Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Sh. P. Sasi on 30 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUSHANT CHANGOTRA
SPECIAL JUDGE (P.C. ACT) (CBI) -22, ROUSE AVENUE
COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
Session Case No. : 35/2019
CBI Vs : P. Sasi
RC No. : AC1/2004/A0006/CBI/ACU-1
U/s : 13 (1) (d) r/w section 13 (2) of
PC Act, 1988
PS : CBI/ACU-1
CNR No. : DLCT11-000077-2019
Date of Institution : 18.12.2006
Date of Judgment reserved on : 30.01.2026
Date of Judgment : 30.01.2026
Brief Details Of The Case
Offence complained of
or proved : 13 (1) (d) r/w section 13
(2) of PC Act, 1988
Name of the accused : P. Sasi
S/o Late Sh. Pangunni
R/o A-48, Kendriya Vihar
Apartment, Sector-51,
Noida, UP
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final order : Convicted.
CC No. 35/2019
CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 1 of 78
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts:
1. The brief background of the case is that in the year 2000, Tehelka.com a news and views website allegedly conducted sting operation to unearth corruption in procurement of defence related products. M/s Bufallo Network Pvt. Ltd. was the owner of the aforementioned website Tehelka.com. Sh. Tarun Tejpal was the Chief Executive Officer and Editor-in-Chief, Sh.
Anirudhha Bahal was the Editor (Investigation) and Mathew Samuel was the correspondent of Tehelka.com.
2. It is alleged that during the aforesaid operation, Sh. Anirudhha Bahal assumed the fake identity as Alvin D'souza i.e. president of a fictitious firm i.e. M/s Westend International, London purporting it to be supplier of defence related products. Sh. Mathew Samuel acted as Chief Liaison Officer of the firm and Sh. Anil Malviya assumed the identity of Rajiv Sharma i.e. Chief Representative of M/s Westend International, London. They projected that the said firm was a subsidiary of a Dutch company M/s Wynn Instruments purporting it to be engaged in manufacturing of Hand Held Thermal Imagers (HHTI). In the course of said operation, the aforesaid functionaries of Tehelka.com held a number of meetings with various individuals i.e. army officials, officials of Ministry of Defence, politicians and middlemen etc., and they also secretly recorded the said meetings in 105 video tapes.
3. After Tehelka.com exposed the sting operation by way of a press conference, Government of India established a "Commission of Inquiry". Initially it was headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Venkataswami and thereafter by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 2 of 78 N. Phukan. However, the said Inquiry Commission was abolished vide notification dated 08.10.2004 and it was decided that investigation related to tapes in question be entrusted to CBI. Accordingly, on the basis of information so received from the Government through Smt. Manjulika Gautam, Additional Secretary to Government of India, the present FIR was registered on 06.12.2004.
4. As per charge-sheet, in the year 2000-2001 accused P. Sasi was posted as Assistant in the office of Ordnance Services-16-B, Directorate General of Ordnance Services, Master General Ordnance Branch, Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, New Delhi and Col. Anil Sehgal, the then Director, Ordnance Services was his supervisory officer.
5. In the course of aforementioned sting operation code named 'Operation Westend', Sh. Anil Malviya @ Rajiv Sharma and Mathew Samuel contacted accused P. Sasi and came to know from him that Indian Army was procuring Thermal Binoculars i.e. HHTI. Accordingly, the officials of Tehelka.com prepared necessary documents related to said products and submitted them in the concerned Wing of Indian Army. In this context, Mathew Samuel alongwith Anil Malviya @ Rajiv Sharma collectively or independently held meetings with P. Sasi which were recorded in 12 different video tapes i.e. in video tapes number-1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 22, 23, 35, 37, 40 and 53. The said meetings took place at various places i.e. at the residences of accused, Col. Anil Sehgal and H.C. Pant respectively as well as at YMCA, India Gate, Hotel Park & Hotel Orchid, New Delhi.
6. It is further alleged that in the first five meetings, accused P. Sasi provided information and documents i.e. CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 3 of 78 catalogues and supply orders/contracts relating to defence procurements including HHTI to the functionaries of Tehelka.com and on the basis of those documents they prepared their catalogue and proposal of M/s Westend International, London. It is also alleged in the chargesheet that accused P. Sasi is also facing another trial for offences u/Sec. 5 (4) r/w 5 (1) (a) & 5 (3) of Official Secrets Act, 1923.
7. The prosecution has alleged that in the first meeting which took place on 04.09.2000, accused P. Sasi disclosed that his boss could sanction procurement proposals upto the amount of Rs.150 crores as he was the sole incharge. He also gave details of the procurement plan of HHTI's, other defence products and details about cost of Passive Night Sight or HHTI equipments. He further took the names of four foreign companies i.e. (i) K.B.P., Russia (ii) Rouse, Virginia (iii) Delft-Holland and (iv) ELOP, Israel and stated that the company of Anil Malviya @ Rajiv Sharma would be entered as fifth one and they could eliminate the other four companies one by one. In the said meeting P. Sasi also accepted illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- from Sh. Anil Malviya and fixed meeting of Anil Malviya @ Rajiv Sharma /Mathew Samuel with Col. Anil Sehgal for the next day i.e. 05.09.2000 at the residence of Col. Anil Sehgal. The accused also urged the said persons to commit making of payment of Rs.3 lacs to Col. Anil Sehgal and demanded a sum of Rs. 2 lacs for himself.
8. It is alleged that thereafter on 05.09.2000, accused P. Sasi arranged a meeting wherein he exercised his personal influence with Col. Anil Sehgal for showing favour to the said functionaries of M/s Westend International, London by providing CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 4 of 78 information and documents relating to defence procurements. In the meeting, accused gave the information that they had got Malaysian Binoculars Quality Assurance Manual and Col. Anil Sehgal had permitted accused P. Sasi to provide the copy of contract of CSF Thomson for HHTI to Anil Malviya and Mathew Samuel and to show that the rates of II(parallel) Tubes of Israel.
9. In the subsequent meetings held on 06.09.2000, 17.09.2000, 21.09.2000 and 25.09.2000 (recorded in tapes nos. 3, 5, 10 and 11) accused P. Sasi provided documents/information to Anil Malviya and Mathew Samuel and accepted illegal gratification and it is alleged that :
(a) On 06.09.2000 accused P. Sasi gave the supply order No. A/17649/HHTI/IOE/OS-16 B dated 25.02.2000 signed by Col. Anil Sehgal for procurement of HHTI and contract no. B/91230/PPO-4 dated 05.04.2000 for supply of HHTI with M/s CSF Thomson and demanded illegal gratification.
(b) On 17.09.2000 accused P. Sasi committed that he would give the catalogue of Supergen Binoculars provided by Malaysian Company and also Be-Dealft Holland. He also talked about the chain of command of the officers viz: Col. Anil Sehgal, General Bhatnagar and then MGO i.e. General JS Verma. In this meeting, Anil Malviya gave some amount to P. Sasi and reiterated the demand of illegal gratification of Rs.5 lacs including Rs. 3 lacs for Col. Anil Sehgal and Rs. 2 lacs for himself.
(c) On 21.09.2000 accused P. Sasi gave documents relating to the Rover Battery and gave assurance to provide the documents such as catalogue of binoculars, scaling of CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 5 of 78 RR Battalion Russian Rifle, HHTI & Ammunition catalogue & also accepted Rs.10,000/- as quid-pro-quo.
(d) On 25.09.2000 accused P. Sasi gave copy of supply order no. A/17657/DGPS/Rover/OS-16 B dated
18.09.2000, signed by Col. Anil Sehgal relating to DGPS Rover, another supply order no. A/177655/HHRLF/IOE/OS-16 B dated 18.09.2000 signed by Col. Anil Sehgal relating to IOE Thermal and supply order no. 37363/11T/18mm/OS-16 B/98 dated 06.11.1998 also signed by Col. Anil Sehgal relating to II(parallel) Tubes and read out the details mentioned therein. In this meeting accused P. Sasi also provided several other papers including catalogues of binoculars, PROMARK & GIS Data Collecting System, Maganese etc. He accepted Rs.20,000/- from Anil Malviya and reiterated the demand of Rs.1 lakh for himself and Rs.2 lakhs for expenditure on the people who would arrange a meeting with the Defence Minister.
10. It is alleged that in the subsequent 6 meetings i.e. from 27.10.2000 to 08.12.2000 (recorded in six video tapes bearing no. 22, 23,35, 37, 40 and 53), accused P. Sasi provided further information to Mahtew Samuel about various officers (of the Indian Army and Ministry of Defence) who were involved or might be helpful in evaluation of the proposal of M/s Westend International, UK and in the eventual placement of supply order to the said fictitious firm. He also assured Mathew Samuel that he will arrange his meetings with said officers. Then P. Sasi arranged a meeting between Mathew Samuel & H.C. Pant i.e. the then staff officer to Minister of State of Defence Production on 22.11.2000 at the residence of Sh. Pant. The accused also exercised his personal influence with Sh. H.C. Pant to show CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 6 of 78 favour to M/s Westend International, London.
11. Thus, it alleged that in the aforesaid meetings accused P. Sasi not just provided vital information as well as documents related to defence procurement to the functionaries of the fictitious firm, but also accepted amounts of Rs.5,000/- on 04.09.2000, Rs.10,000/- on 21.09.2000, Rs.20,000 on 25.09.2000, Rs.4,500/- on 27.10.2000, Rs.16,000/- on 01.11.2000, Rs.20,000/- on 18.11.2000 and Rs.5,000/- on 08.12.2000 and unspecified amount on 17.09.2000 i.e. a total of Rs.80,500/- alongwith unspecified amount.
12. As per investigation carried out, on the basis of information and documents provided by accused P. Sasi a proposal and catalogue for supply of HHTI/Binoculars was prepared in the name of fictitious firm i.e. M/s Westend International and it was submitted with Ministry of Defence.
13. During investigation, the specimens of voice samples and images of accused P. Sasi were obtained with the assistance of officers of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi. The said specimens alongwith the 12 original/unedited tapes and VHS copies thereof were sent to Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Lab, Hyderabad for comparison and expert opinion. The APFSL confirmed that the tapes bearing no. 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 22, 23, 35, 37, 40 & 53 had not been subjected to tampering and the contents of aforesaid tapes represented true depiction of incidents.
14. The report of APFSL also confirmed the voice of accused P. Sasi in tapes bearing no.s 1, 3, 5, 10 & 12 as well as his images in tapes no. 1, 3, 5, 10, 11, 22, 23, 25, 37 & 53. It is further alleged that the images as well as voice of P. Sasi in CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 7 of 78 working copies of the questioned video tapes were also confirmed by independent witnesses.
15. Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh, the then Joint Secretary (Training) and Chief Administrative Officer, being the authority competent to remove accused P. Sasi from the service, accorded sanction to prosecute accused P. Sasi by passing sanction order dated 05.12.2006.
16. Upon completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the court on 18.12.2006 against accused P. Sasi. The Ld. predecessor of this court vide order dated 22.02.2007 took cognizance of offences and accused was summoned to face trial. Subsequently, compliance of Sec. 207 Cr.PC was done. The supplementary expert opinion report of APFSL Hyderabad relating to voice as well as images of accused P. Sasi was also filed in the court on 31.03.2009. Thereafter, the ld. predecessor on 29.01.2013 framed charge for commission of offences u/Sec. 7, 9 and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against accused P. Sasi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence:
17. In order to prove its case prosecution examined a total of 20 witnesses. The brief account of depositions of all the prosecution witnesses is as follows:
18. PW-1 Sh. Brij Kishore Sharma i.e. Accounts Executive of M/s Buffalo Network Pvt. Ltd deposed that he had served in the said company from July 2000 to August 2003. As accounts executive, he used to maintain all types of account books. The company was also running a news portal under the name of Tehelka.com and he used to maintain its accounts as CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 8 of 78 well. There were three directors in the company i.e. Tarunjit Tejpal, Aniruddha Bahal and Minty Kunwar Tejpal. There was one imprest account in the name of Mr. Anirudha Bahal which was for the purpose of transactions related to investigations conducted under his supervision. In addition to it, there were travel accounts of Anirudha Bahal and Mathew Samuel. Anirudha Bahal used to withdraw cash from said account and the bills related to expenses etc used to be accounted for by him subsequently. Accordinglly, he used to make entries in account books w.e.t. said transactions. In March 2005, he handed over documents i.e. some hotel bills, imprest account of Anirudha Bahal, travel account of Anirudha Bahal, travel account of Mathew Samuel and investigative story expenditures account to the CBI officers. He identified said documents i.e. copies of hotel bills Ex.PW1/B, copies of imprest account of Anirudha Bahal Ex.PW1/B1, copies of travel account of Anirudh Bahal Ex.PW1/B2, copies of travel account of Mathew Samuel Ex.PW1/B3 and copies of investigative story expense account Ex.PW1/B4.
PW-1 Brij Kishore Sharma further deposed that the news portal Tehlka.com undertook "Operation Westend" which was a journalistic operation. Operation Westend was run by Mr. Anirudha Bahal and Mr. Tarun Tejpal. Total expenditure of Rs. 10,15,000/- approximately (alongwith other expenditures which were adjusted through imprest accounts and travel accounts of Anirudha Bahal and Mr. Mathew Samuel) was incurred in 'Operation Westend'.
He further deposed that the main funding of M/s Buffalo Network Pvt Ltd was from M/s First Global Stock CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 9 of 78 Broking Pvt Ltd which was having its account at ANZ Grindlays Bank/ Standard Chartered Bank, Malcha Marg. He handed over the said documents to CBI which were seized vide seizure memo dated 03.03.2005 Ex.PW1/A. PW-1 Brij Kishore Sharma also deposed that Mr. Sudhir Verma was Chartered Accountant of M/s Buffalo Network Pvt Ltd and he also handed over his letter Ex. PW1/C to CBI as the documents mentioned in the said letter had already been supplied to the CBI.
