Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Ashok Kumar on 30 April, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI B.R. KEDIA, SPECIAL JUDGE07
(CENTRAL), (PC ACT CASES OF ACB, GNCTD), DELHI
C.C.NO. : 1/14
Unique Case ID : 02401R0111342014
STATE VS. 1. ASHOK KUMAR
S/o Sh. Ram Niwas
R/o House No.868, Sector 47,
Gurgaon, Haryana.
2. JAI BHAGWAN
S/o Late Sh. Surat Singh
R/o Village Brahamanwas,
District Rohtak, Haryana.
FIR NO. : 197/2006
U/S : 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988
P.S. : Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi
Date of Institution 05.03.2014
Judgment reserved on 30.04.2014
Judgment delivered on 30.04.2014
C.C. No. 1/14 Page No. 1 of 17
JUDGMENT
1. The precise case of the prosecution is that on dated 12.01.2006, an unsigned complaint by accused Jai Bhagwan posted as Head Constable at PS: Moti Nagar was made to Lt. Governor, Delhi against accused Ct. Ashok Kumar, posted as Chitha Munshi of PS: Moti Nagar regarding extortion of the bribe and said complaint was marked to Commissioner of Police, who directed the Vigilance Branch PHQ to conduct the inquiry. On 18.1.2006, said complaint was marked to PW7 Inspector Vijay Mohan posted at Vigilance Branch and after conducting inquiry, he submitted the Report to the DCP Vigilance, on the basis of which FIR relating to the present case was registered on dated 12.4.2006.
2. After registration of the case, Investigation was entrusted to ACP Joy Tirkey/PW6. During course of Investigation, he collected the copy of the complaint Ex.PW2/B, envelope Ex.PW2/C, statement of Jai Bhagwan Ex.PW2/D from Vigilance Branch vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. During course of Investigation, IO was informed regarding the destruction of duty roster of both the accused persons and IO collected the copy of the order regarding the destruction of the Record in this respect which was taken into C.C. No. 1/14 Page No. 2 of 17 possession by the IO vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW4/A. IO send request for obtaining the Sanction as against both the accused persons and subsequently, Sanction Order for launching prosecution against the accused persons were obtained. The IO recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completion of the Investigation, chargesheet was filed against both the accused persons.
3. After compliance with the provision Under Section 207 of Cr. P. C. and after hearing both sides on the point of charge, charge for offence punishable U/S 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed against accused Ashok Kumar and for offence punishable U/S 7 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed against accused Jai Bhagwan on 02.04.2014 to which both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Thereafter, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution got examined 10 prosecution witnesses namely Ram Chander ACP(Retd.), a formal witness as PW1, Inspector Ram Avtar, a formal witness as PW2, ASI Vijay Kumar, a formal witness as PW3, HC Neeraj Kumar the then Reader to SHO C.C. No. 1/14 Page No. 3 of 17 PS: Moti Nagar, a formal witness as PW4, ASI Umrab Singh/Duty Officer PS: Moti Nagar, a formal witness as PW5, Dr. Joy Tirkey the then ACP Inter State Chanakya Puri/Initial IO, as PW6, Vijay Mohan the then Inspector from Vigilance Branch who had conducted the Vigilance Inquiry on the complaint of Jai Bhagwan, a material witness as PW7, Inspector Suhaib Ahmed who had joined investigation with IO, a formal witness as PW8, ACP Suresh Kaushik/Last IO, as PW9 and ACP K.K. Sharma/Part IO, as PW10.
5. After closure of the PE, statement of both the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which both the accused denied about any demand and acceptance of the bribe and claimed to have been falsely implicated in this case. Accused Jai Bhagwan further added that he had neither demanded nor accepted any bribe from anyone during course of his posting at beat of PS:Moti Nagar nor he had paid any bribe to Ashok Kumar Chitha Munshi. He further added that he had never sent any complaint to Lt. Governor, Delhi or to any other senior officer regarding payment of any money to Chitha Munshi Ashok Kumar.
6. I have heard Final Arguments as addressed by Sh. S.P C.C. No. 1/14 Page No. 4 of 17 Yadav, Adv., Ld. Counsel for the accused Ashok Kumar and Sh. Kuldeep Chaudhary, Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused Jai Bhagwan and Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and perused the relevant Record.
7. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Ashok Kumar that this accused Ashok Kumar is innocent and has neither demanded nor accepted any bribe from any police official posted at PS: Moti Nagar during the relevant period and prosecution has failed to prove about the said facts and hence this accused deserves to be acquitted. It is further added by Ld. Defence Counsel that the IO has clearly admitted that none of the police official examined by him have stated regarding any demand and acceptance of bribe as against this accused Ashok Kumar. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that none of the PWs as examined by the prosecution has deposed regarding any demand and acceptance of bribe as against the accused Ashok Kumar. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that even the complaint Ex.PW1/B on the basis of which the Vigilance inquiry was conducted is found to be unsigned and is a photocopy and therefore the contents of same cannot be looked upon, specifically when, HC Jai Bhagwan in his statement U/S 313 Cr.P.C has clearly denied to C.C. No. 1/14 Page No. 5 of 17 have sent any such complaint to Lt. Governor, Delhi or to any other Senior Officer. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that even HC Jai Bhagwan has also clearly denied to have paid any money to Ct. Ashok Kumar. Ld. Counsel thus, urged for acquittal of this accused Ashok Kumar.
8. Similarly, Ld. Counsel for HC Jai Bhagwan submitted that this accused is innocent and has neither demanded any bribe from any person from his beat area under PS: Moti Nagar nor has paid any bribe to Ct. Ashok Kumar Chitha Munshi and therefore, deserves to be acquitted. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that none of the PWs as examined by the prosecution have deposed anything as against this accused and therefore, this accused deserves to be acquitted. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that even the IO in his crossexamination has admitted that he had not collected any incriminating material as against the accused persons during course of investigation by him and hence the accused deserves to be acquitted. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that this accused has neither collected any money from any one during course of his posting at the beat of PS: Moti Nagar nor had paid any money to Chitha Munshi Ashok Kumar. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that C.C. No. 1/14 Page No. 6 of 17 Inspector Vijay Mohan who conducted Vigilance Inquiry had obtained signature of the accused Jai Bhagwan on certain papers under pressure and therefore, this accused has given representation in this respect to the IO which is Ex.DX. Ld. Counsel for the accused HC Jai Bhagwan, thus, urged for acquittal of this accused.
9. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution by examining 10 PWs have clearly established its case as against both the accused persons and therefore, the accused persons deserves to be convicted for the charged offence. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that it is the accused Jai Bhagwan who has sent said complaint Ex.PW1/B to Lt. Governor, Delhi and others as against the accused Ashok Kumar who was posted as Chitha Munshi, on the basis of which Vigilance Inquiry was conducted and FIR was registered in this case. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that in the said complaint Ex.PW1/B, there is specific allegation as regards the demand and acceptance of bribe as against accused Ashok Kumar from accused HC Jai Bhagwan and other police officials posted at PS: Moti Nagar. Thus, Ld. Addl. PP urged for conviction of both the accused persons. C.C. No. 1/14 Page No. 7 of 17
10. During the course of the arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Ashok Kumar that the complaint Ex.PW1/A on the basis of which vigilance inquiry was conducted is found to be unsigned and is a photocopy and therefore, the contents of the same cannot be looked upon specifically when HC Jai Bhagwan in his statement U/S 313 Cr.P.C denied to have send any such complaint to Ld. Governor Delhi or the any other senior officer. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that in the said complaint Ex.PW1/B there is specific allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe as against accused Ashok Kumar from HC Jai Bhagwan and other police officials posted at PS: Moti Nagar.
11. From the perusal of the Record, it is reflected that the copy of complaint Ex.PW1/B purported to have been sent by accused HC Jai Bhagwan to the Lt. Governor, Delhi and other senior police officer is found to be unsigned copy being not bearing signature of HC Jai Bhagwan and also found to be a photocopy and not original. Said facts are also found supported from the deposition of PW1 ACP Ram Chander who has deposed that on 12.4.2006, while posted as ACP Patel Nagar, on receipt of letter from DCP Vigilance, attached with the complaint Ex.PW1/B, he made endorsement C.C. No. 1/14 Page No. 8 of 17 Ex.PW1/A and directed SHO Moti Nagar for registration of the case and thereafter sending for further investigation to Crime Branch. Said PW1 in his crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for the accused Jai Bhagwan has deposed as under: "It is correct that complaint Ex.PW1/B is unsigned. I did not call HC Jai Bhagwan or any other official to inquire regarding the complaint Ex.PW1/B."
