination that he had forced the money into the right side pocket of the pant of the appellant and the appellant immediately took it out and placed it on the table. This explains the hand washes turning pink. Coming to the hand washes and pocket wash turning pink, it is explained by the version of the complainant, wherein he stated that when the appellant did not accept the offered money, he had forced the money into the right side pocket of the pant of the appellant and the CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 37 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh appellant took out that money and place it on the table. This explains the presence of phenolphthalein powder in the pant pocket as well as son the hands of the appellant. Thus, in the absence of direct evidence regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant, I find it unsafe to base the conviction of the appellant on the basis of statement of Panch witnesses and trap officer who have neither heard the conversation nor seen the transaction of passing of the bribe money, more so for the reason that as per the prosecution case, the complainant persuaded the IO to send him alone to the house of the appellant for paying the bribe."
(vi) In Gulam Mahmood Vs. State of Gujarat, 1980 Crl. L J 1096, it was held that:
" In appreciating the evidence in this case the background should not be forgotten. The complaint was prepared by Natvarlal who was accused in at lease four cases. He did not have the least compunction in saying that the used to give money to the accused on several occasions. Apart from the fact that the complainant is in the nature of an accomplice, his story prima facie is suspect. Before any court could act on his testimony, corroboration in material particulars is necessary. The prosecution reli9es only on the evidence of Kirti Kumar , the panch witness for corroboration. Kirti Kumar is a student. Though the panch witness corroborates the complainant, regarding the recovery, the delay in effecting the recovery of money, the failure to examine independent witnesses who were admittedly in the court hall and in the next room to which was accused was taken , and the recovery made, makes the entire prosecution case unacceptable. In assessing the evidence of a witness the entire background of the prosecution story should be kept in mind. It is seen the complainant has no regard for truth and his preferring a false complaint about payment of bribe on 07.07.72 and making the present complaint after ten days of alleged demand cannot be ignored."
(vii) In Col. Mohan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1980 Crl. L J 1098, it was held that:
" Where the burden of an issue lies upon the accused he is not required to discharge that burden by leading evidence of proof his case beyond a reasonable doubt. It was further held that it is not necessary for the accused person to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. The onus of proof lies upon the accused person is to prove his case by a preponderance of probability. As soon as he succeeds in doing so, the burden shifts to prosecution which still has to discharge its original onus that never shifts, i.e that of establishing on the whole case the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt."CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 38 of 56
CBI V/s Baldhar Singh 39 In view of the law laid down by above-cited judicial pronouncements, it is clear that for proving the case beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution has to prove the following three aspects namely:
(a) Demand of bribe by a public servant. (b) Acceptance of bribe by public servant. (c) Recovery of bribe amount from the public servant. Let us consider all these aspects one by one. (a) Demand of bribe by a public servant (i) As far as the first aspect is concerned, PW 2 who is the
complainant has specifically stated in his examination in chief that after he got the anticipatory bail on 01.04.2004, he went to PS Nizamuddin and met the accused who asked for Rs.10,000/- for accepting the surety. On the next date also he visited the accused who repeated his demand for money. So, lastly on 19.04.2004 he met the accused along with his surety at PS Hazrat Nizamuddin at around 12.00 noon when the accused again asked the complainant to arrange Rs.10,000/- and only then he would accept the surety. On all these occasions as per the complainant , PW 6 Kafiluddin was with him. In his examination in chief, PW 6 Kafiluddin states that accused Baldhar Singh had asked for bag full of money and he started abusing Sheikh Feroz when the said Kafiluddin and complainant went to him for furnishing surety.
(ii) After closure of the cross-examination of this witness on two CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 39 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh occasions i.e. on 04.08.2008 and 24.05.2010, this witness was again cross- examined after taking permission from the court on 22.09.2010. On the said date, he tried to support the case of the accused . As per his version , accused did not demand the money on the day of trap i.e. on 20.04.2004. After taking permission, Ld. PP re-examined the witness regarding ambiguity in respect of demand and acceptance of bribe amount. The witness Kafiluddin then stated that he had met the accused along with complainant 2- 3 times and during earlier meetings accused demanded bribe from the complainant. However, on 20.04.2004 accused did not demand the money.