19. PW-2 Sh. S. Ingarsal, Senior Scientific Officer Grade-I, CFSL, Block-4, CGO complex, New Delhi deposed that on 22.03.2005 he alongwith his colleagues Mr. P.K. Gottam and Mr. Vinu T. Abraham were assigned the work of taking of voice samples and video samples of accused P. Sasi. On the same day, Mr. T.P. Singh, Inspector/CBI came to their office along with two independent witnesses and accused P. Sasi. Accused P. Sasi agreed to give voice samples and video samples. He had shown a brand new video cassette of make 'Sony Album MP 120' to accused and witnesses. The voice and image of accused P. Sasi were recorded in it. Before initiating the process of recording, the cassette was played in order to show that it was a blank and new cassette.
PW-2 Sh. S. Ingarsal also deposed that in a similar manner a brand new audio cassette was also played in order to show that it was blank. Thereafter voice sample of accused P. Sasi was taken. Transcription was provided by Sh. T.P. Singh and accused P. Sasi had read out from it and recording was done accordingly. The recorded cassettes were played once again to ensure that the recording had been done properly.
PW-2 further deposed that both the cassettes were CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 10 of 78 taken out from the instrument/recorder and he as well as accused P. Sasi, T.P. Singh and both the witnesses had signed on the video cassette. The audio cassette was also signed by accused, T. P. Singh, both the witness and Mr. Gottam. Cassettes were given marks S-1 & S-2. Both the cassettes were put in separate envelopes and were sealed on the spot and memorandum Ex. PW2/A (D-11) was prepared. He identified the cassettes containing specimen voice of accused P. Sasi as Ex.P1 (along with inlay card) and the cover and inlay card as Ex.P2.
PW-2 S. Ingrasal further deposed that on 26.9.2006, he again took voice sample of accused and prepared memorandum Ex. PW2/B. He identified cassette in which voice sample of accused was recorded on 26.09.2006 as Ex. P3. He identified accused P. Sasi in the Court.
20. PW-3 S. K. Dasgupta deposed that he was appointed as Secretary to the Justice K. Venkataswami Commission of Inquiry on 30.3.2001. Hon'ble Justice K. Venkataswami resigned as chairman of the commission in November, 2002 and he was substituted by Hon'ble Justice S. N. Phukan in January, 2003. Justice Phukan Commission was wound up in October, 2004 and till then he remained as Secretary of commission. He also held additional charge as its Registrar from April, 2002 till end. Thereafter, he was nominated as the designated officer by the DOPT after the Commission was wound up and took over all the tapes and related documents under his charge. On 14.12.2004, he handed over requisite tapes/ transcriptions/ documents to Sh. K. Y. Guruprasad, DSP, CBI and the same were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/B (D4). On 15.12.2004, he also handed over various other documents to Sh. K.Y. Guruprasad, DSP, CBI and CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 11 of 78 the same were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/C (D7). He also proved the forwarding note Ex. PW3/A.
21. PW-4 Sh. P.K. Gottam, Sr. Scientific Officer Grade-I (Photo) CFSL, CBI, CGO Complex, New Delhi deposed that IO T.P. Singh had come along with request for recording of voice sample of accused P. Sasi. Sh. Ingrasal, SSO-II and Sh. M.K. Jain from Physics division were also present. He had been assigned work to take voice sample of accused P. Sasi and Sh. S. Ingrasal was given the task to take specimen video footage of accused. After taking consent of accused P. Sasi, voice sample of accused was taken in Sony Audio Cassette. Before taking sample, the Sony cassette was played to show that it was blank and a new one. After recording also, it was played in order to show that the recording was proper. The cassette was handed over to IO Sh. T.P. Singh who prepared a memorandum Ex. PW2/A and seized and sealed the cassette. He also identified the inlay card and the cassette S1 Ex.P.7.
PW-4 Sh. P.K. Gottam also deposed that on 19.5.2005, he took voice sample of Mathew Samuel after taking his consent and Sh. S. Ingrasal took image sample of Sh. Mathew Samuel. He took the voice sample on 'Sony Audio Cassette'. Before recording the voice sample, it was ensured that the cassette was new and blank. The cassette was also played to assess whether the recording was proper or not. He identified the memorandum Ex.PW4/A. PW-4 also identified the transcription pertaining to text given to accused P. Sasi as Ex.PW4/B and the transcription given to Mathew Samuel Ex. PW4/C.
22. PW-5 Sh. Jatinder Bir Singh deposed that from May, 2006 to March, 2009 he was posted as Joint Secretary (Training) CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 12 of 78 & Chief Administrative Officer. In the said capacity, he was competent to remove officials (non-gazetted rank) posted in Armed Forces Headquarters Service. He had received a report from CBI and on the basis of material placed before him and after application of his mind, he accorded sanction for prosecution of accused P. Sasi who was posted as Assistant in the office of OS-16B, Directorate General of Ordinance Services, MGO Branch, MoD, Government of India vide sanction order dated 05.12.2006 Ex.PW5/A.
23. PW-6 Col. Y.S. Yadav deposed that in the year 2005 he was posted as JDOS, Armament at OS Directorate, Army Headquarters, New Delhi. He had handed over some documents i.e. attested copy of distribution of contract- France dated 05.04.2000 Ex.PW6/B, attested copy of procurement of DGPS Rover with accessories dated 18.09.2000 Ex.PW6/C, attested copy of procurement of LRF LH-30 for Thermal IOE dated 18.09.2000 Ex.PW6/D, attested copy of integrated of observation equipment Qty 40 Nos. & Hand Held Thermal Imagers Qty. 116 Nos. dated 25.02.2000 Ex.PW6/E, attested copy of placement of order for procurement of item PT No. Z7-5960-000990 18mm II tube (second gen.) PNS for 5.56 rifle/LMG dated 06.11.1998 Ex.PW6/F to Insp. T. P. Singh. He identified his signatures on production-cum-seizure memo dated 11.08.2005 Ex.PW6/A.
24. PW-7 Sh. K. Seshaiah deposed that in the year 2005 he was posted as Dy. Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi. Vide letters marked as Mark PW7/A & Mark PW7/B he had sent the requisite documents i.e. marked as Mark PW7/C to CBI.
25. PW-8 Brig. A.P. Singh deposed that from June, 1999 CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 13 of 78 till July, 2002 he was posted as Director, (Weapon and Equipment-4) at Army Headquarters, New Delhi. His job profile as Director was to look after Weapons and Equipment related to infantry i.e. identifying modernization of new weapons and equipments. Maj. General P.S.K. Chaudary was ADG (WE) and his immediate senior was Brigadier Harender Singh who was DDG (WE). Generally they used to receive literature through Army Headquarters, Sr. Officers, MoD, Infantry Directorate as well as from vendors directly. Thereafter, their section used to analyze such literature containing details of various equipments and then they used to forward it to the Infantry Directorate for further detailed analysis to assess their suitability. Infantry Directorate used to send the same to Infantry School located in Mhow for analysis of the literature. Through same process, it used to return to them with appropriate recommendations of Director General, Infantry Directorate whether these equipments were required to be trial evaluated or not. Thereafter, he used to give his recommendation regarding suitability as he was also involved with the process of procurement. On their recommendation, he then used to form his own opinion and used to forward the same to ADG (WE). If the equipment was required to be trial evaluated then ADG (WE) used to send the whole matter to Dy. Chief of Army Staff (P&S). In certain cases, Dy. Chief of Army Staff also used to take further opinion from Vice Chief of Army. After the approval of Dy. Chief, he used to be directed to plan and conduct trial of such equipments. They always used to write to Infantry Directorate to prepare a trial directive which they used to get from Infantry School Mhow. Based on that they used to write to MoD for seeking permission CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 14 of 78 for conducting trial. On receiving approval from MoD they used to send the requests to concerned vendors for conducting trial.
PW-8 further deposed that the proposal of M/s Westend International, London i.e. Mark PW7/C for the supply of Thermal Imaging Camera/Binocular to the Indian Army was received in their section from Maj. General P. S. K. Chaudhary. As per procedure, their section forwarded it to the Infantry Directorate for necessary analysis/recommendation. They sent it to the Infantry School, Mhow for comparison with in-service equipment of a similar kind. He received the recommendation from the DG, Infantry. The proposal related to three equipments and as per the recommendation of the DG (Infantry), two of the equipments already in use in the Army were found to be better than the basic equipment referred to in the proposal. However, one of the proposed item was of better quality. He analyzed the recommendations and found that two types of equipment had already been procured from Israel and France and that BEL had already taken a transfer of technology from Israel for indigenous manufacturing in the country. One case had already been referred to the MoD for procuring equipment from BEL. Therefore, he felt that there was no need to conduct a fresh trial on the new equipment until BEL was able to stabilize production and supply the equipment. He sent his recommendation to the DDG (WE), who concurred and forwarded it to the ADG (WE). The ADG (WE) also agreed with his recommendation and opined that there was no need to conduct a fresh trial, also observing that in the future, if required, a trial could be considered. The aforesaid proposal Mark PW7/C also contained his recommendations and the recommendations of DDG. He further deposed that CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 15 of 78 thereafter the matter was closed and never reached the stage of trial of equipments.
26. PW-9 Col. Sher Bahadur Bhandari deposed that in the year 2005, he had gone to the CBI Headquarters in connection with the Tehelka case. He was questioned regarding documents and their handling pertaining to HHTI from M/s Westend International, London. He informed the CBI that he had handled the papers which had been received from WE-4 of the then Army Headquarters in his capacity as GSO-1 Infantry 5. He explained that his duties as GSO-1 Infantry 5 involved matters relating to weapons and equipment of the Infantry, which included studying papers, identifying suitable weapons and equipment for Infantry use and thereafter making recommendations to the DG Infantry for approval. The Infantry Directorate had received certain papers from WE-4 which pertained to HHTI from M/s Westend International, London. These papers had been forwarded by WE-4 under a covering letter requesting the Infantry Directorate to evaluate the documents and forward its recommendations. Upon receipt, the papers were forwarded to the Infantry School for evaluation and recommendations. The Infantry School, after evaluation, returned the same to the Infantry Directorate with its recommendations. The Infantry School had also prepared a comparative table of the characteristics of in-service HHTIs vis-à-vis the equipment offered by M/s Westend. The Infantry Directorate further examined these recommendations and Col. C.G. Suares (who was his superior in Infantry 5) recommended endorsement of the recommendations of the Infantry School. The same was thereafter approved by the DG Infantry and the recommendations CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 16 of 78 of the Infantry Directorate were forwarded to WE-4 under his signatures.
PW-9 further deposed that he had returned the literature received from WE-4 to them along with the recommendations of the Directorate. He stated that in order to technologically upgrade the Infantry, the Infantry Directorate was constantly engaged in interaction with DRDO, DGQA, and sister branches at Army Headquarters as well as keeping itself updated through available literature on the subject. The Infantry School had recommended comparative trials with the in-service equipment. He identified the document marked as Mark PW7/C and letter no. 86785/48/Inf-5(b) dated January 2001.
27. PW-10 G.P. Singh, Accountant, National Cooperative Consumers Federation of India Ltd (NCCFIL) deposed that he had witnessed the taking of the specimen voice sample of accused P. Sasi on 26.09.2006 at the CBI office vide memorandum Ex. PW2/B. He identified accused P. Sasi present in the court as the same person whose voice sample was taken in his presence.
28. PW-11 Sh. Aniruddha Bahal deposed that they started Tehelka in the year 2000. The company/website which owned Tehelka.com was Buffalo Network Private Limited. Apart from himself, some of the directors on the board of the company were Sh. V.S. Naipaul, Sh. Khushwant Singh, Sh. Amitabh Bachchan and Sh. Tarun Tejpal. In the month of April 2000, there was a fire in the ammunition depot in Bharatpur which triggered in him the need to investigate defence procurement as a subject. From the start, their intention was to become an insider in the defence procurement process and to achieve the same the CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 17 of 78 Tehelka investigating team started a fictitious company called Westend International ostensibly with offices in and out of London as well. The London address of the company was the genuine address of his friend George Verghese. During the story, he assumed the role of President of Westend International with the alias of Alwyn D'souza. During the undercover investigation, the main reporter namely Mathew Samuel was Chief Liaison Officer with his original name. The third person who had helped them during the investigation was late Anil Malviya who took the alias of Rajiv Sharma. Sh. Anil Malviya come in contact with Mathew Samuel in August 2000 with an idea to do a story in Mumbai on the procurement process in the Central Store Departments in Mumbai.
During the course of field operation, he kept Sh. Tarun Tejpal the editor of Tehelka abreast of what was happening and took the field decisions in consultations with Mathew Samuel. A total of 105 tapes were recorded during the course of Operation Westend. These were mixture of Hi-8 tapes and mini- DV tapes. The principal means of communication with Mathew Samuel and the other people was Mathew's mobile number 9810274694 and landline number was 6013817. Four recording devices were used during the course of Operation Westend i.e. a briefcase device with two cameras, satchel device, lady's handbag and a tie device. After the field work was over they deposited the tapes in a bank locker in Grindlays Bank, Malcha Marg in January of 2001. Prior to that the tapes remained in his personal custody in the office safe. Subsequently, they transcribed all the tapes and edited a four and half hours documentary called 'Operation Westend' from the 105 tapes.