Said PW1 in the crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for the accused Ashok Kumar has further added in his deposition as under: "It is correct that Ex.PW1/B is a photocopy. It is correct that I have not seen the original of the same."
12. From the perusal of the deposition of PW7, the then Inspector Vigilance Branch, it is reflected that said complaint Ex.PW1/B was marked to him for inquiry by DCP Vigilance and during course of inquiry, he has recorded statement of various police officials including the SHO of PS: Moti Nagar and has after the conclusion of the inquiry has sent the Inquiry Report to the DCP C.C. No. 1/14 Page No. 9 of 17 Vigilance, copy of which is Ex.PW7/DA. Said PW7 has also deposed that none of the police official have stated during the said Inquiry with regard to giving or acceptance of any bribe against any of the accused persons. As said PW7, the then Inspector Vijay Mohan has deposed that on 18.1.2006 while he was posted in Vigilance Branch as Inspector, he received a complaint of Ct. Jai Bhagwan which was marked to him for verification by DCP Vigilance. In the crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for the accused Jai Bhagwan, said PW7 has deposed as under: "It is correct that original complaint Ex.PW2/B was with me when I conducted the inquiry. I had recorded the statements of police officials posted at PS: Moti Nagar at that time. It is correct that none of the said police officials have stated during said inquiry to the effect that the accused Ashok Chitha Munshi had been taking money during their posting or that Ashok Chitha Munshi was being paid by accused Jai Bhagwan."
13. Similarly, said PW7 in the crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for the accused Ashok Kumar has deposed as under: C.C. No. 1/14 Page No. 10 of 17 "It is correct that I had sent my inquiry report on conclusion of the vigilance inquiry to the DCP Vigilance but said inquiry report is not found available in the court file.
However, I have brought the concerned inquiry file by me in the court today and placing on record the copy of my inquiry report which is ExPW7/DA (4 pages) and bears my signature at point A. It is correct that during the course of inquiry I had recorded the statement of the then SHO and other police officials posted at PS: Moti Nagar. It is correct that none of the police official have stated during course of recording their statement in vigilance inquiry with regard to giving or acceptance of any bribe as against any of the accused persons. It is correct that I had recorded the statement of accused Ashok Kumar during the inquiry."
14. The aforesaid deposition of PW7 also found corroborated from his Inquiry Report Ex.PW7/DA(4 pages) which was submitted by him to DCP Vigilance on conclusion of the Inquiry against the copy of the complaint of HC Jai Bhagwan Ex.PW1/B as said PW7 in his said Inquiry Report has interalia stated as under: C.C. No. 1/14 Page No. 11 of 17 "PUC is a complaint of HC Jai Bhagwan No.327/W, received from Lt. Governor Office, in which it has been alleged that Ct. Ashok Kumar, Chitha Munshi of PS: Moti Nagar harass the staff of the PS and demands/takes money from the beat staff and picket staff. It is also alleged that this Chitha Munshi also took money for giving rest and getting CL of the staff sanctioned and also misguided the SHO.
To verify the facts, I visited the area of PS: Moti Nagar talked many staff L/ss. In all 22 staff members were examined which include the complainant, Ct. Ashok Kumar(alleged), SHO/Moti Nagar and SI Satish Singh, No. D1501, a Division officer of PS: Moti Nagar. The L/ss examined include beat staff, picket staff, DD writer, sentry, staff in record office and on emergency duty etc. Their statements have been recorded and are placed in file.
The complainant corroborated his allegation in the PUC. But not even a single staff member examined by me corroborated any of the allegation in the PUC. Everybody denied that they gave any money to Chitha Munshi to stay in a beat or to get duty rest or leave. ...................................................................
Inspector Dinesh Kumar, SHO/Moti C.C. No. 1/14 Page No. 12 of 17 Nagar has stated that Ct. Ashok Kumar worked as Chitha Munshi under his close supervision and staff deployed in beats, pickets etc. was routinely rotated, as per his directions. He used to listen to the grievances of the staff in daily briefing and solved them out. He received no complainant against the Chitha Munshi from any staff. He also stated that the complainant was posted at PS: Moti Nagar for 56 months. During this period, he absented himself four times, though he was posted in Raja Garden beat. .......................... Statements on record and discreet inquiries could not corroborate any of the allegations in the PUC. SHO seems to be quite competent and it does not seem possible that he can be misguided by his Chitha Munshi, more so, when there is daily briefing in which he listens to the grievances/complaints of all the staff."