(iii) The evidence of hostile witness is to be treated very carefully but where he has specifically stated any fact and he was not cross-examined again regarding that fact on behalf of accused, the reliance can be placed upon the said fact which can be separated from his hostile statement. PW 6 Kafiluddin, while being examined by the prosecution in his examination in chief, had stated about demand of money and further after his cross- examination where he turned hostile when he was re-examined by Ld. Sr. PP he stated that the accused had demanded bribe from the complainant on earlier 2 -3 visits although he did not demand on the day of trap i.e. 20.04.2004, this itself proves that demand of bribe was made by the accused from complainant in the presence PW 6.
(iv) As far as the motive for demanding the bribe is concerned, it is clear that the complainant was granted anticipatory bail in a case under investigation with the accused. As soon as an anticipatory bail was granted it CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 40 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh was but natural for an accused to ensure that he should not face the situation where he would be caught by police when a surety might not be available and to ward off any such eventuality, the present complainant was right in approaching the accused police official for accepting his surety. As per complainant, the accused was not ready to accept his surety unless and until bribe of Rs. 10,000/- was not paid to him and he also threatened to get his bail cancelled and to get warrants issued against him. The first defence of the accused that he had never called upon or sent a notice to the complainant to furnish surety in the case under investigation is demolished.
(v) Second defence is that the accused as well as his entire family were known criminals of the area, so they wanted to see that accused was removed away who was creating hurdle in their illegal activities. In my view, the evidence of the complainant cannot be discarded right away only on the ground that he was a criminal. A criminal can be a complainant in a case where a police official was un-necessarily harassing him and asking for a bribe and there is no legal bar against a criminal not to become a complainant in a case where bribe was demanded from him, although his evidence needed corroboration.
(vi) The other contention raised is that the accused was instrumental in ensuring conviction of the complainant in one case so, he was harbouring enemity against him. Copy of the judgment of the case titled " State Vs. Sheikh Sharafat and others" , FIR No. 157/2002 decided by Sh. J M Malik, Additional Sessions Judge on 22.07.2004 has been placed on record by the CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 41 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh present accused. The said judgment is dated 22.07.2004 whereas the trap in this case was laid on 20.04. 2004, i.e., much before the date when this complainant was convicted by the said court and punishment was given to him till rising of the court.
(vii) The other ground agitated by the accused for showing enemity is that the accused and his brother had filed a writ petition in the Hon'ble High of Delhi against present accused, which was dismissed. Copy of the memo of parties as well as the order dated 21.09.2005 of the Hon'ble High Court has been filed by the accused on record and it is Mark A ' .' The said memo of parties shows that the present complainant is not the petitioner in the said writ petition which was filed by Sharafat Sheikh who is stated to be the brother of the present accused. Moreover, the said writ petition was also dismissed as withdrawn on 21.09.2005 on the ground that the said petition had become infructuous. The present trap was laid on 20.04.2004 and the said writ petition filed by the brother of complainant was dismissed as withdrawn much later. The present complainant has no connection with the said writ petition. I have also gone through the transcript of the conversation Ex. PW 2/F in which in the opening line itself the complainant said " HO GAYA SIR" and on this accused showed his satisfaction " HO GAYA TO ZAMANTI KO BULA" . On page 2 in the last three lines, the accused stated " MANE TUJHE KYA KAHA, AADHA KAR DIYO , AA JATE, AAKHIR MAI KAHA JATA, KAHA JATE" . Again on page 4 in the last line the accused said " LE AAYA PAISE" to which the complainant said " HAN" . Accused against said that " HAI CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 42 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh TERE PASS........ AACHA" . As per the voice expert, the voices in the questioned recorded conversation and the specimen voice sample of the accused are the same. The cross-examination of the voice expert did not yield anything in favour of the accused to dislodge his testimony. Hence, the prosecution has been able to prove the motive as well as the demand of bribe by the accused.