CC No. 35/2019CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 18 of 78 This documentary was aired in a press conference on March, 13 2001. Their editor Sh. Tarun Tejpal even sent the copy of the documentary to the then President of India Sh. Narayanan. During the course of investigation, Rs. 10 lacs (approximately) was paid to different people. These amounts were reflected in the Tehelka imprest account. The entire operation was done with public interest in mind with the intention to bring out the corruption that takes place in the defence procurement process. They never intended to target any particular individual. Different middlemen took them to meet different people i.e. politicians or bureaucrats or defence dealers. The thrust of whole story was that they were selling night vision thermal binoculars and approaching various departments to procure a trial and evaluation order for the product for subsequent purchase. 105 tapes were deposited initially with Justice Venkatswami Commission of Inquiry. Subsequently, Justice Phukan took over the inquiry and the Commission conducted its own forensic analysis on the tapes by British Experts and found them to be totally untampered and undoctored. He deposed that in the middle of year 2000, Journalist Mathew Samuel from Tehlka.com met accused P. Sasi. At that time accused P. Sasi worked as an assistant in the Ministry of Defence and he further introduced them to his boss Col. Anil Sehgal. It was at the behest of Mr. Sehgal that accused P. Sasi handed over certain documents pertaining to CSF Thomson and El-OP to them. This was pursuant to their request made to Col. Sehgal as they wanted to know what kind of products the Indian Army needed. On the basis of said documents, they drafted a brochure of Westend International regarding Hand Held Thermal Imagers (HHTI). Accused was CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 19 of 78 also instrumental in introducing them to Mr. H.C. Pant and Mr. Narender Singh to peddle their fictitious product in the defence establishment. Accused P. Sasi also helped Mathew Samuel in submitting the Westend International brochure in several departments for evaluation.
He identified accused P. Sasi in the court and deposed that accused P. Sasi was the first point in their entire chain of people whom they met to peddle their fictitious product. They had given a total sum of Rs.80,000/- to accused P. Sasi over more than half a dozen times. The exact amounts and dates were mentioned in affidavit dated 19.08.2002 which they had given in the Justice Venkataswami Commission in 2002 regarding amounts given to various people. He identified the copy of said affidavit dated 19.08.2002 i.e. Ex.PW11/A (D-28). The briefcase camera device was handed over to CBI by their then employee Sh. Arnab P. Dutta. He identified the briefcase device as Ex. P1.
29. PW-12 Sh. Anil Kumar Bhatnagar, Assistant Meteriologist (IMD) deposed that in the year 2005 he was posted as Scientific Assistant in IMD. In March, 2005, he joined the investigation with CBI and went to CGO Complex. The voice sample of one Mr. Sasi was taken in blank cassettes of Sony. Mr. Sasi was also given a text Ex. PW4/B for the purpose of voice sample. Before that, the cassettes were played to ensure that these were blank. He also deposed that image/ video of P. Sasi was also recorded in another blank video cassette. After recording, both the cassettes were played in order to ensure that the recording was proper. The aforesaid proceedings of recording voice sample and recording of image/ video were conducted vide memorandum Ex. PW2/A. He identified the CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 20 of 78 aforesaid audio cassette of make Sony Ex. P1 (S1) and video cassette Ex. P2 (S2).
30. PW-13 Ms. Manjulika Gautam, Retd. Principal Secretary, Vigilance Commission, UP deposed that in the year 2004, she was working as Additional Secretary in the Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India. She issued a letter dated 29.10.2004 Ex. PW1/D to the then Director, CBI for informing that that the Commission had been ordered to be wound up and the matter had been entrusted to CBI for taking necessary action in this matter. She also identified the gazette notification in this regard Ex. PW1/B.
31. PW-14 Sh. Biswajit Das, Addl. Supdt. Police, CBI BS & FC deposed that in the year 2004-05, he was posted as Dy. S.P. in ACU/CBI, New Delhi. After receiving investigation of this case, he had seized the devices which were used by Tehalka.com in the sting operation from Sh. Arnab Pratima Dutta vide memo Ex. PW14/A. He also took the voice and image sample of Sh. Mathew Samuel vide memo Ex.PW4/A in the case titled as CBI Vs. Narender Singh. A copy of matter Ex. PW4/C was given to Mathew Samuel for the purpose of taking his voice sample. He also identified the device seized by him as Ex. P-1.
32. PW-15 Sh. T.P. Singh, Dy. S.P./CBI/EO-III, New Delhi deposed that he was working as Inspector/CBI ACU-I/New Delhi from 2000-2009. In the year 2004, Justice Phukan Commission of Inquiry which was inquiring into the matter relating to sting operation carried out by Tehalka.com was wound up with the direction that the matter be referred to CBI for investigation. Number of cases were registered in CBI/AC-I/New Delhi and FIR bearing RC AC-I 2004 A0006 Ex.PW15/A was CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 21 of 78 registered on 06.12.2004 against accused P. Sasi by Arun Sharma, the then SP/CBI/New Delhi. He identified accused P. Sasi and deposed that during investigation the relevant material i.e. audio-visual tapes including Hi8 Tapes and VHS Tapes, transcripts of the conversation in the tapes and other record were collected from the erstwhile Justice Phukan Commission of Inquiry.
The said tapes were examined and the specimen voice and image of accused P. Sasi and others were obtained and were sent to APFSL/Hyderabad for comparison and expert opinion. During investigation, he also collected the relevant record from MoD. He examined the concerned persons/ officers of the MoD. It was revealed that Tehalka.com was a news-views website owned by M/s Buffalo Network Pvt. Ltd. Sh. Tarun Tejpal was the Chief Executive Officer of Tehlaka.com. Sh. Anirudh Bahal was Editor (Investigation) and Sh. Mathew Samuel was the correspondent in Tehlaka.com. The representatives of Tehalka.com conducted a sting operation during September to December 2000 to expose the corruption in procurement of defence equipments in the Army and MoD. The representatives of Tehalka.com assumed fake identity and projected themselves as representatives of M/s Westend International, London a subsidiary of M/s Wynn Instruments, Dutch Company. Sh. Anirudh Bahal assumed the identity as Alwin D'souza, the President of M/s Westend International. Sh. Mathew Samuel assumed the identity as Chief Liaison Officer and one Sh. Anil Malviya as Rajiv Sharma, the Chief Representative of M/s Westend International. Under the aforesaid fake identities, they contacted various officers of Indian Army CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 22 of 78 and MoD for the purported sale of defence products including Hand Held Thermal Imagers (HHTI). They first contacted accused P. Sasi. They had a number of meetings with the officers of Indian Army and MoD and recorded the said meetings secretly and prepared 105 cassettes. During the period from 04.09.2000 to 08.12.2000 twelve such meetings took place with accused P. Sasi. The examination of said audio-visual cassettes revealed that accused P. Sasi provided information to the representatives of Tehalka.com about the procurement of various defence equipments including HHTI. Accused P. Sasi also provided the copies of catalogues and the supply orders etc. P. Sasi also arranged meetings of Tehalka.com representatives with other officers namely Col. Anil Sehgal and Sh. H.C. Pant and influenced them to help Tehalka.com in getting orders for supply of defence procurements. P. Sasi obtained illegal gratification of Rs.80,500/- and some unspecified amount from Tehalka.com representatives. Sanction for prosecution against accused P. Sasi was obtained and charge-sheeted for the aforesaid said offences u/s 7, 9 & 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act was filed.
He further deposed that vide seizure memo dated 14.12.2004 Ex.PW3/B the audio-visual tapes were seized by K.Y. Guruprasad, Dy. SP/ACU-III/CBI/New Delhi from S.K. Dasgupta i.e. designated officer and Secretary of erstwhile Justice Phukan Commission of Inquiry. Transcripts of all the cassettes were also seized vide memo Ex.PW3/C. He identified signatures of Sh. Arun Sharma, the then S.P, CBI on letter no. 8/3/RC-AC-2/2004 A0007 dated 10.01.2005 Mark PW15/B. He had obtained specimen voice as well as video of accused P. Sasi vide memorandum dated 22.03.2005 Ex.PW2/A with the CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 23 of 78 assistance of officials of CFSL. Accused P. Sasi had been given material Ex. PW4/B for reading out for the purposes of recording of his specimen voice. He also obtained another specimen voice as well as video of accused P. Sasi with the assistance of officials of CFSL vide memorandum dated 26.09.2006 Ex. PW2/B. The material Mark PW15/C was also given to accused P. Sasi. The requirement for obtaining another specimen voice was that some of the voice appearing in questioned cassettes was in Malyalam.
He also deposed that specimen voice and video of Mathew Samuel was also taken by B. Das, the then Dy. S.P, CBI vide proceedings Ex. PW4/A and the text Ex. PW4/C was given to Mathew Samuel. Sh. B. Das, Dy. S.P, CBI also seized briefcase containing audio-visual recording device vide memo Ex. PW14/A in case RC No. RC/AC-3/2004 A0006. He took the said seizure memo as it was relevant for this case.
PW-15 further deposed that accused P. Sasi had been given material for reading out for the purposes of recording of specimen voice and such material was contained in Mark PW15/C. He identified English translation Mark PW15/D and identified the proceedings drawn in connection with specimen voice and video of Sh. Mathew Samuel Ex.PW4/A. He also identified Ex.PW4/C which contained the text pertaining to the aforesaid Ex.PW4/A. PW-15 identified seizure memo dated 01.06.2005 in case RC/AC-3/2004 A0006 prepared by Sh. B. Das in connection with seizure memo of the briefcase containing the audio-visual recording device as Ex.PW14/A. He also collected the documents i.e. letter dated 29.10.2004 Ex. PW15/E and Gazette of India alongwith order dated 22.11.2004 Ex. PW15/F on the basis of which case was registered in CBI, AC-1. He also CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 24 of 78 collected photocopy of note dated 24.11.2004 Ex. PW3/A. During investigation he collected transcripts of tapes no. 1 (Ex.PW18/PX-3), 2 (Ex.PW18/PX-4), 3 (Ex.PW18/PX-5), 5 (Ex.PW18/PX-9), 10 (Ex.PW18/PX-6), 11 (Ex.PW18/PX-7), 22 (Ex.PW18/PX-10), 23 (Ex.PW18/PX), 35 (Ex.PW18/PX-2), 37 (Ex.PW18/PX-8) and 53 (Ex.PW18/PX-1). He also collected copy of letter no.5(9)/SC/2004 dated 24.03.2005 sent by Sh. K. Seshaiah to Sh. Arun Sharma the then SP, CBI.
He further deposed that vide letter bearing no.1382/3/AC-1 2004/A-006 dated 20.06.2005 Ex.PW17/A (D-
23) relevant tapes alongwith specimen voices and images of accused P. Sasi as well as voice and image of Sh. Mathew Samuel were sent for examination/comparison to APFSL for getting expert opinion. He also collected report/opinion dated 19.08.2005 Ex.PW17/Z-29 of Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratories and also collected report/ opinion no. ENG/9/2005 dated 18.07.2006 Ex. PW17/Z-27/A of APFSL, Hyderabad. He also collected copy of affidavit dated 19.08.2002 of Aniruddha Bahal Ex. PW11/A with list of payment made by Tehalaka.com to various persons during operation "Westend".
PW-15 further deposed that during investigation he collected a letter letter no.7/6/2004-JPCI dated 21.12.2004 of Sh. S.K. Das Gupta Ex.PW19/A. The said letter was addressed to Superintendent of Police CBI ACU-III in case RC AC3 2004 A 0005 for production of files. He also collected a file pertaining to Justice S.N. Phukan Commission of Inquiry Ex. PW18/PX-11 vide letter Ex. PW19/A. He also collected sanction order bearing no. A/27639/CAO/DD01 dated 05.12.2006 i.e. Ex. PW5/A. The said sanction order was issued by Sh. Jatinderbir Singh, the then CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 25 of 78 Secretary and Chief Administrative Officer, Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India against accused P. Sasi. He also seized the documents from Sh. Lt. Col. Y. S. Yadav vide seizure memo dated 11.08.2005 as Ex. PW6/A. He also seized the contact number 11(4)/99/HHTI/TCSF/D(GS-IV) dated 01.02.2000 between Ministry of Defence and M/s Thomson CSF/Optronique, France alongwith related correspondence/ letter dated 05.04.2000 i.e. Ex. PW6/B vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/A. PW-15 further deposed that during investigation, he also seized supply order no. A/17657/DGPS ROVER/OS-16B dated 18.09.2000 Ex. PW6/C vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/A. Vide seizure memo, he also seized the documents i.e. (i) supply order no. A/17655/HHLRF/IOE/OS-16B dated 18.09.2000 Ex. PW6/D, (ii) supply order no. A/17649/ HHTI/IOE/1015/OS-16B dated 25.2.2000 Ex. PW6/E and (iii) supply order no.37363/IIT/18MM/OS-16B/98 dated 6.11.1998 Ex. PW6/F. He also stated that additional specimen voice of accused P. Sasi in Malyalam was sent for examination and comparison vide letter dated 03.10.2006 Ex. PW17/DA. He identified signature of Sh. Pankaj Srivastava, the then SP, CBI on the said letter. In response to this letter, he received supplementary report/ opinion of APFSL, Hyderabad dated 12.08.2008 Ex. PW17/Z-28.
PW-15 also identified the case properties i.e. Hi8 tape no. 1 to 3, 5, 10, 11, 22, 23, 35, 37 and 53 as Ex. PW17/F, PW17/Z-23, PW17/H, PW17/J, PW17/L, PW17/N, PW17/R, PW17/T, PW17/V, PW17/X and Ex. PW17/Z respectively. He further identified the case properties i.e. VHS tape no. C1 to C6 as Ex. PW17/Z-4 to Ex. PW17/Z-9. He identified VHS tape no. C7 to C11 i.e. Ex. PW17/Z-13 to Ex. PW17/Z-16 and Ex.
CC No. 35/2019CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 26 of 78 PW17/Z-26 respectively. He also identified an audio cassette of make UXS-60 marked as S-1 Ex. P1 in which specimen voice sample of accused P. Sasi was taken by CFSL on 22.03.2005. He also identified a video cassette of make Sony Album MP-120 marked as S-2 Ex. P2 which contained specimen image of accused P. Sasi recorded on 22.03.2005. He also identified another audio cassette of make MAXEL UD-II-90 marked as S3 Ex. PW17/Z-25 which contained specimen voice of P. Sasi recorded on 26.09.2006. He further identified a briefcase unit which contained (i) two coloured pin hole CCD lenses, Sony video recorder model GV-A500E, (ii) remote control unit UKTX 002, (iii) Sony Communication International Set, Ysasa, (iv) Yuasa lens battery model no. NP2.1-12, (v) montu charger 12 volt, and (vi) Sony Infoletheium NO F-750 battery pack. He stated that these devices were seized in another case related to Tehelka.com and same were also relied in this case. He deposed that during investigation he recorded statements of many witnesses and collected relevant records. After investigation, he filed chargesheet in the court alongwith sanction order against accused P. Sasi.