Conclusion: In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above and discreet inquiries, the allegations levelled in the PUC are not substantiated and seems to be motivated."
15. In view of the aforesaid deposition of PW7 coupled with the Inquiry Report Ex.PW7/DA, it is clearly established that said C.C. No. 1/14 Page No. 13 of 17 PW7 during course of his Vigilance Inquiry on the said complaint of HC Jai Bhagwan Ex.PW1/B had examined 22 police officials from PS: Moti Nagar, including the SHO PS: Moti Nagar, none of them had stated anything regarding demand or acceptance of any bribe as against Chitha Munshi Ct. Ashok Kumar and therefore, said PW7 has concluded said inquiry to the effect that the allegation as against Chitha Munshi Ct. Ashok Kumar could not be substantiated and appears to be motivated. I do not see any reason to disbelieve the same.
16. Furthermore, from the perusal of the Record, it is also reflected that none of the PWs as examined by the prosecution during course of trial has deposed anything regarding any demand and acceptance of bribe as against the accused Ashok Kumar or accused HC Jai Bhagwan.
17. The accused Ct. Ashok Kumar even in his statement U/S 313 Cr.P.C has clearly stated that he has neither demanded nor accepted any money from any police official posted at PS:Moti Nagar.
C.C. No. 1/14 Page No. 14 of 17
18. Similarly, the accused HC Jai Bhagwan in his statement U/S 313 Cr.P.C has also stated that he had neither demanded nor accepted any bribe from anyone as in response to Question No.13, he has responded as under: "Q.13 Do you want to say anything else ?
Ans. I have been falsely implicated in the case by the IO who has not investigated the case fairly. I had neither demanded nor accepted any bribe from anyone during course of my posting at beat of PS:Moti Nagar nor I had paid any money to Ct.
Ashok Kumar Chitha Munshi. I never send any such complaint to Lt. Governor, Delhi or any other senior officer regarding payment of any money to Chitha Munshi Ct. Ashok Kumar."
19. Furthermore, PW10 Sh. K.K. Sharma, the then ACP Crime Branch/IO has also clearly deposed that he had not collected any incriminating material as against the accused persons during course of his investigation as he has deposed in the crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for the accused Jai Bhagwan as under: C.C. No. 1/14 Page No. 15 of 17 "I had not collected any incriminating material as against the accused persons during course of investigation by me. I had not recorded statement of any police official whereby giving the statement as against any of the accused persons."
20. In the absence of proof of "Demand of bribe" by the accused, I am of the considered view that the accused persons cannot be held liable for penal provisions U/S 7 and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for which they have been charged with and my said view is found supported from the following judgments: (1)2006 (1) SCC 401 "T.Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu"
(2) 2005 Crl.L.J. 1136 "State of H.P. Vs. Sukhdev Singh Rana"
(3) 2007 Crl.L.J. 2919 "State of M.P.vs. Anil Kumar Verma"
(4) 2006 (3) RCR (Crl.) 796 "Amrit Lal vs. State of Punjab"
(5) 2000 Crl,.L.J. 4591 "State of M.P. Vs. J.B.Singh"
(6) 2006 (1) RCR (Crl.) 314 "L.K.Jain vs. The State"
(7) 2005 (4) RCR (Crl) 716 "R.V.Subba Rao Vs. State"
(8) AIR 1979 SC 1408 "Suraj Mal Vs. State" C.C. No. 1/14 Page No. 16 of 17
(9) 1992 (3) RCR (Crl.) 139 "Pritam Singh vs. State of Haryana"
(10) 2009 (4) LRC 275 (SC) "State of Maharastra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede"
(11) 2013 (1) Crimes 92 (SC) "Rakesh Kapoor Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh"
21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that since the prosecution has failed to establish its case as against both the accused persons and therefore, both the accused persons Ct. Ashok Kumar and HC Jai Bhagwan deserve to be acquitted of the charged offence and it is hereby ordered accordingly. Resultantly, their bail bond stand cancelled and their surety stand discharged.
Announced in the open court on this 30th Day of April, 2014 (B.R. Kedia) Special Judge07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC, Delhi C.C. No. 1/14 Page No. 17 of 17