(b) Acceptance of bribe (i) As per the complainant, the accused had been demanding the
bribe as and when he was visiting him for getting his surety accepted in a case where he was granted anticipatory bail and ultimately he approached the CBI and a trap was laid. The complainant along with the trap team reached police post Nizamuddin at around 4.00-4.15 PM. The accused was not available in the police post, so the complainant, surety and other trap party members waited for him. The accused came at around 6.00 PM and he took the complainant and the surety Kafiluddin inside the police post. One constable was asked to bring tea. On demand, the complainant took out the GC notes and passed on the same to the accused who accepted the same with his right hand and kept in the right side pant pocket. Thereafter, the accused told that he had kept file of the complainant in the house of somebody and the accused came out of the police post to bring that file. The complainant also came out and gave the pre-appointed signal . The CBI officers rushed towards the accused and apprehended him with both his wrists and brought him inside the police post. The accused started scuffling CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 43 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh with the trap team members and during this scuffling, accused took out the money from his right side pant pocket and threw the same on the bed sheet lying there. The accused was challenged by the CBI officials but he denied having accepting the bribe and he tried to flee away. The accused was asked to dip his right hand finger in freshly prepared water solution and on doing so, the solution turned pink. The wash of the handkerchief, which was in the right side pant pocket of accused, also turned pink. The wash of the bed sheet was also taken which also turned pink. The GC notes were picked up and the numbers were tallied. The other eye witness PW 6 Kafiluddin supported the prosecution version in his examination in chief recorded on 21.08.2007 where he stated that the complainant handed over Rs.10,000/- i.e. 20 notes of Rs.500/- denomination each to the accused which he had accepted in his hand and thereafter CBI officials came and caught hold of the wrists of the accused and the accused then threw the money on the bed sheet. The CBI team prepared a solution and dipped his hand and bed sheet in the solution which turned pink.
(ii) In cross-examination PW 2 i.e complainant reiterated that the hand wash of the accused was taken in the booth itself. He reiterated that only he and his surety had gone inside the police booth. He denied the suggestion that he had forcibly tried to put money in the pocket of the accused which he resisted and in the process the money fell down on the nearby cot. He also denied the suggestion that accused had not thrown the bribe money after taking it out from his pocket although when the accused was caught he CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 44 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh said that complainant was forcibly putting money in his pocket. He denied the suggestion that wash of the hand of the accused was taken in the police station Nizamuddin.
(iii) The cross-examination of PW 6 Kafiluddin was closed twice on 04.08.2008 and on 24.05.2010 but he was again recalled for cross- examination on 22.09.2010. He stated that the trap team had reached the spot at about 3.30 PM on 20.04.2004 and accused came to the police post after about half an hour. He admitted that he and complainant entered the booth immediately after the arrival of accused. He admitted that accused did not demand the money and talked to the complainant about his surety and when the complainant took out the money and extended the same towards the accused, he pushed away the hands of complainant and as a result money fell on the cot. He also admitted when the officials of CBI challenged the accused he told them that he had not accepted any bribe. Thereafter, the accused was taken to police station Nizamuddin. He did not remember if the hand wash was taken at the spot or at PS Nizamuddin. He admitted that the entire writing work took place at PS Nizamuddin. He was re-examined by Ld. PP for CBI and he stated that the statement which he made in cross- examination on 22.09.2010 was correct statement. He denied the suggestion that accused accepted the bribe amount from the complainant and thereafter kept the same in right pocket of his pant and when he was challenged by the officials of CBI he took out the bribe amount from the right pocket of his pant and threw it on the bed sheet. In his statement U/S 313 CrPC (without oath), CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 45 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh the version of the accused was that the complainant was trying to put the GC notes in his right pocket and on seeing that he pushed the GC notes with his right hand and in that process his hand came in contact with GC notes which flung on the bed sheet. Accused also examined DW1 ASI Naresh Kumar who stated that he was earlier HC in PS Hazrat Nizamuddin. His version of the incident was that complainant took out GC notes in the denomination of Rs. 500/- from his pocket and extended them towards the accused who asked him as to why he was giving money as he had not demanded any money from him still complainant (wrongly typed as accused) extended money towards accused with the result accused pushed the hand of complainant Feroz and in the process GC notes fell on the takhat.