33. PW-16 Sh. Tarun J Tejpal deposed that he started Tehelka.com alongwith Aniruddha Bahal and Minty Tejpal. Tehelka.com was funded by angel investor i.e Mumbai based Group called First Global. The website formally went online in May, 2000. To facilitate a quick start to the project, they first incorporated the website under a shell company called UD & MD which was in the possession of First Global. The owner of First Global was Shankar Sharma. He was the Managing Director of the Company. Soon after they incorporated a company in New CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 27 of 78 Delhi namely Buffalo Networks Pvt. Ltd which was registered in Delhi and this company took over all the assets and liabilities of UD & MD. This was done primarily because Tehelka.com and its operations were all headquartered in Delhi.
PW-16 further deposed that in the third quarter of the year 2000, Aniruddha Bahal was the investigation editor of Tehelka and he embarked on an investigation into corruption in Arms deals. He was prompted to start this investigation by suspicious fire that had destroyed the ammunition depot in Bharatpur, Rajasthan. Mathew Samuel and a freelancer Anil Malviya were assisting Aniruddha Bahal in his investigation.
PW-16 further deposed that in an attempt to expose the very porous and corrupt nature of the defence establishment, Bahal and Mathew put together a dummy company i.e. Westend International and created a dummy product i.e. Thermal Hand held camera. In their modus operandi the journalists used different kinds of spy cameras to record different officials accepting bribes for purchase of aforesaid fictitious hand held camera. They had no predetermined targets in mind. They just started at the bottom of the food chain and went wherever the investigation took them. The investigation took six months of field work to complete and then another six weeks for the transcribing and preparation of the tapes. The investigation was at all times supervised by Aniruddha Bahal and all the material including the tapes were kept in his custody. The different kinds of equipment they used was concealed in a variety of objects such as briefcases, ties, satchels, hand bags, etc. The tapes they were using were essentially Hi8 and mini DVD.
PW-16 further deposed that on 13.03.2001, Tehelka CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 28 of 78 broke the story on corruption in Arms deals in Delhi in the presence of Indian Media and several eminent persons. A set of investigation tapes was also dispatched to the President of India on the same day. Subsequently, Tehelka handed over all 105 original tapes to the Venkatswamy Commission of Inquiry that was instituted by the government. Later, all these tapes were declared to be original and untampered by Forensic examination. All the accounts of bribes given in the course of investigation were maintained and declared and the same were handed over to Justice Venkatswamy Commission.
34. PW-17 Sh. D. Venkateswarlu, Assistant Director, Computer Forensics & Incharge Engineering Section, A.P.F.S.L. deposed that on 22.06.2005 he received 14 sealed covers alongwith forwarding memo Ex. PW17/A. These 14 sealed covers contained 10 original HI-8 tapes and 10 VHS cassettes and transcriptions. He identified cassettes labelled as Tehelka No.1, 3, 5, 10, 11, 22, 23, 35, 37 and 53 as Ex.PW17/F, Ex.PW17/H, Ex.PW17/J, Ex.PW17/L, Ex.PW17/N, Ex.PW17/R, Ex.PW17/T, Ex.PW17/V, Ex.PW17/X and Ex.PW17/Z respectively. He also identified VHS cassettes marked as C1 to C6 as Ex. PW17/Z4 to Ex. PW17/Z9 and also identified VHS video cassettes marked as C7 to C10 as Ex. PW17/Z13 to Ex. PW17/Z16. He further identified a Sony audio cassette Ex. P1 and Sony H8 tape Ex. P2. He further identified one specimen audio cassette Maxcell-UDII Ex. PW17/Z25 and one panasonic video cassette Ex. PW17/Z26.
PW-17 further identified the HI tape marked as Tehelka No. 40 Ex. PW17/Z27. He mentioned his findings in his report dated 18.07.2006 Ex. PW17/Z27-A. The said cassette CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 29 of 78 contained conversation in Hindi & English between three persons namely H. C. Pant, P. Sasi and Mathew Samuel. He had mentioned his findings in his opinion dated 12.08.2008 Ex. PW17/Z-28. He also proved his forwarding letter dated 20.06.2005 as Ex. PW17/A. He also gave subsequent opinion dated 19.08.2006 Ex. PW17/Z-29. He also identified the briefcase Ex. P1 and stated that the said briefcase was a camera device which was examined by him and was compared with the questioned video recordings mentioned above and then he offered his opinion vide reports Ex. PW17/Z27-A, Ex. PW17/Z28 and Ex. PW17/Z29.
PW-17 further deposed that he had examined all the questioned cassettes regarding their authenticity and had compared the questioned cassette with their copies. He had further compared questioined voice of the suspects with the specimen voice. He also compared images of the persons found in the said cassettes with their specimen video recordings.
35. PW-18 Sh. Mathew Samuel deposed that in the year 1999 he was introduced to accused P. Sasi by a neighbour namely Mr. Nair. The meeting took place at the residence of accused situated at R.K. Puram, Delhi. He identified accused P. Sasi in the court and stated that at the time accused was serving as a Section Officer in Ministry of Defence. During the meeting accused disclosed the nature of his work in the Ministry and alluded to widespread corruption involving defence officials and politicians. After joining Tehelka in the year 1999 he met one Anil Malviya during a train journey from Pune to Delhi who informed him about corrupt practices in defence canteens and later expressed willingness to share information with his editor CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 30 of 78 namely Mr. Aniruddh Bahal. Subsequently, Malviya was introduced to Mr. Bahal and he assumed the identity of Rajeev Sharma, a purported defence dealer for investigation purposes.
He also deposed that in September, 1999, he introduced accused P. Sasi to Anil Malviya mentioning that accused P. Sasi was having bunch of information and could help to various extents. During that time Mr. Anil Malviya acted as Rajeev Sharma, a defence dealer. In the first meeting, accused P. Sasi Anil Malviya @ Rajiv Sharma to arrange a meeting with his boss Col. Anil Sehgal who can give more information regarding equipments which were wanted by the Army. He along with Anil Malviya met accused P. Sasi multiple times and most of the meetings were recorded. During these meetings they paid a sum of Rs. 80,000/- (approximately) as bribe to P. Sasi for obtaining confidential documents and facilitating introductions with other defence officials. He provided various documents pertaining to requirements of Army and from the said documents Mr. Anirudh Behal selected the product HHTI. At the Tehelka office situated at Swami Nagar, brochures for the fictitious company "Westend International" were created and the same were given to accused.
PW-18 also deposed that he began recording before handing over the documents to P. Sasi at Blue Triangle Hostel, YWCA in the presence of Anil Malviya @ Mr. Rajiv Sharma. He further explained that Operation Westend was designed to expose corruption in defence procurement. A fictitious company named "Westend International" was floated, allegedly based in London with Mr. Behal acting as its President (under the pseudonym George Vergosa). He acted as as the chief liaison officer of said company in India. They met several defence officials, dealers, CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 31 of 78 and politicians. The sting operation used hidden recording devices, including a briefcase camera, a lady's handbag with a pinhole camera and mini DV and Hi-8 tapes. Around 105 tapes were recorded and the same were handed over to to Mr. Behal, who submitted the same to the Commission of Inquiry. He identified the case properties i.e. briefcase camera device Ex. P- 7, lady's handbag camera device Ex. PW18/P2, Sony Video Walkman Ex.PW18/P3 and neck tie device Ex.PW18/P4.
He further identified the file containing documents which were handed over to him by accused P. Sasi pertaining to products of defence purchase Ex. PW18/PX-11.
During his deposition, Hi-8 tapes i.e. Tape No. 5 (Ex.PW17/J), Tape No. 10 (Ex.PW17/L), Tape No. 11 (Ex.PW17/N), Tape No. 22 (Ex.PW17/R), Tape No. 23 (Ex.PW17/T), Tape No. 37 (Ex.PW17/X) and Tape No. 53 (Ex.PW17/Z) were played in the court. PW-18 heard the said recordings and identified the voices of accused P. Sasi and Anil Malviya. He also confirmed the contents of the aforesaid tapes relating to discussions of defence deals and demands of bribe. He further identified the corresponding transcripts of the aforesaid recordings i.e. Tape No. 2 - Ex.PW18/PX4; Tape No. 3
- Ex.PW18/PX5; Tape No. 10 - Ex.PW18/PX6; Tape No. 11 - Ex.PW18/PX7; Tape No. 23 - Ex.PW18/PX; Tape No. 37 - Ex.PW18/PX8; Tape No. 5 - Ex.PW18/PX9; and Tape No. 22 - Ex.PW18/PX10.
36. PW-19 K.Y. Guruprasad, Addl. SP, CBI deposed that in the year 2004, he was posted in CBI, ACU-III, New Delhi as DSP. He was entrusted with the investigation of one case pertaining to Tehelka bearing RC No. 5/2004/ACU-III, titled as CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 32 of 78 CBI vs. Jaya Jaitly. During investigation of said case on 14.12.2004, he visited the office of the then Justice Phukan Commission of Inquiry at Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi and seized Hi-8 tapes, DV tapes and VHS tapes from Mr. S.K. Dasgupta in the presence of Mr. J.P. Mehta, Under Secretary vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B. In the court, he identified the Hi-8 tape Tehelka no. 1, Hi-8 tape Tehelka no. 3, Hi-8 tape Tehelka no.10, Hi-8 tape Tehelka no. 5, Hi8 tape Tehelka no. 2, Hi8 tape Tehelka no. 11, Hi8 tape Tehelka no. 35, Hi8 tape Tehelka no. 22, Hi8 tape Tehelka no. 23, Hi8 tape Tehelka no. 37 and Hi8 tape Tehelka no. 53. He also identified one VHS cassette marked as C-11 Ex.PW17/Z-29 and a sample voice S-3 Ex.PW17/Z-24. He further identified six VHS cassettes marked as C1 to C10 which he had seized.
PW-19 further deposed that on 15.12.2004, he again visited the office of Justice S.N. Phukan Enquiry Commission at Vigyan Bhawan and seized transcripts of conversations recorded in the unedited VHS tapes prepared by Union of India and other documents from Mr. S. K. Dasgupta vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/C. The seized transcripts contained recordings from tape numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 22, 23, 35, 37, and 53. On 16.12.2004, he again visited the Commission's office and seized transcripts of unedited VHS tapes prepared by Tehelka, along with related documents vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/C (D7). He identified his signatures on each page of the original documents placed in the case file CC No. 11/12. He also identified four VHS tapes bearing MR No.M4562/04, M4574/04, M4576/04 and M4592/04 i.e. Ex.PW17/Z-13 to Ex.PW17/Z-16 as the same VHS tapes which he had seized in RC No.05/2004 ACU-III, CBI, New CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 33 of 78 Delhi. He also identified cassette MR No.4561/04 Ex.PW17/Z-9 as the relevant cassette in the present case. During investigation, he also collected files containing notices issued to different witnesses for their appearance before Justice Phukan Commission which included file pertaining to accused P. Sasi. He further identified letter dated 21.12.2004 as Ex.PW19/A. The said letter was written by Sh. S. K. Dasgupta vide which he had handed over documents to him. He made endorsement on the said letter at point A. He also collected file bearing no. 4/19/2001-VCI Ex. PW18/PX-11 (D-32) alongwith letter Ex. PW19/A.
37. PW-20 Sh. D.S. Dagar, ASP, CBI deposed that in February, 2005 he was working as DSP, ACU-II, CBI, New Delhi. During said period, several cases relating to Tehelka.com were registered in their Zone. He was one of the part Investigating Officer in RC AC-III/2004A-0005. During investigation, he recorded statement of Sh. S.K. Dasgupta, the then Director, Administration, DOP&T, North Block, New Delhi u/s 161 Cr. PC.
38. After examination of all the prosecution witnesses, PE was closed on 30.05.2023 Statement of Accused U/s 313 Cr. PC:
39. The entire incriminating evidence was put to accused in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr. PC, wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence. The accused took a plea that he was falsely implicated in this case. He stated that he knew Mr. Mathew Samuel while he was unemployed and he had helped him financially and otherwise. Mr. Mathew Samuel was introduced to him by Mr. G. K. Nair. As a friend, he used to CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 34 of 78 meet Mr. Mathew Samuel and drink unsuspectingly in his company. The entire exercise was aimed to achieve the desired objective in a machiavellian manner using multiple devices so as to entrap innocent and gullible people. The alleged tapes are tampered. Accused opted to lead defence evidence.
40. In his defence, accused P. Sasi tendered certified copies of Indian Defence Year Book 2000 and IDYB Defence Trade Directory & Buyer's Guide 2001-2002 (which were proved in case CC no. 36/2019) Ex. PX & Ex. PY respectively. He also tendered certified copies of deposition of Sh. Mathew Samuel and Sh. D. Venketeswarlu (recorded in CC No. 14/2012) as Ex. PX1 & Ex. PY1 respectively.
41. Accused closed DE on 25.10.2024.
Final Arguments:
42. The ld. PP for CBI argued that the case of prosecution has been proved against accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has led the oral evidence and proved the documentary evidence in the form of video tapes which establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution witnesses namely PW Mathew Samuel, Anirudha Bahal and Tarun Tejpal categorically deposed that the said witnesses had assumed different identities as representatives of fictitious firm namely M/s Westend International, London and they came in contact with accused P. Sasi. A total of 12 meetings took place between accused P. Sasi and prosecution witnesses and these were recorded. It has been proved that accused P. Sasi had made demands of bribe from them on account of supplying information and documents relating to procurement of items by the Defence which could help them in procurement processes and he also CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 35 of 78 made demand of bribes for influencing his superiors for providing advantage to M/s Westend International. The oral deposition of PW-18 Mathew Samuel and PW-11 Anirudha Bahal coupled with the video tapes not only demonstrated the demands so made by accused, but also established that he had received sum of Rs. 80,000/- and further undisclosed amount from them. The authenticity of the video tapes has been proved by way of reports of APFSL which rule out possibility of tampering. PW-5 Jatinder Bir Singh had proved the sanction order for prosecution of accused. The prosecution witnesses such as PW-8 A. P. Singh and PW-9 Col. Bahadur Bhandari have explained the process of procurement and they also deposed that the proposal of M/s Westend International for supply of HHTI was received in Indian Army and it was also examined at various levels. Thus, the prosecution has successfully established that accused had committed the offences which are alleged against him. Accordingly, he may be convicted for committing the afore- stated offences.
43. On the other hand, the ld. Defence counsel had vehemently argued that the accused has been falsely implicated. The sanction for prosecution of accused is vitiated as it shows non-application of mind as well as the fact that it was not accorded by the competent authority. He argued that the entire case is based on a 'sting operation' which is based on malice as it was an attempt to entrap innocent persons by means of use of liquor and women. Since, the company itself was fictitious, therefore, no benefit could have been received by it due to which mens-rea for commission of offences cannot be attached to accused. He argued that Tehelka.com had sold the rights of video CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 36 of 78 tapes of sting operation to a news channel for a hefty sum of Rs. 50 lakhs which shows that the entire exercise was not in public interest.
The ld. Counsel for accused further argued that perusal of depositions of prosecution witnesses discloses inherent contradictions. PW Tarun Tejpal deposed that the entire operation took around 7 and half months, whereas, PW-11 Anirudha Bahal stated that the field work completed in 7 months and the tapes were aired on 13.03.2001. The correspondence between different departments prior to registration of FIR has not been forwarded alongwith chargesheet which creates doubt. The accounts of Tehelka.com had not been proved and the link between source money and the money alleged to have been paid by way of bribe has not been established. He further argued that chain of custody of tapes had not been established. The reports of APFSL were procured by CBI by using its influence. As per deposition of PW-17 i.e. the expert who had given said reports, he had received 20 tapes in 14 sealed envelopes which by itself appears doubtful. The witness deposed that earlier he had not given opinion qua some of the tapes on account of the reason that communication was in 'Malayalam' language, but later on he gave the opinion qua their authenticity. The situations in which alleged recordings took place were not replicated in the laboratory. The perusal of tapes show sudden cuts and changes which by itself show tampering of tapes. The duration of tapes recorded in report was different from the duration recorded in the court and the said difference varies from few seconds to one minute. As per case of prosecution other persons were present alongwith Mathew Samuels and Anil Malviya in the said CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 37 of 78 meetings, but the IO did not record their statements nor made them the witnesses and infact the prosecution has concealed their presence and identities. The perusal of deposition of PW Mathew Samuel shows that he is not a reliable witness as he gave contradictory answers to several questions specially with regard to cuts and changes in the video tapes. The prosecution has not proved the transcripts of conversations. The said transcripts were put to PW-18 Mathew Samuel and his cross-examination shows that neither the said transcripts were made in his presence nor its contents were true. The said witness interpreted the facts to his suitability vis-a-vis allegations of women being supplied etc. PW Mathew Samuels also failed to disclose which of the devices were used by him for recording various tapes. Thus, he argued that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence on record is marred with contradictions and there are several lapses in the investigation which create serious doubt qua the truthfulness of prosecution version. Hence, he argued that the benefit of doubt must be extended to accused and he may be acquitted.
44. In rebuttal, the ld. PP for CBI argued that the prosecution version has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The anomalies as pointed out in the defence arguments are either non-existent or cursory in nature. The difference in time duration in tapes is due to the fact that tapes were played on different technical devices. He submitted that these tapes are played by movement of pinch rollers due to which minor changes in duration of playing time of the video can occur. The FSL reports categorically shows that the video tapes were not tampered with. Thus, he argued that accused may be convicted.
CC No. 35/2019CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 38 of 78 Discussion and Analysis:
45. I have considered the oral arguments advanced by the ld. PP for CBI and brief written synopsis submitted by him and also the oral arguments of ld. Defence counsel. I have also carefully gone through the evidence on record including the video tapes relied upon by prosecution and have also given my thoughtful consideration to the judgments so relied upon by the ld. Defence counsel.
46. The case of prosecution begins with the allegations that accused P. Sasi had committed offences u/s 7, 13 (1) (d) r/w section 13 (2) and section 9 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The undisputed facts arising out of the case are that the news portal with the name 'Tehelka.Com' undertook sting operation which was ultimately published in media on 13.03.2001. Thereafter, the government constituted a Judicial Commission under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice K. Venkataswami, but Mr. Justice K. Venkatswami resigned from the commission in November, 2002 and subsequently in January, 2003 Mr. Justice S. N. Phukan was appointed as Chairman of the Commission. It has also been brought on record that the aforesaid commission inquired into the matter till the month of October, 2004 and subsequently it was wound up vide notification dated 08.10.2004. Ultimately, the matter was handed over to CBI for investigation and RC No. RC/AC-1/2004 A0006 was registered in CBI, ACU-1, New Delhi on 06.12.2004 against accused P. Sasi, the then Assistant, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi. Thereafter, chargesheet u/s 7, 9 and 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was filed against him.
CC No. 35/2019CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 39 of 78 Sanction-
47. The first line of argument of the ld. defence counsel was that the sanction for prosecution of accused was vitiated as it was not accorded by a competent authority and it shows non application of mind as well. Since, this argument touches the root of the case, therefore, I shall deal with it before adverting to the factual matrix of the case.
48. Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 mandates that no court shall take cognizance of the offences punishable u/s 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by public servant except with previous sanction accorded by the competent authority. The provision is reproduced below:-
19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution. -
(1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under [sections 7, 11, 13 and 15] [Substituted 'sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15' by Act No. 16 of 2018, dated 26.7.2018.] alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction,
(a) in the case of a person [who is employed, or as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed] [Substituted 'who is employed' by Act No. 16 of 2018, dated 26.7.2018.] in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government;
(b) in the case of a person [who is employed, or as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed] [Substituted 'who is employed' by Act No. 16 of 2018, dated 26.7.2018.] in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with sanction of the State Government, of that Government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office."CC No. 35/2019
CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 40 of 78
49. The sanction for prosecution of accused was accorded by Sh. Jatinder Bir Singh and as per prosecution he was the authority competent to remove accused P. Sasi from service.
The aforesaid sanction for prosecution of accused has been proved on record as Ex. PW5/A.
50. There is no doubt that grant of sanction is not acrimonious exercise and the sanction order should reveal the application of mind by the competent authority. In CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2014) 14 SCC 295, while dealing with the issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that grant of sanction for prosecution is a solemn and sacrosanct act. Also in Prakash Singh Badal Vs. State of Punjab & Ors (2007) 1 SCC 1, it was held that, "The sanction order must show basic application of mind, however, the specific offences need not be listed separately in the sanction order as that is to be done at the stage of framing of charge. The law only requires that the sanctioning authority must be provided with all the material to make an informed decision."
51. Sh. Jatinder Bir Singh has been examined as PW-5. He deposed that he was posted as Joint Secretary (Training) and Chief Administrative Officer in Armed Forces, Headquarter's Service and thus was competent to remove non gazetted rank officials including accused P. Sasi. He further deposed that he had passed the sanction order dated 05.12.2006 i.e. Ex. PW5/A for prosecution of accused P. Sasi after applying his mind to the material placed before him. In his cross-examination, PW-5 deposed that he had received some files from CBI on the basis of which he had made the decision. Though, he was unable to disclose the exact material which he had received from CBI, but CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 41 of 78 it has to be remembered that the sanction order Ex. PW5/A was passed on 05.12.2006 and the witness had deposed on 25.01.2014 i.e. after a gap of 7 years. Therefore, the witness may have forgotten the details of the documents etc which he had received due to passage of time and the said fact does not lead to inference that he had not applied his mind to the documents which were produced before him prior to according the sanction for prosecution of accused.
52. During the final arguments, emphasis was laid on the fact that in his cross-examination the witness had stated that the audio or video recordings were not supplied to him nor he had sought comments from office/ department where accused was posted.
53. In this context, it is necessary to reiterate that as already mentioned above, law mandates that the competent authority should apply its independent mind on the basis of material produced before him so as to arrive at a conclusion i.e. whether the offences are disclosed against the public servant or not. The said satisfaction is a subjective decision of the competent authority and the fact whether certain pieces of evidence were not shown to him by itself cannot vitiate the sanction order.
54. As regards, the fact that comments were not sought from the office by PW-5 prior to granting of sanction is concerned, the said exercise is not mandatory in nature. It will depend on the facts of each case. In case the competent authority is able to arrive at necessary subjective satisfaction from the material available from him, then the seeking of comments etc in such situation will be a superfluous exercise. Since, in the case CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 42 of 78 at hand, the evidence on record clearly shows that PW-5 had arrived at a conclusion qua according of sanction for prosecution of accused, therefore, in the given facts merely because he did not seek comments from office/ department does not vitiate the sanction order.
55. Thus, the evidence on record shows that PW-5 Jatinder Bir Singh was the competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution of accused P. Sasi and he had had granted sanction for his prosecution after due application of mind and the sanction order is valid in the eyes of law.
Analysis of Merits:
56. The accused is facing trial for the charge of having committed offences u/s 7, 9 and 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Hence, before proceeding further I deem it necessary to reproduce these provisions below:
Section 7 : Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act.--
Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than [three years] but which may extend to [seven years] and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 9 : Taking gratification, for exercise of personal influence with public servant.--Whoever accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, as a motive or reward for inducing, by CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 43 of 78 the exercise of personal influence, any public servant, whether named or otherwise, to do or to forbear to do any official act, or in the exercise of the official functions of such public servant to show favour or disfavour to any person, or to render or attempt to render any service or disservice to any person with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than 1[three years] but which may extend to [seven years] and shall also be liable to fine.
13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant. -- (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, --
(a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7; or
(b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned; or
(c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or
(d) if he, --
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage;
or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or
(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 44 of 78 at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income.
Explanation. --For the purposes of this section, "known sources of income" means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant.
(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
Public Servant-
57. The fact that in the year 2000, accused P. Sasi was posted as Assistant in the office of Ordnance Service 16B, Director General, Ministry of Defence, Government of India in the year 2000 has not been disputed during the trial. The prosecution witness namely PW-5 Sh. Jatinder Bir Singh had accorded sanction for his prosecution u/s 19 of the PC Act and he specifically deposed that accused P. Sasi was posted as Assistant in the office of Ordnance. PW-5 was not cross-examined with respect to the aforesaid fact. The other witnesses namely PW-11 Anirudha Bahal, PW-18 Mathew Samuel, and PW-15 T. P. Singh, Dy. SP, CBI had also deposed that the accused P. Sasi had committed the acts as a public servant, but they were also not cross-examined to the extent that he was not a public servant nor any suggestion was given to them to this effect. Therefore, the evidence on record has established that accused P. Sasi was posted as Assistant in the office of Ordnance Service and was a public servant in the year 2000.
Sting Operation-
CC No. 35/2019CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 45 of 78
58. The prosecution witness namely PW-16 Tarun Tejpal categorically deposed that in the year 2000, PW-11 Anirudha Bahal being the Investigation Editor of Tehelka had embarked on an investigation vis-a-vis corruption in arms deal and in furtherance of the said investigation, they had created a dummy company named as M/s Westend International Pvt. Ltd. for the purpose of exposing corruption in defence establishment. Similarly, PW-11 Anirudha Bahal and PW-18 Mathew Samuel also deposed on the same lines. These witnesses stated that PW- 11 Anirudha Bahal assumed the role of President of M/s Westend International Pvt. Ltd. under the alias 'Alwin D'Souza', whereas, PW-18 Mathew Samuel posed himself as the Chief Liaison Officer and Anil Malviya adopted the alias of 'Rajeev Sharma' and he posed as the Chief Executive Officer of aforesaid fictitious company. The testimony of all three aforesaid prosecution witnesses duly corroborate each other to this effect. The defence has also not disputed this fact as in the cross- examinations of PW-16 Tarun Tejpal and PW-18 Mathew Samuel suggestions were given to them that the project 'Operation Westend ' was not carried out with or for public interest and was solely done with the idea to entrap innocent and gullible persons for gaining popularity and in his statement u/s 313 Cr. PC the accused stated that he used to meet Mathew Samuel and drink unsuspectingly in his company and the entire exercise was aimed to achieve the desired objective to entrap innocent people.
59. Thus, the prosecution has established that aforementioned witnesses i.e. PW-16 Tarun Tejpal, PW-11 Anirudha Bahal and PW-18 Mathew Samuel had conducted the CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 46 of 78 sting operation by creating impression of a fictitious company named as M/s Westend International Pvt. Ltd.
Demand and Acceptance of Illegal Gratification-
60. The allegations of demand and acceptance of bribe by accused P. Sasi form the fulcrum of the case of prosecution. As per prosecution, PW's Mathew Samuel, Anirudha Bahal and late Anil Malviya, together or separately held a total of 12 meetings with accused P. Sasi and these meetings were secretly recorded in videotapes which were popularly referred to as the 'Tehelka Tapes'. Therefore, the case of prosecution was based on oral testimonies of PW's Mathew Samuel, Anirudha Bahal and Anil Malviya and the video / audio recordings of the meetings between them and accused.
Evidentiary Value of Tape Recordings -
61. The video / audio recordings of the meetings containing alleged incriminating material are equally relevant and significant pieces of evidence and their evidentiary value is no less than that of the oral deposition of the eye-witnesses of the incidents.