(iv) To specific question no.25 in the statement of accused U/S 313 CrPC (without oath) that it was in evidence against him that Sheikh Feroz accompanied him to the outside and in the mean time gave pre-appointed signal by scratching his head with both the hands and CBI officials along with independent witnesses rushed towards him and the two inspectors caught him from right and left wrists and took him inside the police booth, the explanation given by the accused is that he was wrongly apprehended by the CBI officials. The accused does not say that he was not apprehended outside the police booth when had gone out along with complainant who gave pre-appointed signal to the trap team. As per the defence witness DW1, the complainant extended the money towards the accused but the accused pushed the hand of the accused but in the process GC notes fell on the cot CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 46 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh (takhat) and in the mean time 4-5 persons in civil uniform came inside the police post. So, as per the defence witness, the accused and the complainant were still inside the police booth when the CBI officials arrived on the scene immediately after the tainted GC notes were pushed away by the accused with his hand even before the complainant put the same in the pocket of the accused. The explanation of the accused in his statement U/S 313 CrPC is that the complainant was trying to put GC notes in the right pocket of his pant and on seeing that he pushed the GC notes with his right hand. The PW 6 in his examination in chief stated that accused had accepted the money in his right hand and thereafter CBI officials came and caught hold of the wrists of the accused. In his belated cross-examination on 22.09.2010 , PW 6 admitted the suggestion of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that complainant took out the money and extended towards the accused who pushed away the hand of the complainant and the money fell on the cot.
(v) There is no explanation as to how the wash of the handkerchief lying inside the right pocket of the pant of the accused as well as the wash of the inner lining of the right side pocket of the pant of the accused also turned pink when the tainted GC notes were pushed away from by the accused with his hand even before they reached inside his pocket. As far as the wash of the hand of the accused turning pink is concerned, PW 6 in his belated cross- examination, the accused in his statement U/S 313 CrPC as well as DW 1 offered an explanation that when complainant was extending the money towards the accused at that time the accused pushed the hand of the CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 47 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh complainant and in the process tainted GC notes fell on the takhat. The story put forward by PW 6 in his belated cross-examination as well as by DW 1 that immediately thereafter CBI officials entered the police booth, this story is not supported in the statement of the accused U/S 313 CrPC.
(vi) In response to the question that accused was apprehended outside the police booth, his only explanation was that he was wrongly apprehended. The independent witness PW 5 Paramjit Singh, who has no motive to depose against the accused, also stated that the accused was apprehended outside the police booth and was taken inside and when he was challenged by the CBI officials accused refused that he had accepted the bribe and then he was taken inside where he started scuffling with the trap team members and during this scuffling accused took out the money from his right side pant pocket and threw the same on the bed sheet lying there. PW 5 also supports the case of the prosecution that the washes of accused's right hand, right side pant pocket, handkerchief and bed sheet turned pink. In cross-examination he admits that he had not seen the accused taking money from the complainant. He admitted the suggestion that accused was arrested outside the police booth when he was about to leave, he was caught hold by CBI officers . The money was not recovered where the accused was arrested but he was taken inside the police booth. He also admitted that accused had not taken any money from any one in his presence but he voluntered to add that accused had taken out the money from his pant pocket and threw it on the bed sheet and PW 5 had picked up the money from the CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 48 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh bed sheet. He denied the suggestion that the money fell down on the bed in the process when it was being forcibly being put in the pocket of the accused by complainant and the accused was resisting the same.