62. In N. Sri Rama Reddy and Ors. Vs., V. V. Giri 1971 SCR (1) 399, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, "For the proposition that, like any document, the tape record itself was "primary and direct evidence admissible of what has been said and picked up by the receiver". In other words, its use was not confined to purposes of corroboration and contradiction only, but, when duly proved by satisfactory evidence of what was found recorded and of absence of tampering, it could, subject to CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 47 of 78 the provisions of the Evidence Act, be used as substantive evidence. Thus, when it was disputed or in issue whether a person's speech, on a particular occasion, contained a particular statement there could be no more direct or better evidence of it than its tape record, assuming its authenticity to be duly established."
Authenticity of Video Tapes -
63. As per case of prosecution, the meetings as referred above i.e. between PW Mathew Samuel, PW Anirudha Bahal, Anil Malviya and accused P. Sasi were recorded in tapes no. 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 22, 23, 35, 37, 40 and 53. A total of 105 video tapes were recorded during the entire sting operation and the Hi8 tapes and VHS tapes of said recordings were handed over by officials of 'Tehelka.com' to Justice Venkataswami Commission. In order to rule out tampering in the said tapes, the same were allegedly got examined from British Experts who opined that the same were not doctored. However, the prosecution did not file the said reports of British Experts nor placed reliance on them.
64. Admittedly, in November, 2002 Hon'ble Justice K. Venkataswami resigned as chairman of Commission and he was substituted by Hon'ble Justice S. N. Phukan in January, 2003. Later on in October, 2004, the said Commission was wounded up. PW-13 Ms. Manjulika Gautam, Retd. Principal Secretary, Vigilance Commission, UP who was working as Additional Secretary in the Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India in the year 2004 stepped into the witness box and she proved letter dated 29.10.2004 i.e. Ex. PW1/D CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 48 of 78 issued by her to the then Director, CBI informing that the Commission had been ordered to be wound up and the matter had been entrusted to CBI for taking necessary action in this matter. She also proved the gazette notification in this regard as Ex. PW1/B.
65. After the winding up of commission of enquiry, PW- 3 Sh. S. K. Dasgupta was nominated as the designated officer by DoPT and he took charge of all the tapes and related documents. He deposed that on 14.12.2004 he had handed over the said tapes, their transcriptions and other documents to the Investigating Officer of this case i.e., PW-19 Sh. K. Y. Guruprasad, DSP, CBI.
66. The prosecution has proved the forwarding note alongwith noting Ex. PW-3/A, seizure memo of the aforementioned articles Ex. PW3/B and seizure memo of various documents handed over to the IO as Ex. PW3/C. The IO i.e. PW- 19 K. Y. Guruprasad also identified the tapes as well as the recording devices which were received by him.
67. The ld. defence counsel had vehemently argued that the said tapes were tampered with. In this context, it has to be noted that the perusal of cross-examinations of PW-18 Mathew Samuel and PW-15 T. P. Singh shows that though the defence had given suggestions that the tapes were tampered or doctored, but at the same time suggestions were also given that the video recordings were done so as to entrap innocent and gullible persons. Similarly, accused P. Sasi in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr. PC reiterated the same defence. Therefore, it has to be CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 49 of 78 inferred that though the accused admitted that recordings were done, but he objected to the authenticity of the tapes which were produced in the court.
68. As per case of prosecution and depositions of PW-11 Anirudha Bahal and PW-18 Mathew Samuel, PW-18 used to hand over the tapes to Anirudha Bahal after each recording and PW-11 used to keep them in his custody in a safe kept in his office. PW-11 Anirudha Bahal further deposed that subsequently, sometime in January, 2001 he deposited the said tapes in a bank locker in Grindlays Bank, Malcha Marg, Delhi. Then, PW-11 Anirudha Bahal, PW-16 Tarun Tejpal and PW-18 Mathew Samuel deposed that the said tapes were deposited with Justice Venkataswamy Commission. PW-3 S. K. Dasgupta further deposed that the aforesaid tapes remained in his custody subsequent to winding up off the Commission. In his cross- examination, the first IO i.e. PW-19 K. Y. Guruprasad stated that the said tapes were lying in the safe vault with PW-3 S. K. Dasgupta, but the same were in unsealed condition.
69. The aforesaid depositions reveal that the said tapes were not kept in sealed condition before the investigating officer assumed their custody. The investigating officer could not have undone anything with respect to custody or sealing of the said tapes prior to their entrustment to him. However, the safest way to rule out possibility of tampering in the tapes was by way of their forensic examination by experts.
70. As per case of prosecution, the tapes i.e. bearing no. 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 22, 23, 35, 37, 40 and 53 were sent to Andhra CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 50 of 78 Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for forensic examination.
71. The prosecution has alleged that the samples of voice and video of accused P. Sasi and PW Mathew Samuel were obtained after recording their due consent in the presence of independent witnesses in CFSL, Delhi. It examined PW-2 Sh. S. Ingarsal, Senior Scientific Officer and PW-4 Sh. P.K. Gottam, Sr. Scientific Officer Grade-I (Photo) CFSL, Delhi i.e. the forensic experts who had collected the afore-stated video and audio samples. The prosecution also examined PW-12 Anil Kumar Bhatnagar, Assistant Meteriologist (IMD) and PW-10 G.P. Singh, Accountant, NCCFIL i.e. the independent witnesses in whose presence the above-stated samples were taken.
72. PW-2 Sh. S. Ingarsal in his examination in chief deposed that on 22.03.2005, he had recorded video samples of accused P. Sasi after obtaining his consent for giving the video and audio samples of his voice. Thereafter, the audio samples of accused P. Sasi were also taken by PW-4 P. K. Gottam in the presence of independent witnesses. PW-2 not only identified the aforesaid samples taken by him, but also proved the memos Ex. PW2/A and PW2/B respectively. PW-4 P. K. Gottam also deposed on the similar lines that he had taken the voice sample of accused P. Sasi after obtaining his consent in the presence of PW- 2 S. Ingarsal and other independent witnesses. He also deposed qua taking of voice samples of Sh. Mathew Samuel on 19.05.2005. The independent witness PW-10 G. P. Singh supported the case of prosecution and corroborated the depositions of PW-2 and PW-4 by stating that voice samples of CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 51 of 78 accused P. Sasi were taken in his presence and the memorandum Ex. PW2/B was prepared in his presence. Similarly, PW-12 Anil Kumar Bhatnagar also deposed that video and audio samples of accused P. Sasi were also taken in his presence.
73. The perusal of aforementioned testimonies of all the aforesaid witnesses as well as that of PW-18 Mathew Samuel categorically shows that the video and voice samples of P. Sasi and Mathew Samuel were taken in the office of CFSL, Delhi after obtaining consent of accused P. Sasi vis-a-vis himself.
74. The prosecution has proved the above-stated reports of forensic examination conducted at APFSL as Ex. PW27/Z-28, Ex. PW27/Z-27A and PW27/Z-29 by examining PW-17 D. Venkateswarlu, Assistant Director, Computer Forensics & Incharge Engineering Section, APFSL. This witness deposed that he had received 10 original Hi8 tapes alongwith 10 VHS cassettes copies and specimen audio cassettes and video recordings of the suspect i.e. P. Sasi alongwith transcriptions thereof. He identified each of the said cassettes i.e. Tehelka no. 1 Ex. PW17/F; Tehelka no. 3 Ex. PW17/H; Tehelka no. 5 Ex. PW17/J; Tehelka no. 10 Ex. PW17/L; Tehelka no. 11 Ex. PW17/N; Tehelka no. 22 Ex. PW17/R; Tehelka no. 23 Ex. PW17/T; Tehelka no. 35 Ex. PW-17/V ; Tehelka no. 37 Ex. PW17/X; Tehelka no. 53 Ex. PW17/Z; Tehelka no. 2 Ex. PW17/Z-23; & Tehelka no. 40 Ex. PW17/Z-27. The witness also identified the Panasonic VHS tapes and Audio tapes as well as the briefcase camera device Ex. P1.
75. PW-17 also explained the process which was CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 52 of 78 adopted for conducting the requisite comparison. He categorically stated that he had examined all the questioned cassettes qua their authenticity and had compared the same with their copies. He had also compared questioned voice of the suspect with his specimen voice and had also compared images of persons seen in the questioned cassettes and the specimen recordings.
76. As per reports i.e. Ex. PW17/Z-28, Ex. PW17/Z-27A and Ex. PW17/Z-29 the Hi8 tapes and their copies i.e. Panasonic VHS video cassettes and also the audio cassettes were observed and analyzed. They took test recordings of videos using the briefcase camera unit and the test recordings produced similar quality of recording and noise level. It was opined that the contents of the aforesaid tapes represented the depiction of the incident and had not been subjected to any process of tampering and the same could have been recorded by the briefcase camera unit.
77. The perusal of the aforementioned reports show that the forensic expert had explained the entire process which was carried out by them while conducting the comparisons. The tests were conducted by using the briefcase camera unit (i.e. case product Ex. P1) and the test recordings produced similar quality of recording and noise level. The recordings were converted into digital form and digital images of the video were captured onto the hard disk of the computer. Thereafter, a frame-by-frame study of the video recordings was undertaken, but no addition or deletion of frame (except the breaks due to loss of signals) were observed. The experts had also examined the tapes using a CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 53 of 78 waveform monitor, but no abrupt changes in the waveform of the signal were noticed. Similarly, the audio (including background sounds) was closely listened to and the audio and videos were found to be in synchronization.
78. The conversations recorded in all the aforementioned tapes which were the subject of examination and the specimen voices were analyzed in computerized speech lab instruments. The questioned voice and specimen voice samples were segregated in the acoustic features i.e. number of formants, formant frequency distribution, intonation pattern and other general spectral details observed in voice grams of the above utterances. The same were compared with the selected common words from the questioned samples and it was found that they were similar to each other in acoustic features such as number of formants, formant frequency distribution, pitch striations, energy distribution, intonation pattern and other spectral details. Thus, in view of the aforementioned reasoning, the expert i.e. PW-17 opined that the aforesaid tapes which were subjected to forensic examination were not tampered with and the same contained video and audio of accused P. Sasi and PW Mathew Samuel.
79. Thus, as per reports of forensic expert dated 19.08.2006 i.e. Ex. PW17/Z-29 (the contents of Hi8 tapes no. 1, 3, 5, 10, 11, 22, 23, 35, 37 and 53), dated 18.07.2006 Ex. PW17/Z-27-A (the contents of Hi8 tape no. 40) and dated 12.08.2008 (contents of Hi8 tape no. 2) were found to represent the depiction of the incidents and that the said tapes had not been subjected to any process of tampering and the same could have been recorded by the briefcase camera.
CC No. 35/2019CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 54 of 78
80. In the report Ex. PWPW17/Z-29, it was opined that the facial features of the person suspected to be P. Sasi, present in the recordings in Hi8 tapes no. 1, 3, 5, 10 and 11 upon comparison with the facial features present in the specimen recordings were found to be similar. Similarly, the facial features of the person Mathew Samuel in Hi8 tapes no. 3, 5, 10, 22 and 35 were found to be the same as those in the specimen recordings. As per report Ex. PW17/Z-27A, facial features of PW Mathew Samuel were also found to be similar and as per report Ex. PW17/Z-28, the facial features of accused P. Sasi were visible in Hi8 tape no. 2. In the reports, it was also opined that the questioned voices and specimen voices of accused P. Sasi and PW Mathew Samuel were also found to be the same.
81. The ld. counsel for accused had argued that the report of APFSL cannot be relied upon as PW-17 had deposed that he had received 20 tapes in 14 sealed envelope, which is highly improbable and therefore all the consequent steps also become improbable.
82. I have considered the above-stated argument, but I do not find force in it. The contents of an envelope can depend on its holding capacity and merely because the tapes were not kept in separate sealed envelopes cannot be a ground to assume that the forensic expert had not received the same.
83. The ld. defence counsel had also argued that in the earlier forensic report, the same expert had refused to give opinion regarding the audio contents of some of the tapes as the conversation had taken place in Malayalam, but later on the same CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 55 of 78 expert gave opinion with respect to the audio of those very tapes. Thus, he had argued that the report was given as per influence of the CBI officials.
84. I have also carefully considered the said argument. The perusal of forensic examination reports Ex. PW17/Z-28, Ex. PW17/Z27-A and Ex. PW17/Z-29 show that the details of the complete process followed by them has been delineated in the reports. Additional supplementary voice sample of accused in Malayalam was again taken and sent to APFSL vide letter Ex. PW17/2A. As per reports of forensic examiner, the video and audio data was reduced into digitized form and the same was transferred to the computer hard disk. The said data was examined on the basis of wave patterns and such like objective criterion which is capable of being deciphered for comparison on the basis of outputs generated from them. Therefore, the fact that the forensic expert did not understand Malayalam is not significant because the opinions in the reports were based on scientific criterion such as wave patterns etc. which the expert was capable of deciphering otherwise. Hence, the reports which are based on scientific analysis originating out of objective scientific criterion such as wave pattern etc clearly reflects reliable scientific basis for giving the opinion in said reports. Therefore, the reports Ex. PW17/Z-28, Ex. PW17/Z27A and Ex. PW17/Z-29 appear reliable irrespective of the fact that the examiners / experts did not understand Malayalam language in which some part of the conversation had taken place.
85. The ld. defence counsel had also assailed the forensic examination reports by arguing that in tape no. 22, PW CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 56 of 78 Mathew Samuel is seen sitting in an 'Omni car' and then suddenly he is seen another 'Sedan car' in the next frame which was shows tampering of the tapes.
86. In this regard, I had again gone through tape no. 22 i.e. Ex.PW17/R. In order to appreciate the contents of all the tapes relied upon by prosecution including the contents of tape no. 22, the contents therein have to be seen in the totality of circumstances. PW-18 Mathew Samuel in his cross-examination had stated that the briefcase camera unit (which was used for recording of tape no. 22) could be operated physically by opening it or by use of a remote. The perusal of aforesaid tape no. 22 shows that the said change of car was not an abrupt one. It rather gives the impression that the camera had been switched on and off with the remote. PW-18 Mathew Samuel in his cross- examination conducted on 27.02.2020 also clarified the situation as he stated that he had switched off the recording device at 17:50 while sitting in Maruti Omni Van and the same tape was used by him to record another person i.e. Gen. Murgai while going to his residence due to which different vehicle is visible later on.
87. Thus, the said sudden switch of presence of PW-18 Mathew Samuel from one car to another in the middle of tape recording appears to be a likely result of operation of briefcase camera unit with the remote. Even otherwise, the said part of the video tape no. 22 where the switching of the cars takes place does not contain any incriminating material as the same had been recorded much prior to that, at the house of accused P. Sasi which is clearly continuous and uninterrupted.
CC No. 35/2019CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 57 of 78
88. The perusal of forensic examination reports Ex. PW17/Z-28, Ex. PW17/Z27A and Ex. PW17/Z-29 also shows that the forensic expert had categorically observed that a few breaks in recording were observed which were due to camera movement, but it did not affect the continuity of scenes. It has also been opined that no abrupt changes in intonation, quality of audio or lighting conditions were observed.
89. Besides tape no. 2, no other such like incident was pointed out in any of the other tapes. Therefore, in such circumstances it cannot be said that the said tapes were tampered with in any manner. The reports which explain the process adopted by the experts while conducting comparisons and the scientific objectives applied for coming to conclusion are beyond reproach and are completely reliable.
90. The perusal of aforementioned tapes reveals meetings between the accused P. Sasi and the prosecution witnesses namely Mathew Samuel, Aniruddha Bahal and late Anil Malviya as well as other individuals. The prosecution version is that PW Mathew Samuel and Anil Malviya had held regular meetings with the accused P. Sasi and various payments of bribe were made by them to the accused.
Depositions of Eye Witnesses & Contents of Video Tapes -
91. In their examinations-in-chief, PW-11 Anirudha Bahal and PW-18 Mathew Samuel have deposed that Mathew Samuel had met accused P. Sasi in the year 2000. The accused provided certain documents and information to them and they drafted a brochure of Hand Held Thermal Imagers (HHTI) CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 58 of 78 on the basis of said information and documents. They also categorically deposed that they had paid a sum of Rs. Rs. 80,000/- (approx) to accused P. Sasi for providing such information and documents.
92. PW-18 Mathew Samuel in his examination in chief gave vivid and detailed account of such meetings. He identified the devices used for recording the meetings with accused P. Sasi as Ex. P1 (briefcase camera device) and Ex. PW18/P2 to Ex. PW18/P4 (the lady's handbag device, Sony Video Walkman and necktie pinhole camera device). He also identified all the Hi- 8 tapes already mentioned above.
93. The perusal of Hi8 tapes Ex. PW17/F, Ex. PW17/Z- 23, Ex. PW17/17H, Ex. PW17/J, Ex. PW17/L, Ex. PW17/N, Ex. PW17/R, Ex. PW17/T, Ex. PW17/V and Ex. PW17/X shows meetings between accused P. Sasi and the purported representatives of M/s Westend International Pvt. Ltd. The complete perusal of the aforesaid video tapes leave no scope for doubt that the meetings had taken place with accused P. Sasi vis- a-vis supply of information and documents by him which could either directly or indirectly assist the aforementioned M/s Westend International Pvt. Ltd.
94. The aforementioned tapes contain the recordings of discussions wherein the accused had disclosed the manner in which procurement of articles / equipments takes place in Indian Army. He further disclosed the manner in which they could manipulate the system and influence various officials and authorities of different ranks and stature. The said tapes are CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 59 of 78 replete with repeated demands of money / bribe by accused P. Sasi, extending various favours to representatives of M/s Westend International by giving them the informations about equipments required by Indian Army, process followed for procurement by Indian Army, providing them the official documents of Indian Army relating to purchase of different items vis-a-vis the brochures of different companies / entities submitted by them to the defence establishment earlier and the quotations so received by them earlier. In the tapes, accused P. Sasi is also seen giving them the advice as to suitability of the specifications of their product qua its acceptance by the Indian Army. He is also seen giving them contact details of other officials such as Mr. Dudani who were posted in defence establishment and he is seen introducing them to his boss i.e. Col. Anil Sehgal.
95. In his oral deposition, PW-18 Mathew Samuel had stated that accused P. Sasi had made the following demands from them on various occasions. The gist of the evidence relating to demand, acceptance and transfer of information / handing over of copies of documents relating to different products relating to Indian Army in each of the tapes is given below:
Tape no. 1 (Ex. PW17/F) - As per PW-18 Mathew Samuel, the meeting meeting took place at Blue Triangle Hostel, YMCA. In this video, accused stated that his boss has permitted him to negotiate commission for defence procurement and later on he said that the commission will be to the extent of 25% of the total cost, which shall be over and above the actual cost price. Then, accused P. Sasi is seen receiving a sum of Rs. 5000/- from Anil Malviya.CC No. 35/2019
CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 60 of 78 Then, accused P. Sasi stated that Indian Army has procured a lamp of the cost of Rs. 1 crore per lamp and also gave details of the foreign companies who had already participated in the procurement process and further stated that M/s Westend International would be 5 th company and the other four companies shall be removed. He also made demand of token amount of Rs. 25,000/- for arranging meeting with his boss Col. Anil Sehgal and the meeting was fixed for the next day between 6 to 7.
Tape no. 5 (Ex. PW17/J) - PW-18 deposed that the meeting recorded in this tape took place at Hotel Park, Connaught Place. In this video, accused P. Sasi is seen making demand of Rs. 5 lakhs. The accused stated that out of said amount, Rs. 3 lakhs will have to be given to his boss Col. Anil Sehgal after which he will permit him to open cross almirah for taking out some confidential documents. The accused further explained that he will use the remaining amount of Rs. 2 lakhs for taking out certain documents from various offices. In this video, accused P. Sasi is seen accepting some amount of money from Anil Malviya which was kept by him in the left pocket of his shirt. The said money was accepted by accused after having made demand of a certain amount of money for Col. Sehgal for the purpose of his meeting with Mathew Samuel etc. The accused also proposed to introduced them to his boss Col. Anil Sehgal.
Tape no. 22 (Ex. PW17/R) - As per PW-18 the said meeting took place at the residence of accused P. Sasi at R. K. Puram. This video shows that accused P. Sasi made a CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 61 of 78 demand of Rs. 1500/- in five envelopes for distributing them amongst several officers in Ministry of Defence for getting confidential papers. The accused is seen receiving five envelopes and the accused and PW Mathew Samuel discussed that each of the envelopes contained a sum of Rs. 1,500/-.
Tape no. 23 (Ex. PW17/T) - PW-18 deposed that this meeting took place at the house of accused P. Sasi. In the tape recording accused P. Sasi is seen receiving Rs. 16,000/- from Mathew Samuel and he kept it after counting the same.
Tape no. 53 (Ex. PW17/Z) - PW-18 stated that said meeting also took place at the house of accused P. Sasi. In this recording, accused P. Sasi is seen accepting amount of Rs. 5,000/- from PW Mathew Samuel. The accused kept the money in his pocket and also counted the money in front of PW Mathew Samuel.
Tape no. 35 (Ex. PW17/V) - This meeting took place at the house of accused P. Sasi as per PW Mathew Samuel. In the video accused P. Sasi stated that total percentage of commission of the amount bribe will be 17 %. The accused P. Sasi also gave a mobile number i.e. 9810170569 of one Mr. Dudani who was working in Ministry of Defence. Thereafter, Mathew Samuel gives a call to the said person.
Tape no. 2 (Ex. PW17/Z-23) - As per PW-18, the said meeting took place at the residence of Col. Anil Sehgal. In this meeting, accused P. Sasi, Col. Anil Sehgal, Anil Malviya and Mathew Samuel are present. They discussed CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 62 of 78 regarding Image Intensifying Tubes and its quantity needed by Indian Army. Col. Anil Sehgal stated that accused P. Sasi knows requirements etc and he told P. Sasi to show the rate list of HHTI of French and Israeli Company to them.
Further in the video, it is seen that accused P. Sasi while standing outside the van handed over some documents to Mathew Samuel. The accused stated that now the information is coming out of the office because of "Muh Kholna Money". Then accused tells them that the said document related to project HHTI and gave information regarding amount paid by other companies. The accused also stated that the said documents consisting of 65 pages which included site plan/ diagram of the equipment had been signed by the different officers. Tape no. 10 (Ex. PW17/L) - As per PW-18, the video recording of this tape related to meetings which took place outside the office of accused P. Sasi and subsequently at the park inside India Gate.
It is seen that Anil Malviya asked accused P. Sasi to furnish the documents upon which he will pay the money to him immediately and the time of 3 PM was fixed for handing over of the documents. Further, it is seen that Anil Malviya handed over a bundle of currency notes to accused P. Sasi to which the accused said that the same must be around Rs. 10,000/-. Then P. Sasi also inquired about the payment of balance amount.
Accused P. Sasi also said that he will provide catalogue of HHTI, catalogue of ammunition of foreign CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 63 of 78 vendors and purchase price quoted in the previous procurement by 4 PM.
Tape no. 11 (Ex. PW17/N) - As per PW-18, the meeting took place at Hotel Orchid. In this recording, Anil Malviya is seen handing over bundle of currency notes to accused P. Sasi and stated that it was Rs. 20,000/-. The accused P. Sasi accepted the same and kept it inside his shirt. Later on accused P. Sasi wrapped the said cash currency notes in a newspaper and kept it with him before leaving the room.
Accused P. Sasi is also seen to have asked Mathew Samuel and Anil Malviya to give catalogue of their products to him and accused also stated that more money will have to be given for documents which he will provide to them.
Later on accused P. Sasi returned in the room and took out documents i.e. supply order, brochure of Philip Electronics, Bharat Electronics, catalogue of Rover Batteries and specifications of garments/ uniform from a polythene bag. He also explained that the said documents related to different equipments including Image Intensifying Tubes. He again made demand of Rs. 1 lakh for arranging meetings with persons who were close to Minister.
Tape no. 37 (Ex. PW17/X) - PW-18 deposed that this meeting also took place at the house of accused P. Sasi. In this video, Mathew Samuel asked accused about rate list of HHTI and the accused P. Sasi stated that he had got the same. Then, Mathew Samuel gave a sum of Rs. 20,000/-CC No. 35/2019
CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 64 of 78 to accused P. Sasi and accused showed a document which according to PW-18 was a rate list of HHTI submitted by ELOPE, Israel.
Transcripts of Video Recordings -
96. The ld. Defence counsel had argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the authenticity of the transcripts of the video tapes and reliance cannot be placed on it. I have perused the video tapes as referred above as well as the transcripts placed on record. The perusal of the aforementioned tapes reveals that the conversations in the meetings between the accused and the Tehelka sting operatives took place in English, Hindi as well as Malayalam languages. The prosecution had placed the transcripts of these conversations on record, but it did not examine the maker of those transcripts. The said transcripts were put to PW-18 Mathew Samuel who initially in his examination in chief affirmed their correctness, but in his cross- examination dated 15.01.2020 he stated that he could not show if the fact qua demand by accused as shown in video was recorded in the transcript or not and again in his cross-examination dated 28.10.2022 stated that he cannot comment on the first 10 pages of transcript of tape no. 1. Thus, from the said facts, it is clear that PW-18 Mathew Samuel was not the maker of the transcripts. There are few contradictions in his cross-examination vis-a-vis authenticity of the said transcripts. Hence, in such circumstances since the prosecution did not examine the maker of the transcripts, complete reliance cannot be placed on such transcripts.
97. However, as the case may be, even if the transcripts CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 65 of 78 of the video tapes are totally ignored, the contents of the video tapes cannot be ignored. The contents of the video tapes are self explanatory even in relevant situations where the mode of communication between participants was in Malayalam language. The perusal of above-stated tapes clearly show that the accused P. Sasi is seen receiving cash from the other participants i.e. either Mathew Samuel or Anil Malviya (who was identified in tapes by PW Mathew Samuel in his examination).
Corroborative Evidence -
98. The evidence of PW-18 Mathew Samuel and the video tapes as referred above is further corroborated by the deposition of PW-8 Brig. A. P. Singh and PW-9 Col. Sher Bahadur Bhandari.
99. PW-8 Brig. A.P. Singh described the process of procurement of weapons and equipment by the Indian Army. He stated that the proposal from M/s Westend International, London for the supply of Thermal Imaging Cameras to the Indian Army was received from Maj. General P.S.K. Chaudhary and was sent to the Infantry Directorate, but the proposal was ultimately turned down as two types of similar equipment had already been procured by the Indian Army. Similarly, PW-9 Col. Sher Bahadur Bhandari also deposed that the proposal pertaining to HHTI was received from M/s Westend International, London. The said proposal was received from WE-4 by the Infantry Directorate and was sent to the Infantry School for evaluation and recommendation. A table comparing the characteristics of in- service HHTIs with those proposed by M/s Westend International CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 66 of 78 was prepared and studied. The Infantry Directorate recommended comparative trials.
100. Thus, the deposition of both the afore-stated witnesses corroborates the oral testimony of PW-18 Mathew Samuel and PW-11 Anirudha Bahal qua the fact that the brochure of HHTI prepared under the name of fictitious company i.e. M/s Westend International, London was indeed prepared and submitted with Indian Army.
101. The investigating officer had collected the copies of the documents Ex. PW18/PX-11 which PW-18 deposed were handed over to him by accused P. Sasi in relation products of defence purchase after taking the same out from the Ministry of Defence. The said documents correspond to the documents proved on record by PW-6 i.e. Ex. PW6/B to Ex. PW6/F. The said fact also lends corroboration to the deposition of the above- stated prosecution witnesses.