(vii) Another independent witness is PW 10 Sh. S. K. Pahwa. As per his version, the accused was little out of police booth when he was apprehended and then he was taken inside the police booth. The accused refused having accepted the bribe and as soon as his hands loosened, he took out the money from his pant pocket and threw it on the bed sheet although he did not remember by which hand he had thrown the money. He also talked about the washes being taken and turning pink and the money being recovered from the bed sheet and tallying the numbers of the same with the handing over memo and currency notes being the same. The seal was handed on the day of trap to PW 10, which he surrendered in court. The seal is Ex. P-21. The witness has also identified the bed sheet, handkerchief and khaki colour police uniform pant as well as the currency notes. In cross- examination on the point of acceptance of bribe, he admits that from the place of position taken by CBI team, they could neither see as to what was happening inside the police booth nor could they hear the talks going inside the booth or at the door of the booth. He denied the suggestion that complainant dropped the money inside the booth in the absence of accused when he had gone there with his companion. He also denied the suggestion that money was lying on the bed sheet when entered the booth. He also denied the suggestion that no recovery was made in his presence. CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 49 of 56
CBI V/s Baldhar Singh
(viii) Similarly, the Trap Laying Officer (TLO) has supported the case of the prosecution regarding acceptance of bribe, apprehension of accused outside the police booth and thereafter he was taken inside, his scuffling with the trap team members and during the scuffling he got his hands free and took out the money from his right side pant pocket and threw the same on the bed sheet lying on a cot there and the money was recovered by both the independent witnesses and numbers of the currency notes being tallied with the handing over memo by them.
(ix) One minor deviation in the evidence of PW 5 pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the accused was that as per his version PW 10 S K Pahwa had accompanied the complainant to the police booth along with the surety Kafiluddin. The incident is of the year 2004 and this witness was deposing after expiry of along time and this minor deviation can take place due to passage of time and is of no help to the accused as PW 10 S K Pahwa, the complainant as well as surety Kafiluddin had stated that only complainant and PW 6 Kafiluddin had gone inside the booth along with accused.
(x) Hence, on the basis of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is clear that when the accused came out of the police booth followed by complainant and the complainant gave the pre-appointed signal, accused was apprehended from both his wrists by CBI officials and he was taken inside the police booth where he tried to get his hands free after denying that he had not accepted the bribe and in the scuffle he took out the money from his right side pant pocket and threw the same on the bed sheet CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 50 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh lying on the bed/cot in the said police booth. The evidence of the defence witness as well as the statement made in cross-examination by PW 6 Kafiluddin is of no help to the accused because there is no explanation coming forward as to why the traces of phenolphthalein powder were found on the handkerchief kept inside the right pocket of the accused and the inner lining of the right side pant pocket of the accused, washes of which turned pink. Even in his statement (without oath) accused does not deny that he was apprehended outside the police booth and he only said that he was wrongly apprehended. Even the accused does not support the story put forward by his own defence witness that he was apprehended inside the police booth by the CBI officials immediately after he pushed away the hand of the complainant and the GC notes fell on the bed sheet. Hence, prosecution has been able to prove that accused had accepted the bribe money of Rs.10,000/- in the form of 20 tainted GC notes of Rs.500/- each from complainant.
(c) Recovery of bribe amount from the public servant (i) Admittedly the recovery of the tainted GC notes had taken place
from the bed sheet lying on the bed/cot in the police booth Basti Nizamuddin. The case of the prosecution is that after acceptance of the bribe, the accused came out to get the file of the complainant from nearby house and complainant followed him and after coming out the complainant gave the pre- appointed signal on which the trap team rushed towards the accused and apprehended him. On being challenged he stated that he had not accepted CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 51 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh any bribe and when he was taken inside, he started scuffling with the CBI officials and in the process got his right hand free and immediately took out the money from his right side pant pocket and threw the same on the bed sheet lying on the cot. This version is supported by the complainant, two independent witnesses and TLO. On the other hand, DW 1 had stated that when the complainant was extending money towards the accused, at that time accused pushed the hand of the complainant and as a result the tainted GC notes fell on the bed. PW 6 Kaafiludddin in his examination in chief stated that after being caught, the accused threw the money on the bed sheet but in his belated cross-examination (after more than three years) he stated that when the complainant had extended money towards the accused, the accused pushed the hands of the complainant and as a result the money fell on the cot. As mentioned earlier the washes of the right hand, the handkerchief kept in the right side pocket of the pant, the inner lining of the right side pant pocket as well as bed sheet had turned pink, meaning thereby that there were traces of phenolphthalein powder on all the four articles as deposed by PW 4 Sh. C L Bansal, Senior Scientific Officer, CFSL, New Delhi.