Lack of Mens-Rea -
102. The ld. Defence counsel argued that the entire case is based on a 'sting operation' which was a result of entrapment. The prosecution witnesses namely Mathew Samuels, Anil Malviya, Anirudha Bahal and Tarun Tejpal had projected the existence of a false/ non-existent entity by the name of M/s Westened International, London and as the said company did not exist, therefore, there could not have been mens rea on the part of accused to commit an offence as no favour could have been extended to a non-existent company. He also argued that such type of sting operations have been deprecated by the CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 67 of 78 constitutional courts. In order to buttress his argument, the ld. Defence counsel relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled 'Court on Its Own Motion Vs. CBI (2008) AD DLT
1. He also relied upon law laid down in Rajat Prasad Vs. CBI Crl. Appeal no. 747/2010 decided on 24.04.2014. The ld. Defence counsel also argued that in the case titled as Maj. General M. S. Ahluwalia Vs. M/s Tehelka.Com & Ors decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 21.07.2023 it has been proved that Tehelka.com had sold the rights of video tapes to M/s Zee Telefilms Ltd for a huge sum of Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, the entire operation was not for public purpose and was carried maliciously to entrap innocent persons and therefore no case is made out against the accused.
103. There is no doubt that the presence of mens-rea to commit offence is absolutely essential for establishing the guilt of accused. The prosecution had to establish the existing of mens rea as well as actus reus of accused for establishing the guilt of accused.
104. In this context, the depositions of PW-18 Mathew Samual, PW-11 Aniruddha Bahal and PW-16 Tarun J. Tejpal and their explanations for conducting 'sting operation' are of significant importance. The perusal of their depositions reveal that they stated that the aforementioned sting operation was conducted for unearthing the prevalent corruption in defence acquisition.
105. It is undisputed fact that the afore-stated witnesses had projected the existence of a fictitious entity i.e. M/s Westend International and had carried out the alleged operation on its basis. First of all, this shows that the said witnesses were not CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 68 of 78 going to get any direct benefit from the alleged deal vis-a-vis supply of arms equipments etc. The said fact is a clear indication of lack of malice on their part. Further, the fact that said persons had made huge profits by selling the rights of video tapes was not confronted to anyone of the said witnesses. Therefore, now it is not open for the accused to agitate it in the final arguments. And importantly, simply because the said persons or their organization assumably went on to make profits by such exercise cannot lead to an inference that the entire process was vitiated nor it in any manner dilutes the guilt and criminal acts of individuals involved in it.
106. As far as question of mens-rea of accused to commit offences u/s 7, 9 and 13 of the PC Act is concerned, it has to be viewed from the prism of intention / knowledge of accused qua acts which constitute the necessary ingredients for commission of above-stated offences. The material fact required to be seen here is that the lack of possibility of benefit to the person/ party / entity qua whom favour is being extended is not the relevant factor for examining mens-rea of accused.
107. The aforesaid tapes and depositions of PW-11 and PW-18 also categorically show that accused P. Sasi was under the impression that he was dealing with the officials of a genuine company and he had acted on the same belief. The perusal of evidence on record shows that accused had committed all the acts on the basis of his belief and knowledge that he was dealing with a genuine company and he was accepting gratification from them with the intention of showing favour to them. Therefore, the accused had committed the acts with clear mens-rea of committing the offences.
CC No. 35/2019CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 69 of 78
108. Moreover, the issue relating to validity of the trial vis-a-vis the same fact has already been dealt with by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Aniruddha Bahal Vs. State (2010) 172 DLT 269. The Hon'ble High Court upheld the legality of 'sting operation' and observed that, "It is built-in duties that every citizen must strive for a corruption free society and must expose the corruption whenever it comes to his or her knowledge and try to remove corruption at all levels more so at higher levels of management of the State."
109. As the issue had achieved finality by the order of Hon'ble High Court, therefore, the defence is also precluded from raising it again.
110. I have gone through the judgments so relied upon by the ld. defence counsel, but the ratio of said judgments is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case titled as Court on Its Own Motion Vs. CBI (2008) AD DLT 1, the issue involved was completely different from the issue which is being dealt here. In the said judgment, it was held that an innocent person was induced and trapped. In that case a person namely Virender Kumar had a monetary dispute with a female teacher and he planned to trap her in a stage managed act of forcing a girl into prostitution by her. However, investigation revealed that there was no concrete evidence to support the allegations of child prostitution which was projected through sting operation. However, in the present case the facts are all together different and the evidence as discussed above is different from the facts involved in the matter before the Hon'ble Court.
111. Further, the ratio of case relied upon by defence in Rajat Prasad Vs. CBI Crl. Appeal no. 747/2010 decided on CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 70 of 78 24.04.2014 also does not apply to the facts of the present case. The subject matter in question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was the quashing of FIR against the journalist and it was not with respect to merits of case against the accused who was the subject of sting operation.
Hence, I do not find merits in the argument of ld. Defence counsel that the case of prosecution is non-est or inherently not maintainable and there could not have been mens- rea on the part of accused to commit the offences alleged against him.
Inducement of Accused -
112. The ld. defence counsel had argued that the video tapes relied upon by prosecution showed that the accused P. Sasi was offered alcohol and he was also lured to indulge in womanizing. Therefore, he argued that the accused apparently did not commit the acts so alleged to have been done by him knowingly or willfully.
113. As far as the above-mentioned argument is concerned, the perusal of above-noted evidence including the video recordings shows that the accused P. Sasi had met with PW-18 Mathew Samuel, PW-11 Aniruddha Bahal and late Anil Malviya repeatedly over a considerable period of time. Some of the meetings took place at the residence of the accused, while others were held in hotel rooms and others at public places such as public road and public park. It is only in some of the meetings that accused was seen consuming liquor, whereas, in other meetings there was no such material. The accused could not have brought the documents or come to different places under the CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 71 of 78 influence of liquor etc. Even the consumption of alcohol in some of the meetings appear totally voluntary and it did not seem to have any effect on his decision-making vis-a-vis the acts question. The said evidence leaves no scope for doubt that the accused had himself gone to the said places, made demands, accepted gratifications and handed over documents or given information intentionally. In several recordings the accused is seen talking about importance and confidentiality of the information / documents so handed over by him.
Contradictions -
114. The ld. Counsel for accused had also argued that the deposition of PW-18 Mathew Samuel and PW-11 Anirudha Bahal were contradictory to each other specifically vis-a-vis length of investigation. He also argued that PW-18 Mathew Samuel in his cross-examination gave evasive replies with respect to how he got introduced to Anil Malviya and Sunil Nair. He also did not give complete details of the other persons who had participated in the sting operation, but were not made prosecution witnesses by the IO. Therefore, he argued that these witnesses are not reliable witnesses.
115. As far as the question of appreciation of discrepancies in the evidence of the material witnesses is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rammi Vs. State of MP and Bhura Vs. State of MP (1999) 8 SCC 649 held that:
"When an eye witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 72 of 78 details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non-discrepant. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence."
Further in Appabhai Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1988 SC 696, it was held that the court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded.
116. The deposition of PW-11 Anirudha Bahal and PW- 18 Mathew Samuel corroborate each other in material particulars. The incidents in question relate to the period i.e. end of year 2000 / early 2001. The examination in chief of PW-18 Mathew Samuel commenced on 28.05.2018 and he was cross-examined on numerous occasions. Therefore, some discrepancies are bound to occur due to lapse of memory on account of lapse of almost 18 to 19 years. The discrepancies so highlighted by the ld. defence counsel are not material in nature and the same do not make the depositions of PW-18 Mathew Samuel or PW-11 Anirudha Bahal unreliable in any manner.
117. As regards non-joining of other persons present in the meetings is concerned, it cannot be overlooked that the 'Sting Operation' intended to cover the unholy nexus of corruption in defence deals and for this purpose several high profile persons were interviewed. In such circumstances, the possibility of fear CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 73 of 78 factor in the minds of other persons present in meeting cannot be ruled out. Moreover, it is the settled proposition of law that it is not the quantity of evidence, but its quality which is of paramount importance for a fair trial. Hence, merely because Mathew Samuel did not disclose names of all other participants of meetings in his cross-examination or the IO not having recorded their statements, does not create a dent on the remaining prosecution evidence which is of sterling quality.
Wrong Identity of Accused -
118. The ld. Defence counsel had also argued that initially the name of accused involved in the meetings came out as Sasi Menon, whereas, it is the case of prosecution that name of accused facing trial is P. Sasi. Therefore, he had argued that it is a case of wrong identity.
119. There is no doubt that the chargesheet has been filed against accused by mentioning his name as P. Sasi. PW-18 Mathew Samuel was also cross-examined in this regard and the witness clarified that no person by the name of Sasi Menon was involved in the sting operation so carried out. PW Mathew Samuel categorically stated that accused had introduced himself to him initially as Sasi Menon and it was only after the matter was telecasted in media that he learnt that his real name was P. Sasi.
120. PW-18 Mathew Samuel was the person who knew accused P. Sasi prior to the sting operation and he had introduced accused to the remaining participants of the sting operation. Therefore, the clarification rendered by PW-18 Mathew Samuel CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 74 of 78 clearly demonstrates that the accused was the same person who had committed the offences which were recorded in the tapes. The report of forensic examination also categorically opined that it was accused P. Sasi who was visible in the said tapes.
121. Hence, there is no doubt that accused P. Sasi is the same person who is seen committing the offences referred above in the video tapes and he has also been correctly identified by PW's Mathew Samuel and Anirudha Bahal.
Other Discrepancies In Investigation-
122. The ld. defence counsel had argued that the fake documents which were allegedly shown by Anil Malviya and Mathew Samuel to accused P. Sasi were not seized during investigation.
123. In this regard, it has to be noted that the incident pertained to the year 2000 and the investigation commenced in the year 2004. Therefore, in such situation the non-recovery of said letter from possession of accused is immaterial.
124. The ld. defence counsel had also argued that the documents pertaining to the communications prior to registration of FIR by CBI as well as the detailed accounts of M/s Buffalo Networks were not collected during investigation.
125. There is no gainsaying that the investigating agency is only required to collect the documents and evidence which has direct bearing on the facts of the case. The investigating agency had collected the order of winding up of the enquiry commission as well as the communication of the concerned officers CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 75 of 78 intimating CBI to register the case and investigate into it. The prosecution has not even relied on the documents relating to proceedings of enquiry commission. Therefore, the collection of such documents was neither required nor necessary for the investigating agency.
126. As far as the question of seizure of relevant accounts of M/s Buffalo Networks vis-a-vis expenditure incurred in the 'Operation Westend' is concerned, PW-1 Brij Kishor Sharma i.e. the Account Officer had proved the copies of the documents relating to hotel bills, impressed account of Anirudha Bahal, travel accounts of both Anirudha Bahal and Mathew Samuel and investigative story expense account. The fact that all the entries of the payments made by Anil Malviya or Mathew Samuel did not specifically get reflected in the said accounts cannot be a reason to disbelieve the entire prosecution version specially when it has led clinching evidence to show the acceptance of illegal gratification by accused.
Conclusion:
127. Thus, deposition of PW-18 Mathew Samuel and perusal of tape no. 1 (Ex. PW17/F ), tape no. 2 (Ex. PW17/Z-23), tape no. 10 (Ex. PW17/L), tape no. 11 (Ex. PW17/N), tape no. 22 (Ex. PW17/R), tape no. 23 (Ex. PW17/T), tape no. 37 (Ex. PW17/X) and tape no. 53 ((Ex.PW17/Z) categorically shows that accused P. Sasi had received different amounts from PW Mathew Samuel or late Anil Malviya. The tape no. 3 ((Ex.PW17/H)), tape no. 11 ((Ex.PW17/N)) and tape no. 37 ((Ex.PW17/X) reveal that accused had handed over documents which he himself stated CC No. 35/2019 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 76 of 78 to be official documents of confidential nature relating to procurement of different products by Indian Army. Therefore, by way of oral evidence of PW-18 Mathew Samuel & PW-11 Anirudha Bahal supported by documentary evidence in the form of above-mentioned video tapes and corroborated by the depositions of PW-8 Brig. A.P. Singh and PW-9 Col. Sher Bahadur Bhandari, the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that accused P. Sasi being a public servant made demands of illegal gratification for himself and also for other persons for providing information, documents and manipulating the procurement process so as to show favour to M/s Westend International.
128. The perusal of the oral evidence of PW-18 Mathew Samuel and tape no. 1 shows that accused P. Sasi also made demand of Rs. 25,000 for arranging a meeting with his superior, Col. Anil Sehgal. Further, the tape no. 2 reveals that a meeting involving accused P. Sasi, PW Mathew Samuel, Anil Malviya and Col. Anil Sehgal took place at the residence of Col. Anil Sehgal, wherein, he had given relevant information to Mathew Samuel and Anil Malviya relating to procurement of equipment by Indian Army.
129. The consistent depositions of PW-18 Mathew Samuel and PW-11 Anirudha Bahal as well as the contents of the Hi-8 video tapes (as mentioned above) leave no scope for doubt that the accused P. Sasi, being a public servant, had made demand of illegal gratification and had accepted sum of Rs. 80,500/- from Mathew Samuel and Anil Malviya for showing favour to fictitious firm i.e. M/s Westend International.
CC No. 35/2019CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 77 of 78
130. Thereby the accused P. Sasi had also obtained pecuniary advantage by corrupt / illegal means by abusing his position as public servant without any public interest. It has also been proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused P. Sasi had accepted illegal gratification as a reward for using his personal influence for inducing his boss Col. Anil Sehgal and other public servants to show favour to fictitious firm i.e. M/s Westend International.
131. Hence, In view of the aforementioned discussion, it has to be concluded that the prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused P. Sasi had committed offences punishable u/s 7, 9 and 13 (1) (d) r/w section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accordingly, he is convicted for commission of offences u/s u/s 7, 9 and 13 (1) (d) r/w section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
132. Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the accused P. Sasi.
133. Be put up for arguments on quantum of sentence.
Announced in Open Court
on 30.01.2026
Digitally signed SUSHANT CHANGOTRA
by SUSHANT Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-22
SUSHANT CHANGOTRA Rouse Avenue Courts
CHANGOTRA Date:
2026.01.30 New Delhi/30.01.2026
15:23:29 +0530
CC No. 35/2019
CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page no. 78 of 78