(ii) The version of the prosecution is only credible version because it is supported not only by the statement of the complainant, two independent witnesses as well as by TLO but it gets its strength from the scientific evidence in the form of report of the Chemical Examiner. The version put forward by the defence witness as well as by PW 6 Kafiluddin in his belated CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 52 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh cross examination does not explain the presence of phenolphthalein powder on the inner lining of the right side pant pocket of the accused as well as on the handkerchief which was recovered from the said pocket. GC notes were recovered from the bed sheet by independent witness PW 5 Paramjit Singh and thereafter he and PW 10 S K Pahwa (another independent witness) had tallied the numbers of the GC notes with the numbers mentioned on the handing over memo and found the same to be correct. Even the accused and the defence witness had not disputed the recovery of the tainted GC notes from the bed sheet lying on the bed/cot in the police booth Basti Nizamuddin but how and at what point of time the said GC notes had reached the said place of recovery, i.e., bed sheet is duly explained by the complainant, two independent witnesses and TLO and there is no reason to disbelieve their version. Hence, the recovery in this case is proved.
40. In view of the above, it is clear that prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused was a public servant who had demanded bribe from the complainant and the said bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- was handed over to the accused by the complainant on his demand which was accepted by him in his right hand and then the accused had kept the said tainted GC notes in his right side pant packet. When accused was apprehended by trap team outside the police booth and taken inside, He scuffled with CBI officials and in the melee, he had thrown the tainted GC notes on the cot lying in police post Basti Nizamuddin after taking CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 53 of 56 CBI V/s Baldhar Singh out from the right side pant pocket. Thereafter, recovery of bribe amount was effected from the bed sheet by independent witnesses. 41 Hence, I hold the accused Baldhar Singh guilty and he is convicted for offences committed by him U/S 7 and Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988 which is punishable U/S 13(2) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988.
42 Let accused be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open (TALWANT SINGH)
court on 31th March 2011 SPECIAL JUDGE CBI-01
NEW DELHI
CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 54 of 56
CBI V/s Baldhar Singh
IN THE COURT OF SH. TALWANT SINGH
SPECIAL JUDGE-01 CBI NEW DELHI
CC NO: 29/2010
CBI V/s SI Baldhar Singh
S/O Sh. Pheru Singh
R/O H. no. B-4, Police Colony
Saraswati Vihar, New Delhi
RC No. DAI/2004/A-0021/CBI/ACB/ND
U/S 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1 )(d) of POC
Act
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1 I have heard Sh. V. K. Sharma Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor for the
CBI and Sh. M. P. Singh , Advocate for the convict (who is present on bail)
on the point of sentence.
2 Ld. counsel for the convict submits that the convict is aged 67
years and has to support his ailing wife and adopted son aged 14 years who is studying in 9th class and he is the sole bread earner of his family. The incident is of the year 2004 and the accused has undergone the trial for six long years. It has been also submitted that the accused was not involved in any other case of the similar nature in past. It is prayed that a lenient view be taken on the point of sentence.
3 Ld. Public Prosecutor for CBI states that the convict does not deserve any leniency because there is rampant corruption amongst public servants and to curb this evil, deterrent punishment should be imposed and the sentences may please be ordered to run consequently. CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 55 of 56
CBI V/s Baldhar Singh 4 After hearing both the sides and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, I sentence convict Baldhar Singh s/o Sh. Pheru Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. five thousand) u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine, convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Convict is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand) u/s 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine, convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently and the convict shall be entitled to benefit under section 428 Cr. P.C. 6 A duly attested copy of the judgment and this order be supplied to the convict free of cost and thereafter file be consigned to the record room. Announced in the open court on this 15th day of April, 2011.
(TALWANT SINGH ) Special Judge CBI ACB-01 ND CC No. 29/2010 Page No. 56 of 56